Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/418,682

PLASTIC TUBING KINK REMOVAL DEVICE AND METHOD

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jun 25, 2021
Examiner
PATEL, SHEFALI DILIP
Art Unit
3783
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Hemanext Inc.
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
58%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
4y 0m
To Grant
86%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 58% of resolved cases
58%
Career Allow Rate
427 granted / 734 resolved
-11.8% vs TC avg
Strong +28% interview lift
Without
With
+27.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 0m
Avg Prosecution
54 currently pending
Career history
788
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
39.4%
-0.6% vs TC avg
§102
25.2%
-14.8% vs TC avg
§112
26.7%
-13.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 734 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 14, 2025, has been entered. Acknowledgments In the reply, filed on November 14, 2025, Applicant amended claims 1-2, 4, 6-9, 11-12, 14-15, 17-18, and 22-24. Applicant cancelled claims 3 and 19-21. Applicant added new claims 25-28. In the final rejection of May 23, 2025, Examiner rejected claims 12, 14-15, 17-18, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Applicant amended claim 12. Rejection is withdrawn. Currently, claims 1-2, 4, 6-9, 11-12, 14-15, 17-18, and 22-28 are under examination. Claim Objections Claims 1, 12, 17, and 26 are objected to because of the following informalities: In regards to claim 1, line 12, “use” should be changed to “the use”. In regards to claim 12, line 3, “the steps” should be changed to “steps”. In regards to claim 12, line 4, “a blood collection and delivery device” should be changed to “the blood collection and delivery device”. In regards to claim 12, line 16, “a kink” should be changed to “the kink”. In regards to claim 12, line 17, “blood flow” should be changed to “the blood flow”. In regards to claim 17, lines 1-2, “a length” should be changed to “the length”. In regards to claim 26, line 2, “its length” should be changed to “the length”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-9, 11-12, 14-15, 17-18, and 22-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In regards to claim 1, lines 1-2 recite: “A blood collection and delivery device for use in transfusion medicine”; however, such is new matter not described in the Specification. Claims 2, 4, 6-9, 11, 22-23, and 25-26 are rejected by virtue of being dependent upon claim 1. In regards to claim 1, lines 2-3 recite: “the device comprising medical tubing for blood collection and administration”; however, such is new matter not described in the Specification. Claims 2, 4, 6-9, 11, 22-23, and 25-26 are rejected by virtue of being dependent upon claim 1. In regards to claim 1, lines 5-6 recite: a non-bendable sleeve for removal of kinks “that may form in the medical device during use of the device”; however, such is new matter not described in the Specification. Claims 2, 4, 6-9, 11, 22-23, and 25-26 are rejected by virtue of being dependent upon claim 1. In regards to claim 1, lines 11-15 recite: wherein sliding of the non-bendable sleeve along the medical tubing in a direction that is perpendicular to a kink “formed in the medical tubing during use of the device” removes the kink and restores “blood flow within the medical tubing”; however, such is new matter not described in the Specification. Claims 2, 4, 6-9, 11, 22-23, and 25-26 are rejected by virtue of being dependent upon claim 1. In regards to claim 2, lines 1-7 recite: wherein the non-bendable sleeve comprises a material selected from the group consisting of “polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), metal, polyethylene terephthalate (PETG), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polycarbonate (PC), acrylic, nylon, acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE or Teflon),polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), polyether ether ketone (PEEK), chlorinated polyvinyl chloride (CPVC), fluorinated ethylene propylene (FEP), perfluoroalkoxy alkanes (PFA),polyimide (PI), acetal, and polyetherimide (PEI)”; however, such is new matter not described in the Specification. In regards to claim 4, lines 1-2 recite: wherein the device “further comprises a tubing clamp”; however, such is new matter not described in the Specification. In regards to claim 12, lines 1-2 recite: A method of restoring “blood flow in a blood collection and delivery device for use in transfusion medicine”; however, such is new matter not described in the Specification. Claims 14-15, 17-18, 24, and 27-28 are rejected by virtue of being dependent upon claim 12. In regards to claim 12, lines 4-5 recite: “providing a blood collection and delivery device comprising i. medical tubing for blood collection and administration”; however, such is new matter not described in the Specification. Claims 14-15, 17-18, 24, and 27-28 are rejected by virtue of being dependent upon claim 12. In regards to claim 12, lines 7-8 recite: a non-bendable sleeve for removal of a kink “that may form in the medical tubing during use of the