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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/23/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Para 0030, line 6, “the the vacuum” should read “the vacuum”. Page 14, line 2, “the catheter device 100” should read “the catheter device 102”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 3 recites the limitation "the inclined end surface" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, examiner is interpreting the limitations as “the end surface” Claims 4-6 are also rejected. 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, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaplan (US 20020173689 A1). Regarding claim 1 , Kaplan discloses a catheter (102) comprising an elongate tubular body (body of 102) having a side wall defining a lumen extending between a proximal region and a distal region (fig 4B, 7A and para 0044) , wherein the distal region comprises a tip portion (102b) capable of deflecting way from the proximal region when the tip portion is unconstrained ( fig 4B, para 0042, claim 1 ) , thereby forming a curved shape of the tip portion (para 0022 and 0047, claim 2) ; and wherein the side wall of the elongate tubular body axially terminates at the tip portion with a slant cut (11 6 , para 0044 and 0050, fig 4B) , thereby forming an end surface of the tip portion defining an opening in a non-circular shape (fig 4B) . Regarding claim 1 1 , Kaplan discloses a catheter device (100) , comprising: a first catheter (10 4 ) having a lumen (para 0046) ; and a second catheter (102) configured to be positioned within the lumen of the first catheter and longitudinal movable relative to the first catheter (fig 4B, para 0046) , wherein the second catheter comprises an elongate tubular body having a side wall defining a lumen (para 0046) extending between a proximal region and a distal region of the elongate tubular body (figs 4B and 7A) , wherein the distal region of the tubular body comprises a tip portion (102b) capable of deflecting away from the proximal region of the tubular body when the tip portion is unconstrained by the first catheter ( fig 4B, para 0042, claim 1 ) , thereby forming a curved shape of the tip portion (para 0022 and 0047, claim 2) ; and wherein the side wall of the elongate tubular body axially terminates at the tip portion with a slant cut (11 6 , para 0044 and 0050, fig 4B) , thereby forming an end surface of the tip portion defining an opening in a non-circular shape (fig 4B) . Regarding claim 1 2 , Kaplan discloses the catheter device of claim 11, wherein the first catheter (104) comprises a side wall defining the lumen of the first catheter (fig 4B) , the side wall of the first catheter axially terminating with a straight cut (126) , forming an end surface of the first catheter defining an opening in a generally circular shape (fig 4B, para 0045) . 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 2, 3, 10 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplan (US 20020173689 A1). Regarding claim 2 , Kaplan discloses the limitations of claim 1 but fails to expressly teach wherein the tip portion is configured to deflect away from a longitudinal axis of the proximal region at an angle ranging from 5 d egrees to 315 degrees . However, Kaplan discloses the tip portion is configured to deflect away to various curvatures (para 0047). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the catheter of Kaplan to have the tip portion configured to deflect away from a longitudinal axis of the proximal region at an angle ranging from 5 degrees to 315 degrees since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the catheter of Kaplan would not operate differently with the claimed angle and since t he tip portion is configured to deflect away to various curvatures , the catheter would function appropriately having the claimed angle . Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the angle ranging from 5 degrees to 315 degrees (specification pp. [0032]). Regarding claim 3 , Kaplan fails to expressly teach wherein the inclined end surface of the tip portion forms an angle ranging from 20 degrees to 80 degrees relative to an inner or outer surface of the side wall of the tubular body. However, Kaplan discloses a n end surface of the tip portion forming an angle (117, fig 4B, para 0044). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the catheter of Kaplan to have the inclined end surface of the tip portion forms an angle ranging from 20 degrees to 80 degrees relative to an inner or outer surface of the side wall of the tubular body since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the catheter of Kaplan would not operate differently with the claimed angle and since the slant end surface of the tip portion form s an angle, the catheter would function appropriately having the claimed angle. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the angle ranging from 20 degrees to 80 degrees (specification pp. [003 3 ]). Regarding claim 10 , Kaplan discloses the catheter of claim 1 as discussed above , but fail s to teach wherein the lumen of the catheter has a diameter ranging from 0.164 inches to 0.295 inches. However, Kaplan discloses said catheter is an 18 gauge needle (para 0051, note: an 18-gauge needle has a diameter of approximately 1.27 mm (0.050 inches)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the catheter of Kaplan by making the lumen of the catheter has a diameter ranging from 0.164 inches to 0.295 inches as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Regarding claim 1 3 , Kaplan discloses the catheter device of claim 1 1 as discussed above , but fail s to teach wherein the lumen of the first catheter has a diameter ranging from 0.190 inches to 0.320 inches, and the lumen of the second catheter