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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 27, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on January 27, 2026. As directed by the amendment: claims 1 has been amended. Thus, claims 1 and 4-18 are presently pending in this application with claims 11-18 presently withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed January 27, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive, specifically in regards to Matson not teaching or disclosing a first passage slit at the distal tip of the distal end of the first passage. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lareau (US 20110172642) in view of McDermott (US 20150273130).
Regarding claim 1, Lareau discloses a double lumen catheter (fig. 7) comprising:
a circumferential wall forming a lumen extending from a proximal end to a distal end (tubular sidewall 130 in fig. 1A and 7); and
a partition (dividing wall 125 in fig. 7) dividing the lumen into a first passage and a second passage extending in a longitudinal direction (first lumen 141 and second lumen 142 in fig. 7),
distal ends of the first passage and the second passage of the circumferential wall being aligned with each other (fig. 7),
the first passage having, at a distal tip of the distal end, a first passage slit provided on a center portion of the circumferential wall between two connections of the circumferential wall and the partition (cut 150 in fig. 7; paragraph 26), and
the second passage having no slit (paragraph 26 discloses that the cut is provided over either the first and second lumen so that it is understood that Lareau discloses an embodiment in which only one passage has a slit).
However, Lareau does not teach or disclose the partition including a projection projecting beyond the distal end of the circumferential wall.
McDermott teaches a similar double lumen catheter (fig. 1) having a circumferential wall (outer wall 34 in fig. 4) and a partition dividing the wall into two lumens (septum 40 in fig. 4). McDermott further teaches the partition including a projection projecting beyond the distal end of the circumferential wall (septum extension 52 in fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the partition of Lareau to include a projection projecting beyond the distal end of the circumferential wall, as taught by McDermott, for the purpose of facilitate passage of the catheter through the vasculature (paragraph 36).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lareau in view of McDermott, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sansoucy (US 10143822).
Regarding claim 4, modified Lareau teaches all of the claimed limitations set forth in claim 1, as discussed above. Lareau further teaches that the number of slits is not limited to that shown in the drawings and that there is no limit to the number of slits that may be included in the catheter (paragraph 25). However, modified Lareau does not explicitly teach or disclose the first passage has a first passage through-hole being closer to the proximal end than the first passage slit is and penetrating the circumferential wall.
Sansoucy teaches a double lumen catheter (fig. 1) comprising a slit at the distal tip of the distal end (valve 118 in fig. 3A/B forms a slit) and further teaches that a first passage (first lumen 114 in fig. 3A) which comprises a first passage through-hole (valves 120 in fig. 3A/B) which is positioned closer to the proximal end than the first passage is (fig. 3A/B shows valves 120 positioned more proximally than valve 118) and penetrating the circumferential wall (fig. 3B). Since Lareau makes it clear that the catheter can comprise any number of slits (paragraph 25), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first passage to comprise a first passage through-hole being closer to the proximal end than the first passage slit is and penetrating the circumferential wall, as taught by Lareau, since this modification appears within the scope of Lareau and in order to achieve a desired flow rate through the catheter (5:64-66).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
See reasons for indicating allowable subject matter in the Final Rejection mailed on 10/31/2025.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY FREDRICKSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7481. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9 AM - 5 PM 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, BHISMA MEHTA can be reached at 571-272-3383. 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.
/COURTNEY B FREDRICKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783