US 10914624

US 10,914,624 B2 — Verification Summary

Verified via search (USPTO/Google Patents mirror, Justia, EPO register). Searches for the exact string "10914624" returned only this patent. No CAFC docket, PTAB proceeding, or district-court litigation referencing 10,914,624 appeared in any result, including the Federal Circuit weekly summaries for the week ending April 24, 2026. I cannot affirmatively confirm the absence of a 2026 docket from a keyword search alone — treat "no CAFC activity found" as a search-result limitation, not a certified clearance.

Bibliographic data

Legal status — important. Google Patents lists this patent as "Expired – Fee Related." The legal events record shows a maintenance-fee reminder mailed 2024-09-30, then "Lapse for failure to pay maintenance fees" entered 2025-03-17 with an effective date of 2025-02-09, and "Patent expired due to nonpayment of maintenance fees under 37 CFR 1.362." As of the stated current date (April 26, 2026), this patent appears to be lapsed for fee nonpayment, not merely aging out. There are also repeated corrective assignments in the record (2020-07-03) correcting a patent-number reference from 16,062,921 to 16,062,912 — I am reporting that literally as recorded, not interpreting it.

Abstract (verbatim)

The present invention relates to a scoop (1) comprising a bowl (2) and a handle connected to the bowl (2) and comprising a clip (6). The clip (6) can be used for re-closing a bag containing a product to be dosed by the bowl (2). The clip (6) is delimited by a free edge (9), and there is a gap (12) between the free edge (9) of the clip (6) and handle edges (10) of regions of the handle (3) surrounding the clip (6). At least a part of the clip edge (9) and at least a part of the handle edges (10) delimiting the gap (12) are provided with teeth (13) in the form of teeth-shaped protrusions. The teeth (13) at the clip edge (9) and the teeth (13) at a proximate handle edge (10), respectively, are arranged at alternating positions along a longitudinal extension of the gap (12).

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Claim 1 — the base scoop structure.
A one-piece scoop has a bowl and a handle. At the far (distal) end of the handle, a clip is formed integrally with the handle, anchored at a base, and the free part of that clip points back toward the bowl. Between the clip's free edge and the surrounding handle walls is a slot-like gap. The distinguishing features are:

• Interlocking teeth: teeth are formed on the clip's free edge and on the handle walls bordering the gap, and the two sets of teeth are staggered relative to each other along the length of the gap (a tooth on one side sits opposite open space on the other).
• Pitch limitation: measuring along one and the same edge, the distance from one point on a tooth to the corresponding point of the next tooth is between 1× and 2× the width of the gap.
• Non-overlap limitation (the key narrowing): each tooth is a pointed shape (two flanks meeting at a tip) with an "individual length" measured from its tip back to the edge it grows from. The claim requires that the sum of a clip-side tooth's individual length plus a handle-side tooth's individual length be less than the gap, so the teeth from opposite sides do not overlap one another in the longitudinal direction of the gap.

In short: it claims a tooth-and-gap architecture where the teeth are deeply offset but deliberately kept from longitudinally overlapping.

Claim 9 — the same scoop, further narrowed.
Claim 9 repeats all of claim 1's structure and limitations, then adds:

• a hole at each end of the gap, where the hole's transverse dimension exceeds the gap width (a stress-relief / crack-arresting feature at the gap termini); and
• a specific tooth-ordering limitation: identifying a first section of the clip free edge facing a first handle edge, the claim enumerates teeth 1 through 5 alternating between the clip side and the handle side, positioned at successively greater longitudinal distances from the hole — first distance < second < third < fourth < fifth.

Note a clerical defect in the granted text of claim 9: the fifth enumerated element is numbered "(iii)" a second time rather than "(v)". This is reproduced in the issued claims on Justia and in the Google Patents text. I am reporting it literally; the intended sequence is unambiguously the fifth tooth.

Dependent claims 2–8 (for completeness)

• 2 — transverse distance between neighboring (opposing) tooth parts is between 1/5 and 1/3 of the gap width.
• 3 — the angle between a tooth's two flanks is 45°–75° (specification's preferred embodiment: ~60°).
• 4 — a hole at each gap end with a transverse dimension larger than the gap width (same feature later folded into claim 9).
• 5 — clip length is 10%–40% of total scoop length (preferred ~20%).
• 6 — distance from clip base to the handle's outer distal edge is at most 1.5× clip length.
• 7 — the handle lies substantially in a plane.
• 8 — the handle's proximal end is thicker than its distal end.

Context and prior art noted in the specification

The patent frames itself against two references: US 2010/0326848 A1 (Mangin, "Clip Scoop," also cited in the prosecution citations list) and CN201617591U (a clothes-peg-style clip scoop requiring multiple parts including a metal spring — criticized for assembly cost). The §102/§103 citation list includes US 2,341,121 (Waldes Kohinoor), FR1476217, FR1489764, CN1078440A (Procter & Gamble), US 5,066,977, US 5,706,974 (Abbott), WO 2000/045135 (P&G), DE20206618U1, JP2003089289A, US 2011/0035945 (Chou), JP2012230128A (Kao), and US 2012/0042479 / US 8,266,770 (Tecco, "Clip for fabrics"). Non-patent citations include machine translations ("Haru Translate (Year: 2019)," "Wang Translate (Year: 2019)") and a Russian Office Action dated May 25, 2019 for PCT/EP2015/075068.

The specification also credits the anti-slip performance to the combination of alternating teeth, non-overlapping tooth lengths, and the ~0.25 mm transverse tip-to-tip clearance (against a ~1 mm gap width, ~16 mm clip length, ~115 mm overall scoop length in the milk-powder embodiment).

Foreign family (for awareness)

WO 2016078887 A1; EP 3221669 B1 (granted 2022-10-05); CN 106794922 B (2020-09-22); AU 2015348801 B9 (2021-04-01); BR 112017008711 A2; ES 2934180 T3; FI 3221669 T3; MX 382896 B; PH 12017500265 A1; RU 2705615 C2. Note the AU B2 entry in the EPO family listing shows "20110325," which is anomalous against its 2021 B9 successor — I am flagging it rather than correcting it.

Explicit uncertainties

1. No CAFC 2026 docket located. My searches did not surface any appellate proceeding involving 10,914,624. I cannot rule one out; I only report that no search result supported one.
2. Claim 9's duplicated "(iii)" label is an apparent error in the printed claim. I have not seen a Certificate of Correction addressing it.
3. Fee-lapse status is drawn from the Google Patents legal-events feed, not from a direct USPTO Patent Center retrieval; confirm against Patent Center / Fee Schedule before relying on it.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 10914624.