has a diameter ranging from 0.164 inches to 0.295 inches. However, Kaplan discloses said first catheter (104) would be of an inner diameter (bore) gauge greater than the needle, but not greater than 17 gauge (para 0067, note: a 17-gauge needle has a nominal outer diameter of approximately 0.058 inches or 1.47 mm ) and said second catheter is an 18 gauge needle (para 0051, note: an 18-gauge needle has a diameter of approximately 1.27 mm (0.050 inches)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the catheter device of Kaplan by making the lumen of the first catheter has a diameter ranging from 0.190 inches to 0.320 inches, and the lumen of the second catheter has a diameter ranging from 0.164 inches to 0.295 inches as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Regarding claim 14 , Kaplan discloses the limitations of claim 1 1 but fails to expressly teach wherein the tip portion of the second catheter is configured to deflect away from a longitudinal axis of the proximal region of the second catheter at an angle ranging from 5 degrees to 315 degrees. However, Kaplan discloses the tip portion is configured to deflect away to various curvatures (para 0047). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the catheter device of Kaplan to have the tip portion of the second catheter configured to deflect away from a longitudinal axis of the proximal region of the second catheter at an angle ranging from 5 degrees to 315 degrees since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the catheter device of Kaplan would not operate differently with the claimed angle and since the tip portion is configured to deflect away to various curvatures, the catheter would function appropriately having the claimed angle. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the angle ranging from 5 degrees to 315 degrees (specification pp. [0032]). Regarding claim 15 , Kaplan fails to expressly teach wherein the end surface of the tip portion of the second catheter forms an angle ranging from 20 degrees to 80 degrees relative to an inner or outer surface of the side wall of th e second catheter . However, Kaplan discloses a n end surface of the tip portion forming an angle (117, fig 4B, para 0044). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the catheter device of Kaplan to have the end surface of the tip portion of the second catheter forms an angle ranging from 20 degrees to 80 degrees relative to an inner or outer surface of the side wall of the second catheter since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the catheter device of Kaplan would not operate differently with the claimed angle and since the end surface of the tip portion forms an angle, the catheter would function appropriately having the claimed angle. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the angle ranging from 20 degrees to 80 degrees (specification pp. [0033]). Claim s 4- 9 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplan (US 20020173689 A1) in view of McFerran et al ( US 20110112514 A1 ) . Regarding claim 4 , Kaplan discloses the limitations of claim 1 -3 as discussed above but fail s to teach the catheter further comprising at least one stretch resistant filament extending from the proximal region to the distal region of the elongate tubular body. However, McFerran et al disclose a catheter (10) comprising an elongate tubular body (12) having a proximal region (14) and a distal region (18) and at least one stretch resistant filament (52) extending from the proximal region to the distal region of the elongate tubular body (fig 2, para 0024) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to mod ify the catheter of Kaplan to comprise at least one stretch resistant filament extending from the proximal region to the distal region of the elongate tubular body as taught by McFerran et al . This would provide the benefit of having the distal tip portion of the catheter to radially flex or bend while providing additional column strength to withstand buckling or kinking as the catheter is tracked through the body (para 0024) . Regarding claim 5 , Kaplan in view of McFerran et al discloses the catheter of claim 4, McFerran et al further disclose wherein the at least one stretch resistant filament (52) is arranged such that a distal portion of the at least one stretch resistant filament extends along inside the curved shape of the tip portion (fig 2, the distal end of segment 52 is also at the distal end 18) . Regarding claim 6 , Kaplan in view of McFerran et al discloses the catheter of claim 5 but fail s to expressly teach wherein the at least one stretch resistant filament is configured to provide a tensile strength ranging from 5 pounds to 25 pounds. However, McFerran et al disclose at least one stretch resistant filament (52, fig 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the at least one stretch resistant of McFerran et al configured to provide a tensile strength ranging from 5 pounds to 25 pounds since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the catheter of Kaplan in view of McFerran et al would not operate differently with the claimed tensile strength, the catheter would function appropriately having the claimed angle. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the tensile strength ranging from 5 pounds to 25 pounds (specification pp. [00 41 ]). Regarding claim 7 , Kaplan discloses the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above but fail s to teach the catheter further comprising at least one stretch resistant filament extending from the proximal region to the distal region of the elongate tubular body. However, McFerran et al disclose a catheter (10) comprising an elongate tubular body (12) having a proximal region (14) and a distal region (18) and at least one stretch resistant filament (52) extending from the proximal region to the distal region of the elongate tubular body (fig 2, para 0024). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the catheter of Kaplan to comprise at least one stretch resistant filament extending from the proximal region to the distal region of the elongate tubular body as taught by McFerran et al. This would provide the benefit of having the distal tip portion of the catheter to radially flex or bend while providing additional column strength to withstand buckling or kinking as the catheter is tracked through the body (para 0024). Regarding claim 8 , Kaplan in view of McFerran et al discloses the catheter of claim 7 , McFerran et al further disclose wherein the at least one stretch resistant filament (52) is arranged such that a distal portion of the at least one stretch resistant filament extends along inside the curved shape of the tip portion (fig 2, the distal end of segment 52 is also at the distal end 18). Regarding claim 9 , Kaplan in view of McFerran et al discloses the catheter of claim 7 , but fail s to teach wherein the lumen of the catheter has a diameter ranging from 0.164 inches to 0.295 inches. However , Kaplan discloses said catheter is an 18 gauge needle (para 0051, note: a n 18-gauge needle has a diameter of approximately 1.27 mm (0.050 inches) ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the catheter of Kaplan by making the lumen of the catheter has a diameter ranging from 0.164 inches to 0.295 inches as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Regarding claim 16 , Kaplan discloses the limitations of claim 1 1, 14 - 15 as discussed above but fail s to teach the catheter device further comprising at least one stretch resistant filament extending from the proximal region to the distal region of the second catheter. However, McFerran et al disclose a catheter device (10) comprising a catheter (12) having a proximal region (14) and a distal region (18) and at least one stretch resistant filament (52) extending from the proximal region to the distal region of the catheter (fig 2, para 0024). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the second catheter of Kaplan to comprise at least one stretch resistant filament extending from the proximal region to the distal region of the second catheter as taught by McFerran et al. This would provide the benefit of having the distal tip portion of the second catheter to radially flex or bend while providing additional column strength to withstand buckling or kinking as the catheter is tracked through the body (para 0024). Regarding claim 17 , Kaplan in view of McFerran et al discloses the catheter device of claim 16 , McFerran et al further disclose wherein the at least one stretch resistant filament (52) is arranged such that a distal portion of the at least one stretch resistant filament extends along inside the curved shape of the tip portion of the second catheter (fig 2, the distal end of segment 52 is also at the distal end 18). Regarding claim 18 , Kaplan in view of McFerran et al discloses the catheter device of claim 17 but fail s to expressly teach wherein the at least one stretch resistant filament is configured to provide a tensile strength ranging from 5 pounds to 25 pounds. However, McFerran et al disclose at least one stretch resistant filament (52, fig 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the at least one stretch resistant of McFerran et al configured to provide a tensile strength ranging from 5 pounds to 25 pounds since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the catheter device of Kaplan in view of McFerran et al would not operate differently with the claimed tensile strength, the catheter device would function appropriately having the claimed angle. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the tensile strength ranging from 5 pounds to 25 pounds (specification pp. [0041]). Regarding claim 19 , Kaplan discloses the limitations of claim 1 1 as discussed above but fail s to teach the catheter device further comprising at least one stretch resistant filament extending from the proximal region to the distal region of the elongate tubular body. However, McFerran et al disclose a catheter device (10) comprising a catheter (12) having a proximal region (14) and a distal region (18) and at least one stretch resistant filament (52) extending from the proximal region to the distal region of the elongate tubular body (fig 2, para 0024). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the catheter device of Kaplan to comprise at least one stretch resistant filament extending from the proximal region to the distal region of the second catheter as taught by McFerran et al. This would provide the benefit of having the distal tip portion of the second catheter to radially flex or bend while providing additional column strength to withstand buckling or kinking as the catheter is tracked through the body (para 0024). Regarding claim 20 , Kaplan in view of McFerran et al discloses the catheter of claim 19 , McFerran et al further disclose wherein the at least one stretch resistant filament (52) is arranged such that a distal portion of the at least one stretch resistant filament extends along inside the curved shape of the tip portion of the second catheter (fig 2, the distal end of segment 52 is also at the distal end 18). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT FATIMATA S DIOP whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-3299 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday- Friday, 9am to 6pm ET . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Bhisma Mehta can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. /FATIMATA SAHRA DIOP/ Examiner, Art Unit 3783 /BHISMA MEHTA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783