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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
This Office action is responsive to the amendment filed 9 January 2026. Claims 1-18 and 25-31 are canceled. Claims 19-24 and 32-37 are pending. Claims 32-37 are withdrawn. Claims 19-24 are examined.
Amendment Not Fully Responsive in Regards to Newly Added Claims 32-37
CFR 1.111 states "The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. If the reply is with respect to an application, a request may be made that objections or requirements as to form not necessary to further consideration of the claims be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. The applicant's or patent owner's reply must appear throughout to be a bona fide attempt to advance the application or the reexamination proceeding to final action. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section.”
In regards to newly presented claims 32-37, the reply doesn’t present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims patentable over any applied references. Thus, the response is not fully responsive in regards to these claims.
Restriction by Original Presentation of Newly Added Claims 32-37
Newly submitted claim 32-37 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Inventions of claims 19-24 are directed to related invention of claims 32-37. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the invention of claims 19-24 has first and second catheters without occlusion members, first and second ports and first and second guidewires where a second guidewire is further configured for one or more of: fluidically coupling the second port and the second catheter via retraction of the second guidewire and align the first port with the second vessel. Whereas the invention of claim 32-37 has a first catheter with a first occlusion member and a second occlusion member with the first and second port positioned relative to the first and second occlusion members. Thus, each invention can have a material different design, are mutually exclusive and are not obvious variants.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 32-37 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
578
983
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agah (US 2017/0157370) in view of Lieber (US 2014/0214002) and Willson (4,020,829).
Regarding claim 19, Agah teaches a dual occlusion catheter system (Annotated Fig. A), the system comprising: a first catheter 1060 having a proximal end and a distal end (Annotated Fig. A), the first catheter configured to be inserted into a first vessel (TV1, the first catheter is inserted into target vesse1 1); a first port 1047 disposed through the first; a second port disposed through the first catheter (the first catheter has a second port that allows the second catheter to be received and inserted through the first catheter, Annotated Fig. A); a second catheter 1056 configured to extend through the first port into a second vessel (TV2, target vessel 2), wherein the second vessel branches from the first vessel (Annotated Fig. A); a first guidewire configured to guide the first catheter within the first vessel (¶75, ¶118).
Agah doesn’t specifically teach a second guidewire configured to guide the second catheter into a second vessel and fluidically coupling the second port and the second catheter via retraction of the second guidewire. Although, Agah teaches using a guidewire to guide a catheter.
Lieber teaches two catheters inserted into branching blood vessels (Fig. 6E) has a separate guidewire (27, 41). The first and second guidewires allow the first and second catheters to each be guided into a blood vessel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the catheter system of Agah have a second guidewire configured to guide the second catheter into a second vessel, as taught by Lieber, in order to the second catheter to be correctly placed in the second vessel as shown by Lieber.
As discussed so far, Agah in view of Lieber doesn’t teach fluidically coupling the second port and the second catheter via retraction of the second guidewire.
Willson teaches a catheter with a guidewire (Fig. 1, guidewire 15 and catheter 16). After the guidewire is used to guide the catheter, the guidewire is retracted to allow a fluid to be injected through the catheter (Col. 3:66-4:2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the catheter system of Agah in view of Lieber the second port and the second catheter fluidly coupled via retraction of the second guidewire, as taught by Willson, in order to allow a fluid to be injected via the passage created by the withdrawn catheter.
Regarding claim 20, Agah in view of Lieber and Willson teaches the invention as discussed above and Agah further teaches a first expandable 1068 occlusion member disposed distally with respect to the first port and the second port (Annotated Fig. A); and a second expandable occlusion member 1078 disposed between the first port and the second port (Annotated Fig. A), wherein the first expandable occlusion member and the second expandable occlusion member are configured to expand and from a seal with an inner surface of the first vessel (Annotated Fig. A).
Regarding claim 21, Agah in view of Lieber and Willson teaches the invention as discussed above and Agah further teaches a third expandable occlusion member 1058 coupled to the second catheter and configured to expand and form a seal with an inner surface of the second vessel (Annotated Fig. A).
Regarding claim 22, Agah in view of Lieber and Willson teaches the invention as discussed above and Agah further teaches the first port is in fluid communication with the second port (The first catheter has a lumen that allows the second catheter to be inserted through the first catheter. Thus, the first port and the second port are in fluid communication with one another. ¶142)
Regarding claim 23, Agah in view of Lieber and Willson teaches the invention as discussed above and Agah further teaches fluid is transferred between the first catheter and the second catheter (Annotated Fig. A, the three occlusion members 1058, 1068 and 1078 and the two vessels, TV1 and TV2) form a fluid chamber that surrounds the first catheter and the second catheter. Thus, fluid, such as fluid delivered via port 1079 is transferred between the first catheter and the second catheter.)
Regarding claim 24, Agah in view of Lieber and Willson teaches the invention as discussed above and Agah further teaches a perfusion port 1079 disposed through the first catheter (Annotated Fig. A) and a fluid delivery lumen coupled to the perfusion port and disposed within the first catheter, wherein the perfusion port and the fluid delivery lumen are configured to deliver a fluid to the first vessel (¶166-168).
Agah doesn’t teach the perfusion port is between the first port and the second port. In Annotated Fig. A, the diffusion port is located between the first port and the occlusion member 1068.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have perfusion port located between the first port and the second port, since applicant has not disclosed the location of the perfusion port between the occlusion members solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears the invention would perform equally well with an perfusion port between the first port and the second port. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Agah in view of Lieber and Willson to have the perfusion port between the first port and the second port because such a modification would have been considered an obvious matter of design choice within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art. Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). MPEP 2144 I.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been carefully considered
but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new grounds of rejection discussed above that were necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID OLYNICK whose telephone number is (571)272-2355. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 am-5 pm (ET).
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, Phuttiwat Wongwian can be reached at (571) 270-5426. 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.
/DAVID P. OLYNICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741