Let me try more targeted litigation databases.

Let me try additional sources — CourtListener and Unified Patents portal directly.

Litigation Search Results — US Patent 10,914,624

Conclusion: No litigation involving US Patent 10,914,624 was found.

I searched litigation-covering sources (including queries directed at the Unified Patents litigation/PTAB portal, CourtListener dockets, general patent-litigation databases, and CAFC/PACER-style sources) using the exact identifier 10914624 / US10914624B2. No district court case, no CAFC appeal, and no PTAB post-grant proceeding (IPR/PGR) asserting or challenging this specific patent appeared in the results.

Important caveat: this is a negative finding based on the searches actually completed, not a certification that no litigation exists. Public patent databases can lag or miss cases, and my search hit the tool-step limit before I could exhaustively query every dedicated litigation database (e.g., Docket Navigator, LexMachina, the USPTO PatentCenter "Litigation" tab). A definitive answer would require direct queries to those paid/proprietary systems.

Patent identity confirmed (for the record)

To make sure the negative result wasn't caused by an identifier mismatch, I confirmed the patent's bibliographic data:

Observations bearing on litigation likelihood

• The patent expired for non-payment of maintenance fees around February 2025, which generally removes the economic incentive to enforce it (though past infringement claims for the pre-expiration term are theoretically still possible).
• The family includes no reported U.S. adversary proceedings; the only non-U.S. office actions referenced (e.g., Russian Office Action for PCT/EP2015/075068) are prosecution matters, not litigation.
• Prior art cited in the file (e.g., US 2010/0326848 "Clip Scoop," US 2011/0035945 "Spoon with bag clip," CN1078440A, CN201617591U) reflects a crowded art field, consistent with a product-differentiation patent rather than one typically asserted in litigation.

What I could not verify

• I could not complete direct lookups on Docket Navigator, Lex Machina, or the Unified Patents case-list portal for this specific number before hitting the search limit, so I cannot claim exhaustive coverage.
• Recommendation: To be certain, run the number through the USPTO PatentCenter "Litigation" tab (which surfaces any district-court suits where the patent is at issue) and Docket Navigator / Lex Machina filtered strictly to U.S. Patent No. 10,914,624. Note: I have not confirmed a live URL for a litigation record because none was found.

Bottom line: Based on the searches performed, no litigation involving US Patent 10,914,624 is known. If you require a litigation-clearance opinion, the databases noted above should be queried directly.

I'll verify the structured data with targeted searches before producing the memo.

Let me run a few more targeted checks to be thorough before concluding.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 10,914,624: 0. The USPTO Open Data Portal ("PTAB proceedings on file") returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding against this patent, and nothing in my web searches contradicts that — so the breakdown is 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution-denied. The defensive posture this leaves a defendant is unusual and worth stating precisely: all nine claims (1–9) are untested but un-narrowed, and the patent is no longer enforceable anyway — it lapsed for non-payment of maintenance fees, effective 2025-02-09. The patent is not "hardened" by surviving IPRs; it simply was never IPR'd, and it has since gone dead on the fee side.

No proceedings to report

There is no proceeding to walk through claim-by-claim. To be explicit about the fields you asked for:

• Type / Filed / Status / Judge panel / Grounds / Institution decision / FWD / Settlement / Appeal: not applicable — no petition has ever been filed and instituted.
• Fed. Cir. appeal: none exists, because there is no Board decision to appeal.
• Searches run (2026-09-29): PTAB E2E / PTACTS petitions database, Google Patents family/citation view for US 10,914,624, and general web searches for US10914624 + IPR/PTAB/Nestlé/docket terms.

False positives I ruled out — do not let these contaminate your file:

• The petition excerpt found at ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1557445/... (IPR2025-00619) repeatedly references "the parent '624 Patent." That is a different patent owned by Big Data Federation / Pouya Taaghol and asserted against Microsoft — not US 10,914,624. The number collision is coincidental.
• "Company No. 10914624" (Maison D'Etre Fashion Lifestyle Limited, UK) is a corporate-registration number, not a patent.
• Search hits for US 513,772 / US 234,1121 / US 5,398,384 (paper clips), US 5,706,974 (Abbott), US 2010/0326848 (Mangin "Clip Scoop"), CN201617591U, and the other 25 references on the face of this patent are prior art cited during prosecution, not PTAB proceedings. The Mangin reference US 2010/0326848 is the closest prior art discussed in the specification; no one has challenged the patent over it at the Board.

Why the absence is plausible here (and not just a data lag): US 10,914,624 is a Nestlé packaging accessory — a dosing scoop with a built-in bag clip — owned by Société des Produits Nestlé S.A. (originally Nestec S.A.). It is a commercially practiced product feature, not a monetized assertion patent, and my searches surfaced no district-court assertion of it. Patents in that posture frequently go their whole life without an IPR. Note also that this dataset tracks AIA trials only; it would not capture an ex parte reexamination, which I did not find evidence of either.

Strategic summary

Claim status: 100% untested, 0% canceled, 0% sustained. Claims 1–9 stand exactly as granted on 2021-02-09, with no Board or Federal Circuit narrowing of any kind. Claim 1 and claim 9 are the two independent claims (both scoop apparatus claims; claim 9 adds the specific five-tooth staggered positional limitation). If you receive a demand letter, there is no "claims 1–5 are canceled" defense available — nothing has been struck. Conversely, there is also no adjudicated validity sustaining these claims, so an invalidity case is wide open on the merits.

Estoppel landscape: empty — and that cuts in your favor. Because no IPR or PGR was ever instituted, § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches to no one. There is no petitioner who is barred from raising § 102/§ 103 grounds in a district court, no privity chain to worry about, and no prior Board claim constructions (no Phillips/BRI constructions) that constrain anyone. Every ground that was available in 2021 is still available today, including art the examiner never considered. For a defendant, this is the cleanest possible starting position: a first-filed IPR is available to you on all nine claims with no § 325(d) or General Plastic baggage.

Pattern signals: none. No serial petitioner, no parallel IPR cluster, no defensive aggregator (Unified Patents or similar) in the chain, and no PTAB-appeal activity by the owner — because there is no PTAB activity at all.

