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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 05/07/2026. As directed by the amendment: claims 1-4 have been amended; no claims have been canceled; and new claim 5 has been added. Thus, claims 1-5 are presently pending in this application.
Applicant’s amendments to claims have overcome the objections, 112(b) and 101 rejections previously set forth in the office action mailed 02/13/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument pages 3-5 of the remarks filed 05/07/2026 that Murphy fails to disclose a lumen between the inner diameter and the outer diameter configured to receive a torque-guided guidewire. Applicant’s argument has been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection has been made, as seen below.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy (US 2017/0281913) in view of Devereux (US 2018/0126127).
Regarding claim 1, Murphy discloses
A catheter (104, figs. 1-12 and pars. 0029-0109) that serves as a multi-purpose catheter extender (figs. 1-12), comprising:
an elongated flexible body (body of 104 in figs. 1-5 and the body of 104 is labeled as 602 in fig. 6. Examiner notes: see figs. 1-5 for 602 being moved within vessel 150. See par. 0037 for 602 being formed of a polymer and having a thin wall with a thickness of 0.01 inch to 0.1 inch. Therefore, 602 is an elongated flexible body) with an internal channel (lumen of 104 as disclosed in par. 0036) and having a proximal straight portion (proximal portion of 104 including the proximal collar 105, see fig. 6) and a distal straight or curved portion (distal portion of 104 including the distal end 107, see fig. 6. Examiner notes: since claim 1 uses the language “or”, only one limitation of the two limitations in the “or” statement is positively required for claim 1. See fig. 6 for the distal portion of 104 being straight, and see figs. 1-5 for the distal portion of 104 being curved to follow the first branch 152 and the second branch 154 of the blood vessel 150) with a terminating soft tip (608, fig. 6. Examiner notes: see par. 0036 for 608 being formed of a material such as a polymer, with a relatively soft durometer rating compared to a different durometer rating of a material of the shaft) at an end of the distal straight or curved portion of said catheter (see fig. 6),
wherein the elongated flexible body (body of 104/602) is shaped as a tube (see fig. 6) having an inner diameter (inner diameter of 602, see fig. 7) surrounding the internal channel (lumen of 104, see fig. 7) and an outer diameter (outer diameter of 602, see fig. 7) surrounding the elongated flexible body (see fig. 7); and
wherein the terminating soft tip (608) of the catheter (104) is provided with a sheath (102, see fig. 1), with a hydrophilic lubricant between the sheath and the tip of the catheter for unimpeded movement of the sheath (Examiner notes: see par. 0047 for hydrophilic polymeric coatings on the inner and outer diameter of 104 to induce lubricity).
Murphy is silent about wherein the elongated flexible body comprises a lumen between the inner diameter and the outer diameter configured to receive a torquer-guided guide wire.
However, Devereux teaches a catheter (520, figs. 5 and 5A) wherein an elongated flexible body (522) of the catheter (520) comprises a lumen (528) between the inner diameter and the outer diameter configured to receive a torquer-guided guide wire (532, fig. 5A).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Murphy’s catheter by adding a guidewire lumen, as taught by Devereux, for the purpose of allowing the catheter to receive a guidewire so that the catheter is configured to be tracked over the guidewire during delivery (par. 0078 of Devereux).
Regarding claim 2, Murphy in view of Devereux discloses the catheter according to claim 1, as set forth above, except for wherein the outer diameter of the elongated flexible body of the catheter is between 1.98 and 2 mm inclusive.
Murphy discloses the catheter being used in a blood vessel of a patient (par. 0028), but is silent about the size of the catheter. There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the outer diameter of the flexible body of the catheter would result in a difference in function of the system. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the outer diameter of Murphy catheter would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed diameter. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the outer diameter of the elongated flexible body of the catheter between 1.98 and 2 mm inclusive as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 3, Murphy in view of Devereux discloses the catheter according to claim 1, as set forth above, except for the inner diameter of the elongated flexible body of the catheter is between 1.83 to 1.9mm inclusive.
Murphy discloses the catheter being used in a blood vessel of a patient (par. 0028), but is silent about the size of the catheter. There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the inner diameter of the flexible body of the catheter would result in a difference in function of the system. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the outer diameter of Murphy catheter would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed diameter. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the inner diameter of the elongated flexible body of the catheter between 1.83 and 1.9mm inclusive as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 4, Murphy in view of Devereux discloses the catheter according to claim 1, as set forth above, except for the sheath being made of silicone or polytetrafluoroethylene with a length of 15 to 30 mm.
However, Murphy teaches the device includes low-friction surfaces (par. 0048) such that the device is made from low friction material (e.g. PTFE).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the sheath of Murphy to be made of PTFE material, as taught by Murphy, for the purpose of providing a low-friction surface for the sheath to be used within a blood vessel of a patient (par. 0048 of Murphy).
Murphy discloses the sheath being used in a blood vessel of a patient (par. 0028) and the sheath is used to introduce the catheter into the blood vessel and then the sheath is removed from the patient, but is silent about the length of the sheath. There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the length of the sheath would result in a difference in function of the system. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the length of Murphy sheath would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed length. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the length of the sheath between 15 and 30 mm as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 5, Murphy in view of Devereux discloses the catheter according to claim 1,
Devereux further teaches a torquer-guided guidewire (532, fig. 5A) within the lumen (528, fig. 5A).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Murphy’s catheter by adding a guidewire, as taught by Devereux, for the purpose of providing a sufficient structure to establish an easy pathway through blood vessels for a catheter to be advanced to.
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 DUNG T ULSH whose telephone number is (571)272-9894. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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, Bhisma Mehta can be reached at 571-272-3383. 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.
/DUNG T ULSH/Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights