Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/202,702

Catheter Placement Device Including a Mechanical Advantage Mechanism

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
May 26, 2023
Examiner
FARRAR, LAUREN PENG
Art Unit
3783
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Bard Access Systems Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 8m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allow Rate
593 granted / 753 resolved
+8.8% vs TC avg
Strong +15% interview lift
Without
With
+15.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 8m
Avg Prosecution
60 currently pending
Career history
813
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
51.9%
+11.9% vs TC avg
§102
25.4%
-14.6% vs TC avg
§112
13.7%
-26.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 753 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 Invention I, Species a., Fig. 23a, relating to claims 1-8, 14-15, in the reply filed on 3/17/26 is acknowledged. Claims 9-13, 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group and Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/17/26. 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. Claim(s) 1-5, 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanchard (US 2014/0094774 A1) in view of Drontle et al. (US 2010/0312101 A1). With regard to claim 1, Blanchard discloses A catheter insertion device assembly (Fig. 1a, 1b), comprising: a catheter (42) including a catheter tube (44) defining a catheter lumen (inherent) extending between a catheter distal (where 16 is pointing in Fig. 1b) end and a catheter hub (46) at a catheter proximal end (see Fig. 1b), the catheter hub disposed within a housing (12, which includes 12a and 12b); a needle (16) configured for insertion into a patient between a skin surface and a blood vessel ([0051]), the needle defining a needle lumen (inherent, also [0051], needle is designed to receive blood) extending between a needle distal end (where 16 is pointing in Fig. 1b) and a needle proximal end (at needle hub 14) coupled with the housing (see Fig. 1b showing 14 touch 1b), wherein the needle is pre-disposed within the catheter lumen such that the needle distal end extends beyond the catheter distal end and the needle proximal end extends proximally beyond the catheter hub (see Fig. 1b, [0003]); a guidewire (22) extending between a guidewire distal end (inherent) and a guidewire proximal portion (inherent), wherein the guidewire is pre-disposed within the needle lumen(see Fig. 1b, [0052]) such that the guidewire distal end is positioned proximal the needle distal end ([0052]) and the guidewire proximal portion extends proximally beyond the needle proximal end ([0052]); and a slide (28) displaceable along an exterior of the housing (see Fig. 1b), the slide coupled with the guidewire proximal portion (generally at 26) such that a displacement of the slide causes a displacement of the guidewire ([0053]). However, Blanchard does not disclose a mechanical advantage mechanism. Drontle teaches a similar catheter insertion system (Fig. 1) having a catheter (30) with an inner guide which can be considered equivalent to the needle (14) and a slide (32) for moving the catheter distally and proximally. Drontle further includes and a mechanical advantage mechanism (Fig 4, element 52, [0038], considered a mechanical advantage because it “facilitates distal advancement of the shaft 30) coupled between the slide (32) and the catheter hub (Fig. 4, element 38) such that: the slide provides an input force to the mechanical advantage mechanism ([0038], helical portion 52 expands and contracts based on the movement of the knob 32), and the mechanical advantage mechanism provides an output force to the catheter hub in response to the input force, the output force greater than the input force ([0038], the helical component 52 provides an output force greater than the input force because it takes the mechanical advantage of the spring-like nature to facilitate or assist in the distal movement of the shaft 30 as described in [0038]). The helical element 52 can be added inside the housing of Blanchard to the slide mechanism of Blanchard such that when the slide is moved distally, the helical element 52 would provide an additional mechanical advantage for moving a shaft distally. Therefore, it would be prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Blanchard with the mechanical advantage as taught by Drontle for the purpose of facilitating distal advancement of a shaft ([0038]). With regard to claim 2, Blanchard discloses wherein the input force is distally oriented (the slide 28 moves distally to move the guidewire) However, Blanchard does not disclose the mechanical advantage mechanism and the output force. Drontle teaches wherein the input force and the output force are each distally oriented (the slide 32 moves distally creating an input force that moves the helical element 52 distally which creates the output force). Therefore, it would be prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Blanchard with the mechanical advantage as taught by Drontle for the