Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/842,983

SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PULMONARY EMBOLI REMOVAL

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Aug 30, 2024
Examiner
LONG, SARAH A
Art Unit
3771
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Scientia Vascular Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
60%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
4y 5m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 60% of resolved cases
60%
Career Allow Rate
464 granted / 769 resolved
-9.7% vs TC avg
Strong +42% interview lift
Without
With
+42.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 5m
Avg Prosecution
51 currently pending
Career history
820
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
50.6%
+10.6% vs TC avg
§102
24.5%
-15.5% vs TC avg
§112
19.2%
-20.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 769 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 Election/Restrictions Claims 7-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/28/2026. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-6, in the reply filed on 1/28/2026 is acknowledged. Claim Objections Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 3 recites “the one or more pulmonary arteries” in line 2 which should read “the one or more pulmonary arterial vessels” for consistency purposes. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. 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(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ressemann et al. (US 2008/0243171 A1). Regarding claim 1, Ressemann discloses a system for treating pulmonary emboli (a system and method for evacuating emboli from a blood vessel; [0101]; [0103]), comprising: an aspiration catheter (evacuation sheath assembly 100 in which a vacuum is applied to the evacuation lumen 140 of the evacuation sheath assembly 100; Figs. 1A, 5A, 6B-6C; [0149]) comprising an occluding component (sealing balloon 136; Fig. 1A) attached at or near a distal end of the aspiration catheter (100; Figs. 1A, 6C; [0111]); and a holding catheter (occlusion catheter 2050; Fig. 15; as the occlusion catheter 2050 is placed at any time prior to inflation of balloon 136 to stop antegrade flow (Fig. 6C); [0206]) comprising a valve accessory (occluding element 2070) attached at or near a distal end of the holding catheter (2050; Fig. 15), wherein the occluding component (136) is configured to block normal blood flow through one or more pulmonary arterial vessels upon expansion (as 136 provides a fluid tight seal between the sealing balloon 136 and the blood vessel 150 and the apparatus is suited to be used in diseased blood vessels and arteries; Fig. 6C; [0142]; [0103]). Regarding claim 2, Ressemann discloses wherein the valve accessory (occluding element 2070) comprises a stent-based device or a balloon (as occluding element 2070 is preferably an expandable balloon; Fig. 15; [0206]). Regarding claim 3, Ressemann discloses a suction device (collection chamber, filter, and vacuum source 188; Fig. 5A; [0142]) configured to provide suction to the one or more pulmonary arteries (blood vessels and arteries; [0103]) through the aspiration catheter (through the evacuation lumen 140 of the evacuation sheath assembly 100; [0142]; [0149]) to induce a reversal of blood flow through the aspiration catheter (as vacuum is applied and retrograde flow is represented in Fig. 6D by arrows 195; [0146]; [0149]). Regarding claim 4, Ressemann discloses wherein the suction device (vacuum source 188) comprises an external pump (as vacuum source 188 is external to the body; Fig. 5A; [0142]). Regarding claim 5, Ressemann discloses wherein the occluding component (sealing balloon 136; Fig. 1A) comprises a balloon (Fig. 1A; [0111]). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 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. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ressemann et al. (US 2008/0243171 A1) in view of Ogle et al. (US 2023/0211134 A1. Regarding claim 6, Ressemann discloses a filter disposed within a suction device (vacuum source, collection chamber and filter 188; Fig. 5A; [0142]) but fails to explicitly disclose an inline filter disposed within the aspiration catheter. However, Ogle teaches a system for treating emboli (treatment system 700 for removing thrombus; Fig. 7; [0071]-[0072]) comprising an aspiration catheter (aspiration catheter 702; Fig. 7; [0071]) with an inline filter (inline filter 738) disposed along an aspiration channel of the aspiration catheter for the purpose of removing any thrombus within the line to the negative pressure source ([0072]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aspiration catheter of Ressemann to comprise an inline filter disposed within the aspiration catheter in light of the teachings of Ogle in order to remove any thrombus/emboli within the line of the aspiration catheter prior to reaching the suction device. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lary et al. (US 2006/0217660 A1) is noted for teachings a system for treating pulmonary emboli. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH A LONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3865. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm. 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, Elizabeth Houston can be reached at (571)272-7134. 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. /SARAH A LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 30, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 18, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12593959
ENDOSCOPE TREATMENT TOOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589029
SAFETY VITREOUS BODY CUTTING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582438
COMPUTER-ASSISTED TELE-OPERATED SURGERY SYSTEMS AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12564504
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR DELIVERING A SELF-EXPANDING STENT TO THE VENOUS SINUSES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12564397
SURGICAL DEVICE FOR COMPLEX SUTURING FIBROUS TISSUES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 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
60%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+42.0%)
4y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 769 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