Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/061,047

URINARY CATHETER FOR ENDOSCOPE

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Dec 02, 2022
Examiner
GHIMIRE, SHANKAR RAJ
Art Unit
3795
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Saint Louis University
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
207 granted / 272 resolved
+6.1% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+19.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
46 currently pending
Career history
318
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.3%
-38.7% vs TC avg
§103
44.3%
+4.3% vs TC avg
§102
23.7%
-16.3% vs TC avg
§112
24.9%
-15.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 272 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/27/2026 has been entered. Response to Amendment Claims 1-8, 13-14 are pending. Claims 9 -12 are cancelled. Claims 15-20 are withdrawn. 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 1-8, 13-14 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 1 recites “the elongate body defining a lumen extending between the proximal and distal end portions, the lumen being sized and shaped to receive the insertion tube of the endoscope, and wherein the elongate body comprises an inflatable balloon at the distal end portion and a first fluid inlet and a second fluid inlet, the first and second fluid inlets disposed on opposite sides of the elongate body at the distal end portion between the distal end portion and the inflatable balloon, wherein the first and second fluid inlets are in fluid communication with the lumen.” The first and second fluid inlets being at the distal end portion. It is unclear how they (the first and second fluid inlets) are between the distal end portion and the inflatable balloon. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-8, 13-14 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected base 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. 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) 1-2, 4-6, 8-14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Condon (US 5188596) and in view of Sanchez (US 20150065995). Regarding claim 1, Condon discloses urinary catheter system (a prostate dilation balloon disposed on a urethral catheter; FIG. 1) comprising: an endoscope (FIG. 52) having an insertion tube sized and shaped to be inserted into a body lumen of a patient; and a urinary catheter (catheter 50) including an elongate body having an axis and proximal and distal end portions spaced apart from one another along the axis, the elongate body being sized and shaped to be received in the body lumen, the elongate body defining a lumen extending between the proximal and distal end portions, the lumen being sized and shaped to receive the insertion tube of the endoscope (FIG. 6, annotated), and wherein the elongate body comprises an inflatable balloon (dilation balloon 55) at the distal end portion. Condon does not expressly disclose a first fluid inlet and a second fluid inlet, the first and second fluid inlets disposed on opposite sides of the elongate body at the distal end portion between the distal end portion and the inflatable balloon, wherein the first and second fluid inlets are in fluid communication with the lumen. Sanchez is directed to intraluminal occluding catheter (abstract) and teaches a first fluid inlet (Orifices 60) and a second fluid inlet (Orifices 60; FIG. 9A), the first and second fluid inlets disposed on opposite sides of the elongate body (Orifices 60 are opposite to each other) at the distal end portion (FIG. 9A) between the distal end portion and the inflatable balloon (Also, note the 112(b) rejection above), wherein the first and second fluid inlets are in fluid communication with the lumen (FIG. 10 shows channels 30 that allow for fluidic communication with the orifices 60. Para [0051]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Condon to include orifices in the distal portion of the catheter in accordance with the teaching of Sanchez so that accumulated gas or liquid could be removed from the physiologic lumen (Para [0056]) via the channels. Further, inlets could be made in opposite sides of the channels/lumen so that they can drain the fluid from both sides. PNG media_image1.png 327 1052 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 2, Condon discloses wherein the lumen has a lumen diameter that is larger than an insertion tube diameter of the insertion tube of the endoscope (FIGS. 1, 6). Regarding claim 4, Condon discloses wherein the lumen has an open proximal end at the proximal end portion, the open proximal end sized and shaped to receive the insertion tube of the endoscope (FIGS. 1, 6). Regarding claim 5, Condon discloses wherein the elongate body includes a tip at the distal end portion, the tip defining a closed distal end of the lumen (Catheter 22 is transparent and closed at the distal end; FIG. 1 annotated). Regarding claim 6, Condon discloses wherein the tip is transparent (The catheter 22 is made of a transparent material so that the scope 20 can view outside thereof to observe the location of the dilation balloon and fixation balloon relative to the various structures of the urological system. Col. 5, line 47-col. 6, line 5). Regarding claim 7, Condon discloses wherein the tip comprises a first material (material of the balloon; FIG. 1) and a remainder of the elongate body comprises one or more additional materials that are different from the first material (Material of the catheter elongate body which is not the balloon material is different from the balloon material.). Regarding claim 8, Condon discloses wherein the elongate body is transparent (The catheter 22 is made of a transparent material so that the scope 20 can view outside thereof to observe the location of the dilation balloon and fixation balloon relative to the various structures of the urological system. Col. 5, line 47-col. 6, line 5). Regarding claim 13, Condon discloses wherein the insertion tube of the endoscope is disposed in the lumen of the catheter such that as manufactured, the catheter is mounted on the endoscope (FIG. 1). Regarding claim 14, Condon discloses wherein the elongate body includes a transparent tip at the distal end portion (The catheter 22 is made of a transparent material so that the scope 20 can view outside thereof to observe the location of the dilation balloon and fixation balloon relative to the various structures of the urological system. FIG.1; Col. 5, line 47-col. 6, line 5), and wherein the endoscope includes a camera (Distal end of the scope 20 is a video camera; Col. 5, lines 1 -27) arranged to look through the transparent tip of the elongate body. Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Condon (US 5188596) and in view of Sanchez (US 20150065995) further in view of Cooper (US 20180110456). Regarding claim 3, Condon does not expressly disclose wherein the lumen diameter is about 5.4 mm. Cooper is directed to methods and devices for monitoring bladder health (abstract) and teaches wherein the lumen diameter is about 5.4 mm (16 French (“Fr”) 16-inch male catheter, para [0070], indicates 5.3 mm diameter of the catheter.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Condon to include the diameter of catheter in accordance with the teaching of Cooper so that the catheter could be passed through a small size veins and lumens in the body. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments submitted on 1/27/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection dated 12/02/2025 have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new rejection has been made in view of amendment. See rejection set forth above. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANKAR R GHIMIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-0515. The examiner can normally be reached 8 AM - 5 PM. 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, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-4963. 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. /SHANKAR RAJ GHIMIRE/Examiner, Art Unit 3795 /ANH TUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795 03/23/26
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 02, 2022
Application Filed
Jun 11, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Oct 14, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 24, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Jan 27, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 02, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 17, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 19, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600865
ANTI-FOULING ENDOSCOPES AND USES THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12569118
ENDOSCOPE SYSTEM AND PACKAGING MATERIALS FOR ENDOSCOPE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12558180
METHOD FOR CONTROLLING A MOVEMENT OF A MEDICAL DEVICE IN A MAGNETIC FIELD
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12557973
OPTICAL UNIT, IMAGE PICKUP UNIT, AND ENDOSCOPE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12557976
DEVICES AND METHODS FOR TREATMENT OF BODY LUMENS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
76%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+19.4%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 272 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