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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 03/13/23, 03/13/23, 06/14/23, 03/15/24, 08/01/24, 02/21/25, and 11/20/25 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I: Claims 1-15 and Species A: FIGS. 3-5B in the reply filed on 01/30/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-29 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/30/26.
Claims 11-12 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/30/26.
Therefore, claims 1-10 and 13-15 are pending in the current Application.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cianci et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,167,623), hereinafter Cianci, in view of Muse et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2018/0339131), hereinafter Muse.
Regarding claim 1, Cianci discloses a rapidly insertable central catheter ("RICC"), comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
578
497
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a catheter tube (12, see FIG. 1A or ‘Modified FIG. 1/1A’ above for ease of reference), including:
a first section (20) in a distal portion (toward tip 46) of the catheter tube (12), the first section (20) of the catheter tube (12) distally terminating with a catheter tip (46, see col 3 lines 29-40); and
a second section (18) proximal (toward proximal end of device 14 and see col 2 line 65- col. 3 line 4) of the first section (20) of the catheter tube (12);
a catheter hub (40) coupled to a proximal portion (see col. 2 lines 50-64) of the catheter tube (12); and
a plurality of extension legs (34/36/38, see FIG. 4 and col 4 lines 35-56. Note, FIG. 1A appears to have a typo noting one of the extension legs “32” instead of “38”. See correct numerals as shown in FIG.4) extending from the catheter hub (40, see col. 4 lines 35-48) equal in number (3 legs/ 3 lumens, see FIG. 4 and col. 4 lines 35-48) to a plurality of lumens (24/30/32, see FIG.4) extending through the RICC (see col. 4 lines 20-56).
Cianci is silent to the catheter tip “reinforced with a reinforcement band therein”.
However, Muse teaches a catheter tip (114, see FIG.3, [0094], [0164], and [0107]) reinforced (see [0107]: structure 106 for reinforcement) with a reinforcement band (106, see [0107]: 106 is tubular==band as disclosed by Applicant in at least Figs.5A-B of the current Application and see [0131]: 106 inserted into catheter 102) therein (see FIG.4E and [0113]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the catheter tip disclosed in Cianci to be reinforced with a reinforcement band therein as taught by Muse for the purpose of forming the catheter tip such that it is flexible in the transverse dimension yet rigid in the axial direction to counteract axial forces applied to the distal portion of the catheter during insertion into a vessel (see [0107]), thus achieving the catheter tip “reinforced with a reinforcement band therein”.
Regarding claim 2, the modified system of Cianci teaches the RICC of claim 1, and Cianci further discloses wherein the catheter tip (46, see FIG.1A) is sufficiently rigid over its length to support aspiration through the RICC without collapsing the catheter tip (see col. 3 lines 40-48: catheter aspirates fluids via tip and therefore the tip MUST be sufficiently rigid to support aspiration without collapsing the catheter tip).
Cianci is silent to “the reinforcement band” is sufficiently rigid over its length to support aspiration through the RICC without collapsing the catheter tip.
However, Muse teaches a catheter tip (114, see FIG.3, [0094], [0164], and [0107]) reinforced (see [0107]: structure 106 for reinforcement) with a reinforcement band (106, see [0107]: 106 is tubular==band as disclosed by Applicant in at least Figs.5A-B of the current Application and see [0131]: 106 inserted into catheter 102) therein (see FIG.4E and [0113]), wherein the reinforcement band (106) is sufficiently rigid over its length to support aspiration through the RICC without collapsing the catheter tip (see [0131]: 106 may be formed of stainless steel, which, according to Applicant disclosure in at least [0009], must be sufficiently rigid to support aspiration).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the catheter tip sufficiently rigid to support aspiration as disclosed in Cianci to be reinforced with a reinforcement band therein as taught by Muse for the purpose of forming the catheter tip such that it is flexible in the transverse dimension yet rigid in the axial direction to counteract axial forces applied to the distal portion of the catheter during insertion into a vessel (see [0107]), thus achieving “the reinforcement band” is sufficiently rigid over its length to support aspiration through the RICC without collapsing the catheter tip.
Regarding claim 3, the modified system of Cianci teaches the RICC of claim 1, and Cianci further discloses wherein the catheter tip (146, see FIG. 1A) is sufficiently rigid over its length to prevent buckling of the catheter tip (see col. 3 lines 40-60: catheter is inserted into patient vasculature for aspiration and/or fluid delivery and therefore the catheter tip MUST be rigid enough to prevent buckling during insertion) when the RICC is inserted into a needle tract to a blood-vessel lumen (device is inserted into vasculature without buckling and therefore must be rigid to prevent buckling in the function of being “inserted into a needle tract”), optionally, over an access guidewire (see col 4 lines 12-20: device can receive guidewire for insertion over).
