Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 04, 2026
Application No. 18/535,086

GUIDE WIRE

Final Rejection §102§103§112
Filed
Dec 11, 2023
Priority
Jun 22, 2021 — JP 2021-103270 +1 more
Examiner
KRETZER, KYLE W.
Art Unit
3791
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Asahi Intecc Co., Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
63%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
1y 1m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 63% of resolved cases
63%
Career Allowance Rate
101 granted / 161 resolved
-7.3% vs TC avg
Strong +46% interview lift
Without
With
+46.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
53 currently pending
Career history
214
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
13.3%
-26.7% vs TC avg
§103
38.8%
-1.2% vs TC avg
§102
17.0%
-23.0% vs TC avg
§112
27.3%
-12.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 161 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-4 are hereby under examination. 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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/11/2023, 10/30/2024, 05/27/2025, and 08/21/2025 are being considered by the examiner. Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: R1 and R2 as referenced in para. [0025] and para. [0030] are not included in the drawings. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. 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 applicant regards as his invention. Claim 2 is 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. As to claim 2, it is not clear whether the “a distal end side” in lines 2 and 4 of the claim refers to the same distal end side referred to in claim 1 or if this is a different distal end side. Are there multiple distal end sides? Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miller et al. (US 4917102 A) (cited in the IDS filed 05/27/2025), hereinafter referred to as Miller. The claims are generally directed towards a guide wire comprising: a core shaft extending along a central axis, and including a distal end portion that is curved in a predetermined direction; a tubular body covering an outer periphery of the core shaft; and a distal tip joining the distal end portion of the core shaft and a distal end portion of the tubular body, wherein the distal tip has a convex shape oriented toward a distal end side, in a cross section of the core shaft cut along a plane including the central axis, the distal tip includes: a curve inner portion located on an inside of a curve of the distal end portion relative to the central axis, and a curve outer portion located on an outside of the curve of the distal end portion relative to the central axis, and a cross-sectional area of the curve inner portion is smaller than a cross-sectional area of the curve outer portion. Regarding claim 1, Miller discloses a guide wire (Abstract, “guidewire assembly”, Fig. 3) comprising: a core shaft extending along a central axis (Figs. 2-4, element 33, “fixed core”, - element 33 extends along a central axis as shown in Figs. 2-4), and including a distal end portion that is curved in a predetermined direction (Fig. 3, Fig. 4, element 42, “most distal curved section”, col. 4, lines 4-10, “moveable core is extended axially in the proximal direction, the fixed core assumes its preshaped state …”); a tubular body covering an outer periphery of the core shaft (Figs. 2-4, element 30, “outer tubular member”, col. 3, lines 17-30, “inner core member 33 which is fixed within the interior of the outer tubular member 30”); and a distal tip joining the distal end portion of the core shaft and a distal end portion of the tubular body (Figs. 2-4, element 35, “plug”, col. 3, lines 31-55, “outer tubular member … comprises a helical coil extending proximally from plug 35 at the distal tip … fixed core is secured by its distal tip to plug 35 …”), wherein the distal tip has a convex shape oriented toward a distal end side (Figs. 2-4, element 35 - element 35 is convex), in a cross section of the core shaft cut along a plane including the central axis (See Annotated Fig. 3 below - the cross section cut along a plane including the central axis of the core shaft being the dashed line through the tip of element 33 connected to element 35), the distal tip includes: a curve inner portion located on an inside of a curve of the distal end portion relative to the central axis (See Annotated Fig. 3 below - Element A being a curve inner portion), and a curve outer portion located on an outside of the curve of the distal end portion relative to the central axis (See Annotated Fig. 3 below - Element B being a curve outer portion), and a cross-sectional area of the curve inner portion is smaller than a cross-sectional area of the curve outer portion (See Annotated Fig. 3 below - the cross-sectional area of Element A is smaller than the cross-sectional area of Element B). PNG media_image1.png 314 510 media_image1.png Greyscale 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 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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (US 4917102 A) (cited in the IDS filed 05/27/2025), hereinafter referred to as Miller as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lupton et al. (US 20160331943 A1) (cited in the IDS filed 12/11/2023), hereinafter referred to as Lupton. Regarding claim 2, Miller discloses the guide wire according to claim 1, wherein: an outer shape of the curve inner portion on a distal end side includes a first arcuate portion having a first curvature (See Annotated Fig. 3 above - Element A has a first arcuate portion with a first curvature); and an outer shape of the curve outer portion on a distal end side includes a second arcuate portion having a second curvature (See Annotated Fig. 3 above - Element B has a second arcuate portion with a second curvature). However, Miller does not explicitly disclose the first curvature being smaller than the second curvature. Lupton teaches an analogous guide ware (Abstract). Lupton further teaches the distal tip of the guide wire includes an inner portion with a first curvature being smaller than an outer portion with a second curvature (Fig. 22, Fig. 23, elements 18 and 21, para. [0142]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the curvatures of the first curvature and the second curvature to explicitly have the first curvature be smaller than the second curvature, as taught by Lupton. This is because Lupton teaches different shapes of the distal tip allows for ease of penetration of a vascular occlusion (para. [0072]). Additionally, Lupton clearly