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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 03/19/2026 is acknowledged. Claim 9 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected system, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/19/2026. 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 s 1-8 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. Regarding claim 1 , the phrase “a main body part” in line 4 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear. It is unclear whether this is a different main body part of the aforementioned main body part in line 2 of claim 1. Examiner is interpreting it as the same. Regarding claim 5 , the phrase “the opening located at a position farthest from the one end ” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear. It is unclear if this is opening is related to the at least one opening in claim 1. Examiner further notes that this limitation is also unclear because the phrase indicates that the one opening is at a position farthest with relation to other openings, but claim 5 only indicates there is one opening. Examiner will be interpreting it as an opening of the at least one opening which is positioned away from the distal end. Regarding claims 2-4 and 6-8 , these claims are rejected due to their dependency upon an indefinite base claim. 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Ejike et al. (U.S Patent Pub. No. 20150282891 A1, “ Ejike ”). Regarding claim 1 , Ejike discloses (Claim 1) a medical tube (100 in Fig. 1 and 2C) comprising: a main body part (102 in Fig. 1) having a tubular shape (see Fig. 1 and para. 0036) , the main body part (102) being formed to guide light from a light sourc e (see para. 0037 – main body part 102 is formed to guide light from a mated light supplying source) ; at least one opening (124 in Fig. 2C) formed in a side face of a main body part (102, see Fig. 2C and para. 0041) ; and a light transmitting part (see Fig. 2C) formed at one end (112 in Fig. 1) of the main body part (102, see para. 0040-0041 – light transmitting section is being interpreted as the part of tube 102 distal of opening 124 which comprises light transmitting section 144) , the light transmitting part having a hemispherical face shape (see Fig. 2C – distal end of tube 102 which is interpreted as included light transmitting part has a hemispherical face shape as seen in the cross-section of Fig. 2C) , the light transmitting part being configured to emit the light (see para. 0040) . Regarding claim 2 , Ejike discloses (Claim 2) t he medical tube (100) according to claim 1, wherein the main body part (102) allows a light guide to be inserted into the main body part (102, see para. 0038 – main body part 102 may be configured to have a light transmitting conduit be inserted therein) , the light guide being configured to transmit the light from the light source to the light transmitting part (examiner notes the light guide is a functional limitation and thus the main body part must only be capable of allowing a light guide as claimed, see para. 0038 – light transmitting conduit is capable of transmitting light from the connected light source) . 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) 3-4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ejike in view of Coleman et al. (U.S Patent Pub. No. 20020103420 A1, “Coleman”) in view of Mauge et al. (U.S Patent Pub. No. 20060004317 A1, “ Mauge ”). Regarding claim 3 , Ejike discloses the medical tube of claim 1, as discussed above. Ejike fails to disclose (Claim 3) further comprising: a first reflection layer provided over an inner circumferential face of the main body part; a second reflection layer provided over an outer circumferential face of the main body part; and a third reflection layer provided over a side face of the at least one opening, wherein the main body part is light transmissive. Coleman discloses an optical endoscope system (see Fig. 4) that uses light to guide placement within the body (see para. 0001), wherein the system comprises a main body part (146 in Fig. 4) that is configured to guide light from a light source (28 in Fig. 1, see para. 0035-0036). Coleman teaches (Claim 3) a first reflection layer (148 in Fig. 4) provided on an inner circumferential face of the main body part (146, see Fig. 4 and para. 0035), and a second reflection layer (148 in Fig. 4) provided over an outer circumferential face of the main body part (146, see para. 0035 – outer and inner circumferential surfaces of main body part 146 may have a mirror or other light reflecting coating indicating a reflective layer). Since Ejike discloses the main body part (102) is an y suitable, biocompatible material that provides a light guide for light to be transmitted through the transparent, light transmitting part at its distal end (112, see Fig. 2C and para. 0034 and 0040), and Coleman discloses the main body part (146) may be fully made from a clear , biocompatible