The dispositive fact is the fee lapse, not the PTAB docket. Per the patent's legal events (US10914624B2, Google Patents):

• 2024-09-30 — maintenance-fee reminder mailed (large entity).
• 2025-03-17 — event code LAPS: "PATENT EXPIRED FOR FAILURE TO PAY MAINTENANCE FEES"; and event code STCH: "PATENT EXPIRED DUE TO NONPAYMENT OF MAINTENANCE FEES UNDER 37 CFR 1.362."
• 2025-04-08 — FP: "Lapsed due to failure to pay maintenance fee," effective date 2025-02-09.

The nominal "adjusted expiration" of 2036-11-06 reflects the full statutory term from the 2015-10-29 filing; it did not happen. The patent is now expired and unenforceable for failure to pay maintenance fees. (Caveat I cannot resolve from these data: a lapse can in principle be addressed via a petition to accept an unintentionally delayed payment under 37 CFR 1.378, and the ODP snapshot is only as current as its ingest. Confirm current status in USPTO Patent Center before relying on it.)

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant or accused infringer:

• Lead with the lapse, not with validity. Under 35 U.S.C. § 286 you can owe at most six years of back damages, and a lapsed patent generates no damages at all for infringement occurring after 2025-02-09. Pull the Patent Center maintenance-fee record and the 37 CFR 1.362/1.378 record yourself, and confirm no petition to revive has been granted. If none has, any royalty demand covering post-2025-02-09 sales is unsupportable, and an ongoing-sales injunction theory is off the table.
• Verify scope before conceding anything on the pre-lapse window. The asserted claims, if any, were granted in 2021 and cover a scoop with alternating teeth on the clip edge and the facing handle edge, gap-width-tooth-pitch between 1× and 2× the gap width, and non-overlapping teeth in the longitudinal direction (claim 1), with claim 9 layering on the specific five-tooth staggered sequence from the hole. Read the claims literally as granted — https://patents.google.com/patent/US10914624/en.
• If a live assertion exists covering pre-2025-02-09 conduct, an IPR remains available and unconstrained. No § 315(e) estoppel, no General Plastic bar, no § 325(d) discretion problem against a first petitioner. Note two practical wrinkles: (a) the Board construes claims of an expired patent under Phillips rather than the broadest reasonable interpretation (In re Rambus, 694 F.3d 42 (Fed. Cir. 2012)), which is the standard the Board will apply here; and (b) appeal standing after expiration can be contestable — a petitioner that is no longer exposed to infringement may struggle to show injury-in-fact at the Federal Circuit. Those are reasons to weigh a district-court invalidity case alongside, not instead of, an IPR.
• Best prior-art starting points are on the face of the patent and were considered by the examiner: US 2010/0326848 A1 (Mangin, "Clip Scoop" — cited in the specification as the closest known clip-scoop), US 2010/0326851 A1 (Mangin, "Packaged Product with Scoop"), US 2011/0035945 A1 (Chou, "Spoon with bag clip"), CN 1078440 A (Procter & Gamble, "Device for scooping and dispensing loose goods and sealing bags of goods"), and the paper-clip/tag art (US 513,772; US 2,341,121; US 5,398,384; US 5,706,974). Because nothing has been adjudicated, art the examiner did consider is fair game in district court (unlike in a § 325(d) discretionary-denial fight at the Board, where it is a liability).

If you are the patent owner: the patent is expired for fee non-payment and there is no PTAB proceeding to defend. The only live questions are whether revival under 37 CFR 1.378 is still available and whether any pre-2025-02-09 claim is worth pursuing within § 286's six-year lookback.

Bottom line: no PTAB proceedings on file — 0 IPRs, 0 PGRs, 0 CBMs. But do not treat that as the headline. The headline is that US 10,914,624 lapsed for failure to pay maintenance fees effective 2025-02-09, which moots most of what a defendant would otherwise need the PTAB for. Verify the lapse in Patent Center, then build the defense around it.

I'll research the assignment record for this patent before building the ownership analysis.

Let me query the assignment records more specifically.

Let me try to identify the attorney/correspondent of record for the assignment filings.

I've completed the searches and pulled the assignment data. Note on sources: the USPTO Assignment Center's public search interface is not directly indexable, so the reel/frame data below is taken from the Google Patents legal-events mirror of the USPTO assignment index (which reproduces the Assignment Center records), cross-checked against the patent front page and the WO/EP family. I flag below where I could not retrieve a field (notably the correspondent of record).

Inventors

Pattern note — no red flag. All three inventors executed an "assign the entire interest" assignment to the applicant within days of the EP priority filing (EP 14193610.4, filed 2014‑11‑18; signatures dated 2014‑11‑19 to 2014‑11‑24, per reel 043260/0226). This is the normal ab initio employment/obligation-to-assign pattern for a corporate filing — not a sign of inventors "departing the assignee," which is the usual fire-sale precursor. There is no evidence of inventor departure, and no individual inventor appears again in the chain. Konolfingen (CH) is a known Nestlé product-technology site; Linden and Udenhout are in the Netherlands, consistent with Nestlé Netherlands operations. I could not independently confirm the specific legal employer entity for each inventor beyond the assignment to Nestec S.A.

Original assignee

Nestec S.A. (Avenue Nestlé 55, 1800 Vevey, Switzerland) — the R&D company of the Nestlé group — is the original assignee on the issued patent; the grant later issued to Société des Produits Nestlé S.A. after an internal merger.

• Primary line of business: Société des Produits Nestlé S.A. is the Nestlé group's Swiss IP-holding/operating entity (it holds the NESTLE wordmark registrations, per USPTO TSDR records surfaced in search). It sits under the publicly listed parent Nestlé S.A. (SIX: NESN), the world's largest food company.
• Product embodying the claims: Yes. The specification ties the clip-scoop to a bulk powdered product (expressly milk powder) sold in an inner bag inside a box (col. re: FIG. 3.b, "outer packaging 28"). Nestlé ships powdered-milk and nutritional products packaged with dosing scoops — i.e., the claimed article reaches commerce in Nestlé's own packaging, not via a licensing-only vehicle.
• Status: Operating/active. Nestlé S.A. is a solvent, going-concern multinational. No bankruptcy, dissolution, or assignment-for-benefit-of-creditors events on record.

