Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/641,181

Intermittent-Catheter Assemblies and Systems

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Apr 19, 2024
Examiner
ORTIZ, RAFAEL ALFREDO
Art Unit
3736
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
C R Bard Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
61%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 61% of resolved cases
61%
Career Allow Rate
689 granted / 1137 resolved
-9.4% vs TC avg
Strong +36% interview lift
Without
With
+36.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
47 currently pending
Career history
1184
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
47.0%
+7.0% vs TC avg
§102
22.8%
-17.2% vs TC avg
§112
25.7%
-14.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1137 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Election/Restrictions Claims 2-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/19/2025. Applicant’s election without traverse of Species II (Figures 5-10) in the reply filed on 12/19/2025 is acknowledged. After a communication with Applicant representative, Todd W. Wight, it was confirmed on 12/31/2025 that Species II (Figures 5-10) was the elected species for examination. Information Disclosure Statement Applicant should note that the large number of references in the attached IDS(s) have been considered by the examiner in the same manner as other documents in Office search files are considered by the examiner while conducting a search of the prior art in a proper field of search. See MPEP 609.05(b). Applicant is invited to point out any particular reference(s) in the IDS that they believe may be of particular relevance to the instant claimed invention in response to this Office Action. See also MPEP 2004, example 13, it is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. If a long list is submitted, highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to applicant’s attention and/or are known to be of most significance. See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948, 175 USPQ 260 (S.D. Fla. 1972), aff ’d, 479 F.2d 1338, 178 USPQ 577 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 874 (1974). But cf. Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 33 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 1995). 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. Claims 1 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Murray (12,383,700). PNG media_image1.png 608 487 media_image1.png Greyscale Claim 1 Murray discloses an intermittent-catheter system, comprising an intermittent-catheter assembly (60) including an intermittent catheter including a catheter tube (12) and a connecting funnel (22) over a proximal end portion of the catheter tube for draining urine from the intermittent catheter (see column 6 lines 27-29); a distal end piece (34) slidably disposed over a distal end portion of the catheter tube (see column 3 lines 55-56); and a storage sheath (18) between the connecting funnel and the distal end piece, a combination of the connecting funnel, the distal end piece, and the storage sheath configured to enclose an entirety of the catheter tube therein (see figure 10); and a drainage bag (62) including a connecting spout (68) connected to the connecting funnel of the intermittent catheter in at least an unused state of the intermittent-catheter system (see figure 10 and column 6 lines 32-37). Claim 14 Murray further discloses the connecting funnel is connected to the distal end piece of the intermittent-catheter assembly in an end-to-end connection through a first arm of the connecting funnel, and the connecting funnel of the intermittent catheter is also connected to the connecting spout of the drainage bag through a second arm of the connecting funnel (see figure above). Claim 15 Murray further discloses wherein the distal end piece of the intermittent-catheter assembly includes a first male fitting (defined by introducer 34) extending from the distal end piece, and the first arm of the connecting funnel includes a first female fitting (defined by end portion of the funnel 22) within the first arm capable/configured to receive the first male fitting (see figure 8). Claim 16 Murray further discloses wherein the first arm of the connecting funnel includes a first fluid seal disposed within the first female fitting of the first arm, the first fluid seal capable/configured to accept the first male fitting of the distal end piece therethrough (see column 4 lines 27-30 and figure 8). Claim 17 Murray further discloses the end-to-end connection between the first arm of the connecting funnel and the distal end piece of the intermittent-catheter assembly is configured to maintain sterility of the catheter tube of the intermittent catheter within the combination of the connecting funnel, the distal end piece, and the storage sheath in at least the unused state of the intermittent-catheter system (see column 1 lines 64-67 and column 2 lines 1-20). Claim 18 Murray further discloses the end-to-end connection between the first arm of the connecting funnel and the distal end piece of the intermittent-catheter assembly is configured to prevent residual urine in the intermittent catheter from leaking from the intermittent catheter in a used state of the intermittent-catheter system. Murray discloses end of the funnel (22), provided with a liquid tight seal (see column 4 lines 27-30), therefore is configured to prevent leakage of urine residual 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. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray (12,383,700) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang (CN 2532840). Murray does not disclose the drainage bag is in a compact rolled form in at least the unused state of the intermittent-catheter system. However, Yang discloses rolling up drainage bags is a known practice for reducing size (see abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murray having the drainage bag rolled up, in the unused state, as taught by Yang for reducing the size of the bag when in storage. Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray (12,383,700) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Steer (4,496,354). Murray does not disclose the drainage bag is in a compact bellowed form in at least the unused state of the intermittent-catheter system. However, Steer discloses a drainage bag comprising first wall (10) and second wall (12) (see column 2 lines 62-65), wherein the second wall comprises bellows for achieving internal expansion (see column 4 lines 6-9). 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 drainage bag of Murray having bellows form as taught by Steer for maximizing the internal space of the bag when expanded. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 19-22 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAFAEL A. ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5240. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 6pm. 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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at 571-270-5531. 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. RAFAEL A. ORTIZ Primary Examiner Art Unit 3736 /RAFAEL A ORTIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 19, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599690
MEDICAL OR DENTAL CASSETTE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600525
STRUCTURE FOR LOCKING AND RELEASING SHEET-LIKE OBJECT AND PACKAGING STORAGE CONTAINER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595094
ERGONOMIC HANDLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590478
LID OPENING/CLOSING STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589937
DETERGENT PRESENTATION PACK
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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
61%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+36.2%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1137 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