CTFR 18/573,853 CTFR 95002 DETAILED ACTION 1. This office action is in response to the communicated dated 27 February 2026 concerning application number 18/573,853 effectively filed on 22 December 2023. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims 3. Claims 1-21 are pending, of which claim 21 has been added; and claims 1-21 are under consideration for patentability. Response to Arguments 4. Applicant’s arguments dated 27 February 2026, referred to herein as “the Arguments”, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner has addressed the amended limitations within the updated text below. Applicant argues that the Sartor and Eryilmaz do not explicitly suggest the elongated structure configured to deliver or retrieve a medical device within vasculature of a patient, wherein the elongated structure comprises an exposed surface treated with a plasma-treatment process using a reactive gas to reduce friction associated with the surface, and wherein the exposed surface includes a hydrophilic substance formed from the reactive gas (pages 9-10 of the Arguments). The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as Sartor teaches the medical device 102 including an elongated structure or catheter 404 which has a channel that allows the medical device 102 to be inserted within vasculature or natural body orifices of the patient ([0061, 0063]). Furthermore, Sartor teaches the elongated structure or catheter 404 comprising a distal surface portion 416 that ignites ionizable media to form plasma consisting of hydrophilic properties or substances which can be further applied to a workpiece “W” (e.g., tissue) or at the surface thereof ([0044, 0048-0049, 0061, 0064, FIG. 4]). Specifically, the ionizable media consist of reactive gasses, such as a combination of hydrogen and/or oxygen ([0018, 0064]). Sartor does not explicitly teach the reactive gas to reduce the friction associated with the surface. Meanwhile, Eryilmaz teaches the use of reactive gases (e.g., hydrogen, nitrous oxide, nitrogen dioxide, and/or hydrogen sulfide) to form plasma which can reduce the friction associated with a film or material surface that is coated on a catheter ([0013, 0022]). In this case, the prior art combination of the 103 rejection was only utilizing Eryilmaz’s reactive gases to form a plasma which can reduce the friction associated with the surface of Sartor’s elongated element (e.g., catheter 404) . This modification is beneficial, as the elongated element (e.g., catheter) would undergo less wear and tear due to a reduction in friction (see paragraphs [0008, 0022, 0027, 0031] by Eryilmaz). Therefore, the Examiner respectfully maintains the combination of Sartor and Eryilmaz for suggesting the limitations of claim 1. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-103 AIA 5. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 07-21-aia AIA 6. Claim s 1, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sartor et al. (US 2017/0224404 A1) in view of Eryilmaz et al. (US 2010/0203339 A1) . Regarding claim 1, Sartor teaches a medical assembly (the medical assembly or plasma system 100 [0042, 0058, 0061]) comprising: an elongated structure configured to deliver or retrieve a medical device within vasculature of a patient (the plasma system 100 comprises a medical plasma device 102 [0042]. Specifically, the medical plasma device 102 includes a catheter 404 which can be inserted within a working channel of endoscope [0061]. Furthermore, the catheter 404 allows the medical plasma device 102 to be inserted through operating ports for application of the plasma effluent 120 at the operating site during endoscopic procedures, endoluminal procedures, or through natural body orifices [0061]. The Examiner respectfully submits that the catheter 404 may be maneuvered through the vascular system [0063]), wherein the elongated structure comprises an exposed surface treated with a plasma-treatment process using a reactive gas (the catheter 404 comprises a distal treatment portion 416 that ignites ionizable media to form plasma [0002, 0018, 0049, 0064-0065]. Specifically, the ionizable media includes reactive gases, such as a combination of hydrogen and/or oxygen [0018, 0064]), and wherein the exposed surface includes a hydrophilic substance formed from the reactive gas (as stated previously above, the distal treatment portion 416 ignites ionizable media (e.g., combination of hydrogen and oxygen) to form plasma [0002, 0018, 0049, 0064-0065. Specifically, the plasma includes hydrophilic or hydroscopic properties [0049, 0064]). Sartor does not explicitly teach wherein the reactive gas reduces the friction associated with the surface. The prior