Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/628,566

Catheter Tray, Packaging System, Instruction Insert, and Associated Methods

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Apr 05, 2024
Examiner
MARCETICH, ADAM M
Art Unit
3781
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Medline Industries LP
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
967 granted / 1336 resolved
+2.4% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+19.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
43 currently pending
Career history
1379
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.7%
-37.3% vs TC avg
§103
46.3%
+6.3% vs TC avg
§102
14.9%
-25.1% vs TC avg
§112
19.2%
-20.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1336 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Claim Objections The claims contain minor informalities. In claim 4, the language “… wherein one of the first syringe or the second syringe [[it]] is at least …” should be changed for clarity. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b). Independent claims 1, 8 and 14 are rejected over one or more of the following patents. Table 1 shows which claims of each patent correspond to the independent claims of the present invention. Table 1: double patenting references Patent cited in rejection For claims 1 and 8 For claim 14 Tomes; Jennifer E. et al. US 12458329 B2 18, 20 (none) Lockwood; Robert et al. US 10946169 B2 1, 17, 19 (none) Tomes; Jennifer E. et al. US 10512752 B2 1, 10, (none) Tomes; Jennifer E. et al. US 9522753 B2 1, 11-13 1, 11-13, 16, 17 Tomes; Jennifer E. et al. US 9745088 B2 1, 45, 46, 50, 51 1, 17, 18, 45, 46, 50, 51 Tomes; Jennifer E. et al. US 11661220 B2 8, 9, 11, 12, 15 (none) Tomes; Jennifer E. et al. US 11684347 B2 17-19 (none) Claims 2, 3, 5-7, 9-11, 13, 15, 16, 18-20 and 21-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 45-46, 49, 51-52, 54 and 56 of Tomes; Jennifer E. et al. (US 9745088 B2). Regarding pending claims 2, 3 and 11, Tomes claims that the first and second syringes contains one of the lubricating jelly or water (claim 46, wherein one of the first syringe or the second syringe contains lubricating jelly). Although Tomes does not specify which of the first or second syringes contains lubricating jelly or water, Tomes provides only two options. Selecting one of these two options would have been obvious due to the small number of options to select. Regarding pending claims 5-7, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16 and 18-20, Tomes claims a kit wherein the first compartment is adjacent to, and separated by a wall from, the second compartment (claim 1, A medical procedure kit, comprising: a tray having a compartment … and the tray comprises a surface defining at least two compartments, claim 4, the at least two compartments bounded by a perimeter wall less than three inches in height); wherein the lubricating jelly application chamber is configured to lubricate at least a portion of the medical assembly when the portion of the medical assembly is passed from the first compartment to the second compartment (claim 51, the lubricating jelly application compartment to receive lubricating jelly from one of the first syringe or the second syringe to lubricate at least some of the Foley catheter); the tray comprising a single layer tray (claim 45, a single layer tray); further comprising one or more swab sticks disposed within the single layer tray (claim 54, further comprising one or more swabsticks disposed within the single layer tray); the first compartment comprising one or more contours for accommodating flanges of one or more of the first syringe or the second syringe (claim 4, the first compartment defines one or more contours for accommodating flanges of one or more of the first syringe or the second syringe). Regarding pending claims 21-28, Tomes claims a kit wherein the one or more folds of the at least one layer of wrap enclosing the single layer tray are configured such that the single layer tray and other implements are revealed when the one or more folds are unfolded (claim 45, at least one layer of wrap material enclosing the single layer tray within one or more folds of the at least one layer of wrap material; claim 49, further comprising a specimen jar disposed within the single layer tray; claim 52, further comprising printed instructions for using the single layer tray; claim 54, further comprising one or more swabsticks disposed within the single layer tray; claim 56, further comprising an underbuttocks drape disposed within the outer