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
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention 2 (claims 17-20). Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/14/2026.
The election of species requirement is withdrawn in view of the search for one species drawing art for other species, thus showing that a serious search burden is lacking. Additionally, in view of the art of record, the species are obvious variants of each other. See rejection of species claims below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) filed 08/09/2023 and 06/17/2025 has/have been considered by the Examiner.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Claims 1-16 are currently rejected. Claims 17-20 are currently withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “48” in figs. 5a-6b. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “plurality of clip features” (claims 11, 12, and 13) and “a groove” (claim 12) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Note that although claim 4b purports to show multiple clip features 40, the figure does not clearly show what the “plurality of clip features” is or how it works. Fig. 4a does show multiple ones of the “plurality of corresponding clip features”. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 reads “another bevel” on line 2 and “the other bevel” on line 3. For improved clarity, these phrases would better read “a second bevel” and “the second bevel”, or “a needle bevel” and “the needle bevel”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 6, 12, and 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 6 recites the limitation “a proximal end of the catheter tube” in line 3. Claim 1, from which claim 6 depends, introduced “a catheter tube comprising … a proximal end” on line 7. It is unclear whether the instance of this limitation in the dependent claim is meant to introduce a new structure (in which case the naming convention should be altered to distinguish the structures) or refer back to the same structure earlier introduced (in which case the article should be changed to “the”). For the purposes of examination, any of the situations described has been interpreted to meet the claim limitation.
Claim 12 recites on lines 1-2 “each of the plurality of clip features comprises a groove”, and further recites on lines 2-3 “each of the plurality of clip features comprises a protrusion”. Claim 12 depends from claim 11 which introduces both “a plurality of clip features” and “a plurality of corresponding clip features” which “contact each other”. As such, it is unclear whether claim 12 is meant to, as it currently reads, establish that each clip feature comprises both a groove and a protrusion, or rather, informed by claim 11, establish that each clip feature comprises a groove and each corresponding clip feature comprises a protrusion (or the other way around, the clip feature comprising a protrusion and the corresponding clip feature comprising a groove). For the purposes of examination, any of the situations described has been interpreted to meet the claim limitation.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the distal end of the fluid-permeable section" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1, from which claim 14 depends, does introduce “a fluid-permeable section”, but not a distal end. Claim 11 does introduce “a distal end of the fluid-permeable section”, but claim 14 does not depend from claim 11. For the purposes of examination, "the distal end of the fluid-permeable section" in claim 14 has been interpreted to read "a distal end of the fluid-permeable section".
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, 14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shelverton (US 20190160255 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Shelverton discloses a catheter assembly, comprising: a catheter hub (hub 220, fig. 5a, [0092]), comprising a distal end, a proximal end, and a catheter hub lumen extending through the distal end of the catheter hub and the proximal end of the catheter hub (see fig. 8b which shows needle 820 extending through the hub 220; therefore hub 220 must have a lumen);
a catheter (catheter 500, fig. 5a, [0092]) extending from the distal end of the catheter hub (see fig. 5a), wherein the catheter comprises:
a catheter tube (first portion 514, fig. 7, [0096]) comprising a distal end (distal end 512, fig. 5a, [0092]), a proximal end (proximate end 511, fig. 5a, [0092]), a catheter tube lumen extending through the distal end of the catheter tube and the proximal end of the catheter tube ([0096] blood or other fluid F may be drawn into the catheter by way of inflow 604 through the plurality of openings 530 provided in the second portion 516 whereby it is sucked into the solid first portion 514 and drawn up into the syringe 700; Examiner notes that since fluid flows through the catheter tube portions 514 and 516, the catheter tube must have a lumen); and
a fluid-permeable section (second portion 516; fig. 7, [0095] In the second portion 516, the fluid is permitted to exit the body uniformly around the circumference of the body) extending from the distal end of the catheter tube (first portion 514, see fig. 5a), wherein the fluid-permeable section (516) comprises a mesh or a coil ([0092] circumferential wall 515 of the second portion 516 of the catheter body is formed in a web, mesh or lattice like structure 540); and
an introducer needle (needle 810, fig. 8a, [0098]) extending through the catheter tube and the fluid-permeable section (see fig. 8b).