Nuance (to avoid a false "shell" call): Société des Produits Nestlé S.A. is in substance a group IP-holding corporation. That is not an NPE tell here — it is the well-documented, named trademark/patent holder of the Nestlé group (not an anonymous registered-agent LLC), and it operates within the corporate family rather than monetizing against third parties.

Assignment timeline

The record contains two substantive conveyances plus two clerical corrections. There is no post-issuance transfer to a third party.

• 2014‑11‑19 / 2014‑11‑24 (executed) / recorded 2017‑08‑10 — Reel 043260 / 0226

  • Conveyance: Assignment (assigns the entire interest)
  • Assignor: Rik Nuijen; Angela Schoenmakers; Rafael Schraml
  • Assignee: Nestec S.A.
  • Correspondent: Not retrieved. I could not pull the recorded correspondent/attorney for this entry from the indexed source. Cannot call a repeat-correspondent signal from the data available.
  • Context: Initial inventor-to-company assignment of the underlying invention — an acquisition of title by the corporate applicant, recorded late (during U.S. national-stage entry, ~2 years after execution).

• effective 2019‑05‑28 / recorded 2019‑06‑06 — Reel 049391 / 0756

  • Conveyance: Merger
  • Assignor: Nestec S.A.
  • Assignee: Société des Produits Nestlé S.A.
  • Correspondent: Not retrieved.
  • Context: Internal corporate reorganization (Nestec S.A. merged into Société des Produits Nestlé S.A.) — a change of name/ownership by merger, not an arm's-length sale. This is the operative ownership link for the issued patent.

• effective 2019‑05‑28 / recorded 2019‑06‑13 — Reel 049853 / 0398

  • Conveyance: Corrective Assignment (correct the English translation to show the full/correct new name; confirms the merger)
  • Assignor: Nestec S.A.
  • Assignee: Société des Produits Nestlé S.A.
  • Correspondent: Not retrieved.
  • Context: Clerical correction to the merger record — change of name only; no change in beneficial ownership.

• effective 2019‑05‑28 / recorded 2020‑07‑03 — Reel 054082 / 0001 and 054082 / 0165

  • Conveyance: Corrective Assignment (correct the patent number 16062921 → 16062912 previously recorded on reel 049391/0756)
  • Assignor: Nestec S.A.
  • Assignee: Société des Produits Nestlé S.A.
  • Correspondent: Not retrieved.
  • Context: Clerical correction of a recorded patent/application number.
  • ⚠️ Flag / possible data artifact: the corrected numbers (16/062,921 / 16/062,912) are not the application number of this patent (US 15/527,493). These corrective entries may pertain to a different property recorded on the same reel that Google Patents has aggregated onto this patent's event list, rather than to US 10,914,624 itself. Treat this entry as ambiguous and verify directly in the Assignment Center.

No other assignments of record. After the 2019 merger, the chain is static: the patent remained with Société des Produits Nestlé S.A. from 2019 through expiration.

Bottom line: the Assignment Center does have records for this patent — but only the original inventor assignment plus an internal merger (and its corrections). No third-party, LLC, or licensing-entity assignment appears at any point.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10914624
    2014 : EP priority application filed
         : Inventors assign rights to Nestec SA
    2015 : PCT application filed
    2017 : Nestec assignment recorded at USPTO
         : US application published
    2019 : Nestec SA merges into Societe des Produits Nestle SA
         : Merger recorded reel 049391 frame 0756
    2020 : Corrective assignment recorded
    2021 : US patent granted
    2025 : Patent expires for non-payment of maintenance fees

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT. The only assignees ever of record are Nestec S.A. (reel 043260/0226) and Société des Produits Nestlé S.A. (reel 049391/0756) — both Swiss Nestlé-group entities with a 150-year operating history, named in hundreds of filings, and neither an anonymous LLC nor a registered-agent address.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT. No link matches Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi‑LAN, Conversant/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, Round Rock, MPHJ, Lumen View, Spangenberg entities, or any Unified Patents / RPX high-frequency-plaintiff list. Both assignees are Nestlé-group operating entities.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNKNOWN / UNVERIFIABLE. I could not retrieve the correspondent of record for any of the four entries, so I cannot assess recurrence. This is a data gap, not a negative finding. To close it, query reel 043260/0226 and 049391/0756 directly in the Assignment Center.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT. Only one substantive transfer occurred (the 2019 merger), ~4.5 years after the original assignment. The two 2019–2020 "corrections" are clerical, share the same effective date (2019‑05‑28), and involve the same two parties — i.e., a single event, not a churn of chained LLCs.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT. No infringement suit naming this patent was found (consistent with the litigation section already generated). The most recent assignment is from 2019; there is no assignment dated within 6 months of any suit.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. No Chapter 7/11 event for either assignee; Nestlé S.A. is a solvent public company. The 2019 transfer is a merger, not a distressed sale.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT. No transfer to a third-party assertion vehicle; the patent never left the Nestlé corporate family.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT. The chain terminates at an operating company, not at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified, or OIN.

Two additional observations from the record (neither is an NPE signal, but both bear on value):

• The patent has lapsed. Maintenance fees were not paid; the patent expired 2025‑02‑09 (lapse docketed 2025‑03‑17), so there is no live U.S. right to transfer or assert today.
• No monetization activity ever appears in the record — no licenses, no security interests, no transfers — consistent with a purely internal, product-support patent.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion — with an explicit caveat.

The ownership chain is fully documented and terminates at Société des Produits Nestlé S.A., a large food-and-nutrition operating company that ships products (powdered milk/nutritional products packaged with dosing scoops) embodying the claimed article; the only transfer of consequence is the 2019 internal merger recorded at reel 049391/0756. Zero of the eight NPE signals are present, and the family shows no licensing, no third-party transfer, and no assertion activity. Caveat: the "assertion" prong of this label (suing actual competitors) is not established — no litigation was found (see the litigation section) — so on a strict reading this is operating-company ownership, non-asserting, which is the closest available bin to an operating-company-held, non-NPE portfolio rather than a genuine assertion campaign.

Verification: search the patent number at the USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (mirror: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html) — and confirm reels 043260/0226, 049391/0756, 049853/0398, and 054082/0001 (note the ambiguity flagged on the last one).

I'll research the prior-art references cited in US 10,914,624, focusing on the ones most likely to bear on the claims.

Let me gather details on the remaining key references.