packaging); wherein the other implements comprise an additional layer of wrap material comprising an underbuttocks drape (claim 56, further comprising an underbuttocks drape disposed within the outer packaging); wherein removal of the additional layer of wrap material reveals at least portions of one or more items situated within the single layer tray, comprising the Foley catheter (claim 45, wherein the medical assembly comprises a coiled tubing coupled between a fluid drain bag and a Foley catheter); wherein the one or more folds of the at least one layer of wrap enclosing the single layer tray are configured such that an additional layer of wrap and the Foley catheter are revealed when the one or more folds are unfolded (claim 45, wherein the medical assembly comprises a coiled tubing coupled between a fluid drain bag and a Foley catheter, claim 56, further comprising an underbuttocks drape disposed within the outer packaging). Although Tomes does not explicitly claim that unfolding the wrap reveals the single layer tray and other implements. However, Tomes stores the other implements in the tray, and then encloses them inside the wrap. Therefore, when the wrap is unfolded, it will reveal the other implements. Each of the following references claims a catheter kit, tray or assembly. However, none of the cited references claims all features of claims 1, 8 or 14. Therefore none of these references are cited in a double patenting rejection. Tomes; Jennifer E. et al. US 9808596 B2 Tomes; Jennifer E. et al. US 10512752 B2 Tomes; Jennifer E. et al. US 10946992 B2 Tomes; Jennifer E. et al. US 8678190 B2 Tomes; Jennifer E. et al. US 9693756 B2 Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4, 12 and 17 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. Alternatively, the double patenting rejections may be overcome by a timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d). The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. All references cited in the following IPR cases have been reviewed. IPR2015-00509 IPR2015-00511 IPR2015-00513 IPR2019-00035 IPR2019-00036 IPR2019-00109 IPR2025-00401 The most recent case IPR2025-00401 cites the following references. Disston; Hamilton S US 3166189 A Serany; Frank J. Jr. et al. US 3329261 A Rauschenberger; Richard A. US 4160505 A Beddow; David V. US 4226328 A Salvadori; Lawrence A. US 5931303 A Vagley; Richard T. US 6158437 A Solazzo; Anthony US 7278987 B2 Fulbrook; Jason D. et al. US 7967137 B2 Tomes; Jennifer E. et al. US 11661219 B2 On 26 March 2025, IPR2025-00401 was abandoned due to a Joint Motion to Terminate. The BPAI has not issued any decision on the merits in this proceeding. Case IPR2019-00109 cites the following references. Disston; Hamilton S US 3166189 A Serany; Frank J. Jr. et al. US 3329261 A Franks-Farah; Judith et al. US 6840379 B2 Solazzo; Anthony US 7278987 B2 On 04 May 2020 the BPAI issued a decision for IPR2019-00109. The BPAI found that claims 1–19 and 22–25 of Lockwood; Robert et al. (US 9795761 B2) are not unpatentable over the cited references. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to: Tel 571-272-2590 Fax 571-273-2590 Email Adam.Marcetich@uspto.gov The Examiner can be reached 8am-4pm Mon-Fri. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rebecca Eisenberg can be reached at 571-270-5879. The fax phone number for the organization where this application is assigned is 571-273-8300. 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. 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. /Adam Marcetich/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 05, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 17, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599501
Eye Disease Implant Device Capable of Lowering Eye Pressure By Easy and Safe Method
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599756
DEVICES WITH DIMENSIONS THAT CAN BE REDUCED AND INCREASED IN VIVO
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599744
DRAINAGE MEMBER DESIGN & ULTRASONIC WELDING METHOD FOR ATTACHMENT OF CATHETER TUBE TO DRAINAGE MEMBER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599513
STRETCH LAYERED SHEET, DISPOSABLE WEARING ARTICLE, AND METHOD AND DEVICE FOR MANUFACTURING STRETCH LAYERED SHEET
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594187
GLAUCOMA SHUNTS AND RELATED METHODS OF USE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+19.5%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1336 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow 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