Regarding claim 14, Shelverton discloses the catheter assembly of claim 1, wherein the distal end of the fluid-permeable section (516, fig. 7) comprises an annular ring (tip portion 513, fig. 5a shows that a cross section of the tip portion 513 forms an annular ring, [0092]).
Regarding claim 16, Shelverton discloses the catheter assembly of claim 1, as described above. Shelverton further discloses wherein the fluid-permeable section (516, fig. 7) comprises the mesh ([0092] circumferential wall 515 of the second portion 516 of the catheter body is formed in a web, mesh or lattice like structure 540).
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) 2 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelverton in view of Altman et al (US 20020177772 A1; hereafter Altman).
Regarding claim 2, Shelverton discloses the catheter assembly of claim 1, as described above.
Shelverton is silent to wherein the catheter tube is over-molded with the mesh or the coil.
Altman, in the art of catheters, teaches wherein the catheter tube (catheter body 1502, fig. 15a, [0110]) is over-molded ([0110] Braided catheter body 1502 is bonded to the bendable region through standard catheter joining techniques such as an overmolded lap joint.) with the mesh or the coil (bendable tube 1504 with a coil 1506, fig. 15a, [0110]) ([0110] deflecting region of the guide catheter 1530 comprises a flexible and easily bendable tube 1504 with a coil 1506 disposed coaxially within the tube shown in cross section in FIG. 15a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to form the connection between the catheter tube and the mesh of Shelverton by overmolding as taught by Altman, since both references deal with catheters. One would have been motivated to make the modification because, as noted by Altman [0110], overmolding is a “standard catheter joining technique”, implying that the technique is well known and reliable, thus removing the risks associated with using a less known attachment method which may not be as thoroughly understood by technicians in the art.
Regarding claim 6, Shelverton modified by Altman discloses the catheter assembly of claim 2, as described above, including wherein the mesh or the coil (Shelverton: [0092] circumferential wall 515 of the second portion 516 of the catheter body is formed in a web, mesh or lattice like structure 540; Altman: bendable region) extends along a partial length of the catheter tube (Shelverton: first portion 514, fig. 7, [0096]; Altman: catheter body) such that a proximal end of the mesh or the coil is spaced apart from a proximal end of the catheter tube (Altman: [0110] catheter body is bonded to the bendable region through standard catheter joining techniques such as an overmolded lap joint.)
Note that a lap joint involves overlapping the ends of two pieces which are joined together. As described in the rejection of claim 2 above, the catheter tube and the mesh of Shelverton are arranged in an overmolded lap joint as taught by Altman, thus they must partially overlap.
Claim(s) 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelverton modified by Altman, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Sharrock (US-4368730-A; hereafter Sharrock).
Regarding claim 4, Shelverton modified by Altman discloses the catheter assembly of claim 2, as described above.
Shelverton modified by Altman is silent to wherein the fluid-permeable section is constructed of metal.
Sharrock, directed to a catheter, teaches wherein the fluid-permeable section (portion of flexible wire-wound coil assembly 2 and core 4 not leak-proofed, col. 3 ln. 45-56; remaining flexible portion not leak-proofed noted in col. 4 ln. 34-45; see fig. 5) is constructed of metal (Detailed Description: col. 3 ln. 45-56, “core 4 of stainless steel”; Summary of Invention: col. 2 ln. 13-16 “the wire-wound catheter and the core, which may also be made of stainless steel wire”; Abstract: “stainless steel catheter assembly”).
Shelverton discloses the claimed invention except for the material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fluid-permeable section of Shelverton to be formed of a metal as taught by Sharrock since both references deal with catheters with a permeable distal section, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. (See MPEP 2144.07.) One would have been motivated to make the modification because metal provides stability and steerability to the catheter device, and stainless steel can be sterilized and is thus well suited to medical purposes.