teaches that variability of the dimensions and dimensional relationships of the components, which suggests that the dimensions can be optimized based on manufacturing, design, and use applications. As such, the dimensions and dimensional relationships of the components are results-effective variables that would have been optimized through routine experimentation based on the manufacturing, design, and use applications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select the dimensions and dimensional relationships of the components, using the teachings of Lupton as a starting point, so as to obtain the desired manufacturing, design, and use applications. Regarding claim 3, Miller discloses the guide wire according to claim 1. However, Miller does not explicitly disclose wherein: the distal tip includes: a distal portion provided in the curve outer portion and being a longest distance from a distal end of the tubular body relative to a remainder of the distal tip so as to have a longest projection length relative to the remainder of the distal tip; and a proximal portion provided in the curve inner portion and being a shorter distance from the distal end of the tubular body than the distal portion so as to have a shorter projection length than that of the distal portion, and a projection length of the distal tip becomes shorter from the distal portion toward the proximal portion. Lupton teaches an analogous guide ware (Abstract). Lupton further teaches a distal tip of a guide wire includes a distal portion provided in a curve outer portion and being a longest distance from a distal end of the tubular body relative to a remainer of the distal tip so as to have a longest projection length relative to the remainder of the distal tip (Fig. 22, element 21, para. [0140]); and a proximal portion provided in the curve inner portion and being a shorter distance from the distal end of the tubular body than the distal portion so as to have a shorter projection length than that of the distal portion (Fig. 22, element 18, para. [0140]), and a projection length of the distal tip becomes shorter from the distal portion toward the proximal portion (Fig. 22, elements 18 and 21, para. [0140]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the distal portion to explicitly have two projection lengths such that the distal tip becomes shorter from the distal portion toward the proximal portion, as taught by Lupton. This is because This is because Lupton teaches different shapes of the distal tip allows for ease of penetration of a vascular occlusion (para. [0072]). Additionally, Lupton clearly teaches that variability of the dimensions and dimensional relationships of the components, which suggests that the dimensions can be optimized based on manufacturing, design, and use applications. As such, the dimensions and dimensional relationships of the components are results-effective variables that would have been optimized through routine experimentation based on the manufacturing, design, and use applications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select the dimensions and dimensional relationships of the components, using the teachings of Lupton as a starting point, so as to obtain the desired manufacturing, design, and use applications. Regarding claim 4, modified Miller discloses the guide wire according to claim 3. However, modified Miller does not explicitly disclose wherein: the distal tip includes a flat portion, and the flat portion extends from the curve inner portion to the curve outer portion so as to be inclined in a direction away from the tubular body. Lupton further teaches the distal tip includes a flat portion, and the flat portion extends from the curve inner portion to the curve outer portion so as to be inclined in a direction away from the tubular body (Fig. 22, element 8, para. [0140]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the distal tip to additionally include a flat portion, and the flat portion extends from the curve inner portion to the curve outer portion so as to be inclined in a direction away from the tubular body, as taught by Lupton. This is because Lupton teaches different shapes of the distal tip allows for ease of penetration of a vascular occlusion (para. [0072]). Additionally, Lupton clearly teaches that variability of the dimensions and dimensional relationships of the components, which suggests that the dimensions can be optimized based on manufacturing, design, and use applications. As such, the dimensions and dimensional relationships of the components are results-effective variables that would have been optimized through routine experimentation based on the manufacturing, design, and use applications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select the dimensions and dimensional relationships of the components, using the teachings of Lupton as a starting point, so as to obtain the desired manufacturing, design, and use applications. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE W KRETZER whose telephone number is (571)272-1907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30 AM to 5:30 PM. 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, Jason M Sims can be reached at (571)272-7540. 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. /K.W.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /ERIC J MESSERSMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 11, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 19, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Mar 13, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 13, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 19, 2026
Response Filed
Apr 17, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599319
ELECTROCHEMICAL DETECTION DEVICE AND METHOD
6y 4m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12588834
Device, system and method for movement tracking
4y 6m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12569164
DEVICE FOR MEASURING A PERSON'S VENTILATION INCLUDING OXYGEN-CONSUMPTION
5y 6m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12569191
METHODS, DEVICES, AND SYSTEMS FOR PHYSIOLOGICAL PARAMETER ANALYSIS
3y 9m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12551148
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR COMPENSATING FOR AGENT ELUTION
2y 10m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
63%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+46.1%)
3y 6m (~1y 1m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 161 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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