Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/797,289

SUPPORT-GUIDED STEERING OF A CATHETER

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Jun 09, 2023
Examiner
ALEMAN, SARAH WEBB
Art Unit
3774
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Cardiovalve Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
363 granted / 587 resolved
-8.2% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+23.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
616
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
45.0%
+5.0% vs TC avg
§102
26.7%
-13.3% vs TC avg
§112
18.2%
-21.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 587 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §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 . 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 150, 155 and 158 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. Claim 150 recites the limitation "the distal portion" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 155 and 158 recite the limitation "maintaining the prosthetic valve in contact with the native valve" in lines 2-3. Claims 152 and 157 do not recite a step of contacting the prosthetic valve with the native valve, so the term “maintaining” renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear what is to be maintained. Claim 155 also recites the limitation "the distal portion" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim(s) 146-151 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPAP 2017/0258614 (Griffin) in view of USPAP 2010/0022948 (Wilson et al.). Griffin discloses a delivery tool comprising a catheter defining a primary lumen (108) and a secondary pull-wire lumen (112) (see cross-section of Figure 1A-B; [0025]), the catheter comprising: a pull-ring (129) fixed to a wall of the catheter [0029]; a steerable distal portion (at distal end 139 in Fig. 3); and a tensioned portion (142 in Fig. 3) of the catheter that is distal of the pull-ring (129) and proximal of the steerable portion (139); and a pull-wire (122) that is fastened to the pull-ring (129) and passes through the secondary pull-wire lumen (112) [0028], the pull-wire (122) extending proximally from the pull-ring (129) to a proximal portion of the delivery tool (handle 150; [0024-0025; 0028]), such that a pulling force, when applied to a proximal portion of the pull-wire, is transferred, via the pull-ring, to the tensioned portion of the catheter in order to elevate the tensioned portion (142) (see Fig.4; [0028-0029]). Griffin discloses the pull wire (122), which is inside the wall of the catheter (Fig. 1-A-B), is directly attached to the pull ring (129) [0029]. Griffin discloses that elements may be embedded within the catheter wall [0030]). Griffin fails to explicitly disclose the pull ring (129) is embedded within the catheter wall. Wilson discloses another steerable catheter having pull wires (220) attached to pull rings (210 and 212) [0078-0079]. Wilson teaches that the pull rings are embedded within the wall of the catheter (see Figures 20A-D), with an inner layer (230) that provides a seamless lumen and aids in reducing friction [0081]. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to embed the pull rings of Griffin within the catheter wall, as taught by Wilson, as the modification merely involves a combination of known catheter steering mechanisms according to known methods that obtains a predictable result of a seamless lumen and friction reduction. The phrases “for transfemorally implanting a prosthetic valve at a native valve of a heart…”, “…configured to be disposed adjacent to a fossa ovalis of the heart…”, and “the tensioned portion (142) being configured to abut the fossa ovalis…” are functional recitations that are not given full patentable weight. The prior art is not required to disclose this particular manner of use, but merely have the capability of being positioned in the body in the recited manner. In this case, Griffin discloses that the catheter is used to access the heart [0002] and used to deliver a prosthetic heart valve (172) (Fig. 7; [0039]). Regarding claim 147, Griffin discloses the delivery tool further comprises a shaft (170) passing through the primary lumen (see Fig. 7), the shaft defining a shaft-lumen for facilitating passage therethrough of a guidewire (180) ([0028] of USPAP 2011/0245917 inc. by reference at [0039]). Regarding claim 148, although Griffin fails to disclose the tensioned portion (142) is more flexible than portions of the catheter that are proximal of the pull-ring, Wilson teaches the concept of forming a catheter to increase in flexibility towards the distal end. The catheter has a proximal section (236 or 238) extending from the handle to the pull ring (210) that is reinforced and kink resistant [0083-0084], and a middle section between the two pull rings (210 and 212) that has increased flexibility [0082]. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the Griffin catheter such that the tensioned portion (142) distal of the pull ring (129) is more flexible than a portion proximal to the pull ring (129), as taught by Wilson, as the modification merely involves a combination of known catheter components according to known methods that obtains a predictable result of tailoring the stiffness and flexibility of catheter portions to obtain desired mechanical properties and performance. In regards to claim 149, Wilson teaches the concept of varying the thickness of a catheter shaft to vary the stiffness/ flexibility to achieve different degrees of bending [0056; 0073]. Since the tensioned portion of Griffin is adapted to bend, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the tensioned portion to be thinner than portions of the catheter that are proximal of the pull-ring, as Wilson teaches that this is another way to achieve desired flexibility characteristics of a catheter section. In regards to claim 150, the language “…configured to maintain the prosthetic valve in contact with the native valve, during the pulling of the proximal portion of the pull-wire…” is a functional recitation that is not given full patentable weight. The prior art is not required to disclose this particular manner of use, but merely have the capability of being positioned in the body in the recited manner. In this case, the Griffin discloses aiding delivery of a prosthetic valve (Fig. 7; [0039]) and is capable of being manipulated to maintain a desired position of the prosthetic valve while the pull wire