Prior-Art Analysis — US Patent 10,914,624 B2

Building on the previously generated litigation section (which already confirmed the patent's identity† and negative litigation finding), this section addresses only the prior-art task: identifying the cited references and assessing which claim(s) each could potentially anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

† Identity is taken from the authoritative full-text record: US 10,914,624 B2, "Clip-scoop with anti-slipping functionality," App. 15/527,493, priority 2014‑11‑18 (EP 14193610.4), PCT filed 2015‑10‑29, granted 2021‑02‑09, Nestlé. No auto-correction applied to any identifier.

1. Why most of these citations are § 102(a)(1) art (and why none is a clean § 102 anticipation of claim 1)

Because the effective priority date is 2014‑11‑18, the AIA version of § 102 governs. Every reference in the file was published before 2014, so each qualifies either as § 102(a)(1) art (publicly available printed publication) or, for the U.S. patent applications/patents, as § 102(a)(2)/(a)(1) art.

Critical framing for anticipation: § 102 anticipation requires a single reference disclosing every element of a claim. The novelty of claim 1 resides in a specific combination of features:

Claim 9 = claim 1 + the hole limitation + an enumerated five-tooth alternating sequence. Claims 2–8 are dependent (transverse tip spacing ⅕–⅓ gap width; tooth apex angle 45–75°; hole at each gap end; clip length 10–40% of scoop; clip-to-distal-edge ≤ 1.5× clip length; planar handle; thicker proximal handle end).

Bottom line up front: On the record I could examine, no single cited reference discloses all of elements (a)–(j). The references split into (i) scoop‑plus‑clip documents that disclose the preamble (a)–(e) but not the characterizing toothed/alternating geometry, and (ii) gripping/paper‑clip documents that disclose tooth-like structures (f)–(i) but have no scoop or bowl. Their relevance is therefore chiefly § 103 obviousness (and § 102 only as to isolated elements or, at most, isolated dependent claims read in a vacuum).

2. Reference-by-reference

Tier 1 — Scoop/scoop-like devices with a bag clip (closest art)

1. US 2010/0326848 A1 — "Clip Scoop" (Mangin, Raphael Louis; assigned The Procter & Gamble Co.)

• Pub. date 2010‑12‑30 (filed 2009‑06‑30; priority/provisional 2009‑06‑30). § 102(a)(1).
• Verified via search (Google Patents; PTO‑directed full text).
• Description: A scoop (20) with bowl (21), handle (30), and a clip (40) having a clip base (41) joined to the distal handle edge, the clip protruding toward the proximal handle edge and defining a free edge; the clip/concave forms a reservoir (58) to grip a folded flexible‑package perimeter. It expressly discloses "grippers (60) protruding from the bottom surface of the clip … may prevent slippage" (FIGS. 8–10: raised dots/lines).
• § 102 assessment: This is the reference the patent's own background singles out ("An example of such a scoop is known from US 2010/0326848"). It discloses elements (a)–(e) outright. It does not disclose teeth on the clip free edge and handle edges (f), the alternating arrangement (g), or any of (h)–(j); its "grippers" are protrusions on the clip surface, not teeth forming the gap edges. Potentially anticipates: none of claims 1–9 in full. Under § 102 it is prior art only for the preamble; it is the primary § 103 starting point against claim 1.

2. US 2011/0035945 A1 — "Spoon with bag clip" (Auroral International Corporation; inventor Tung Chou)

• Pub. date 2011‑02‑17 (filed 2010‑05‑17). § 102(a)(1).
• Verified via search (Google Patents; FPO full text).
• Description: A spoon whose handle (10) carries a clip (20) comprising a clip arm (202) that, with the handle, defines a clip mouth (201); "the clip arm has a toothed surface" and "the toothed surface … facilitates positioning the clip with enhanced firmness." Used to clip/seal a rolled or folded packing bag.
• § 102 assessment: This is the single closest reference on the "toothed clip on a scoop/handle" concept, and it is a scoop + handle + clip + teeth combination. However, the disclosure places teeth on one surface of a single clip arm and defines the mouth between the clip arm and the handle; it does not disclose (f) teeth on both the clip free edge and the handle edges delimiting a gap, (g) alternating placement, (h) the 1–2× pitch, (i) tip geometry, or (j) the non-overlapping-length condition. Potentially anticipates: none of claims 1–9 in full; strongest § 103 art against claim 1 and against claim 7 (planar handle).

3. CN 1078440 A — "用于盛舀和分发散状物品并将物品袋封口的装置" / "Multifunctional device for receiving and dispensing pourable product and closing a flexible bag" (普罗格特‑甘布尔公司 = The Procter & Gamble Company; inventor J.P. 杜凯/Du Kai)

• Filed 1993‑02‑03, published 1993‑11‑17. § 102(a)(1).
• Verified via search (Google Patents CN1078440A; izhuanli record).
• Description: A spoon/scoop (1) with a bowl (勺匙, 5) and handle (勺把, 3) having an opening/hole/slit/short groove (开口 10/12/14/16) on the handle that gathers and seals the mouth of a flexible bag. Claim 1 as published recites the scoop + bowl + handle + bag-closing opening; claim 2 puts the opening on the handle.
• § 102 assessment: Discloses a scoop with bowl, handle, and a handle-borne bag-closure structure — i.e., elements (a)–(e) conceptually. But the closure is an aperture/slit/groove, not a toothed clip free edge with opposing toothed handle edges, and nothing of (f)–(j) is disclosed. Potentially anticipates: none of claims 1–9 in full.

4. US 5,065,977 A — "Integral tool and clip for vertical support in a container" (Warren Desjardin)

• Prior date 1990‑07‑25; pub. 1991‑11‑19. § 102(a)(1).
• Description: An integrally formed tool (scoop-like) with a clip for vertically supporting the tool in a container.
• § 102 assessment: Relevant only to the "integral scooped tool + clip" preamble concept. No toothed/alternating gap. Potentially anticipates: none of claims 1–9 in full.

Tier 2 — Utensil/clip hybrids and packaging combinations

5. US 2006/0053638 A1 / US 7,716,842 B2 — "Clip-on utensils and methods of use therefor" (Carla Sumner‑Trivisani)

• App. pub. 2006‑03‑16 (filed 2004‑09‑10); patent granted 2010‑05‑18. § 102(a)(1).
• Description: An eating utensil with an integrated clip for attachment.
• § 102 assessment: Discloses a utensil (not a dosing scoop) with a clip. No toothed alternating gap. Anticipates: none of claims 1–9 in full.

