Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/812,265

CONTROLLED DESICCANT ABSORPTION AND POSITIONING SYSTEM FOR MEDICAL DEVICES

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Aug 22, 2024
Examiner
CHEUNG, CHUN HOI
Art Unit
3736
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
641 granted / 1035 resolved
-8.1% vs TC avg
Strong +39% interview lift
Without
With
+39.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
41 currently pending
Career history
1076
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
49.0%
+9.0% vs TC avg
§102
24.3%
-15.7% vs TC avg
§112
23.8%
-16.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1035 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-8) in the reply filed on 12/01/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 9-20 is hereby withdrawn from consideration. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/12/2024 and 12/18/2024 are being considered by the examiner. 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. Claims 1-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (8,973,748) in view of Brooks et al (5,551,557). As to claim 1, Wu discloses a medical device packaging assembly (Figure 2), comprising: an external package (package 22); a carrier tube (12) disposed within the external package (Figure 2), the carrier tube including one or more clips (20) configured to hold the carrier tube in a predetermined configuration (coiled configuration); a medical device (10) disposed within the carrier tube; and a moisture or oxygen scavenging material added to the package (column 7, lines 51-61). However, Wu does not specifically disclose that a moisture or oxygen scavenging material packet releasably coupled to one of the one or more clips, the moisture or oxygen scavenging packet comprising: an outer barrier pouch; an inner container disposed within the outer barrier pouch; and a desiccant and/or an oxygen scavenging material disposed within the inner container. Nevertheless Brooks discloses an article packaging assembly (Figure 1) comprises an article (13) position inside an outer package (11), a moisture or oxygen scavenging material packet (17a) place inside the outer package (Figure 1), the moisture or oxygen scavenging packet (17a) comprising: an outer barrier pouch (17a); an inner container (19) disposed within the outer barrier pouch (Figure 2); and a desiccant and/or an oxygen scavenging material(21) disposed within the inner container (19). 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 desiccant material of Wu with a desiccant packet with frangible inner container as taught by Brooks in order to absorb unwanted type of gas from within the enclosure for a selected period of time (column 5, lines 3-7). With regarding to the position of the packet, the clip of Wu as taught is inherently capable to releasably coupled the packet inside the outer package. As to claims 2-4, Wu as modified by Brooks further discloses the inner container (19) comprises a non-porous material (the ampoule is made of non-permeable glass, column 3, lines 46-51), the outer barrier pouch (17a) comprises a porous material (the pouch 17a is gas permeable (or otherwise permeable to the chemical that is absorbed by the getter), column 4, lines 7-9), the inner container is configured to rupture in response to an applied force (the ampoule made of glass breaks by external force applied to the ampoule, column 4, lines 33-35). As to claim 6-7, Wu as modified by Brooks further discloses the inner container comprises a crushable vial (ampoule), and the outer barrier pouch comprises a sealed header region (25 or 23). Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (8,973,748) in view of Brooks et al (5,551,557), further in view of Emori (5,458,244). As to claim 5, Wu as modified further discloses the inner container comprises a ampoule, but does not disclose the inner container comprises a sachet formed from a polymer film. Nevertheless, Emori discloses an outer bag(1), an inner bag (4) contains a substance, the inner bag can be rupture at the seal portion (5) by applying force to the outer bag (1, Figure 1) and the inner bag is formed from a polymer film ((thermoplastic resin film). 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 ampoule of Wu as modified with a rupturable resin pouch as taught by Emori to reduce the shatter glass ampoule might create a sharp edge that penetrate the outer package to cause the leak of desiccant. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (8,973,748) in view of Brooks et al (5,551,557), further in view of Dick et al (2011/0048976). As to claim 8, Wu as modified does not specifically discloses the desiccant package comprises an opening extending through a thickness of the sealed header region. Nevertheless, Dicks discloses a desiccant package (14) comprises a closed desiccant pouch (16) to form the strip (32) of interconnected pouches (16), the pouches having a sealed header region (34) and an opening (opening 36) extending through a thickness of the sealed header region. 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 sealed header of Wu as modified with opening form at the header portion of the desiccant package as taught by Dick in order to hang the outer barrier pouch inside the outer package. Conclusion Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or prior art(s) disclosed by the Examiner (in the attached PTO-892 form). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUN HOI CHEUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5702. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9AM-5:30PM. 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, 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. /CHUN HOI CHEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 22, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600526
BAG ROLL CASSETTE AND METHOD OF USE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599745
HINGED LID FOLDING BOX FOR CATHETER SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593648
SEMICONDUCTOR WORKPIECE TRANSPORT POD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12565372
Packaging for a Plurality of Unit Medical Vessels and Processing System Implementing Such Packaging
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12552569
DRILL BIT PACKAGING
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 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
62%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+39.3%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1035 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