Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 18/318,228

REMOTELY CONTROLLED SUCTION/IRRIGATION FOR SURGERY

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
May 16, 2023
Priority
May 13, 2011 — provisional 61/485,833 +3 more
Examiner
DARB, HAMZA A.
Art Unit
3783
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
VASCULAR TECHNOLOGY INC.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allowance Rate
397 granted / 529 resolved
+5.0% vs TC avg
Strong +31% interview lift
Without
With
+31.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
51 currently pending
Career history
603
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
86.6%
+46.6% vs TC avg
§102
7.6%
-32.4% vs TC avg
§112
4.0%
-36.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 529 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/8/2025 has been entered. Acknowledgment Claim 18 is amened and filed on 12/8/2025. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: (a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claims 18-22 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Millman et al. (US.20070005002A1) (“Millman”) in view of Rone et al. (US. 20110112364A1) (“Rone”). Re Claim 18, Millman discloses a system for moving fluids into and out of a surgical field (Fig. 1-2B, ¶0065, Fig.12), the system comprising: a first proximal flexible tubing (106a, Fig. 1, ¶0129) and a second proximal flexible tubing (106b, ¶0129), the first and second proximal tubings connected to a distal tubing (404, Fig. 12) at a Y connector (1206 ¶0198); a first valve constructed and arranged to control flow of irrigant in the first proximal tubing and the distal tubing (1204a, Fig.12); a second valve (1204b, ¶00200) constructed and arranged to control fluid flow between the distal tubing and a vacuum source (1028, Fig. 1); a distal tip (406, Fig. 14), the distal tip having a lumen therethrough (¶0120 lumen with opening 424) and a plurality of suction relief holes in a wall thereof (424); and a remote control for operating the first valve (¶0145, ¶0058, ¶0271).), but it fails to disclose the distal tip is a rigid distal tip attached to a distal end of the distal flexible tubing, the rigid tip being more rigid than the distal flexible tubing, the rigid distal tip constructed and arranged to provide freedom of motion at the probe tip when manipulated by a surgical instrument, and maneuverable to point 180 degrees from an orientation of at least a portion of the distal flexible tubing that is within the surgical field. However, Rone discloses a system for a procedure in a surgical field (abstract, ¶0014, Figs. 1-3), the system comprising: a flexible tubing (24, ¶0016, ¶0035) and the distal tip (26, 16, ¶0035, ¶0036) is a rigid distal tip (¶0036) attached to the distal end of the distal flexible tubing (32, Fig. 3, ¶0035), the rigid tip being more rigid than the distal flexible tubing (¶0035-¶0036), the rigid distal tip constructed and arranged to provide freedom of motion at the probe tip when manipulated by a surgical instrument (graspers ¶0035), and maneuverable to point 180 degrees from an orientation of at least a portion of the distal flexible tubing that is within the surgical field (¶0035). Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modify system of Millman so that the rigid tip being more rigid than the distal flexible tubing, the rigid distal tip constructed and arranged to provide freedom of motion at the probe tip when manipulated by a surgical instrument, and maneuverable to point 180 degrees from an orientation of at least a portion of the distal flexible tubing that is within the surgical field as taught by Levin for the purpose of using a material that support and maintain the desired shape of the tip while manipulating the tip by grasper (Levin ¶0032, ¶035). Re Claim 19, Millman discloses comprising a second remote control for operating the second valve (¶0058, ¶0145, ¶0200). Re Claim 20, Millman discloses wherein the remote control is constructed and arranged to operate the first valve and the second valve (¶0058, ¶0145, ¶0200). Re Claim 21, Millman discloses wherein the first and second valves can be opened independently and concurrently (¶0058, ¶0145, ¶0200). Re Claim 22, Millman discloses wherein including a fluid bag in fluid communication with the first proximal flexible tubing and an inflatable pressure cuff around the fluid bag (108 bag, and cuff for pressurize the bag ¶0065, ¶0145, ¶0200). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see remark, filed 10/6/2025 with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 18 under 103 using Julian and Levin and Millman have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Millman in view of Rone. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAMZA A. DARB whose telephone number is (571)270-1202. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 M-F (EST). 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, Chelsea Stinson can be reached at (571) 270-1744. 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. /HAMZA A DARB/ Examiner, Art Unit 3783 /CHELSEA E STINSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 4 earlier events
Aug 06, 2025
Final Rejection mailed — §103
Sep 24, 2025
Interview Requested
Oct 02, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Oct 06, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 08, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 20, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 27, 2026
Interview Requested
Apr 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12636185
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR TREATING AN EYE WITH A MASK DEVICE
6y 1m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12636476
METHOD OF IMPLANTATION OF CELL AGGREGATES AND TISSUE FRAGMENTS
2y 11m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12629241
FIXABLE DEGASSING TROCAR
4y 3m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12629174
DYNAMICALLY ADJUSTABLE STIFFENING SLEEVE
4y 5m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12623060
CATHETER INSERTION DEVICE WITH IMPROVED FLASHBACK RESPONSE
4y 0m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
75%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+31.4%)
3y 4m (~3m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 529 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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