Cianci is silent to “the reinforcement band” is sufficiently rigid over its length to prevent buckling of the catheter tip when the RICC is inserted into a needle tract to a blood-vessel lumen, optionally, over an access guidewire.
However, Muse teaches a catheter tip (114, see FIG.3, [0094], [0164], and [0107]) reinforced (see [0107]: structure 106 for reinforcement) with a reinforcement band (106, see [0107]: 106 is tubular==band as disclosed by Applicant in at least Figs.5A-B of the current Application and see [0131]: 106 inserted into catheter 102) therein (see FIG.4E and [0113]), wherein the reinforcement band (106) is sufficiently rigid over its length to prevent buckling of the catheter tip when the RICC is inserted into a needle tract to a blood-vessel lumen (see [0146-0148]: needle first inserted vessel, followed by catheter + reinforcement band insertion such as shown in the progression from FIG. 4B-4E. Therefore, the reinforcement band 106 MUST be rigid enough to prevent buckling during this process), optionally, over an access guidewire (see [0138]: optional use of a guidewire).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the catheter tip sufficiently rigid to prevent buckling during insertion as disclosed in Cianci to be reinforced with a reinforcement band therein as taught by Muse for the purpose of forming the catheter tip such that it is flexible in the transverse dimension yet rigid in the axial direction to counteract axial forces applied to the distal portion of the catheter during insertion into a vessel (see [0107]), thus achieving “the reinforcement band” is sufficiently rigid over its length to prevent buckling of the catheter tip when the RICC is inserted into a needle tract to a blood-vessel lumen, optionally, over an access guidewire.
Regarding claim 4, the modified system of Cianci teaches the RICC of claim 1, but Cianci is silent to “wherein the reinforcement band is formed of a thermoplastic polymer or a metal over which the first section of the catheter tube is molded or extruded.”
However, Muse teaches a catheter tip (114, see FIG.3, [0094], [0164], and [0107]) reinforced (see [0107]: structure 106 for reinforcement) with a reinforcement band (106, see [0107]: 106 is tubular==band as disclosed by Applicant in at least Figs.5A-B of the current Application and see [0131]: 106 inserted into catheter 102) therein (see FIG.4E and [0113]), wherein the reinforcement band (106) is formed of a thermoplastic polymer or a metal (see [0131]: stainless steel, aligning with Applicant disclosure in at least [0009]) over which the catheter tube is molded (see [0131-0132]) or extruded.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the catheter tip disclosed in Cianci to be reinforced with a reinforcement band formed of a metal over which the catheter tube is molded as taught by Muse for the purpose of forming the catheter tip such that it is flexible in the transverse dimension yet rigid in the axial direction to counteract axial forces applied to the distal portion of the catheter during insertion into a vessel (see [0107]) and obtaining a desired adhesion between the reinforcement band and catheter (see [0131-0132]), thus achieving “wherein the reinforcement band is formed of a thermoplastic polymer or a metal over which the first section of the catheter tube is molded or extruded.”
Further, the limitation of “over which the catheter tube is molded or extruded” is considered to be a product-by-process limitation. A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim and is unpatentable if the claimed product is structurally the same as a product of the prior art (see MPEP § 2113. I : "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)”).
Regarding claim 5, the modified system of Cianci teaches the RICC of claim 4, but Cianci is silent to “wherein the reinforcement band is formed of the thermoplastic polymer, the thermoplastic polymer selected from a thermoplastic polyurethane, a carbonate-based thermoplastic polyurethane, a polyamide, and a polyamide-block-polyether copolymer.”
However, Muse teaches a catheter tip (114, see FIG.3, [0094], [0164], and [0107]) reinforced (see [0107]: structure 106 for reinforcement) with a reinforcement band (106, see [0107]: 106 is tubular==band as disclosed by Applicant in at least Figs.5A-B of the current Application and see [0131]: 106 inserted into catheter 102) therein (see FIG.4E and [0113]), wherein the reinforcement band (106) is formed of the thermoplastic polymer (see [0140]: polycarbonate), the thermoplastic polymer selected from a thermoplastic polyurethane, a carbonate-based thermoplastic polyurethane, a polyamide, and a polyamide-block-polyether copolymer.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the catheter tip disclosed in Cianci to be reinforced with a reinforcement band formed of a thermoplastic polymer as taught by Muse for the purpose of forming the catheter tip such that it is flexible in the transverse dimension yet rigid in the axial direction to counteract axial forces applied to the distal portion of the catheter during insertion into a vessel (see [0107] and [0140]), thus achieving “wherein the reinforcement band is formed of the thermoplastic polymer, the thermoplastic polymer selected from a thermoplastic polyurethane, a carbonate-based thermoplastic polyurethane, a polyamide, and a polyamide-block-polyether copolymer”.
Regarding claim 6, the modified system of Cianci teaches the RICC of claim 4, but Cianci is silent to “wherein the reinforcement band is formed of the metal, the metal selected from stainless steel, titanium, and nitinol.”
However, Muse teaches a catheter tip (114, see FIG.3, [0094], [0164], and [0107]) reinforced (see [0107]: structure 106 for reinforcement) with a reinforcement band (106, see [0107]: 106 is tubular==band as disclosed by Applicant in at least Figs.5A-B of the current Application and see [0131]: 106 inserted into catheter 102) therein (see FIG.4E and [0113]), wherein the reinforcement band (106) is formed of the metal (see [0131]: stainless steel), the metal selected from stainless steel (see [0131]), titanium, and nitinol (see [0140]: nitinol).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the catheter tip disclosed in Cianci to be reinforced with a reinforcement band formed of a metal, such as stainless steel or nitinol as taught by Muse for the purpose of forming the catheter tip such that it is flexible in the transverse dimension yet rigid in the axial direction to counteract axial forces applied to the distal portion of the catheter during insertion into a vessel (see [0107]) and obtaining a desired adhesion between the reinforcement band and catheter (see [0131-0132]), thus achieving “wherein the reinforcement band is formed of the metal, the metal selected from stainless steel, titanium, and nitinol”.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cianci in view of Muse as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Osypka et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2017/0120000), hereinafter Osypka.
Regarding claim 7, the modified system of Cianci teaches the RICC of claim 1, and Cianci further discloses wherein the RICC is a triluminal catheter (see lumens 24/30/32 in FIG.4) including a trifurcated catheter hub (see branches 54/56/58, see col. 4 lines 35-56) as the catheter hub (40, see FIG.4 and col 4 lines 35-56. Branches 54/56/58 formed in hub 40) and three extension legs (34/36/38) for the plurality of extension legs (34/36/38).
Modified Cianci is silent to “each extension leg of the three extension legs including a Luer connector coupled to a proximal portion of the extension leg.”
However, Osypka teaches a trifurcated hub (see 3 branches extending through hub in at least Fig. 7) with three extension legs (644/646/648, see FIG.6), each extension leg of the three extension legs including a Luer (150, see [0037]: connectors include conventional luer 150 as shown in FIG. 2) connector (see ‘Modified FIG. 6 below) coupled to a proximal portion (as seen in Fig. 2/6/7) of the extension leg (see each of 644/646/648).
PNG
media_image2.png
784
493
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify each of the three extension legs taught by Modified Cianci to include a luer connector coupled to the proximal end as taught by Osypka for the purpose of forming the extension legs with removable side ports for different functions such as blood sample/infusion/etc. (see [0037]), thus achieving “each extension leg of the three extension legs including a Luer connector coupled to a proximal portion of the extension leg.”
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cianci in view of Muse and Osypka as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Mitchell et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2016/0220786), hereinafter Mitchell.
Regarding claim 8, the modified system of Cianci teaches the RICC of claim 7, and Cianci further discloses wherein the RICC includes a primary lumen (30, see FIG. 4) extending from (see col. 3 lines 29-34) an opening in a proximal end (see opening at proximal end of 36 in FIG. 1A) of a first extension leg (36) to an opening (44) in the catheter tip (46), a secondary lumen (32) extending from an opening in a proximal end (see opening at proximal end of leg 38, incorrectly labeled ‘32’ in FIG. 1A) of a second extension leg (38, incorrectly labeled ‘32’ in FIG. 1A) to a secondary-lumen opening (48) in a distal portion (see FIG. 1B) of the catheter tube (12), and a tertiary lumen (24) extending from an opening in a proximal end (see opening at proximal end of leg 34 in FIG. 1A) of a third extension leg (34) to a tertiary- lumen opening (50) in the distal portion (see FIG. 1B) of the catheter tube (12).
