Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 17/888,187

MULTIFUNCTIONAL BALLOON DILATATION CATHETER FOR INTRACORPOREAL MEMBRANE OXYGENATION AND USAGE METHOD THEREFOR

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Aug 15, 2022
Examiner
HALL, DEANNA K
Art Unit
3783
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Dongguan Tt Medical Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
857 granted / 1130 resolved
+5.8% vs TC avg
Strong +15% interview lift
Without
With
+15.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
62 currently pending
Career history
1192
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
45.6%
+5.6% vs TC avg
§102
35.3%
-4.7% vs TC avg
§112
11.1%
-28.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1130 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/15/22 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97(b). Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the Examiner. 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. Claim 1 is 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. “M channels” is unclear. Claims 2-9 are further rejected based on dependency on claim 1. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-3, 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzhou Genke Medical Technology Co. LTD (CN 104434258) (“Suzhou”). Suzhou discloses: a catheter comprising [0016-0022], Figs. 1-9: a catheter hub located at the proximal end of the catheter, a dilation balloon 4 located at the distal end of the catheter and a balloon dilation channel 15, a positioning and detection channel 13, a supply channel 14 and a secretion removal channel 16; the catheter hub is a multi-channel connection device through which the at least four channels are respectively connected to the external therapeutic devices of the catheter (Fig. 1, elements 9-12). The balloon dilation channel 15 connected to a balloon inflation device (a balloon inflation apparatus) through the catheter hub and the dilation balloon 4 has a dilation port 7; the secretion removal channel 16 is connected to a sputum aspirator or a pressure syringe through the catheter hub and has a lavage port 8, 17; the supply channel is connected to the supply device through the catheter hub and has a supply port; the positioning and detection channel 13 runs through both ends of the catheter and can be used for a guide wire, biopsy forceps or fiber optic endoscope to pass through. The cross-sectional area of the secretion removal channel is larger than that of the balloon dilation channel and the supply channel. (Fig. 2) The catheter and channels are made from a polymer material. (inherent material selection for a medical use catheter) A Luer connector (elements 9-12) is connected to the catheter hub, used for connecting the channels and corresponding external therapeutic devices. 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. Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzhou. Suzhou discloses the invention as substantially claimed but does not directly disclose the diameters of the channels or the dilation pressures and sizes of the dilation balloon. These elements in claims 4-6 are design considerations dependent on use of the device. Accordingly, depending on the desired use of the device, such modifications would be made to the size of the channels and the pressures and sizes of the dilation balloon in accordance with this use. Such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over Suzhou. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzhou in view of Fischer, Jr. (US 5,544,648) (“Fischer”). Suzhou discloses the device as substantially claimed but does not directly disclose the method of inserting the catheter into the bronchus of the lungs to supply oxygen or medicine to the designated position and performing lavage and sputum suction in the designated position. Fischer, in the analogous art, teaches delivery of a similar device into the bronchus of the lungs to supply oxygen and to suction the lungs as appropriate, see Figs. 1-2. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the device of Suzhou in a similar manner as the method as taught by Fischer to provide therapy to the lungs. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEANNA K HALL whose telephone number is (571)272-2819. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:30pm 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 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. /DEANNA K HALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 15, 2022
Application Filed
Jul 24, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12582799
CATHETER ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576244
FLEXIBLE UNIVERSAL CATHETER SECUREMENT DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12575857
Trocar Support
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12564414
METHOD OF SUPRA-AORTIC ACCESS FOR A NEUROVASCULAR PROCEDURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12564703
MEDICAL TOOL POSITIONING DEVICES, SYSTEMS, AND METHODS OF USE AND MANUFACTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 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
76%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+15.2%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1130 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