art by Eryilmaz is analogous to Sartor, as they both teach plasma generating devices that are used with catheters ([0008]). Eryilmaz teaches wherein the reactive gas reduces the friction associated with the surface (the plasma treatment process may be applied to a film (e.g., carbon film) and the film is then applied to a device (e.g., catheter or various medical implants) [0008, 0031]. Specifically, the plasma treatment process incorporates reactive gases (e.g., nitrous oxide, nitrogen dioxide, and/or hydrogen sulfide) configured to reduce the friction of the film which is coated on the device (e.g., catheter or various medical implants) [0008, 0022, 0031]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Sartor’s medical assembly to apply reactive gases that reduce friction associated with the surface, as taught by Eryilmaz. This modification is beneficial, as the device will undergo less wear and tear due to a reduction in friction (see paragraphs [0008, 0022, 0027, 0031]). Regarding claim 8, Sartor teaches wherein the medical device comprises an interventional element (the medical plasma device 102 comprises an generator 104 which is coupled to interventional elements, such as the wire electrodes 504 and 506 [0079-0080, 0085, FIG. 10]), wherein the elongated structure comprises an intravascular-insertable shaft removably coupled to the interventional element (the wire electrodes 504 and 506 may be removably coupled or placed on the proximal shaft portion 406 or the distal treatment shaft portion 416 of the catheter 404 [0078-0079, 0085-0086, FIG. 4, FIG. 10]. Specifically, the wire electrodes 504 and 506 may be wounded along the proximal shaft portion 406 or distal treatment shaft portion 416 of the catheter 404 [0078-0079, 0085-0086, FIG. 4, FIG. 10]. Alternatively, the wired electrodes 504 and 506 may be unwounded and positioned along the distal treatment shaft portion 416 of the catheter 404 [0085-0086, FIG. 4, FIG. 10]. As stated previously in claim 1, the catheter 404 may be maneuvered through the vascular system [0063]). Regarding claim 10, Sartor wherein the interventional element comprises an electrode (the wire electrodes 504 and 506 may be removably coupled or placed on the distal treatment shaft portion 416 of the catheter 404 [0085-0086, FIG. 4, FIG. 10]) . 07-21-aia AIA 7. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sartor et al. in view of Eryilmaz et al., further in view of Bruszewski et al. (US 2008/0108987 A1) . Regarding claim 2, Sartor in view of Eryilmaz suggests the medical assembly of claim 1, wherein the exposed surface has contact angle that may adjusted (the distal treatment portion 416 of the distal portion 408 may be flexed (e.g., deflected) at a desired angle [0061-0062, 0064-0065]). Sartor and Eryilmaz do not explicitly teach wherein the exposed surface has a contact angle less than or equal to about 90°. The prior art by Bruszewski is analogous to Sartor, as they both teach catheter devices that configured to generate plasma ([0011, 0016, 0027, 0060]). Bruszewski teaches wherein the exposed surface has a contact angle equal to about 90° (the delivery catheter 130 comprises a distal end 130D that is oriented at a 90-degree angle [0042, 0051]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the contact angle suggested by Sartor in view of Eryilmaz to have a contact angle of 90 degrees, as taught by Bruszewski. The advantage of such modification may improve the positioning of the catheter at a target location within the patient’s vasculature (see paragraph [0051] by Bruszewski) . 07-21-aia AIA 8. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sartor et al. in view of Eryilmaz et al., further in view of Buzzi et al. (WO 2020/187493 A1, with citations to the corresponding US Publication No. 2022/0168467 A1) . Regarding claim 3, Sartor in view of Eryilmaz suggests the medical assembly of claim 1. Sartor and Eryilmaz do not explicitly teach wherein the exposed surface has a surface roughness less than about 10 microns. The prior art by Buzzi is analogous to Sartor, as they both teach an implantable catheter ([0021]). Buzzi teaches wherein the exposed surface has a surface roughness less than about 10 microns (the contact surface has roughness ranging up to 10 micrometers or advantageously up to 5 micrometers [0029]. The Examiner respectfully submits that a micron and micrometer are known to be the same unit of measurement [0029]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the exposed surface suggested by Sartor in view of Eryilmaz to have a roughness less than 10 microns, as taught by Buzzi. The advantage of such modification will provide the exposed surface with a roughness that can be easily cleaned and purified (see paragraphs [0029-0030] by Buzzi) . 