purpose of facilitating distal advancement of a shaft ([0038]). With regard to claim 3, Blanchard/Drontle teach the claimed invention including an input and output force where the output force is greater (see rejection of claim 1). While Blanchard/Drontle do not explicitly teach that the output force is greater than the input force by a factor of two, it would be prima facie obvious to optimize the factor to be two as doing so would not alter the overall function of the device. With regard to claim 4, Blanchard discloses wherein the displacement of the slide causes a displacement of the catheter and a simultaneous displacement of the guidewire [0065], the slide moves distally cause the guidewire to move distally simultaneously this distal movement of the slide and guidewire thus causes then the actuation of the catheter advancement assembly ([0065]). With regard to claim 5, Blanchard discloses wherein the displacement of the catheter is less than the simultaneous displacement of the guidewire ([0065], distal movement of the guidewire is fully moved distally which causes the displacement of the catheter which can then be inserted and the catheter advancement assembly advances distally to a distance which may be smaller than the displacement of the guidewire). With regard to claim 14, Blanchard discloses further including a safety assembly (54 and 56, better seen in Fig. 10a and 10b) configured to cover a distal tip of the needle upon withdrawal of the needle from the catheter (see Fig. 10a, [0058]), the safety assembly coupled between the catheter hub and the mechanical advantage mechanism ([0058]) such that distal displacement of the slide causes distal displacement of the safety assembly which in turn causes distal displacement of the catheter ([0058], [0066]). With regard to claim 15, Blanchard discloses wherein: the slide (28) is configured to displace a first distance (slide moves along the outside of the housing and its initial distal movement can be considered a first distance and then a subsequent further movement to its distalmost end can be considered a second distance) and a subsequent second distance (further the claim language recites “configured to” and thus the device must only be capable of performing the reciting action), displacement of the slide the first distance causes the guidewire to distally displace a first guidewire distance with respect to the needle ([0065]), and displacement of the slide the subsequent second distance causes: the guidewire to distally displace a second guidewire distance with respect to the needle ([0065]), and the catheter to displace a first catheter distance with respect to the needle, the first catheter distance less than the second guidewire distance ([0065], distal movement of the guidewire is fully moved distally which causes the displacement of the catheter which can then be inserted and the catheter advancement assembly advances distally to a distance which may be smaller than the displacement of the guidewire). Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanchard (US 2014/0094774 A1) in view of Drontle et al. (US 2010/0312101 A1) and in further view of Bogert (US 5,853,393). With regard to claim 6 and 7, Blanchard/Drontle teaches the claimed invention except for a lever. Bogert teaches a needle/catheter insertion mechanism (Fig. 1 and 2) including a helical mechanical advantage element (18, similar to Drontle) and further includes a lever (26) as part of the mechanical advantage mechanism that locks the helical mechanism in place prior to use. Bogert further teaches the lever includes an opening (24) and the needle (22) passes through the opening (see Fig. 1). Therefore, it would be prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Blanchard/Drontle with the lever as taught by Bogert for the purpose of locking the catheter hub and needle prior to use to prevent premature use of the device (Col 5, lines 51 to end). Allowable Subject Matter Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN P FARRAR whose telephone number is (571)270-1496. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm. 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, Kevin Sirmons can be reached at 571-272-4965. 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. /Lauren P Farrar/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 26, 2023
Application Filed
Apr 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594410
DEVICE FOR DELIVERING AN ANTIMICROBIAL COMPOSITION INTO A MEDICAL DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12575966
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ULTRASOUND-ENHANCED DELIVERY OF DRUGS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12569662
MEDICAL CONNECTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12564681
PEN-LIKE SYRINGE SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12558484
Autoinjector
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
79%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+15.1%)
3y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 753 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