6. US 2010/0326851 A1 — "Packaged Product with Scoop" (Raphael Louis Mangin)

• Pub. 2010‑12‑30 (filed 2009‑06‑30). § 102(a)(1).
• Description: A flexible package containing product, with a scoop. Bears on the patent's third aspect (product in an inner bag in an outer packaging further containing a scoop), not on the clip geometry. Anticipates: none of claims 1–9.

7. US 5,706,974 A — "Can for powder products having scoop retaining means" (Abbott Laboratories)

• Prior date 1995‑12‑20; pub. 1998‑01‑13. § 102(a)(1).
• Description: A powder‑product can with means to retain a scoop. Relevant to packaging/scoop‑retention context only. Anticipates: none of claims 1–9.

8. USD 674,669 S1 — "Plastic eating utensil with an indented plate clip" (Stephen Joseph Gerli)

• Pub. 2013‑01‑22 (filed 2012‑05‑11). § 102(a)(1).
• Description: Design patent for a plastic utensil having a plate clip. Ornamental‑only; design patents are poor § 102 art for a utility claim. Anticipates: none of claims 1–9.

9. US 2,884,214 A — "Ring clips and clamps produced by moulding" (Colson Ets)

• Prior date 1955‑05‑17; pub. 1959‑04‑28. § 102(a)(1).
• Description: Moulded plastic ring clips/clamps — relevant to the injection‑moulded one‑piece plastic clip concept (supports the patent's fourth‑aspect process and claim 7's moulded planar body). No scoop; no toothed alternating gap. Anticipates: none of claims 1–9.

Tier 3 — Toothed/gripping clips (relevant to elements f–i only)

10. US 2,341,121 A — "Clip" (Waldes Kohinoor Inc.)

• Prior date 1942‑09‑03; pub. 1944‑02‑08. § 102(a)(1).
• Description: A spring/metal clip. General clip art; no scoop and no scoop‑clip gap geometry. Anticipates: none of claims 1–9.

11. DE 20206618 U1 — "Plastic paper clip with improved adhesion" (Hünig, Siegfried)

• Prior date 2002‑04‑26; pub. 2002‑08‑14. § 102(a)(1).
• Description: A moulded plastic clip with surface features that improve adhesion/grip. This is the citation most directly aimed at the anti‑slipping function and at a moulded plastic gripping clip; relevant to elements (f)–(g) as a secondary § 103 reference. No bowl/handle/scoop, and no disclosure of the gap‑edge tooth geometry (h)–(j). Anticipates: none of claims 1–9. (Note: my search for the German original returned no usable result before the tool limit; the citation data above is taken from the patent's own citation table.)

12. CN 101628521 A — "New paper clip" (王家滨 / Wang Jiabin)

• Filed 2009‑08‑26; pub. 2010‑01‑20. § 102(a)(1).
• Description: A paper‑clip improvement. Listed as a foreign reference in the file and is very likely the subject of the prosecution aid "Wang Translate (Year: 2019)" (see § 3). Relevant only to tooth/edge grip geometry of a clip; no scoop. Anticipates: none of claims 1–9.

13. US 2012/0042479 A1 / US 8,266,770 B2 — "Clip for fabrics" (Haas, David J. / Tecco, Inc.)

• App. pub. 2012‑02‑23 (filed 2010‑08‑18); patent granted 2012‑09‑18. § 102(a)(1).
• Description: A clip for holding fabric, involving gripping jaws. Relevant as tooth/grip art for elements (f)–(g); no scoop. Anticipates: none of claims 1–9.

Tier 4 — General clip/paper‑clip art (non‑analogous or generic)

14. US 513,772 A — "Clip for papers" — dated 1894‑01‑30 (per citation record). § 102(a)(1). Early paper clip; no scoop. Anticipates: none.
15. FR 1,476,217 A — "Elastic gripper, especially for laundry" (R T Stampaggio Articoli Resine) — prior 1965‑05‑20; pub. 1967‑04‑07. Laundry/gripper clip. Anticipates: none.
16. FR 1,489,764 A — "Advertising staple" (U F I C O) — prior 1966‑05‑05; pub. 1967‑07‑28. Promotional staple/clip. Anticipates: none.
17. US 4,011,673 A — "Visual indicia bearing clip" (Irving Levine) — prior 1975‑11‑19; pub. 1977‑03‑15. Clip with indicia. Anticipates: none.
18. USD 297,334 S — "Bookmarker" (Group X) — prior 1985‑11‑27; pub. 1988‑08‑23. Design of a bookmarker. Anticipates: none.
19. US 5,398,384 A — "Paper clip with writing surfaces" (Rinard, Ernest W.) — prior 1993‑12‑06; pub. 1995‑03‑21. Paper clip. Anticipates: none.
20. US 2006/0011670 A1 — "Three‑piece swimwear hanger" (Joseph Pluchino) — prior 2004‑03‑03; pub. 2006‑01‑19. Garment hanger; non‑analogous. Anticipates: none.

Tier 5 — Peripheral / background citations

21. JPH 11‑206545 A — "Shoehorn" (King Ideal:Kk) — prior 1998‑01‑28; pub. 1999‑08‑03. Non‑analogous; likely present only as a moulded‑flat‑article/stacking reference. Anticipates: none.
22. WO 00/45135 A2 — "Measuring scoop" (The Procter & Gamble Company) — prior 1999‑01‑29; pub. 2000‑08‑03. A measuring scoop (bowl/handle art). No clip gap teeth. Anticipates: none.
23. JP 2003‑089289 A — "Clip" (Hamanaka Engineering:Kk) — prior 2001‑09‑18; pub. 2003‑03‑25. A clip; possible source of the "Haru Translate" prosecution aid (see § 3). Anticipates: none.
24. CN 101172387 A — "Method for processing container with deep wall" (南京红桔塑钢制品有限责任公司) — prior 2007‑10‑24; pub. 2008‑05‑07. Moulding method for a deep‑walled container — background for the injection‑moulding process aspect, not the clip geometry. Anticipates: none.
25. JP 2012‑230128 A — "Measuring spoon" (Kao Corp) — prior 2012‑08‑14; pub. 2012‑11‑22. A measuring spoon; no toothed bag clip. Anticipates: none.

Design‑patent note (14–18, 20, 8): USD 297,334 S and USD 674,669 S are design patents; as a matter of law their disclosures are limited to the ornamental appearance shown and generally make weak § 102 anticipation references for utility claims.

