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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “2” has been used to designate both “the tissue” (see Spec.) and a tubular member (see Figs. 2, 3, 4,). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 12, 13, 19, 21, and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 recites “the clamping arm” in line 3, although the line is understood by the Examiner to mean “each of the at least two clamping arms” as each arm comprises the following structure, the Examiner suggests the line be amended to read “each of the at least two clamping arms” for the purpose of maintaining consistent language throughout the claims;
Claims 1 recites “one end of the rocker arm” and “another end” in line 8-9, although the lines are understood by the Examiner to mean “one end of each of the at least two rockers” and “another end of each of the at least two rockers” as previously defined, the Examiner suggests the lines amended to read “one end of each of the at least two rockers” and “another end of each of the at least two rockers” for the purpose of maintaining consistent language throughout the claims;
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 19, 21, and 22 recites “the clamping arms” in various lines, although the lines are understood by the Examiner to mean “the at least two clamping arms” the Examiner suggests the lines be amended to read “the at least two clamping arms” for the purpose of maintaining consistent language throughout the claims;
Claims 2, 3, 5, and 21 recites at least one of “the rocker arms”, “at least one rocker arm”, “at least two rocker arms”, and “the two rocker arms”, although the lines are understood by the Examiner to mean “the at least two rocker arms”, “at least one of the at least two rocker arms”, and “the at least two rocker arms” as previously defined, the Examiner suggests the lines be amended to read “the at least two rocker arms”, “at least one of the at least two rocker arms”, and “the at least two rocker arms” for the purpose of maintaining consistent language throughout the claims;
Claim 12 recites “the limit guide portion” and “the limit guide engaging portion”, although the lines are understood by the Examiner to mean “the limiting guide portion” and “the limiting guide engaging portion”, the Examiner suggests the lines be amended to read “the limiting guide portion” and “the limiting guide engaging portion” for the purpose of maintaining consistent language throughout the claims;
Claim 13 recites “wherein a pair of support arms are”, although the line does not rise to level of being indefinite as the line is understood by the Examiner to mean “the support arm comprising a pair of support arms oppositely”, as only one support arm was previously defined, the Examiner suggests the line be amended to read “the support arm comprising a pair of support arms oppositely” for the purpose of maintaining consistent language throughout the claims;
Claim 19 recites “the first shrinkage slit” and “the second shrinkage slit” in various lines, although the line is understood by the Examiner to mean “the at least one first shrinkage slit” and “the at least one second shrinkage slit”, the Examiner suggests the lines be amended to read “the at least one first shrinkage slit” and “the at least one second shrinkage slit” for the purpose of maintaining consistent language throughout the claims;
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 7 – 13, 24, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 4, 7, 8, 9, and 10, the phrase "the rocker arm" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant is intending for the phase to mean “the at least two rocker arms” such that each of the at least two rocker arms comprise the proceeding limitations or if Applicant is intending for the phrase to mean “one of the at least two rocker arms” such that only one of the rocker arms comprises the proceeding limitations. For the purpose of examination the Examiner will read the phrase to mean the former.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase "at least one support arm" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if Applicant is intending the phrase to mean “the support arm” as previously claimed, or if Applicant is intending to recite wherein “the support arm comprises at least one support arm” thereby further defining “the support arm”. For the purpose of examination the Examiner read the claim to mean the latter.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase "two clamping arms" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant is intending for the phrase to mean “the at least two clamping arms” or if Applicant is intending for the phrase to mean two of the at least two clamping arms. For the purpose of examination the Examiner will read the phrase to mean the former.
Regarding claim 24, the phrase "one support arm" and “another support arm” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant is intending for the “one support arm” to be “the support arm” previously defined and for the “another support arm” to be “a second support arm” or if Applicant is intending to define two more support arms such that there are three support arms. For the purpose of examination the Examiner will read the claim to mean the former.
Regarding claim 28, the phrase “the clamping arm” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant is intending for the phrase to mean “each of the at least two clamping arms” such that the at least two clamping arms comprise the proceeding structure, or if Applicant is intending the phrase to mean “one of the at least two clamping arms” such that only one of the at least two clamping arms comprise the proceeding structure. For the purpose of examination the Examiner will read the claim to mean the former.
Claim 12 is rejected under 112(b) for being dependent on an indefinite claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 3, 5 – 6, 14, 19, 21 – 23, and 25 – 27 are allowed.
Claims 4, 7 – 13, 24, and 28 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art alone or in combination with fails to disclose or make obvious a clamping device comprising a clamping member with two clamping arms, which each of the clamping arms comprise a bendable portion and a head portion, the device further comprising a movement-controlling assembly comprising a moving member within the clamping member and at least two rockers hinged to the moving member and the clamping arms, a transmission member connected to the moving member, a sleeve assembly, and wherein the transmission member has a first stroke to open the arms, a second stroke to close the arms, and a third stroke wherein the clamping arms remain closed but are separated from the transmission member.
The closest prior art McLawhorn et al (US 2012/0165863 A1), discloses a clamping device comprising a clamping member with two clamping arms (arms 44,46), a movement controlling assembly (driver 48, flanges 56, 58, and link 68, 70) comprising a moving member (flanges 56, 58) and at least two rocker arms (links 68, 70) hinged to the moving member and the clamping arms, a transmission member (driver 48) connected to the moving member, a sleeve assembly (catheter 24), the transmission member having a first stroke to open the arms, a second stroke to close the arms, and a third stroke wherein the clamping arms remain closed but are separated from the transmission member (abstract, paragraphs [0022 – 0027], [0037 – 0042], and Figs. 1 – 14). However, McLawhorn does not teach or make obvious wherein the two clamping arms have a bendable section and wherein the moving member is within the clamping member (i.e., the clamping arms). Moreover, it would not have been obvious to modify the device of Mclawhorn to incorporate bendable portions in the clamping arms and to move the moving member to be within the clamping arms as there is no motivation, absent hindsight, to do so. Additionally, no other references, or reasonable combination thereof, could be found which discloses or suggests these features in combination with other limitations in the claims.
Related Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sigmon, Jr et al (US 2012/0089176 A1) and Martinez et al (US 9,339,270 B2) teach clamping devices with clamping arms, movement controlling assemblies, and transmission assemblies.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew Restaino whose telephone number is (571)272-4748. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 - 4:00 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is 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, the examiner’s supervisor, Elizabeth Houston can be reached at 571-272-7134. 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.
/Andrew Restaino/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