Cianci is silent to the primary lumen extending from an opening in a proximal end of “a first Luer connector”, the secondary lumen extending from an opening in a proximal end of “a second Luer connector” to a secondary-lumen opening in a distal portion of “the second section” of the catheter tube, and the tertiary lumen extending from an opening in a proximal end of “a third Luer connector” to a tertiary lumen opening in the distal portion “of the second section of the catheter tube proximal of the secondary-lumen opening.”
However, Ospyka teaches a trifurcated hub (see 3 branches extending through hub in at least Fig. 7) with three extension legs (644/646/648, see FIG.6), each extension leg of the three extension legs including a Luer (150, see [0037]: connectors include conventional luer 150 as shown in FIG. 2) connector (see ‘Modified FIG. 6 below) coupled to a proximal portion (as seen in Fig. 2/6/7) of the extension leg (see each of 644/646/648).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify each of the three extension legs taught by Modified Cianci to include a luer connector coupled to the proximal end as taught by Osypka for the purpose of forming the extension legs with removable side ports for different functions such as blood sample/infusion/etc. (see [0037]), thus achieving the primary lumen extending from an opening in a proximal end of “a first Luer connector”, the secondary lumen extending from an opening in a proximal end of “a second Luer connector”, and the tertiary lumen extending from an opening in a proximal end of “a third Luer connector”
Modified Cianci in view of Osypka remain silent to the secondary-lumen opening in a distal portion of “the second section” of the catheter tube and the tertiary lumen extending to a tertiary lumen opening in the distal portion “of the second section of the catheter tube proximal of the secondary-lumen opening.”
However, Mitchell teaches a multi-lumen catheter system (see FIG. 1 and [0026]) including a catheter tube (12) with a first section (catheter tube forming the tip portion) and a second section (from the proximal end of catheter tip to the hub 33, see ‘Modified FIG. 1’ below),
PNG
media_image3.png
630
760
media_image3.png
Greyscale
the catheter system comprising a primary lumen (20, see FIG. 2 and [0029]) extending from an extension leg (30) to an opening (see opening where needle 14 is disposed as in FIG. 2) in a catheter tip (38), a secondary lumen (16, see FIG.2) extending from an extension leg (29) to a secondary-lumen opening (22) in a distal portion (23 in distal portion relative to proximal portion of second section located adjacent the hub, see ‘Modified FIG. 1’ above) of the second section (from tip to hub) of the catheter tube (12), and a tertiary lumen (18) extending from an extension leg to a tertiary- lumen opening (23) in the distal portion (as seen in ‘Modified FIG. 1’ above) of the second section (from tip to hub) of the catheter tube (12) proximal (toward hub) of the secondary-lumen opening (22).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second and tertiary openings disclosed in Cianci to be disposed in the distal portion of the second section as taught by Mitchell for the purpose of ensuring that the openings are located in a distal portion of the catheter that will be disposed in the vessel to facilitate intravenous communication by the openings (see [0027]), thus achieving the secondary-lumen opening in a distal portion of “the second section” of the catheter tube and the tertiary lumen extending to a tertiary lumen opening in the distal portion “of the second section of the catheter tube.”
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tertiary opening taught by Modified Cianci in view of Mitchell to be located proximal of the secondary-lumen opening as taught by Mitchell for the purpose of placing the lumen openings in proportion to the catheter French sizes so as to axially separate the openings and maintain structural integrity of the catheter tube (see [0028]), thus achieving the tertiary lumen extending to a tertiary lumen opening in the distal portion of the second section of the catheter tube “proximal of the secondary-lumen opening.”
Regarding claim 9, the modified system of Cianci teaches the RICC of claim 8, but Cianci is silent to “wherein each lumen of the secondary lumen and the tertiary lumen terminates at a distal end of the second section of the catheter tube.”
However, Mitchell teaches a multi-lumen catheter system (see FIG. 1 and [0026]) including a catheter tube (12) with a first section (catheter tube forming the tip portion) and a second section (from the proximal end of catheter tip to the hub 33, see ‘Modified FIG. 1’ above in the rejection of claim 8) and a primary (20, see FIG.2), secondary (16), and tertiary lumen (18), wherein each lumen of the secondary lumen (16) and the tertiary lumen (18) terminates at a distal end (distal and proximal ends of second section separated as shown by break-line, see ‘Modified FIG. 2’ below) of the second section of the catheter tube (12).