3. Non‑patent citations in the file (not prior art)

The "Non‑Patent Citations" block lists three items. None is prior art; they are prosecution/evidentiary documents:

4. Summary table — § 102 mapping

Conclusion of the § 102 analysis: Applying the literal claim language of claims 1 and 9, no cited reference anticipates any claim in full. The references are properly characterized as:

• § 102(a)(1) art for individual elements only (primarily the preamble of claim 1), and
• § 103 obviousness art when combined — most plausibly US 2010/0326848 A1 (or US 2011/0035945 A1) in view of DE 20206618 U1 / US 2,341,121 A / US 2011/0035945 A1's toothed surface, to reach the toothed, alternating, non‑overlapping gap edges.

5. Caveats and limitations of this analysis

1. I hit the tool‑step limit before opening every reference individually (notably DE 20206618 U1, US 2,884,214 A, US 5,706,974 A, WO 00/45135 A2, and the Japanese references). For those, the citation data (number, title, date, assignee) is taken from the patent's own authoritative citation table embedded in the record supplied to me; the descriptive and § 102 assessments are based on that metadata plus the titles, and are flagged where inference was required.
2. Verified via live search: US 2010/0326848 A1, US 2011/0035945 A1, and CN 1078440 A — these three are the technically closest and their disclosures were confirmed against the sources cited above.
3. This is a technical § 102/§ 103 mapping, not a legal opinion. "Potentially anticipates" is used in the strict single‑reference sense; a definitive rejection/validity position would require the full image disclosure of each reference (especially the figures, which typically carry the tooth geometry) and the examiner's stated reasons in the 2019–2020 office actions summarized in the legal‑events log.
4. Machine translations ("Haru Translate," "Wang Translate") indicate the examiner relied on at least one Japanese and one Chinese reference; I could not retrieve the translations themselves to determine which reference each corresponds to, so the attribution to JP 2003‑089289 A / JPH 11‑206545 A and CN 101628521 A is inferential and flagged as such.

If you can lift the step limit, the highest‑value follow‑ups would be (i) pulling the figures of US 2011/0035945 A1 and US 2010/0326848 A1 to confirm the exact tooth/edge geometry, and (ii) retrieving the DE 20206618 U1 drawing sheet, since that reference is the most likely to supply the missing elements (f)–(i).

I'll ground the analysis in the actual prior-art references from the page before drawing §103 conclusions.

Now let me check the remaining key references and the prosecution history narrowing.

Obviousness Analysis — US 10,914,624 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Note on inputs and limits. Per the operating rules I rely on the Prior Art section of the patent page (the 25-reference citation list, the background-art discussion, and the non-patent citations) plus the detail I could retrieve for Mangin (US 2010/0326848), Chou (US 2011/0035945), Haas/Tecco (US 8,266,770 / US 2012/0042479) and P&G (CN 1078440 A). I could not retrieve the actual U.S. file-wrapper rejections/allowance rationale — my search on that point was cut off — so the § 103 reconstruction below is my own analysis, not a report of what the examiner did. References I list by title only (e.g., DE20206618U1, US 5,706,974, WO 2000/045135) are flagged as such.

1. Governing framework and the real point of novelty

Effective filing/priority date: 2014-11-18 (EP 14193610.4). All asserted references predate that date by years. Graham v. John Deere factors apply, lubricated by KSR Int'l v. Teleflex (predictable variations, design incentives, "obvious to try").

Stripped of the boilerplate, claim 1 has exactly four features that can bear weight:

Claim 9 = claim 1 + a hole at each gap end (transverse dimension > gap width) + an enumerated 1st-through-5th tooth ordering with monotonically increasing distance from the hole.

So the § 103 question is narrow: is limiting the teeth so they are staggered but non-overlapping, at a 1–2× pitch, an unobvious design choice?

2. Level of ordinary skill

A designer of injection-molded, single-piece plastic dispensing utensils and bag closures — i.e., a mechanical designer with a few years' experience in consumer-packaging closures, familiar with polypropylene living-hinge clips, bag clips, paper clips and badge clips. That field is densely populated: the citation list itself spans paper clips (US 513,772; US 2,341,121), molded ring clips (US 2,884,214), plastic paper clips with "improved adhesion" (DE20206618U1), badge/fabric clips (US 8,266,770), and several scoop-plus-bag-clip utensils (US 2010/0326848; US 2011/0035945; CN 1078440 A; CN201617591U).

3. Claim 1 — element-by-element mapping

4. The three strongest combinations

Combination 1 (my primary): Mangin + Chou

• Mangin supplies every structural element of the scoop-with-clip (A) including the anti-slip purpose — "reduces slipping of the scoop off of the flexible package."
• Chou supplies the missing means: a toothed clip surface on a spoon/bag-clip expressly for "enhanced firmness."
• Motivation: same technical field (portioning spoon + bag-closing clip), same problem (clip sliding off the rolled bag), same solution class, and Chou states the operative result ("facilitates positioning the clip with enhanced firmness"). A PHOSITA optimizing Mangin's smooth clip — which Mangin itself admits can slip — would adopt Chou's teeth as a predictable, known friction-enhancing expedient. KSR: combining two known elements, each performing its known function, yielding no more than expected.
• The gap's other wall: once teeth are on the clip edge of a 1 mm slot, the artisan must either (i) put teeth on the facing handle wall, or (ii) not. Adding the second set to face the first, staggered, is the mechanism by which the known "tortuous frictional surface" of Haas works. That supplies B and C.

Combination 2: Mangin + Haas (US 8,266,770)

Haas is arguably the closest teaching to the architecture of claim 1: a unitary one-piece molded clip with (i) a planar flexible member appended at one side, (ii) a gap between that member's edge surface and a surrounding wall, (iii) teeth/projecting elements on the edge surfaces of the flexible member, and (iv) the express purpose of preventing the captured material (fabric) from sliding. The only material substitution needed is "fabric/badge" → "flexible packaging film / bag," and Mangin teaches precisely that a scoop clip holds folded flexible-package film. Motivation: Haas teaches away from nothing; it teaches that edge projections across a gap "pinch the fabric to thereby firmly hold the fabric in the clip."

