Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/459,201

TRANSPORT DEVICE FOR MEDICAL DEVICES

Non-Final OA §102§DP
Filed
Aug 31, 2023
Examiner
MATHEW, SEEMA
Art Unit
3774
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Ptmc Institute
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
491 granted / 689 resolved
+1.3% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+26.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
718
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
46.6%
+6.6% vs TC avg
§102
29.3%
-10.7% vs TC avg
§112
14.6%
-25.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 689 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §DP
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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,648,137. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the Patent discloses: Claim 1, A transport device (column 19, line 19) comprising: a transport tube that extends from a rear end of a medical device (column 20, line 24-25), wherein the transport tube has a double tube structure comprising an inner tube and an outer tube (column 20, lines 26-27); the inner tube projects from a distal end part of the outer tube, and a distal end part of the inner tube is connected to the medical device (column 20, lines 28-30); and the outer tube and the inner tube are fixed at a proximal end part of the outer tube (column 20, 31-32). 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Green et al. U.S. Publication 2016/0262920 A1. Regarding Claim 1, Green et al. discloses a transport device 100 comprising: a transport tube that extends from a rear end of a medical device 2, wherein the transport tube 100 has a double tube structure comprising an inner tube 110 and an outer tube 120 (as seen in Figure 4-13); the inner tube 110 projects from a distal end part of the outer tube 120 (paragraph [0053]), and a distal end part of the inner tube is connected to the medical device 2 (paragraph [0063] and as seen in Figure 6-7 and paragraph [0063]); and the outer tube 120 and the inner tube 110 are fixed at a proximal end part of the outer tube 120 (as seen in Figure 13, paragraph [0060]). Regarding Claim 2, Green et al. discloses wherein a rigidity of the proximal end part of the outer tube is lower than a rigidity of the distal end part of the inner tube (paragraphs [0053], [0079-0081]). Regarding Claim 3, Green et al. discloses wherein a material of the proximal end part of the outer tube 120 is lower than a material of the distal end part of the inner tube 110 (paragraph [0061], the inner tubular member comprises a multi-lumen configuration having an inflation lumen 24, guidewire lumen 320 and a fluid lumen 310, wherein the outer tube 120 is described as having flexibility to be retracted in a proximal direction, see paragraphs [0043],[0045], [0053], [0079]) . Regarding Claim 4, Green et al. discloses wherein a knitting of a fiber of the proximal end part of the outer tube is lower than a knitting of a fiber of the distal end part of the inner tube (paragraph [0082], Green discloses a reinforcing layer including a tube having a woven fabric such as carbon fibers encased in a polymer matrix can be disposed on a distal end portion of the outer and inner tube, therefore, the proximal part of the outer tube would have lower knitting fibers than a distal end part of the inner tube). Regarding Claim 5, Green et al. discloses wherein a material and a knitting of a fiber of the proximal end part of the outer tube is lower than a material and a knitting of a fiber of the distal end part of the inner tube (paragraph [0082], Green discloses a reinforcing layer including a tube having a woven fabric such as carbon fibers encased in a polymer matrix can be disposed on a distal end portion of the outer and inner tube, therefore, the proximal part of the outer tube would have lower knitting fibers than a distal end part of the inner tube). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEEMA MATHEW whose telephone number is (571) 270-1452. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9 am – 5 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, SPE, Melanie Tyson at (571) 272-9062. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /SEEMA MATHEW/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 31, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594161
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PREDICTABLE COMMISSURAL ALIGNMENT OF A REPLACEMENT HEART VALVE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12575929
INTEGRATED VALVE ASSEMBLY AND METHOD OF DELIVERING AND DEPLOYING AN INTEGRATED VALVE ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12564491
MULTI-LAYER COVERING FOR A PROSTHETIC HEART VALVE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12551207
HEART VALVE PROSTHESIS AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12539422
Heart help device, system and method
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 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
71%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+26.5%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 689 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