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

REMOTELY CONTROLLED SUCTION/IRRIGATION FOR SURGERY

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
May 16, 2023
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
3y 5m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allow Rate
390 granted / 521 resolved
+4.9% vs TC avg
Strong +31% interview lift
Without
With
+31.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
79 currently pending
Career history
600
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
46.2%
+6.2% vs TC avg
§102
22.6%
-17.4% vs TC avg
§112
22.4%
-17.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 521 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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

May 16, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 07, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 07, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jun 02, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 31, 2025
Final Rejection — §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
Mar 25, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12582780
Drug Delivery Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12551682
Universal Single-Use Cap For Male And Female Connectors
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12533157
TREATMENT METHOD AND DEVICE WITH ULTRASOUND ENDOSCOPE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12533488
ISOLATION AND ATTACHMENT CATHETERS AND METHODS FOR USING THEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12533146
ASPIRATION CATHETER SYSTEMS AND METHODS OF USE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
75%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+31.4%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 521 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