Regarding claim 5, Shelverton modified by Altman discloses the catheter assembly of claim 2, as described above.
Shelverton modified by Altman is silent to wherein the mesh or the coil extends along an entire length of the catheter tube.
Sharrock, directed to a catheter, teaches wherein the mesh or the coil (wire-wound coil assembly 2 and core 4 not leak-proofed, col. 3 ln. 45-56, fig. 4) extends along an entire length of the catheter tube (section of catheter leak-proofed with plastic, see annotated fig. 4 below; col. 4 ln. 16-22, “the approximately six to nine centimeters of helical coil at the proximal end of the assembly near the coupling fitting may be provided with a plastic material, such as teflon or a silicon material, to prevent fluid leakages through the interstices of the helical coils”).
PNG
media_image1.png
149
623
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shelverton to have the mesh forming Shelverton’s fluid permeable section to overlap with the entirety of the catheter tube, as taught by Sharrock which has the coil that forms the fluid permeable section of Sharrock extending past the fluid permeable section to the base of the catheter, where it meets the fitting 41 as shown above in fig. 4 of Sharrock, since both references deal with catheters with fluid permeable sections. One would have been motivated to make the modification because having the coil/mesh extend along the length of the catheter ensures that the fluid permeable section is firmly bonded to the catheter tube section of the catheter, since the coil/mesh forming the fluid permeable section is integrally bonded with the catheter tube itself, as taught by Sharrock. This arrangement ensures that the fluid permeable section is not easily detached from the catheter tube.
Claim(s) 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelverton in view of Kennelly et al (US 20150174364 A1; hereafter Kennelly).
Regarding claim 3, Shelverton discloses the catheter assembly of claim 2, as described above. Shelverton further discloses wherein part of the catheter (516, fig. 7) is constructed of a polymer material ([0093] As most clearly illustrated in FIG. 5B, both the inner surface 517 and outer surface 518 of the wall 515.1 of the first portion 514 have an applied micro-texture or roughness to reduce the smoothness of the polymer surfaces of the body.).
Kennelly, directed to a catheter, teaches wherein the fluid-permeable section (soft tip elongated tubing 18, fig. 3 shows multiple holes, [0043]) is constructed of a polymer material ([0043] the elongated tubing may be made from PTFE)
Shelverton discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the fluid-permeable section is constructed of a polymer material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fluid-permeable section of Shelverton to be constructed of a polymer, as taught by Kennelly [0043], since both references deal with catheters, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. (See MPEP 2144.07.) One would have been motivated to make the modification because, as noted by Kennelly [0048], “being made from the polymeric materials disclosed above, the catheters are compatible for human use, do not affect the potency of the medicaments used therewith, and are viewable under ultrasound.”.
Regarding claim 10, Shelverton discloses the catheter assembly of claim 1, as described above.
Shelverton is silent to wherein the fluid-permeable section is constructed of a different material than the catheter tube.
Kennelly, directed to a catheter, teaches wherein the fluid-permeable section (soft tip elongated tubing 18, fig. 3 shows multiple holes, [0043]) is constructed of a different material than the catheter tube (elongated tube 4, fig. 5, [0043]) ([0043] As disclosed above, elongated tube 4 may be made from…polyether block amide (PEBA)…and may have a durometer… preferably between 50-80 Durometer Shore D. The soft tip elongated tubing 18 may also be made of a plastics material such as nylon and other similar material as the elongate tube but may have a range of … preferably between 0-30 Durometer Shore D (or 0-100 Durometer Shore A).).