07-21-aia AIA 9. Claim s 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sartor et al. in view of Eryilmaz et al., further in view of Makower et al. (US 2009/0187098 A1) . Regarding claim 9, Sartor in view of Eryilmaz suggests the medical assembly of claim 8. Sartor teaches wherein the interventional element is positioned at a distal portion of the elongated structure (the wired electrodes 504 and 506 may be positioned along the distal treatment shaft portion 416 of the catheter 404 [0085-0086, FIG. 4, FIG. 10]). However, Sartor and Eryilmaz do not explicitly teach wherein the medical device comprises a thrombectomy device or a clot-grabbing device. The prior art by Makower is analogous to Sartor, as the both teach a plasma generator that is used with a catheter ([0040, 0126, 0260]). Makower teaches wherein the medical device comprises a clot-grabbing device (the catheter 72 comprising a suction element to remove debris or a blood clot [0240]. Alternatively, the catheter 128 may may be used with a separate suction device 206 having a suction line 204 to remove blood clots or debris [0309]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the medical device suggested by Sartor in view of Eryilmaz to comprise a clot-grabbing device, as taught by Makower. The advantage of such modification will help remove blood clots and/or other fluids from a target surgical site (see paragraphs [0186, 0240, 0189] by Makowever). Regarding claim 11, Sartor in view of Eryilmaz suggests the medical assembly of claim 1. Sartor and Eryilmaz do not explicitly teach wherein the medical assembly further comprises a medical device delivery system comprising a coil-delivery system, a stent-delivery system, a flow-diverter-delivery system, a cardiac-pacing- device-delivery system, or a heart-valve-delivery system. However, Makower teaches wherein the medical assembly further comprises a medical device delivery system comprising a stent-delivery system (one or more flexible catheters may be used to guide and implant a stent within the patient’s body [0051, 0236, 0239]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the medical assembly suggested by Sartor in view of Eryilmaz to include a medical device delivery system comprising a stent-delivery system, as taught by Makower. The advantage of such modification will provide a stent-delivery system which can be used for an occlusion procedure (see paragraphs [0051, 0236, 0239] by Makower) . 07-21-aia AIA 10. Claim s 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sartor et al. in view of Eryilmaz et al., further in view of Su et al. (US 2013/0253479 A1) . Regarding claim 12, Sartor in view of Eryilmaz suggests the medical assembly of claim 1. Sartor teaches wherein the elongated structure defines a shaft length that can be navigated through the patient’s vasculature (the shaft or elongated portion of the catheter 404 may be maneuvered through the vascular system [0063, FIG. 4]). However, Sartor and Eryilmaz do not explicitly teach wherein the shaft length is configured to enable neurovascular access for the elongated structure, and wherein the shaft length is greater than one meter. The prior art by Su is analogous to Sartor, as they both teach a plasma treatment process that is applied to a catheter device that inserted within the patient’s vasculature ([0032, 0037]). Su teaches wherein the shaft length is configured to enable neurovascular access for the elongated structure, and wherein the shaft length is greater than one meter (the catheter 1 may be designed for neurovascular , cardiovascular, urological, gastrointestinal, and/or ophthalmic applications [0032, 0034, FIG. 1]. Specifically, the catheter 1 comprises an elongated shaft body 5 that may have a length of 84 inches which is greater than one meter [0034]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the shaft of the elongated structure suggested by Sartor in view of Eryilmaz to have a length (e.g., greater than one meter) that is configured for neurovascular access, as taught by Su. The advantage of such modification will allow the catheter to be used for surgical procedures within a neurovascular region of the patient’s body (see paragraphs [0032, 0034] by Su). Regarding claim 13, Sartor in view of Eryilmaz suggests the medical assembly of claim 1. Sartor teaches wherein the elongated structure defines a shaft length that can be navigated through the patient’s vasculature (the shaft or elongated portion of the catheter 404 may be maneuvered through the vascular system [0063, FIG. 4]). Sartor and Eryilmaz do not explicitly teach wherein