DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 8 and 13-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Dobashi (US 20190133591).
With respect to claim 1, Dobashi discloses a detachable multi-ring traction device (10) (see fig. 1 below) insertable into a body through a channel of an endoscope (see para. 6), wherein: the detachable multi-ring traction device is configured to be fixed by a clip to a lesion mucosa and a normal mucosa in order to pull the lesion mucosa, the normal mucosa opposing the lesion mucosa (see fig. 2 and para. 6), wherein the detachable multi-ring traction device does not have rubber elasticity (see para. 34 and note that the device is fabricated from nylon, i.e., does not contain a rubber material or thus, have rubber elasticity); and the detachable multi-ring traction device comprises three or more toroidal rings (12, 14, 16, see fig. 1 below and para. 33) each including a core curve and a meridional disk (see fig. 1 below), the rings being arranged with respect to one another in row in a diametrical direction of the core curves such that an outer edge of each ring is directly coupled to an outer edge of an adjacent ring (see fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
376
736
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As for claim 2, Dobashi further discloses the detachable multi-ring traction device according to claim 1, wherein the rings are made of a same material (see para. 34).
With respect to claim 5, Dobashi discloses a multi-ring traction device (e.g., 10) of synthetic resin (see para. 34 and note that the device is fabricated from nylon, i.e., synthetic resin), the multi-ring traction device comprising: three rings (e.g., 12, 14, 16- see fig. 1 above) connected to one another in a row such that an outer edge of each ring is directly coupled to an outer edge of an adjacent ring (see fig. 1 above), wherein: each ring has a core curve (see fig. 1 above); a ring at one end of the device is fixable, with the use of a fastener, to tissue (see fig. 1 above); and a ring at the other end of the device is fixable, with the use of a fastener, to tissue (see fig. 1 above).
As for claim 8, Dobashi further discloses the multi-ring traction device according to claim 5, wherein the rings are connected to one another along outer edges thereof (see fig. 1 above).
As for claim 13, Dobashi further discloses the multi-ring traction device according to claim 5, wherein each of the rings is formed of a deformable material (see para. 34 and note that 10 is formed from nylon, i.e., an elastic material).
As for claim 14, Dobashi further discloses the multi-ring traction device according to claim 5, wherein the rings do not have rubber elasticity (see para. 34 and note that the device is fabricated from nylon, i.e., does not contain a rubber material or thus, have rubber elasticity).
As for claim 15, Dobashi further discloses the multi-ring traction device according to claim 5, wherein the multi-ring traction device is bendable and deformable to fit within a sheath insertable within a channel of an endoscope (see para. 34 and note that the device is fabricated from nylon, i.e., an elastic material).
With respect to claim 16, Dobashi discloses a traction system comprising: a multi-ring traction device (10) comprising a first ring (e.g., 12) connected to a second ring (e.g., 14) such that an outer edge of the first ring is directly coupled to an outer edge of the second ring (see fig. 1 above), each ring having a core curve (see fig.1 above), the multi-ring traction device comprising synthetic resin (see para. 34 and note that the device is fabricated with nylon); and a sheath (e.g., 34); wherein the multi-ring traction device is bendable and deformable to fit within the sheath (note that this device is capable of performing this function), and the sheath is insertable within a channel of an endoscope (32, see fig. 11a).
As for claim 17, Dobashi further discloses the traction system according to claim 16, wherein: the multi-ring traction device further comprises a third ring (16) having a core curve (see fig. 1 above); and the first ring, the second ring, and the third ring are connected to one another in a row (see fig. 1 above).
As for claim 18, Dobashi further discloses the traction system according to claim 17, wherein the rings are connected in the diametrical direction of the core curves of the rings (see fig. 1 above).
As for claim 19, Dobashi further discloses the traction system according to claim 16, further comprising a clip (e.g., 30) connected to one of the rings of the multi-ring traction device (see fig. 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 6, 7 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobashi (US 20190133591), as applied to claims 1, 5 and 16 above, in view of Raju (US 20070250116).
As for claims 3, 6 and 20, Dobashi appears to illustrate the rings each having the same diameter (see fig. 1 above) but does not explicitly state wherein the rings each have the same diameter.
Raju, also drawn to multi-ring traction devices, teaches rings (e.g., 6, 8, 10) wherein the rings each have the same diameter (see para. 33) in order to provide consistently dimensioned anchoring points that allow the desired tissue traction and/or retraction (see para. 12-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Dobashi wherein the rings each have the same diameter, as a matter of engineering design choice, in view of Raju, in order to provide consistently dimensioned anchoring points that allow the desired tissue traction and/or retraction.
As for claims 4 and 7, Dobashi is silent regarding the dimensions of the rings, specifically, wherein the core curve of each of the rings is 5 mm to 10 mm.
Ragu teaches that the dimensions of the ring are about 3 mm in diameter (see para. 33) in order to provide consistently dimensioned anchoring points that allow the desired tissue traction and/or retraction at the surgical site for a particular patient (see para. 12-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Dobashi wherein the rings each have a core curve diameter of about 3mm, as a matter of engineering design choice, in view of Raju, in order to provide consistently dimensioned anchoring points that allow the desired tissue traction and/or retraction at the surgical site for a particular patient.
Dobashi, as modified by Ragu, does not appear to specifically teach wherein the core curve of each of the rings is 5 mm to 10 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the ring of Dobashi, as modified by Ragu,, which was designed for approximation and retraction of tissues, wherein the core curve of each of the rings is 5 mm to 10 mm, as a matter of engineering design choice, in order to accommodate a particular surgical procedure for particular patient, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed, in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (in re Aller, 105 USPQ 233).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobashi (US 20190133591), as applied to claim 5 above, in view of Kobayashi (US 20130053745).
As for claim 12, Dobashi does not teach wherein a diameter of a cross-section of each ring is 0.1 mm to 0.5 mm.
Kobayashi, also drawn to multi-ring traction devices, teaches rings (e.g. connecting member 23, see para. 111) wherein a diameter of a cross-section of each ring is 0.1 mm to 0.5 mm (see para. 113) in order to ensure that the loop has the desired amount of strength when the device is engaged to tissue (see para. 113).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Dobashi wherein a diameter of a cross-section of each ring is 0.1 mm to 0.5 mm, as a matter of engineering design choice, in view of Kobayashi, in order to ensure that the loop has the desired amount of strength when the device is engaged to tissue.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobashi (US 20190133591), as applied to claim 5 above.
As for claims 9-11, wherein the rings are integrally molded together; wherein the rings are separately formed and then connected together and wherein the rings are ultrasonically welded together, it is noted that the device of Dobashi appears to be substantially identical to the device claimed, although produced by a different process, therefore the burden is upon the application to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the two. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Response to Arguments
The USC 101 rejection made to claims 1-4 is withdrawn in view of the amendment entered on 6/18/2026.
The USC 112b rejection of claims 12 and 14 is withdrawn in view of the amendment entered on 6/18/2026.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the newly presented reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. This reference is applied in response to the amendment to the claims entered on 6/18/2026.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tara Carter whose telephone number is (571) 272-3402. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7am-3pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicants are encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Eduardo Robert, at (571) 272-4719. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TARA ROSE E CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 3773
/JULIANNA N HARVEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3773
Prosecution Insights