device”; however, such is new matter not described in the Specification. Claims 14-15, 17-18, 24, and 27-28 are rejected by virtue of being dependent upon claim 12. In regards to claim 12, lines 15-16 recite: sliding the non-bendable sleeve along the medical tubing in a direction that is perpendicular to a kink “formed in the medical tubing”; however, such is new matter not described in the Specification. Claims 14-15, 17-18, 24, and 27-28 are rejected by virtue of being dependent upon claim 12. In regards to claim 12, lines 17-18 recite: wherein the sliding removes the kink and restores “blood flow within the medical tubing”; however, such is new matter not described in the Specification. Claims 14-15, 17-18, 24, and 27-28 are rejected by virtue of being dependent upon claim 12. In regards to claim 14, lines 1-7 recite: wherein the non-bendable sleeve comprises a material selected from the group consisting of “polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), metal, polyethylene terephthalate (PETG), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polycarbonate (PC), acrylic, nylon, acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE or Teflon), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), polyether ether ketone (PEEK), chlorinated polyvinyl chloride (CPVC), fluorinated ethylene propylene (FEP), perfluoroalkoxy alkanes (PFA),polyimide (PI), acetal, and polyetherimide (PEI)”; however, such is new matter not described in the Specification. In regards to claim 23, lines 1-7 recite: wherein the non-bendable sleeve comprises “two or more materials selected from the group consisting of polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), metal, polyethylene terephthalate (PETG), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polycarbonate (PC), acrylic, nylon, acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE or Teflon), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), polyether ether ketone (PEEK), chlorinated polyvinyl chloride (CPVC), fluorinated ethylene propylene (FEP), perfluoroalkoxy alkanes (PFA), polyimide (PI), acetal, and polyetherimide (PEI)”; however, such is new matter not described in the Specification. In regards to claim 24, lines 1-7 recite: wherein the non-bendable sleeve comprises “two or more materials selected from the group consisting of polyethylene (PE),polypropylene (PP), metal, polyethylene terephthalate (PETG), polyvinyl chloride (PVC),polycarbonate (PC), acrylic, nylon, acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS),polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE or Teflon), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), polyether ether ketone (PEEK), chlorinated polyvinyl chloride (CPVC), fluorinated ethylene propylene (FEP), perfluoroalkoxy alkanes (PFA), polyimide (PI), acetal, and polyetherimide (PEI)”; however, such is new matter not described in the Specification. In regards to claim 25, line 1 recites: wherein the device “further comprises a blood bag”; however, such is new matter not described in the Specification. In regards to claim 27, lines 1-3 recite: wherein the sliding restores “the blood flow within the medical tubing by at least 80% compared to a blood flow within the medical tubing prior to removal of the kinks”; however, such is new matter not described in the Specification. 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 1-2, 4, 6-9, 11, 22-23, and 25-27 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. In regards to claim 1, lines 5-6 recite “the medical device”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2, 4, 6-9, 11, 22-23, and 25-26 are rejected by virtue of being dependent upon claim 1. In regards to claim 1, lines 6 and 13 recite “the device”. Claim 1, line 1 previously recites “A blood collection and delivery device” and lines 5-6 previously recite “the medical device”. It is unclear which term is being referred to by claim 1, lines 6 and 13 reciting “the device”. Claims 2, 4, 6-9, 11, 22-23, and 25-26 are rejected by virtue of being dependent upon claim 1. In regards to claim 1, lines 12 and 14 recite “a kink”/“the kink”. Claim 1, line 5 previously recites “kinks”. It is unclear whether the two terms refer to the same component or to different components. Claims 2, 4, 6-9, 11, 22-23, and 25-26 are rejected by virtue of being dependent upon claim 1. In regards to claim 2, line 1 recites “The device”. Claim 2 depends upon claim 1. Claim 1, line 1 previously recites “A blood collection and delivery device” and lines 5-6 previously recite “the medical device”. It is unclear which term is being referred to by claim 2, line 1 reciting “The device”. In regards to claim 4, line 1 recites “The device”. Claim 4 depends upon claim 1. Claim 1, line 1 previously recites “A blood collection and delivery device” and lines 5-6 previously recite “the medical device”. It is unclear which term is being referred to by claim 4, line 1 reciting “The device”. In regards to claim 4, line 1 recites “the device”. Claim 4 depends upon claim 1. Claim 1, line 1 previously recites “A blood collection and delivery device” and lines 5-6 previously recite “the medical device”. It is unclear which term is being