the shaft length is configured to enable coronary access, cardiac access, or peripheral access. However, Su teaches wherein the shaft length is configured to enable cardiac access (the catheter 1 may be designed for neurovascular , cardiovascular, urological, gastrointestinal, and/or ophthalmic applications [0032, 0034, FIG. 1]. Specifically, the catheter 1 comprises an elongated shaft body 5 that may have a length of 84 inches which is greater than one meter [0034]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the shaft of the elongated structure suggested by Sartor in view of Eryilmaz to have a length that is configured for cardiac access, as taught by Su. The advantage of such modification will allow the catheter to be used for surgical procedures within a cardiovascular region of the patient’s body (see paragraphs [0032, 0034] by Su) . 07-21-aia AIA 11. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sartor et al. in view of Eryilmaz et al., further in view of Leeflang et al. (US 2015/0320971 A1) . Regarding claim 14, Sartor in view of Eryilmaz suggests the medical assembly of claim 1. Sartor teaches wherein the plasma-treatment process comprises a first plasma-treatment process to form a first hydrophilic substance (as stated previously in claim 1, the distal treatment portion 416 ignites ionizable media (e.g., combination of hydrogen and oxygen) to form plasma [0002, 0018, 0049, 0064-0065. Specifically, the plasma includes hydrophilic or hydroscopic properties [0049, 0064]), wherein the medical assembly further comprises a sheath comprising an inner lumen configured to receive the elongated structure while the sheath is positioned within the vasculature of the patient (the catheter 404 may comprise a sheath that defines an inner lumen 410 therein [0071, FIG. 6]. Specifically, figure 6 illustrates an elongated tube 518 of the catheter 404 being inserted through the inner lumen 410 [0073, 0077, FIG. 6]. As stated previously in claim 1, the catheter 404 may be maneuvered through the vascular system [0063]). However, Sartor and Eryilmaz do not explicitly teach wherein an interior surface of the sheath is treated with a second plasma-treatment process to form a second hydrophilic substance. The prior art by Leeflang is analogous to Sartor, as they both teach plasma treatment processes that are applied to a catheter to form a hydrophilic substance ([abstract, 0065, 0069]). Leeflang teaches an interior surface of the sheath is treated with a second plasma-treatment process to form a second hydrophilic substance (the delivery sheath 10 comprises an inner surface 21 that is treated with plasma to form a hydrophilic substance [0069-0070, 0125, FIG. 1B]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the sheaths interior surface suggested by Sartor in view of Eryilmaz to be treated with a second plasma-treatment process to form a second hydrophilic substance, as taught by Leeflang. The advantage of such modification will provide a desired lubricity within the sheath’s interior surface (see paragraphs [0012, 0069-0070, 0125] by Leeflang) . 07-21-aia AIA 12. Claim s 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sartor et al. in view of Eryilmaz et al., further in view of Von Weymarn et al. (WO 2022/0189178 A1, with citations to the US Publication No. 2024/0149018 A1) . Regarding claim 17, Sartor in view of Eryilmaz suggests the medical assembly of claim 1. Sartor and Eryilmaz do not explicitly teach wherein the elongated structure comprises one or more of a core wire, a hypotube, or a filament, wherein the elongated structure comprises the hypotube, and wherein the hypotube comprises a laser-cut hypotube, a spiral-cut hypotube, or a slotted- cut hypotube. The prior art by Von Weymarn is analogous to Sartor, as they both teach the tubing apparatus (e.g., catheter) having a hydrophilic surface that is formed from a plasma treatment process ([0006, 0059, 0061-0062]). Von Weymarn teaches wherein the elongated structure comprises a hypotube ([0047-0048]), and wherein the hypotube comprises a laser-cut hypotube ([0047-0048]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the elongated structure suggested by Sartor in view of Eryilmaz to comprise a laser-cut hypotube, as taught by Von Weymarn. The advantage of such modification will increase the rigidity of the elongated structure (see paragraphs [0047-0049] by Von Weymarn). Regarding claim 18, Sartor in view of Eryilmaz suggests the medical assembly of claim 1. Sartor and Eryilmaz do not explicitly teach wherein the surface comprises a metal surface comprising one or more of nitinol, titanium, stainless steel, or a cobalt-chromium alloy. However, Von Weymarn teaches wherein the surface comprises a metal surface comprising stainless steel (the tubing apparatus 100 (e.g., catheter) may include stiffening layer (e.g., metal layer) which comprises stainless steel [0006, 0031-0032, 0043, 0144]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the surface suggested by Sartor in view of Eryilmaz to comprise a stainless-steel surface, as taught by Von Weymarn. The advantage of such modification will increase the rigidity of the surface (see paragraphs [0031-0032, 0043, 0144] by Von Weymarn) . 