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. Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 100b (Fig. 3) . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Claim Objections Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, “second portion” shouldbe “second friction portion”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an unconstrained shape means” in claim 20. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function. 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 1-18 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. Regarding claim 1, the limitation “ a proximal second section that forms a major curve with the proximal second section in the unconstrained shape ” is indefinite because it is unclear how a proximal second section form a curve with itself. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as “a proximal second section that forms a major curve in the unconstrained shape .” Claims 2-18 are rejected for incorporating this limitation due to their respective dependencies on claim 1. 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. Claims 1-2 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by a first interpretation of Itou et al (US 2005/0015007) . Regarding claim 1 , Itou discloses: An inner support catheter (Fig. 3) comprising: an elongated catheter body (7) comprising a distal region (73) with a constrained linear shape (¶0070 – with an external force, the body is a linear shape ) and an unconstrained shape (Fig. 3) ; wherein the distal region (73) comprises a distal first section (77) and a proximal second section (731) that forms a major curve (¶0069) with the proximal second section (731) in the unconstrained shape (Fig. 3) , wherein the distal first section (77) is distally located relative to the second proximal second section (731) in the constrained linear shape; and, where in the unconstrained shape: the proximal second section (731) lies substantially in a first reference plane (see Image 1 below) ; and, the distal first section (77) is positioned at least partially outside of the first reference plane (Image 1) . Image 1. Annotated portion of Fig. 3. Examiner notes that the line for the first reference plane represents a plane that is coming out of the page. In addition, the section of the proximal second section that is overlapped by this line is interpreted as a substantial portion of the proximal second section. Regarding claim 2 , Itou discloses: The inner support catheter of claim 1, wherein a distal tip of the distal first section (77) is positioned proximally of the major curve (Image 1) . Regarding claim 19 , Itou discloses: An inner support catheter (Fig. 3) comprising: an elongated catheter body (7) comprising a distal region (73) with an unconstrained shape (Fig. 3) ; wherein the distal region (73) comprises a first distal section (731) that forms a major curve (¶0069) with a second distal section (77) in the unconstrained shape; and, wherein the unconstrained shape (Fig. 3) the first distal section (731) is positioned at a non-parallel angle relative to the second distal section (77) (¶0069) and wherein a free distal tip ( end of second distal section 77) of the distal region (73) is positioned in a generally proximal orientation (Fig. 3) . Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by a second interpretation of Itou . Regarding claim 1 , Itou discloses: An inner support catheter (Fig. 13) comprising: an elongated catheter body (2B) comprising a distal region (33B) with a constrained linear shape (¶0149 – with an external force, the body is a linear shape ) and an unconstrained shape (Fig. 13) ; wherein the distal region (33B) comprises a distal first section (338) and a proximal second section (336) that forms a major curve (335) with the proximal second section (336) in the unconstrained shape (Fig. 13) , wherein the distal first section (338) is distally located relative to the second proximal second section (336) in the constrained linear shape; and, where in the unconstrained shape (Fig. 13) : the proximal second section (336) lies substantially in a first reference plane (see Image 2 below) ; and, the distal first section (338) is positioned at least partially outside of the first reference plane (Image 2) . Image 2. Annotated portion of Fig. 13. Examiner notes that the line for the first reference plane represents a plane that is coming out of the page. Regarding claim 3 , Itou discloses: The inner support catheter of claim 1, wherein the distal first section (338) is positioned at an angle ( angle complimentary to angle θ 5 ) within an inclusive range of 5 and 45 degrees relative to the first reference plane (¶0155 – the angle θ 5 is in the range 100° to 170°, which means its complimentary angle is 10° to 80°, which includes a range of 5° to 45° ) . Claims 1, 7-9, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by a third interpretation of Itou . Regarding claim 1 , Itou discloses: An inner support catheter (Fig. 9) comprising: an elongated catheter body (7A) comprising a distal region (73A) with a constrained linear shape (¶0131 – with an external force, the body is a linear shape ) and an unconstrained shape (Fig. 9; ¶0130) ; wherein the distal region (73A) comprises a distal first section (734) and a proximal second section (732) that forms a major curve (¶0130) with the proximal second section (732) in the unconstrained shape (Fig. 9) , wherein the distal first section (734) is distally located relative to the second proximal second section (732) in the constrained linear shape; and, where in the unconstrained shape (Fig. 9) : the proximal second section (732) lies substantially in a first reference plane (see Image 3 below) ; and, the distal first section (734) is positioned at least partially outside of the first reference plane (Image 3) . Image 3. Annotated portion of Fig. 9. Examiner notes that the line for the first reference plane represents a plane that is coming out of the page. In addition, the section of the proximal second section that is overlapped by this line is interpreted as a substantial portion