is pulled. Regarding claim 151, Griffin discloses pulling of the proximal portion of pull-wire (122) changes an arc of the catheter (see Figure 4; [0029]). Although Griffin does not explicitly disclose that the catheter is bent within the right atrium of the heart, the capability of the device to be manipulated in this manner meets the functional requirement. Claim(s) 152-159 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin in view of Wilson et al., as applied above, and further in view of USPAP 2015/0272734 (Sheps). Regarding claims 152 and 157: Griffin in view of Wilson includes all the structural limitations of the catheter. Griffin discloses that the catheter is used to access the heart [0002] and used to deliver a prosthetic heart valve (172) (Fig. 7; [0023]; [0039]). Griffin fails to disclose the particular path for advancing the catheter to the heart. Sheps discloses another method of delivering a prosthesis to a heart valve with a steerable catheter (12). Sheps teaches that it is well known in the art to advance a catheter to the mitral valve by a transfemoral approach in order to access the left atrium to implant a prosthesis (annuloplasty ring [0243]) at a mitral valve (see Figure 10A-F; [0463];[0561]; [0727]). Similar to Griffin, the Sheps catheter is steerable with pull rings (11 and 13) and pull wires (29) [0467], wherein the catheter (12) bent within the right atrium (220) to steer towards the fossa ovalis and left atrium (224) (see Fig. 10A-G; [560-566]). Sheps additionally discloses the curved, or tensioned, portion of the catheter is configured to abut the fossa ovalis. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to advance the modified Griffin catheter to the heart by a transfemoral approach that crosses through the fossa ovalis [560], as Sheps teaches that this is one well-known path for guiding a catheter to a treatment site at a native heart valve. It would have been further obvious to pull on the pull-wire in order to “elevate”, or bend, the tensioned portion of the catheter in order to achieve steering the distal end of the catheters towards the fossa ovalis and left atrium (see Figure 4 of Griffin and Figures 10A-F of Sheps). Since the claim does not specify a direction in which “elevation” occurs, the relative motion of the tensioned portion (142) of the modified Griffin catheter to the portion proximal of the pull ring can be considered “elevation” in at least one direction in 3-D space. Regarding claim 153, although Griffin fails to disclose the tensioned portion (142) is more flexible than portions of the catheter that are proximal of the pull-ring, Wilson teaches the concept of forming a catheter to increase in flexibility towards the distal end. The catheter has a proximal section (236 or 238) extending from the handle to the pull ring (210) that is reinforced and kink resistant [0083-0084], and a middle section between the two pull rings (210 and 212) that has increased flexibility [0082]. Sheps additionally teaches forming a tensioned portion (see bending section 1203 in Figure 3E and Figure 4) to be more flexible than portions of the catheter that are proximal of the pull-ring (11) (see description of softness of portion 1203 to facilitate bending at [0521] and immediately proximal portion 1208 having a higher durometer [0524]). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the Griffin catheter such that the tensioned portion (142) distal of the pull ring (129) is more flexible than a portion proximal to the pull ring (129), as taught by Wilson and Sheps, as the modification merely involves a combination of known catheter components according to known methods that obtains a predictable result of tailoring the stiffness and flexibility of catheter portions to obtain desired mechanical properties and performance. In regards to claim 154, Wilson teaches the concept of varying the thickness of a catheter shaft to vary the stiffness/ flexibility to achieve different degrees of bending [0056; 0073]. Since the tensioned portion of Griffin is adapted to bend, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the tensioned portion to be thinner than portions of the catheter that are proximal of the pull-ring, as Wilson teaches that this is another way to achieve desired flexibility characteristics of a catheter section. In regards to claims 155 and 158, Griffin discloses delivery of a heart valve and Sheps discloses that the catheter remains curved while the prosthesis is being delivered to the heart valve (Fig. 10G-H), it would have been further obvious to perform the step of maintaining the prosthetic valve in contact with the native valve by a distal portion of the catheter during the pulling of the proximal portion of the pull-wire. Regarding claims 156 and 159, Sheps teaches that the catheter is steered towards the right atrium (see Fig. 10A-G; [0559-0560]; [0727]) and steered within the atrium to face the mitral valve annulus (Fig. 12c; Fig. 26c; [0729]), such that pulling of the proximal portion of pull- wire comprises changing an arc of the catheter within a right atrium of the heart. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPAP 2020/0360141 discloses a steerable catheter with pull wires attached to pull rings (Fig. 11a-b). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH WEBB ALEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5749. The examiner can normally be reached M, Tu, Th, Fr 9am - 3pm. 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, Melanie Tyson can be reached at 571-272-9062. 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. /SARAH W ALEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 09, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12575930
HEART VALVE DEPLOYMENT AID
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12569251
SYSTEMS, DEVICES, AND METHODS FOR CONTROLLABLY AND SELECTIVELY OCCLUDING, RESTRICTING, AND DIVERTING FLOW WITHIN A PATIENT'S VASCULATURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12539210
TRANSCATHETER AORTIC VALVE SEATING SENSOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12533229
REPLACEMENT HEART VALVE HAVING IMPROVED COLLAPSIBLE SEAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12533227
PLUNGER FOR AN INJECTOR, AND INJECTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
62%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+23.5%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 587 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