07-21-aia AIA 13. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sartor et al. in view of Eryilmaz et al., further in view of Rindlav-Westling et al. (US 2010/0159116 A1) . Regarding claim 21, Sartor in view of Eryilmaz suggests the medical assembly of claim 1. Sartor and Eryilmaz do not explicitly teach wherein the hydrophilic substance is formed prior to insertion of the elongated structure into the vasculature of the patient. The prior art by Rindlav-Westling is analogous to Sartor, as they both teach the formation of plasma on a catheter ([0001, 0033-0034, 0038]). Rindlav-Westling teaches wherein the hydrophilic substance is formed prior to insertion of the elongated structure into the vasculature of the patient (the elongated structure or catheter is pretreated with plasma to form a hydrophilic coating [0001, 0032-0034, 0038]. Specifically, the hydrophilic coating ensures that catheter will be introduced into the passageway of the patient’s body without causing any pain and/or damage on the tissue [0001-0002, 0038]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the elongated structure suggested by Sartor in view of Eryilmaz to be treated with a hydrophilic substance prior to being inserted into the vasculature of the patient, as taught by Rindlav-Westling. This modification is beneficial, as the hydrophilic substance or coating ensures that the elongated structure (e.g., catheter) will be introduced into the patient’s body without causing any pain and/or damage on the tissue (see paragraphs [0001-0002, 0038] by Rindlav-Westling) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 14. Claim s 4-7 and 15-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 12-151-07 AIA 07-97 12-51-07 15. Claim s 19-20 are allowed. 13-03-01 AIA 13. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The Examiner has provided an explanation that explains how the prior art of record fails to suggest the corresponding claims . Regarding claim 4, Sartor in view of Eryilmaz suggests the medical assembly of claim 1. Sartor teaches wherein the reactive gas comprises hydrogen and oxygen (the catheter 404 comprises a distal treatment portion 416 that ignites ionizable media to form plasma [0002, 0018, 0049, 0064-0065]. Specifically, the ionizable media includes reactive gases, such as a combination of hydrogen and/or oxygen [0018, 0064]). Sartor and Eryilmaz do not explicitly teach wherein the plasma-treatment process comprises electrolytic-polishing of the surface in the presence of the reactive gas to reduce variability in the surface, and wherein the hydrophilic substance comprises a hydroxyl group. The prior art by Kohama (US 2014/0171347 A1) is analogous to Sartor, as they both teach the application of plasma on the surface of a medical device (e.g., catheter) to form a hydrophilic substance ([0063]). Kohama teaches wherein the hydrophilic substance comprises a hydroxyl group ([0012, 0063]). The prior art by Dang (US 2020/0281727 A1) is analogous to Sartor, as they both teach a plasma treatment process that is applied to the surface of a medical device ([abstract, 0040, 0043, 0049]). Dang teaches wherein the plasma-treatment process comprises electrolytic-polishing of the surface in the presence of the reactive gas to reduce the surface roughness of the surface ([0040, 0043, 0049]). Sartor, Eryilmaz, Kohama, and Dang do not explicitly teach electrolytic-polishing of the surface in presence of the reactive gas to reduce variability in the surface. The Examiner concludes that the prior art does not provide the requisite teaching, suggestion, and motivation to suggest the recited claim limitation. Therefore, the inventive features recited in the pending claims are not disclosed by the prior art and are not suggested by an obvious combination of the most analogous prior art elements. Regarding claim 5, Sartor in view of Eryilmaz suggests the medical assembly of claim 1. Sartor teaches wherein the reactive gas comprises a mixture of nitrogen and oxygen (the catheter 404 comprises a distal treatment portion 416 that ignites ionizable media to form plasma [0002, 0018, 0049, 0064-0065]. Specifically, the