Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/230,421

TIE-LAYER COATING FOR CATHETER LINERS

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Aug 04, 2023
Examiner
GRAY, PHILLIP A
Art Unit
3783
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Zeus Company Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 12m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allow Rate
663 granted / 896 resolved
+4.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 12m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
926
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
50.3%
+10.3% vs TC avg
§102
34.4%
-5.6% vs TC avg
§112
12.2%
-27.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 896 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 . This office action is in response to applicant’s communication of 8/4/2023. Currently claims 1-20 are pending and rejected below. 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)(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, 3-4, 7-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bahar et al. (US 2020/0353417 A1). Bahar teaches a coated tubing (figure 4 and figure 6-7), comprising an etched PTFE tubing (see para [0010] and scaffold PTFE) with an inner surface and an outer surface,(as in figure 4 for one example) wherein the outer surface comprises a layer of PEBA (see paras [0009]-[0010] and PEBA coated on the scaffold) thereon with an average thickness of less than 1 micron (see para [0009] and preferably less than 5 μm). Concerning claim 3 and prepared using a PEBA-containing solution (see para [0011] and solution casting). Concerning claim 4 and the PEBA-containing solution comprises a solvent selected from methanol, ethanol, 2-methyl-2-propanol, 1-butanol, 2-butanol, and mixtures thereof (see para [0029] and solvent is ethanol). Concerning claim 7 and the PEBA-containing solution is at a temperature of 20*C to 100*C at the time of coating (see para [0029]-[0031] and note the temp during drying and coating). Concerning claim 8 and the average thickness of the layer of PEBA is below 0.9 μm (see paras [0009]-[0010] and PEBA coated on the scaffold). Concerning claim 9 and the average thickness of the layer of PEBA is below 0.8 μm (see paras [0009]-[0010] and PEBA coated on the scaffold). Concerning claim 10 and a jacket layer comprising PEBA or a polyamide coated on the layer of PEBA (see figure 5 and note multiple layers of PEBA 20 forming a jacket layer on the underlying layers of PEBA). Concerning claim 11 and the layer of PEBA consists essentially of PEBA (see para [0006], [0009] and the discussion of the PEBA film). Concerning claim 12 and the layer of PEBA comprises one or more additives (see para [0018] and biocide addition). Concerning claim 13 and the layer of PEBA is substantially free of residual solvent (see para [0015] and water use instead of solvent). Concerning claim 14 and the coated tubing is a catheter liner (see para [0005] and use in catheters). Concerning claim 15 and a catheter comprising the coated tubing (see para [0005] and use in catheters). Concerning claim 16 and a coated tubing comprising a tubing comprising (figure 4 and figure 6-7) a fluoropolymer (see para [0010] and scaffold PTFE), with an inner surface and an outer surface (as in figure 4 for example), wherein the outer surface comprises a tie-layer thereon, wherein the tie-layer has an average thickness of less than 1 micron (see para [0009] and preferably less than 5 μm). Concerning claim 17 and a method of preparing a coated tubing with an inner surface and an outer surface, comprising: providing an etched PTFE tubing (see para [0010] and scaffold PTFE), with an inner surface and an outer surface; dissolving PEBA in one or more solvents to provide a PEBA-containing solution (see para [0011] and solvent casting); and applying the PEBA-containing solution to the outer surface of the etched PTFE tubing to give a layer of PEBA thereon with an average thickness of less than 1 micron (again see para [0011] and solvent casting para [0009] and preferably less than 5 μm). Concerning claim 18 and the dissolving comprises heating and/or agitating the PEBA in one or more solvents (see para [0015] and heating). Concerning claim 19 and the PEBA-containing solution comprises a solvent selected from non-aromatic alcohols (see para [0029] and solvent is ethanol a nonaromatic alcohol compound). Concerning claim 20 and the non-aromatic alcohol is selected from methanol, ethanol, 2- methyl-2-propanol, 1-butanol, 2-butanol, and mixtures thereof (again see para [0029] and solvent is ethanol - a nonaromatic alcohol compound). 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bahar et al. (US 2020/0353417 A1). Bahar discloses the claimed invention except for explicitly stating that the PEBA has a durometer of 25 to 72. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the PEBA with a durometer of 25 to 72, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It is disclosed the the PEBA may be the PEBAX product (para [0003]) and this is known to have a durometer of 25 to 72 (see Key Properties of Pebax® Elastomers | Arkema High Performance Polymers as evidence of this property). Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bahar et al. (US 2020/0353417 A1) in view of Montes de Oca et al. (US 2019/0030214 A1). Bahar discloses the claimed invention except for the the PEBA-containing solution comprises 1-butanol. Montes de Oca teaches that it is known to use the PEBA-containing solution comprises 1-butanol as set forth in para [0026] to providing a suitable medium that allows application or wetting of a coating formulation to a surface of a tubular catheter. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system as taught by Bahar with the PEBA-containing solution comprises 1-butanol as taught by Montes de Oca, since such a modification would provide the system with the PEBA-containing solution comprises 1-butanol for providing a suitable medium that allows application or wetting of a coating formulation to a surface of a tubular catheter. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bahar et al. (US 2020/0353417 A1). Bahar discloses the claimed invention except for the PEBA-containing solution at a wt/vol ratio of less than 0.10 g/mL . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have PEBA-containing solution at a wt/vol ratio of less than 0.10 g/mL, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). Bahar discloses adjusting the ratio but does not specify less than 0.10 g/mL (see para [0029]-[0031]. Examiner is of the position that Bahar discusses using little or no solvent (see para [0015] and water use instead of solvent) so examiner is of the position that a PHOSITA would use a ratio less than 0.10g/mL in order to form the PEBA layer in order to adhere and dry as appropriate to the adherence needed to form a compliant catheter with safe and biocompatibility. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILLIP A GRAY whose telephone number is (571)272-7180. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST (FLEX). 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. PHILLIP A. GRAY Primary Examiner Art Unit 3783 /PHILLIP A GRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 04, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599544
INTRAORAL GASTROINTESTINAL ACCESS DEVICE AND RELATED METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589210
SYRINGE AND KIT FOR ADMINISTERING PREDETERMINED SPECIFIC EPINEPHRINE DOSES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582776
SYRINGE WITH PRIMING INDICATOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12582819
TREATMENT OF INFLAMMATORY DISORDERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12569624
Devices, Methods and Compositions for Reproductive Organs
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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
74%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+10.5%)
3y 12m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 896 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