referred to by claim 4, line 1 reciting “the device”. In regards to claim 6, line 1 recites “The device”. Claim 6 depends upon claim 1. Claim 1, line 1 previously recites “A blood collection and delivery device” and lines 5-6 previously recite “the medical device”. It is unclear which term is being referred to by claim 6, line 1 reciting “The device”. In regards to claim 6, line 3 recites “the kinked medical tubing”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In regards to claim 7, line 1 recites “The device”. Claim 7 depends upon claim 1. Claim 1, line 1 previously recites “A blood collection and delivery device” and lines 5-6 previously recite “the medical device”. It is unclear which term is being referred to by claim 7, line 1 reciting “The device”. In regards to claim 8, line 1 recites “The device”. Claim 8 depends upon claim 1. Claim 1, line 1 previously recites “A blood collection and delivery device” and lines 5-6 previously recite “the medical device”. It is unclear which term is being referred to by claim 8, line 1 reciting “The device”. In regards to claim 9, line 1 recites “The device”. Claim 9 depends upon claim 1. Claim 1, line 1 previously recites “A blood collection and delivery device” and lines 5-6 previously recite “the medical device”. It is unclear which term is being referred to by claim 9, line 1 reciting “The device”. In regards to claim 11, line 1 recites “The device”. Claim 11 depends upon claim 1. Claim 1, line 1 previously recites “A blood collection and delivery device” and lines 5-6 previously recite “the medical device”. It is unclear which term is being referred to by claim 11, line 1 reciting “The device”. In regards to claim 22, line 1 recites “The device”. Claim 22 depends upon claim 1. Claim 1, line 1 previously recites “A blood collection and delivery device” and lines 5-6 previously recite “the medical device”. It is unclear which term is being referred to by claim 22, line 1 reciting “The device”. In regards to claim 23, line 1 recites “The device”. Claim 23 depends upon claim 1. Claim 1, line 1 previously recites “A blood collection and delivery device” and lines 5-6 previously recite “the medical device”. It is unclear which term is being referred to by claim 23, line 1 reciting “The device”. In regards to claim 25, line 1 recites “The device”. Claim 25 depends upon claim 1. Claim 1, line 1 previously recites “A blood collection and delivery device” and lines 5-6 previously recite “the medical device”. It is unclear which term is being referred to by claim 25, line 1 reciting “The device”. In regards to claim 25, line 1 recites “the device”. Claim 25 depends upon claim 1. Claim 1, line 1 previously recites “A blood collection and delivery device” and lines 5-6 previously recite “the medical device”. It is unclear which term is being referred to by claim 25, line 1 reciting “the device”. In regards to claim 26, line 1 recites “the device”. Claim 26 depends upon claim 1. Claim 1, line 1 previously recites “A blood collection and delivery device” and lines 5-6 previously recite “the medical device”. It is unclear which term is being referred to by claim 26, line 1 reciting “the device”. In regards to claim 27, line 3 recites “the kinks”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 4, 6-9, 11-12, 14-15, 17-18, and 22-28 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEFALI D PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-3645. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-4:30pm EST. 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, Kevin C Sirmons can be reached at (571) 272-4965. 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. /SHEFALI D PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 25, 2021
Application Filed
May 05, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Nov 08, 2023
Response Filed
Jan 31, 2024
Final Rejection — §112
Jun 06, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 02, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 05, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 10, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Feb 18, 2025
Response Filed
May 14, 2025
Interview Requested
May 21, 2025
Final Rejection — §112
Jun 06, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 14, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 18, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 15, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599708
PERITONEAL DIALYSIS CASSETTE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589219
STEERABLE SHEATH WITH VARIABLE CURVE SPAN
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582775
PULSATILE OR RESONATING FLUSH SYRINGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12564678
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR OPTIMIZING MEDICAMENT DOSING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12551605
FLUID LINE AUTOCONNECT APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR MEDICAL TREATMENT SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
58%
Grant Probability
86%
With Interview (+27.7%)
4y 0m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 734 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month