ionizable media includes reactive gases, such as a combination of nitrogen and/or oxygen [0018, 0064]. Further, the plasma is sufficient to produce a clinical bipolar tissue effect [0002]). Sartor and Eryilmaz do not explicitly teach wherein the mixture of nitrogen and oxygen comprises a nitrogen-oxygen ratio of greater than or equal to about 4:1. However, the Examiner respectfully submits that person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the nitrogen-oxygen ratio to be greater than or equal to about 4:1. The advantage of such modification may improve clinical bipolar tissue effect (see paragraphs [0002, 0018, 0064] by Sartor). The Examiner further submits that the skilled artisan could arrive at the claimed nitrogen-oxygen ratio via routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05). Sartor and Eryilmaz do not explicitly teach wherein the plasma-treatment process comprises electrolytic-polishing of the surface in the presence of the reactive gas to reduce variability in the surface, and wherein the hydrophilic substance comprises one or more groups comprising nitrogen and oxygen. However, Kohama teaches wherein the hydrophilic substance comprises one or more groups comprising nitrogen and oxygen ([0060, 0070-0071]). Meanwhile, Dang teaches wherein the plasma-treatment process comprises electrolytic-polishing of the surface in the presence of the reactive gas to reduce the surface roughness of the surface ([0040, 0043, 0049]). Sartor, Eryilmaz, Kohama, and Dang do not explicitly teach electrolytic-polishing of the surface in presence of the reactive gas to reduce variability in the surface. The Examiner concludes that the prior art does not provide the requisite teaching, suggestion, and motivation to suggest the recited claim limitation. Therefore, the inventive features recited in the pending claims are not disclosed by the prior art and are not suggested by an obvious combination of the most analogous prior art elements. Regarding claim 6, Sartor in view of Eryilmaz suggests the medical assembly of claim 1. Eryilmaz teaches wherein the plasma-treatment process comprises a first plasma-treatment process (the plasma treatment processes may be applied to a plurality of films (e.g., carbon films) and the films are then applied to a medical device (e.g., catheter or various medical implants) [0008, 0026, 0028, 0031]. Specifically, the plasma treatment processes incorporate reactive gases (e.g., nitrous oxide, nitrogen dioxide, and/or hydrogen sulfide) configured to reduce the friction of the film which is coated on the device (e.g., catheter or various medical implants) [0008, 0022, 0031]), wherein the medical assembly further comprises the medical device (the medical device may be a catheter or various medical implants [0008, 0022, 0031]), wherein an exposed surface of the medical device is treated with a second plasma-treatment process (the plasma treatment processes may be applied to a plurality of films (e.g., carbon films) and the films are then applied to a medical device (e.g., catheter or various medical implants) [0008, 0031]). Sartor and Eryilmaz do not explicitly teach wherein the exposed surface of the medical device includes a hydrophobic substance formed from a reactive gas of the second plasma-treatment process, and wherein the hydrophobic substance is configured to attract and coagulate blood of the patient around the medical device to retain the medical device in place in the vasculature of the patient. The prior art by Sun (US 2013/0183435 A1) is analogous to Sartor, as they both teach a plasma treating process that utilizes a catheter [0012, 0015, 0017]). Sun teaches wherein the exposed surface of the medical device includes a hydrophobic substance formed from a reactive gas of the second plasma-treatment process (the plasma treatment process utilizes a reactive gas (e.g., mixture of trimethylsilane and oxygen gas) to produce a hydrophobic substance on the medical device [0014-0015, 0039, 0064-0065]). Sartor, Eryilmaz, and Sun do not explicitly teach wherein the hydrophobic substance is configured to attract and coagulate blood of the patient around the medical device to retain the medical device in place in the vasculature of the patient . The Examiner concludes that the prior art does not provide the requisite teaching, suggestion, and motivation to suggest the recited claim limitation. Therefore, the inventive features recited in the pending claims are not disclosed by the prior art and are not suggested by an obvious combination of the most analogous prior art elements. Claim 7 is considered to contain allowable subject matter, as claim 7 depends upon claim 6. Regarding claim 