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. DETAILED ACTION This is the first office action in response to the above identified patent application filed on 11/30/2023 . Claims 1- 19 are currently pending and being examined. 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 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. Claim Objections Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 5 recites “ the second ” in line 1 . However, there is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation. Examiner suggests reciting “ the second section ”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 6 recites “the second” in line 1. However, there is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation. Examiner suggests reciting “the second section”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 14 recites “the second” in line 1. However, there is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation. Examiner suggests reciting “the second section”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 14 recites “the second” in line 1. However, there is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation. Examiner suggests reciting “the second section”. Appropriate correction is required. IDS Applicant should note that the large number of references in the attached IDS have been considered by the examiner in the same manner as other documents in Office search files are considered by the examiner while conducting a search of the prior art in a proper field of search. See MPEP 609.05(b). Applicant is requested to point out any particular reference in the IDS which they believe may be of particular relevance to the instant claimed invention in response to this office action. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim s 1-4, 7-13, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (USPN 5,057,073) in view of Jackson (USPAP 2016/0346503). In reference to independent claim 1, Martin discloses a rapidly inserted central catheter (“RICC”) (fig 15) , comprising: a first section (108, fig 15) , the first section including a flared proximal end portion (112 is fared) ; a second section (104) , the second section (104) proximal of the first section (108) ; and a third section (106) positioned between the first section and the second section (106 is between 104 and 108) , the third section (108) , the third section including a tapered distal end portion (taken over its length 106 is taped at the distal end portion) configured for positioning within the flared proximal end portion (112) of the first section (108) , however Martin is silent to the first section formed of a first material having a first durometer, the second section formed of a second material having a second durometer less than the first durometer, and a third section formed of a third material having a third durometer less than the first durometer but greater than the second durometer. Jackson, a similar catheter teaches, durometer increasing with each section in the distal direction ( para 0255 discloses “ distal-most segment 40I of outer jacket 24 has a higher durometer, such that it is stiffer, than a segment in the middle of catheter body 12, e.g., one or more of segments 40C-40G ” and para 0256 goes onto disclose “ increasing the hardness of a distal-most section of outer jacket 24 relative to a more proximal section that is directly adjacent to the distal-most section, may provide certain advantages ” ). I t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the progressively higher durometer as taught in Jackson in the catheter of Martin because “ increasing the hardness of the distal-most section may configure distal opening 13 of catheter body 12 to resist geometric deformation when distal opening 13 (FIG. 1) of catheter body 12 is engaged with a guidewire, which may help support the navigation of catheter body 12 through vasculature ” para 0256; Jackson. To be clear the hardness of the sections of Martin are changed to correspond to the hardness as taught in Jackson, creating a catheter that, for example, resists buckling. In reference to independent claim 11, Martin discloses a rapidly inserted central catheter (“RICC”) (fig 15) , comprising: a first section (108) , the first section (108) including a flared proximal end portion (112) ; and a second section (104 & 106 ) , the second section including a tapered distal end portion (106 is tapered over its length) positioned within the flared proximal end portion (112) of the first section (108) to form a junction between the first section and the second section (col 8, 46-48 discloses “ the distal end of the catheter is being formed of three different pieces of tubing 104, 106, 108 ”) , however Martin is silent to the first section formed of a first material having a first durometer and the second section formed of a second material having a second durometer less than the first durometer. Jackson, a similar catheter teaches, durometer increasing with each section in the distal direction (para 0255 discloses “ distal-most segment 40I of outer jacket 24 has a higher durometer, such that it is stiffer, than a segment in the middle of catheter body 12, e.g., one or more of segments 40C-40G ” and para 0256 goes onto disclose “ increasing the hardness of a distal-most section of outer jacket 24 relative to a more proximal section that is directly adjacent to the distal-most section, may provide certain advantages ”). I t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the progressively higher durometer as taught in Jackson in the catheter of Martin because “ increasing the hardness of the distal-most section may configure distal opening 13 of catheter body 12 to resist geometric deformation