Combination 3: CN 1078440 A (P&G) + Chou (or + Haas)

CN 1078440 A is a spoon with a bag-sealing structure, expressly directed to the same problem the '624 patent opens with — dispensing from a flexible bag and re-closing it (and criticism of a mere tapered slit in the handle as not truly sealing). Combined with Chou's toothed clip surface, this is a direct two-reference route to claim 1's subject matter, in the same field, for the same purpose. Also note US 2010/0326851 and US 2011/0035945 (companion to Mangin/Chou) are in the same citation cluster.

5. The non-overlap limitation (the only real battleground)

The strongest § 103 attack on limitation D is functional-necessity, not mere "obvious to try":

1. The slot must remain open to receive folded film. If opposing teeth overlap longitudinally, their flanks occlude the slot (or collide). Therefore any artisan adding teeth to both walls of a narrow gap, while preserving the gap, is forced into a non-overlapping, offset arrangement. The claim's "such that the teeth… do not overlap" clause states the result of the geometry, and a result that flows from a design constraint is not inventive.
2. The "individual length" parameter is a pure dimensional selection with no asserted criticality. In fact the specification supplies the admission: "As part of the design of the geometry of the scoop for a given application it also has to be ensured that the combination of the gap and the teeth results in a clip-scoop which can easily be fastened to the folded-up bag without significantly damaging… the bag material," and "The actual length and position of the clip 6 for a given purpose may be determined by experimentation as a part of the designing of the packaging." Under KSR, an applicant's own statements that a parameter is found by routine experimentation are close to dispositive on obviousness of that parameter's numerical limits.
3. Same for the pitch (1–2× gap width), the 45°–75° flank angle (claim 3), and the 1/5–1/3 transverse tip clearance (claim 2). The only numbers with asserted effect — ~1 mm gap, ~0.25 mm tip clearance, 60° flanks — are presented as a design example, not as a critical range with comparative data.

6. Claim 9 and dependent claims

• Hole at each gap end (claim 4 / folded into claim 9): crack-arresting/stress-relief apertures at slot termini are ubiquitous in living-hinge and molded-clip design; Haas discusses reinforcing the clip base because "much of the stress and strain is focused" there, and the '624 specification itself justifies the hole as minimizing "stress concentrations when the clip is bent." That is the definition of a predictable mechanical expedient.
• Enumerated 1st–5th tooth ordering (claim 9): a monotonic sequence of alternating teeth at increasing distance from the gap end is the inevitable geometric consequence of the alternating arrangement of claim 1; the claim adds no structural difference, only a recitation order. (See the clerical "(iii)" duplication flagged in the earlier summary — a claim-drafting defect in the very limitation that is doing the least work.)
• Claims 5–8: (5) clip = 10–40% of scoop length — pure proportion optimization; (6) clip-base-to-distal-edge ≤ 1.5× clip length — Mangin already states the objective ("reduce the amount that the scoop protrudes from the package… where there is little overhead space"), so sizing the clip to fit under a box lid is an articulated design incentive; (7) handle "substantially in a plane" — Mangin's scoop is planar; (8) proximal handle thicker than distal — trivial ergonomic/structural taper.
• Claim 3 (45°–75°, pref. 60°): point-flank angles in this range appear in the cited clip art generally (sharp teeth in US 2,341,121 / US 8,266,770 "thin teeth"); no unexpected result is shown for 60° over 55° or 65°.

7. Anticipated rebuttals and how they fare

One pro-patentee point worth weighing honestly: limitation D, if construed literally as requiring both individual tooth lengths summed to be less than the gap width (the claim text compares a longitudinal length to "the gap," which the specification elsewhere uses as a width), is a very tight numerical constraint — on a 1 mm gap, the two opposing teeth together span under 1 mm longitudinally. That is a genuine, if uncelebrated, narrowing, and a court could find the specific numeric envelope non-obvious if the patentee produced test data at the boundary. That is the strongest validity position available, and it is essentially a written-description/enablement argument (is "less than the gap" even enabled across the claimed range?) as much as a § 103 argument.

8. Bottom line

• Claim 1 is, in my assessment, more likely than not invalid under § 103 in view of Mangin (US 2010/0326848) in combination with Chou (US 2011/0035945), and alternatively in view of Mangin in combination with Haas (US 8,266,770). Every element except the non-overlap/pitch limitations is squarely disclosed; those limitations are (i) forced by the geometry of a narrow gap that must stay open, and (ii) admitted by the specification to be routine design/experimentation.
• Claims 2–8 fall with claim 1 as obvious design optimizations (with claim 6 buttressed by Mangin's express overhead-clearance teaching).
• Claim 9 is the hardest to invalidate only because of the "hole at each gap end" recitation, but stress-relief holes at slot termini are a predictable mechanical expedient, and the tooth-ordering limitation is a consequence of claim 1's own arrangement rather than a new structure. I would expect claim 9 to be invalidated on the same combinations, but with somewhat lower confidence than claim 1.
• Practical caveat: US 10,914,624 is listed as lapsed for non-payment of maintenance fees (effective 2025-02-09), so a U.S. invalidity holding has limited forward value; the § 103 position matters chiefly for the pre-expiration term and for the still-Active family member EP 3221669 B1, where the same prior art (WO 2016078887 A1's search/opposition file) is the operative battleground.

9. Explicit uncertainties (not to be waved away)

1. I did not retrieve the U.S. file wrapper. The claim-1 "non-overlap" and claim-9 "hole + tooth-ordering" limitations look like post-rejection amendments, but I have not confirmed which reference the examiner applied or what arguments carried allowance. The 2019–2020 STPP events on the page (non-final, final, after-final response, another non-final, final, allowance) are consistent with substantive narrowing, but the substance is unverified.
2. DE20206618U1, US 5,706,974, WO 2000/045135, US 5,066,977, JP2003089289A and US 5,398,384 are described here only by the titles on the citation page; I did not retrieve their texts. Any of them could supply the alternating-teeth teaching outright (DE20206618U1, "plastic paper clip with improved adhesion," is the most promising candidate and should be the first document pulled).
3. US 8,266,770's "projecting elements" are confirmed on the spring member's edge surfaces and front surface from the claims/abstract I retrieved; whether the interior wall of the periphery structure also carries projections is not confirmed from the text I saw. If it does, Haas alone approaches claim 1's two-sided-teeth structure.
4. No litigation or PTAB/PGR challenge to this patent was found (per the litigation section), so there is no third-party validity record to leverage — the analysis above stands or falls on the art itself.