plastic that is coated in its outer and inner surface with a reflective coating to direct the light therein to its distal end , it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the main body part of Ejike to be formed fully from a transparent , biocompatible material and having the first and second reflective layers as taught by Coleman. Coleman provides that the inner and outer reflective layers confine the light to the light transmissive portion of the main body part therebetween to direct a more powerfully beam of light out the distal end (see para. 0035). In combination, Ejike’s main body part (102) is modified to be made of the same light transmissive material as its distal end (112), and wherein the main body part (102) is coated with a first and second reflective layer as taught by Coleman proximally of the distal end (112) to direct light towards the light transmitting part at the distal end (112). Mauge discloses is a hydrocephalus shunt used to infuse therapeutic substances into the body (see para. 0009); however, the Mauge would have been reasonably pertinent and one in the art would have consulted such art and applied its teaching when faced with solving the problem of coating side holes in a catheter. Mauge discloses a main body part (401 in Fig 4 ) in the form a silicone tube of a catheter and side holes (411 in Fig. 4) wherein the inner and outer surface of main body part (401) and the annular surface (409 in Fig. 4) of the side holes (411) may be coated by the same medium (see para. 0077 and 0079). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the at least one opening of modified Ejike to have a coating on the annular surface of said opening as taught by Mauge . Mauge provides that by coating the annular surfaces of the side holes it ensure all surfaces that are intended to come into contact with the interior medium of the catheter are able to provide the intended effect (see para. 0079). In combination, it would have been obvious to coat the annular surfaces of the at least one opening of Ejike as taught by Mauge and for said coating to be reflective as taught by Coleman as the light guided through modified Ejike would need to be reflected from the at least one openings to the distal end to ensure maximum light transmission. Regarding claim 4 , modified Ejike discloses the medical tube of claim 3, as discussed above. In modified Ejike , Coleman discloses (Claim 4) wherein the first reflection layer (148 in Fig. 4) and the second reflection layer (148 in Fig. 4) are formed of a same material (see para. 0035 – reflective coatings 148 are referred to with the same reference number and as the same coating and thus are the same material) . In modified Ejike , Mauge discloses the a coating on the annular surfaces (409 in Fig. 4) of side holes (411 in Fig. 4) in the catheter. In combination, it would have been obvious to coat the annular surfaces of the at least one opening of Ejike as taught by Mauge and for said coating to be the same reflective material as the first and second reflection layers as taught by Coleman as the light guided through modified Ejike would need to be reflected from the at least one openings to the distal end to ensure maximum light transmission. Regarding claim 8 , Ejike discloses the medical tube of claim 1, as discussed above. While Ejike discloses the main body part (102) is any suitable, biocompatible material that provides a light guide for light to be transmitted through the transparent, light transmitting part at its distal end (112, see Fig. 2C and para. 0034 and 0040 ) , Ejike thus fails to disclose (Claim 8) wherein the main body part and the light transmitting part are formed of one material selected from a group consisting of silicone, polypropylene, elastomer, and a fluorocarbon resin. Coleman discloses an optical endoscope system (see Fig. 4) that uses light to guide placement within the body (see para. 0001), wherein the system comprises a main body part (146 in Fig. 4) that is configured to guide light from a light source (28 ) to its distal end (see Fig. 1 and 4, see para. 0035-0036). Coleman teaches (Claim 8) wherein the main body part (146) and the light transmitting part are formed of one material (see Fig. 4 and para. 0035-0036 – examiner is interpreting the distal end of main body part 146 not covered in the reflective coating 148 as the light transmitting part, the main body part 146 and its distal end are formed of one, clear plastic material). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the medical tube of Ejike to be formed fully from a clear plastic , biocompatible material and having the first and second reflective layers as taught by Coleman. Coleman provides that the inner and outer reflective layers confine the light to the light transmissive portion of the main body part therebetween to direct a more powerfully beam of light out the distal end (see para. 0035). In combination, Ejike’s main body part (102) is modified to be made of the same light transmissive material as its distal end (112), and wherein the main body part (102) is coated with a first and second reflective layer as taught by Coleman proximally of the distal end (112) to direct light towards the light transmitting part at the distal end (112). Mauge discloses is a hydrocephalus shunt used to infuse therapeutic substances into the body (see para . 