Shelverton discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the fluid-permeable section is constructed of a different material than the catheter tube. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fluid-permeable section of Shelverton to be constructed of a different material than the catheter tube, as taught by Kennelly [0043], since both references deal with catheters, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. (See MPEP 2144.07.) One would have been motivated to make the modification because the different portions of the catheter device have different purposes. For instance, a lower durometer, or softer plastic may be used at a distal end of a catheter to lower the risk of damage to internal tissues, while a higher durometer, or stiffer plastic may be used at a proximal portion of the catheter to aid in transmission of longitudinal and rotational force along the length of the catheter.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelverton in view of Anand et al (US 20180104459 A1; hereafter Anand).
Regarding claim 7, Shelverton discloses the catheter assembly of claim 1, as described above.
Shelverton is silent to wherein the fluid-permeable section is formed of a same material as the catheter tube.
Anand, in the field of catheters, teaches wherein the fluid-permeable section (distal portion 411 with auxiliary holes 402 and 404, fig. 4b, [0135]) is formed of a same material as the catheter tube (catheter main body 407, fig. 4b, [0135]) ([0135] catheter main body 407 is formed of silicone and distal portion 411 is formed through silicone overmolding).
Shelverton discloses the claimed invention except for the material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fluid-permeable section and catheter tube of Shelverton to be formed of a same material as taught by Anand since both references deal with catheters with a distal section having multiple holes, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. (See MPEP 2144.07.) One would have been motivated to make the modification because using the same material for both sections simplifies the construction process and ensures good bonding between the sections during overmolding.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelverton and in view of Amin et al (AU 2017444936 A1; hereafter Amin). Text reference is made to the FOR document corresponding to Amin included with the Office Action.
Regarding claim 8, Shelverton discloses the catheter assembly of claim 1, as described above.
Shelverton is silent to wherein the distal end of the catheter tube comprises a bevel.
Amin, in the art of catheters, teaches wherein the distal end of the catheter tube (distal end 14 of catheter body 20, fig. 5, pg. 16 ln. 15-32) comprises a bevel (beveled end 33, fig. 5, see also fig. 7a-d, pg. 18 ln. 13-19 ).
PNG
media_image2.png
261
571
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the distal end of the catheter tube 514 of Shelverton to include a bevel as taught by Amin, since both references deal with insertion into the vasculature. One would have been motivated to make the modification because a gradual introduction of the more solid portion of the catheter of Shelverton would allow for a gradual displacement of the skin and blood vessel wall of a patient, helping to decrease pain and damage to the area which may arise from a blunter transition to the catheter tube.
Regarding claim 9, Shelverton modified by Amin discloses the catheter assembly of claim 8, as described above.
Shelverton further discloses wherein a distal end of the introducer needle (introducer 810, fig. 8b, [0098]) comprises another bevel (bevel 815, fig. 8b, [0098]).
Amin further teaches wherein the bevel of the catheter tube faces in an opposite direction as the other bevel of the introducer needle (see annotated fig. 5 above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to further include the relative positioning of the bevel of the introducer needle and the bevel of the catheter tube facing in opposite directions, as taught by Amin fig. 5, since both references deal with catheters. One would have been motivated to make the modification because having the bevels facing opposite directions ensures that during insertion stress to the entrance hole is not all placed on one portion of the skin/vessel wall since the gradual widening of the insertion needle and catheter tube, due to their opposing bevels, allows for gradual displacement of the skin and blood vessel wall in multiple areas instead of just one, thus helping to avoid damaging one area too much.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelverton and in view of Sheridan (US-3612050-A; hereafter Sheridan).
Regarding claim 11, Shelverton discloses the catheter assembly of claim 1, as described above, including the distal section of the catheter being a fluid-permeable section (second portion 516; fig. 7, [0095] In the second portion 516, the fluid is permitted to exit the body uniformly around the circumference of the body).
Shelverton is silent to wherein the fluid-permeable section comprises a plurality of clip features and an outer surface of the introducer needle comprises a plurality of corresponding clip features, wherein the plurality of clip features and the plurality of corresponding clip features contact each other and are configured to prevent a distal end of the fluid-permeable section from moving proximal to the plurality of corresponding clip features.