PNG
media_image4.png
431
824
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second and tertiary openings disclosed in Cianci to terminate at a distal end of the second section as taught by Mitchell for the purpose of ensuring that the openings are located in a distal portion of the catheter that will be disposed in the vessel to facilitate intravenous communication by the openings (see [0027]), thus achieving “wherein each lumen of the secondary lumen and the tertiary lumen terminates at a distal end of the second section of the catheter tube.”
Regarding claim 10, the modified system of Cianci teaches the RICC of claim 9, and Cianci further discloses wherein a proximal end (see proximal end in FIG. 1) of the first section (20) of the catheter tube (12) is disposed within (see FIG. 1 and col2 line 65- col 3 line 4) to the distal end (22) of the second section (18) of the catheter tube (12).
Cianci is silent to the first section of the catheter tube being “bonded” to the distal end of the second section of the catheter tube.
However, Muse teaches a catheter tube (1402, see FIG. 26A) with a first section (1403) and a second section (1405), wherein a proximal end (1407, see FIG. 26B) of the first section (1405) of the catheter tube is bonded to (see [0256]: 1403/1405 affixed such as by adhesive or welding) the distal end (see distal end of 1403 in FIG. 26B) of the second section (1403) of the catheter tube (1402).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first and second sections of the catheter tube disclosed in Cianci to be bonded together as taught by Muse for the purpose of allowing the first and second sections to be formed of different materials (harder/softer) and then assembled (see [0255-0256]), thus achieving the first section of the catheter tube being “bonded” to the distal end of the second section of the catheter tube.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cianci in view of Muse as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of LeBlanc et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2014/0180255), hereinafter Leblanc.
Regarding claim 13, the modified system of Cianci teaches the RICC of claim 1, and Cianci further discloses wherein the first section (20,see FIG. 1A) of the catheter tube (12) is formed of a first polymeric material having a first durometer (see col 3 lines 5-13: 18 and 20 can be formed of different materials) and the second section (18) of the catheter tube (12) is formed of a second polymeric material (see col 3 lines 5-13: 18 and 20 can be formed of different materials and thus inherently have different durometers).
Modified Cianci is silent to the second polymeric material “having a second durometer less than the first durometer.”
However, Leblanc teaches a catheter tube (see FIG. 5) having a first section (130) formed of a first polymeric material having a first durometer (see [0028]: 130 is pebax of 60 to 70) and a second section (120) formed of a second polymeric material having a second durometer (see [0027]: 130 is Pebax of shore D hardness 50 to 60) less than the first durometer (see [0027-0028]: 50 -60 is less than 60-70).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the second polymeric material disclosed in Cianci to have a durometer less than the first durometer of the first polymeric material of the first section as taught by Leblanc for the purpose of facilitating the first section to slide within the second section (see [0029] and as depicted in Leblanc FIG. 5), which would be advantageous during a bonding process, thus achieving the second polymeric material “having a second durometer less than the first durometer.”
Regarding claim 14, the modified system of Cianci teaches the RICC of claim 13, and Cianci further discloses wherein each polymeric material of the first and second polymeric materials is a polyurethane (see col 3 lines 5-13: 18 and 20 can be formed of different materials including polyurethanes).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cianci in view of Muse as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wisman (U.S. PGPUB No. 2020/0094025).
Regarding claim 15, the modified system of Cianci teaches the RICC of claim 1, but Modified Cianci is silent to “wherein the first section of the catheter tube is tapered from the second section of the catheter tube to the catheter tip, the second section of the catheter tube having a constant diameter.”
However, Wisman teaches a catheter tube (see FIG. 2) with a first section (16) and a second section (14), wherein the first section (16) of the catheter tube is tapered (see FIG. 2 and [0062]) from the second section (14) of the catheter tube to the catheter tip (46), the second section (14) of the catheter tube having a constant outer diameter (see FIG. 1 and 7).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first section of the catheter tube disclosed in Cianci to be tapered from the second section to the catheter tip while maintaining the second section of the catheter tube at a constant diameter as taught by Wisman for the purpose of gradually increasing the puncture of the needle tract to enter and advance into the vasculature of the patient (see [0062] & [0092]), thus achieving “wherein the first section of the catheter tube is tapered from the second section of the catheter tube to the catheter tip, the second section of the catheter tube having a constant diameter.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN PAIGE FARRELL whose telephone number is (571)272-0198. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 730AM-330PM Eastern Time.
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.
/KATHLEEN PAIGE FARRELL/Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/MICHAEL J TSAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783