when distal opening 13 (FIG. 1) of catheter body 12 is engaged with a guidewire, which may help support the navigation of catheter body 12 through vasculature ” para 0256; Jackson. To be clear the hardness of the sections of Martin are changed to correspond to the hardness as taught in Jackson , creating a catheter that, for example, resists buckling . In reference to dependent claim 2, Martin in view of Jackson discloses the RICC according to claim 1, Martin further discloses a catheter wherein the first section (108) , the second section (104) , and the third section (106) are in a distal portion of the RICC (col 8, 46-48 discloses “ the distal end of the catheter is being formed of three different pieces of tubing 104, 106, 108 ”) . In reference to dependent claim 3, Martin in view of Jackson discloses the RICC according to claim 2, Jackson discloses a catheter wherein the first section and the second section possess a column strength sufficient to prevent buckling when the RICC is inserted into and moved through a vasculature of a patient (para 0205 discloses “ Catheter body 12 may be structurally configured to be relatively flexible, pushable, and relatively kink- and buckle-resistant , so that it may resist buckling when a pushing force is applied to a relatively proximal portion of the catheter to advance the catheter body distally through vasculature, and so that it may resist kinking when traversing around a tight turn in the vasculature. Kinking and/or buckling of catheter body 12 may hinder a clinician's efforts to push the catheter body distally, e.g., past a turn. ”) . In reference to dependent claim 4, Martin in view of Jackson discloses the RICC according to claim 2, Martin further discloses a catheter wherein the third section (106) includes a proximal end portion (110) , wherein the second section (104) includes a distal end portion (right side of 104) , and wherein the proximal end portion (110) of the third section (106) abuts the distal end portion of the second section (right side of 104) . In reference to dependent claim 7, Martin in view of Jackson discloses the RICC according to claim 1, Martin further discloses a catheter wherein the third section (106) includes a necked-down section (110) configured to provide a smooth transition between the first section (108) and the second section (106) . In reference to dependent claim 8, Martin in view of Jackson discloses the RICC according to claim 1, Martin further discloses a catheter wherein the first material is selected from the group consisting of polytetrafluoroethylene, polypropylene, and polyurethane (col 10, line 23-24 discloses “ the catheters are described as being formed of polyurethane ”) . In reference to dependent claim 9, Martin in view of Jackson discloses the RICC according to claim 1, Martin further discloses a catheter wherein the second material is selected from the group consisting of polyvinyl chloride, polyethylene, polyurethane (col 10, line 23-24 discloses “ the catheters are described as being formed of polyurethane ”) , and silicone. In reference to dependent claim 10, Martin in view of Jackson discloses the RICC according to claim 1, Martin further discloses a catheter wherein the first section (108) has a single lumen (seen in fig 15) , and wherein the second section (104) has a pair of lumens that transition into the single lumen in the third section (fig 15 shows the dual lumen of 104 into the single outlet of 106) . In reference to dependent claim 12, Martin in view of Jackson discloses the RICC according to claim 11, Martin further discloses a catheter wherein the first section (108) and the second section (104) are in a distal portion of the RICC (col 8, 46-48 discloses “ the distal end of the catheter is being formed of three different pieces of tubing 104, 106, 108 ”) . In reference to dependent claim 13, Martin in view of Jackson discloses the RICC according to claim 12, Jackson further discloses a catheter wherein the first section and the second section possess a column strength sufficient to prevent buckling when the RICC is inserted into and moved through a vasculature of a patient (para 0205 discloses “ Catheter body 12 may be structurally configured to be relatively flexible, pushable, and relatively kink- and buckle-resistant , so that it may resist buckling when a pushing force is applied to a relatively proximal portion of the catheter to advance the catheter body distally through vasculature, and so that it may resist kinking when traversing around a tight turn in the vasculature. Kinking and/or buckling of catheter body 12 may hinder a clinician's efforts to push the catheter body distally, e.g., past a turn. ”) . In reference to dependent claim 16, Martin in view of Jackson discloses the RICC according to claim 11, Martin further discloses a catheter wherein the RICC includes a necked-down section (110) at the junction configured to provide a smooth transition between the first section (108) and the second section (104 and 106) . In reference to dependent claim 17, Martin in view of Jackson discloses the RICC according to claim 11, Martin further discloses a catheter wherein the first material is selected from the group consisting of polytetrafluoroethylene, polypropylene, and polyurethane (col 10, line 23-24 discloses “ the catheters are described as being formed of polyurethane ”) . In reference to dependent claim 18, Martin in view of Jackson discloses the RICC according to claim 11, Martin further discloses a catheter wherein the second material is selected from the group consisting of polyvinyl chloride, polyethylene, polyurethane (col 10, line 23-24 discloses “ the catheters are described as being formed of polyurethane ”) , and