Sheridan, directed to an intravascular catheter, teaches wherein the distal section (cannula distal end portion 82 and tapered tip 84, fig. 10, col. 4 ln. 54-60) comprises a plurality of clip features (see process described in col. 4 ln. 40-53, using dilating liquid also used in col. 4 ln. 54-60, cannula distal end portion 82 and tapered tip 84 conform to the grooves 80 of trocar 78) and an outer surface (wall 76 of the trocar 78, fig. 10, col. 4 ln. 54-60) of the introducer needle (trocar 78, fig. 10, col. 4 ln. 54-60) comprises a plurality of corresponding clip features (grooves 80, fig. 10, col. 4 ln. 54-60), wherein the plurality of clip features and the plurality of corresponding clip features contact each other and are configured to prevent a distal end of the fluid-permeable section from moving proximal to the plurality of corresponding clip features (Note similar dilating process noted for fig. 10 is earlier described in reference to fig. 9: col. 4 ln. 40-53, volatile organic liquid and then placed upon the trocar so the dilated portion 70 overlays the roughened trocar surface 68. When the dilating liquid evaporates, the cannula end portion 70 and tip 72 shrink around the trocar and create a firm blending of the cannula tip to the trocar. This creates good holding and prevents push back of the flexible cannula on the trocar which the skin and vascular wall of the patient are pierced upon insertion of the catheter assembly.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tip portion 513 of the fluid permeable section 516, see Shelverton fig. 7, of Shelverton to include the conformation to grooves on the introducer needle, as taught by Sheridan, since both references deal with catheters inserted into the vasculature. One would have been motivated to make the modification because engagement between the tip portion 513 of Shelverton and grooves on the introducer needle would ensure that the needle and distal tip portion did not slip relative to each other during insertion into the vein, and make it easy to keep track of the needle tip.
Regarding claim 12, Shelverton modified by Sheridan discloses the catheter assembly of claim 11, as described above, including wherein each of the plurality of clip features (see 112b interpretation above, this instance is interpreted to be “the plurality of corresponding clip features) comprises a groove (Sheridan: grooves 80, fig. 10, col. 4 ln. 54-60), wherein each of the plurality of clip features comprises a protrusion (Sheridan: see process described in col. 4 ln. 40-53, using dilating liquid also used in col. 4 ln. 54-60, cannula distal end portion 82 and tapered tip 84 conform to the grooves 80 of trocar 78).
Regarding claim 13, Shelverton modified by Sheridan discloses the catheter assembly of claim 11, as described above, including wherein the distal end of the fluid-permeable section (Shelverton: 516, fig. 7) comprises an annular ring (Shelverton: tip portion 513, fig. 5a shows that a cross section of the tip portion 513 forms an annular ring, [0092]), wherein the annular ring comprises the plurality of clip features (note 103 rejection of claim 11 above wherein the tip portion 513 of Shelverton is modified by Sheridan to include the plurality of clip features).
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelverton in view of Sharrock.
Regarding claim 15, Shelverton discloses the catheter assembly of claim 1, as described above.
Shelverton is silent to wherein the fluid-permeable section comprises the coil.
Sharrock, directed to a catheter, teaches wherein the fluid-permeable section (remaining flexible portion not leak proofed, noted in col. 4 ln. 34-45; see fig. 5, the fluid permeable section is the coil portion which does not overlap with the tubular extension 5) comprises the coil (catheter helical coil noted in col. 4 ln. 34-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fluid-permeable section of Shelverton to be formed from a coil instead of a mesh, as taught by Sharrock, since both references deal with catheters having permeable distal sections. One would have been motivated to make the modification because a coil provides more natural stability than a mesh, thus making the catheter movement easier to predict and guide.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISABELLA NORTH whose telephone number is (703)756-5942. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Michael Tsai can be reached at (571) 270-5246. 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.
/I.S.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/JASON E FLICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783 02/10/2026