15, Sartor in view of Eryilmaz and Leeflang suggests the medical assembly of claim 14. Leeflang teaches wherein the interior surface of the sheath is treated with the second plasma-treatment process (the delivery sheath 10 comprises an inner surface 21 that is treated with plasma to form a hydrophilic substance [0020, 0069-0070, 0125, FIG. 1B]). Sartor, Eryilmaz, and Leeflang do not explicitly teach wherein an exterior surface of the sheath is treated with a third plasma-treatment process, wherein the third plasma treatment process is substantially the same as the first plasma treatment process. The Examiner concludes that the prior art does not provide the requisite teaching, suggestion, and motivation to suggest the recited claim limitation. Therefore, the inventive features recited in the pending claims are not disclosed by the prior art and are not suggested by an obvious combination of the most analogous prior art elements. Claim 16, Sartor in view of Eryilmaz and Leeflang suggests the medical assembly of claim 14. Eryilmaz teaches wherein the first plasma-treatment process is configured to reduce the friction of the surface of the elongated structure (the plasma treatment process may be applied to a film (e.g., carbon film) and the film is then applied to a device (e.g., catheter or various medical implants) [0008, 0031]. Specifically, the plasma treatment process incorporates reactive gases (e.g., nitrous oxide, nitrogen dioxide, and/or hydrogen sulfide) configured to reduce the friction of the film which is coated on the device (e.g., catheter or various medical implants) [0008, 0022, 0031]). Sartor, Eryilmaz, and Leeflang do not explicitly teach wherein the first plasma-treatment process and the second plasma-treatment process reduce a friction between the surface of the elongated structure and the interior surface of the sheath. The Examiner concludes that the prior art does not provide the requisite teaching, suggestion, and motivation to suggest the recited claim limitation. Therefore, the inventive features recited in the pending claims are not disclosed by the prior art and are not suggested by an obvious combination of the most analogous prior art elements. Regarding claim 19, Sartor teaches a method ([0002]) comprising: applying a plasma-treatment process using a reactive gas to an exposed surface of an elongated structure of a medical assembly (the catheter 404 comprises a distal treatment portion 416 that ignites ionizable media to form plasma [0002, 0018, 0049, 0064-0065]. Specifically, the ionizable media includes reactive gases, such as a combination of hydrogen and/or oxygen [0018, 0064]), wherein the exposed surface includes a hydrophilic or hydrophobic substance formed from the reactive gas (the distal treatment portion 415 ignites ionizable media (e.g., reactive gases) to plasma consisting of hydrophilic or hydroscopic properties [0018, 0049, 0064]), wherein applying the plasma-treatment process further comprises: plasma-coating the surface with a hydrophilic substance formed from the reactive gas (as stated previously above, the distal treatment portion 416 that ignites ionizable media (e.g., combination of hydrogen and/or oxygen) to form plasma [0002, 0018, 0049, 0064-0065]. Specifically, the plasma consists of hydrophilic or hydroscopic properties [0049, 0064]), wherein the plasma-treatment process is applied to the elongated structure at atmospheric pressure (as stated previously above, the distal treatment portion 416 ignites ionizable media to form plasma [0002, 0018, 0049, 0064]. Specifically, the plasma is generated at atmospheric pressure [0060]) Sartor does not explicitly teach wherein the reactive gas is configured to change a surface roughness of the exposed surface; wherein applying the plasma-treatment process further comprises: electrolytic-polishing of the metal surface in the presence of the reactive gas to reduce the surface roughness of the exposed surface; and wherein the plasma-treatment process further comprises: selecting an electric-pulse frequency associated with a desired degree of hydrophilia of the surface; and plasma-coating the metal surface according to the selected electric-pulse frequency. The prior art by Eryilmaz is analogous to Sartor, as they both teach plasma generating devices that are used with catheters ([0008]). Eryilmaz teaches herein the reactive gas is configured to change a surface roughness of the exposed surface (the plasma treatment process may be applied to a film (e.g., carbon film) and the film is then applied to a device (e.g., catheter or various medical implants) [0008, 0031]. Specifically, the plasma treatment process incorporates reactive