silicone. In reference to dependent claim 19, Martin in view of Jackson discloses the RICC according to claim 11, Martin further discloses a catheter wherein the first section (108) has a single lumen (seen in fig 15) , and wherein the second section (104 and 106) has a pair of lumens that transition into the single lumen in the junction (104 clearly shows at least two lumens) . Claim s 5, 6, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (USPN 5,057,073) in view of Jackson (USPAP 2016/0346503) further in view of Bluecher (USPAP 2020/0030124) . In reference to dependent claim 5, Martin in view of Jackson discloses the RICC according to claim 1, however Martin and Jackson are silent to wherein each of the first section and the second is welded to the third section in a heat weld. Bluecher, a device used for drainage catheters (para 0058 discloses “ the embodiments of biliary drainage stents may also illustrate other drainage devices, such as ureteral stents, esophageal stents, vascular stents, or drainage catheters provided in accordance with other embodiments ”) teaches the first section ( left side of 1012, fig 10) and the second ( right side of 101 2 ) is welded to the third section (1014) in a heat weld (para 0129 discloses “ the two segments 1012 and 1014 may not be made from the same continuously interconnected structure and may be attached by a solvent weld or heat weld ”) . I t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach the sections as taught in Bluecher in the catheter of Martin to allow the different sections to be manufactured and assembled cheaper, it also allows for different lengths and types of sections to be chosen and assembled as needed. In reference to dependent claim 6, Martin in view of Jackson discloses the RICC according to claim 1, however Martin and Jackson are silent to each of the first section and the second is welded to the third section in a solvent weld. Bluecher, a device used for drainage catheters (para 0058 discloses “ the embodiments of biliary drainage stents may also illustrate other drainage devices, such as ureteral stents, esophageal stents, vascular stents, or drainage catheters provided in accordance with other embodiments ”) teaches the first section ( left 1012, fig 10) and the second ( right side of 101 2 ) is welded to the third section (1014) in a solvent weld (para 0129 discloses “ the two segments 1012 and 1014 may not be made from the same continuously interconnected structure and may be attached by a solvent weld or heat weld ”) . I t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach the sections as taught in Bluecher in the catheter of Martin to allow the different sections to be manufactured and assembled cheaper, it also allows for different lengths and types of sections to be chosen and assembled as needed. In reference to dependent claim 14, Martin in view of Jackson discloses the RICC according to claim 11, however Martin and Jackson are silent to the first section is welded to the second at the junction in a heat weld. Bluecher, a device used for drainage catheters (para 0058 discloses “ the embodiments of biliary drainage stents may also illustrate other drainage devices, such as ureteral stents, esophageal stents, vascular stents, or drainage catheters provided in accordance with other embodiments ”) teaches the first section (1012, fig 10) is welded to the second (1014) at the junction in a heat weld (para 0129 discloses “ the two segments 1012 and 1014 may not be made from the same continuously interconnected structure and may be attached by a solvent weld or heat weld ”) . I t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach the sections as taught in Bluecher in the catheter of Martin to allow the different sections to be manufactured and assembled cheaper, it also allows for different lengths and types of sections to be chosen and assembled as needed. In reference to dependent claim 15, Martin in view of Jackson discloses the RICC according to claim 11, Martin and Jackson are silent to the first section is welded to the second at the junction in a solvent weld. Bluecher, a device used for drainage catheters (para 0058 discloses “ the embodiments of biliary drainage stents may also illustrate other drainage devices, such as ureteral stents, esophageal stents, vascular stents, or drainage catheters provided in accordance with other embodiments ”) teaches the first section (1012, fig 10) is welded to the second (1014) at the junction in a solvent weld (para 0129 discloses “ the two segments 1012 and 1014 may not be made from the same continuously interconnected structure and may be attached by a solvent weld or heat weld ”) . I t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach the sections as taught in Bluecher in the catheter of Martin to allow the different sections to be manufactured and assembled cheaper, it also allows for different lengths and types of sections to be chosen and assembled as needed. Conclusion Examiner has cited particular columns and line and/or paragraph numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application. When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c). The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. LeBlanc (USPAP 2014/0180255) discloses a catheter tip. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT CHARLES W NICHOLS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6492 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 8am-5pm 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Michael Tsai can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-5246 . 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. /CHARLES W NICHOLS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3783