0009); however, the Mauge would have been reasonably pertinent and one in the art would have consulted such art and applied its teaching when faced with solving the problem of light transmissible polymer materials for catheter . Mauge discloses a catheter portion comprising a light transmissible material that may be polypropylene (see para. 0127). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the medical tube of Ejike to be formed fully from a polypropylene as taught by Mauge as it is a highly flexible and light transmissible polymer preferable for catheter tubes (see para. 0127). Claim(s) 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ejike in view of Coleman in view of Mauge as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Gross et al. (U.S Patent Pub. No. 20070255230 A1, “Gross). Regarding claim 5 , modified Ejike discloses the medical tube of claim 3, as discussed above. In modified Ejike , Ejike discloses (Claim 5) the opening (124 in Fig. 2C) located at a position farthest from the one end (106 in Fig. 1, examiner notes this limitation is being interpreted as one opening of the at least one opening of claim 1 and said one opening is located at a position away from the one end, see para. 0041 – the opening 124 is located at a position farthest from the distal end 106). While Ejike illustrates the opening (124 in Fig. 2C) as having an elliptical shape, modified Ejike fails to disclose the opening having a shape whose width increases towards the one end. Gross discloses a delivery catheter (100 in Fig. 1) comprising openings (110 in Fig. 1), wherein Gross teaches an opening (110C) positioned away from the distal end of the catheter (100) that has a shape whose width increases towards the distal end (see Fig. 4 and para. 0037). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the opening positioned farthest from the one end of modified Ejike to have a shape whose width increases towards the one end as taught by Gross. Gross provides that the triangular shaped opening with the apex pointing towards the proximal end of the catheter allows a larger quantity of flowable material to be distributed more distally of the surgical site as the wider end of the triangle allows for more fluid flow than the apex point of the triangle (see para. 0037). Regarding claim 6 , modified Ejike discloses the medical tube of claim 5, as discussed above. In modified Ejike , Gross discloses (Claim 6) wherein the opening (110C) has a shape of a triangle (see Fig. 4 and para. 0037). Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ejike in view of Coleman in view of Mauge in view of Gross as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Iden (G.B Patent No. 2555611 A). Regarding claim 7 , modified Ejike discloses the medical tube of claim 6, as discussed above. In modified Ejike , Gross discloses (Claim 7) wherein the opening (110C) is a triangle. However, Gross fails to explicitly disclose (Claim 7) wherein the triangle is an isosceles triangle with an apex angle smaller than 90 degrees. Iden discloses a catheter tube (10 in Fig. 1) comprising openings (30 and 31) for infusion of substances (see Abstract), wherein Iden teaches the openings (30,31) may have the shape of isosceles triangles with an apex angle smaller than 90 degrees (see Fig. 2 and p.7, lines 8-15 – apex point 40 has an apex angle of the isosceles triangle that is smaller than a right angle ). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the triangular opening taught by modified Ejike to be an isosceles triangle having an apex angle smaller than 90 degrees as taught by Iden according to known methods to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the triangular opening of Gross to be an isosceles triangle have an acute apex angle as claimed by known methods of design choice for changing the shape of the opening. In combination, each opening would still perform the same function as an outlet for fluid. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that changing the shape of the opening would yield results that were predictable. Additionally, see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 ESPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KAYLA MARIE TURKOWSKI whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-4680 . The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Thurs, 7:00 AM – 4 :00 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. /K.M.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 3783 /COURTNEY FREDRICKSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783