gases (e.g., nitrous oxide, nitrogen dioxide, and/or hydrogen sulfide) configured to reduce the friction (e.g., roughness) of the film which is coated on the device (e.g., catheter or various medical implants) [0008, 0022, 0031]). The prior art by Dang is analogous to Sartor, as they both teach a plasma treatment process that is applied to the surface of a medical device ([abstract, 0040, 0043, 0049]). Dang teaches wherein applying the plasma-treatment process further comprises ([0043, 0049]): electrolytic-polishing of the metal surface in the presence of the reactive gas to reduce the surface roughness of the exposed surface ([0040, 0043, 0049]). Sartor, Eryilmaz, and Dang do not explicitly teach wherein the plasma-treatment process further comprises: selecting an electric-pulse frequency associated with a desired degree of hydrophilia of the surface; and plasma-coating the metal surface according to the selected electric-pulse frequency. The Examiner concludes that the prior art does not provide the requisite teaching, suggestion, and motivation to suggest the recited claim limitation. Therefore, the inventive features recited in the pending claims are not disclosed by the prior art and are not suggested by an obvious combination of the most analogous prior art elements. Claim 20 is considered to contain allowable subject matter, as claim 20 depends upon claim 19. Statement on Communication via Internet 16. Communications via Internet email are at the discretion of the applicant. All Internet communications between USPTO employees and applicants must be made using USPTO tools. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet email to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence and response will be placed in the appropriate patent application. Except for correspondence that only sets up an interview time, all correspondence between the Office and the applicant including applicant's representative must be placed in the appropriate patent application. If an email contains any information beyond scheduling an interview such as an interview agenda or authorization, it must be placed in the application. For those applications where applicant wishes to communicate with the examiner via Internet communications, e.g., email or video conferencing tools, the following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant: "Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file." Please refer to MPEP 502.03 for guidance on Communications via Internet. Conclusion 07-39 AIA 17. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA BRENDON SOLOMON whose telephone number is (571)270-7208. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am -4:30pm. 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, Niketa Patel can be reached on (571)272-4156. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /J.B.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3792 /NIKETA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/573,853 Page 2 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/573,853 Page 3 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/573,853 Page 4 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/573,853 Page 5 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/573,853 Page 6 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/573,853 Page 7 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/573,853 Page 8 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/573,853 Page 9 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/573,853 Page 10 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/573,853 Page 11 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/573,853 Page 12 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/573,853 Page 13 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/573,853 Page 14 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/573,853 Page 15 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/573,853 Page 16 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/573,853 Page 17 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/573,853 Page 18 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/573,853 Page 19 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/573,853 Page 20 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/573,853 Page 21 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/573,853 Page 22 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/573,853 Page 23 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/573,853 Page 24 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/573,853 Page 25 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/573,853 Page 26 Art Unit: 3792
Prosecution Insights