of the proximal second section. Regarding claim 7 , Itou discloses: The inner support catheter of claim 1, wherein the distal first section (734) further comprises a first minor curve ( curve defined by angle θ 2 ) . Regarding claim 8 , Itou discloses: The inner support catheter of claim 7, wherein the first minor curve curves in a direction generally away from the proximal second section (732) (Fig. 9 – the distal first section 734 curves away from the proximal second section 732 and the first curve can therefore be interpreted as being in a direction generally away from the second section 732) . Regarding claim 9 , Itou discloses: The inner support catheter of claim 7, wherein the first minor curve has a curvature less than a curvature of the major curve ( the curve of the major curve would have a larger radius of curvature and therefore have more curvature than the first minor curve ) . Regarding claim 20 , Itou discloses: An inner support catheter (Fig. 9) comprising: an elongated catheter body (7A) comprising a distal region (73A) with an unconstrained shape means (Fig. 9) for accessing a carotid artery in an aortic arch (¶0157) ; wherein the distal region (73A) comprises a first distal section (732) that forms a major curve (¶0130) with a second distal section (734) . Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by a fourth interpretation of Itou . Regarding claim 1 , Itou discloses: An inner support catheter (Fig. 13) comprising: an elongated catheter body (2B) comprising a distal region (33B) with a constrained linear shape (¶0149 – with an external force, the body is a linear shape ) and an unconstrained shape (Fig. 13) ; wherein the distal region (2B) comprises a distal first section (336) and a proximal second section (334) that forms a major curve (333) with the proximal second section (334) in the unconstrained shape, wherein the distal first section (336) is distally located relative to the second proximal second section (334) in the constrained linear shape; and, where in the unconstrained shape: the proximal second section (334) lies substantially in a first reference plane (see Image 4 below) ; and, the distal first section (336) is positioned at least partially outside of the first reference plane (Image 4) . Image 4. Annotated portion of Fig. 13. Examiner notes that the line for the first reference plane represents a plane that is coming out of the page. Regarding claim 10 , Itou discloses: The inner support catheter of claim 1, wherein the distal first section (336) is within an inclusive range of about 5 cm to 8 cm (¶0154 – “length … in the range of about 10 to 80mm,” which is a range of 1 to 8 cm and therefore includes the range of 5 to 8 cm ) . 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. The factual inquiries 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 4-6 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the second interpretation of Itou . Regarding claim 4 , Itou discloses the inner support catheter of claim 3 and further teaches that the distal first section (338) is positioned at an angle of 10° to 80° as detailed in the rejection of claim 3. However, Itou does not explicitly disclose the angle being about 15°. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the angle of Itou to be about 15° as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (instant specification ¶0078 indicates the angle “may” be about several different degrees) and because it has been held that “[ i ]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Regarding claim 5 , Itou discloses the inner support catheter of claim 3 but is silent regarding “a distal tip of the distal first section is positioned at about inclusive range of about 1 about 0.4 cm to 2.0 cm away from a face of the first reference plane.” However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Itou to have a distal tip positioned at a range of about 0.4 cm to 2.0 cm away from a face of the first reference plane 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 device of Itou would not operate differently with the claimed distance because the distal tip is intended to traverse an aortic arch and having a tip positioned 0.4 cm to 2.0 cm away from a face of the first reference plane would provide sufficient structure to perform such an operation. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the distance “may” be within the range (instant specification ¶0084). Regarding claim 6 , Itou discloses the inner support catheter of claim 5 but is silent regarding “the distal tip of the distal first section is positioned at a length from the proximal second section that is about parallel to the first reference plane within an inclusive range of about 1.3 cm to about 6.3 cm away from the proximal second section.” Instead, Itou teaches a length of the distal first section being about 1 to 10 mm long and a length of the proximal second section being 10 to 80 mm long (¶0152, 0154) . Itou discloses lengths and shapes to enhance the position holding performance when the device is held in the left or right common carotid arteries (¶0157) . As such, the length of the distal first section (and therefore the distal tip’s position away from the proximal second section) is disclosed to be a result effective variable that affects the position holding performance of the device. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the device of Itou to have a length within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Itou by making the length of the distal first section to be within an inclusive range of about 1.3 cm to about 6.3 cm away from the proximal second section 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 15 , Itou discloses the inner support catheter of claim 1 and further discloses differently rigid sections over the length of the catheter (¶0071) and stiffnesses of 10-400 gf and 20-500gf in the proximal and distal portions (¶0088-0089) . However, Itou is silent regarding “wherein the inner support catheter has a stiffness at 80 mm from a distal tip of the inner support catheter within a range of about 308.6 gf and 606.5 gf, and a stiffness at 100 mm from the distal tip of the inner support catheter of about 556.4 gm and 1243.8 gf.” Itou discloses stiffnesses and lengths to enhance the position holding performance when the device is held in the left or right common carotid arteries (¶0157) . As such, the stiffness at specific portions of the catheter is disclosed to be a result effective variable that affects the position holding performance of the device. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the device of Itou to have specific stiffnesses within the claimed ranges, as it involves only adjusting the composition of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Itou by making the stiffnesses along its length to be within a range of about 308.6 gf and 606.5 gf and of about 556.4 gm and 1243.8 gf at different sections 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 , Itou discloses the inner support catheter of claim 1 and further discloses differently rigid sections over the length of the catheter (¶0071) and stiffnesses of 10-400 gf and 20-500gf in the proximal and distal portions (¶0088-0089) . However, Itou is silent regarding “wherein the inner support catheter has an average stiffness at 80 mm from a distal tip of the inner support catheter of about 457.6 gf, and an average stiffness at 100 mm from the distal tip of the inner support catheter of about 900.1 gf.” Itou discloses stiffnesses and lengths to enhance the position holding performance when the device is held in the left or right common carotid arteries (¶0157) . As such, the stiffness at specific portions of the catheter is disclosed to be a result effective variable that affects the position holding performance of the device. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the device of Itou to have specific stiffnesses within the claimed ranges, as it involves only adjusting the composition of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Itou by making the stiffnesses along its length to be about 457.6 gf and about 900.1 gf at different sections 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 17 , Itou teaches the inner support catheter of claim 15, wherein the same routine optimization would be used to adjust the stiffness at about 20 mm within a range of about 7.0 gf and 520.5 gf, as detailed in the rejection of claim 15 above. Regarding claim 18 , Itou teaches the inner support catheter of claim 16, wherein the same routine optimization would be used to adjust the average stiffness at about 20 mm of about 192.9 gf, as detailed in the rejection of claim 16 above. Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the first interpretation of Itou in view of Tsai et al (US 2016/0136393) . Regarding claim 11 , Itou discloses the inner support catheter of claim 1 but is silent regarding “a low friction coating disposed on the major curve and having a lower friction surface than adjacent areas of the distal region.” However, Tsai teaches a catheter (Abstract) , thus being in the same field of endeavor, with different segments with specific properties (¶0033-0034) , including using lubricious coatings to reduce the friction between various components within tortuous bends to allow ease of movement through lumens (¶0068) . It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the catheter of Itou to incorporate a low friction coating disposed on specific segment of the catheter as taught by Tsai in order to provide sufficient structure to allow ease of movement through lumens, as recognized by Tsai. Regarding claim 12 , Itou discloses the inner support catheter of claim 1 but is silent regarding “a low friction coating disposed on only a portion of the distal region.” However, Tsai teaches a catheter (Abstract) , thus being in the same field of endeavor, with different segments with specific properties (¶0033-0034) , including using lubricious coatings to reduce the friction between various components within tortuous bends to allow ease of movement through lumens (¶0068) . It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the catheter of Itou to incorporate a low friction coating disposed on specific segment of the catheter as taught by Tsai in order to provide sufficient structure to allow ease of movement through lumens, as recognized by Tsai. Regarding claim 13 , Itou discloses the inner support catheter of claim 1 but is silent regarding “a first friction portion, a second friction portion adjacent the first friction portion, and a third friction portion adjacent the second friction portion; wherein the second friction portion has reduced friction relative to the first friction portion and the third friction portion; and wherein the second friction portion is located over at least the major curve.” However, Tsai teaches a catheter (Abstract) , thus being in the same field of endeavor, with different segments with specific properties (Fig. 1B; ¶0033-0034) , including using lubricious coatings to reduce the friction between various components within tortuous bends to allow ease of movement through lumens (¶0068) . It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the catheter of Itou to incorporate a low friction coating disposed on specific segment of the catheter as taught by Tsai in order to provide sufficient structure to allow ease of movement through lumens, as recognized by Tsai. Regarding claim 14 , Itou in view of Tsai discloses the inner support catheter of claim 13, wherein the second friction portion modified by Tsai in the rejection of claim 13 is within an inclusive range of 5-15 times less friction than the first friction portion and the third friction portion (Tsai; ¶0069 – a reduction of 90% friction is 10 times less friction, which is within the range of 5-15 ) . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT TASNIM M AHMED whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9536 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9am-5pm Pacific time . 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. /TASNIM MEHJABIN AHMED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783