Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/805,640

Hemostatic Device For A Heart

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jun 06, 2022
Examiner
YABUT, DIANE D
Art Unit
3771
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Syntach AG
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
4y 4m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
522 granted / 840 resolved
-7.9% vs TC avg
Strong +28% interview lift
Without
With
+28.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 4m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
870
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
50.5%
+10.5% vs TC avg
§102
25.3%
-14.7% vs TC avg
§112
13.9%
-26.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 840 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION This action is in response to applicant's amendments filed 11/17/25. The examiner acknowledges the amendments to the claims. Claims 1-9, 11-20 are pending in this application. 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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/17/25 has been entered. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9, 11-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth in this office action. 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. Claims 1-7, 11-13, 15-16, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curtis et al., hereinafter “Curtis” (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0296151) in view of Fischvogt (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0157779). Regarding claim 1, Curtis discloses a hemostatic valve assembly (Figures 1-2b; paras [0141], [0156]) for placement on a heart comprising: a first housing 46 (Figures 40f-40g); a second housing 54; the first and second housing being splittable relative each other (Figures 40f-40g; paras [0268]-[0269]); a through-port (through which a medical device/inflow conduit 10 can pass; Figure 40f, para [0266]) extending though the first and second housing (Id.); and, the through-port sized and shaped for directing a medical device at least partially to an interior of the heart (Id. and para [0268]; inflow conduit 10 can pass into heart 106); and a balloon 16 (Figures 16a-16b, paras [0189]-[0190]). However, Curtis does not disclose that the balloon comprises multiple lobes, wherein the lobes are arranged adjacent to each other in a single layer. In the same field of art, namely valve assemblies, Fischvogt teaches in Figures 1, 7, 9-10 a balloon (inflatable) valve 220 or 320 (Figures 9-10; [0038]) that comprises multiple lobes arranged adjacent to each other in a single layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the balloon of Curtis to have multiple lobes as claimed, as taught by Fischvogt, since doing so would be substitution of one known balloon for another, which would yield predictable results, namely selectively opening and closing the valve in the hemostatic valve assembly in order to receive an instrument. See MPEP 2143. Regarding claims 2 and 6, Curtis discloses a connection interface (including attachment ring 22, clamp 24; para [0154]) disposed on the valve assembly and configured to mate with a heart access device (Id.; clamp 24 can hold and seal attachment ring 22 against inflow conduit 10), and further comprising a sealing element 34 (paras [0154]-[0155]) matable with the access device (via sealing against an inflow conduit 10 when it is passed through) or sealing element 47 (para [0176]). Regarding claim 3, Curtis discloses the through-port includes a controllable orifice size (balloon valve 16 seals against inflow conduit 10, wherein the valve has an adjustable orifice size as seen in Figures 16a-16b, paras [0189]-[0190] where valve membrane 73 is inflatable/deflatable to close and open orifice 58, respectively). Regarding claim 4, Curtis discloses a seal 34 or 47 (paras [0154]-[0155]) for engaging the medical device (via sealing against an inflow conduit 10 when it is passed through). Regarding claim 5, Curtis discloses the medical device is a cardiac assist unit (including pump 8/inflow conduit, [paras [0137]-[0138]; it is noted that the medical device and a cardiac assist unit are only functionally recited, as claim 1 [upon which claim 5 depends] recites “the through-port sized and shaped for directing a medical device at least partially to an interior of the heart”). Regarding claim 7, Curtis discloses the first housing 46 and the second housing 54 are adjoinable to one another (Figures 40f-40g, para [0179]; the splittable first and second housings can be closed and latch 69 can be closed). Regarding claim 11, Curtis discloses splittable is constituted by the first housing and the second housing being peeled off from each other (Figures 40f-40g; para [0268], the first and second housings 46, 54 can be grasped and pulled apart). Regarding claim 12, Curtis discloses a hemostatic valve (Figures 16a-16b, 40f-40g) for mounting on a heart comprising: first housing 46 and a second housing 54 (Figures 40f-40g); the first housing and second housing being separable from each other (paras [0268]-[0269]); a port (through which an instrument/inflow conduit 10 can pass; Figure 40f, para [0266]) providing an instrument access to an interior of a heart, the port extending through the first and second housings (Id.); a balloon 16 (Figures 16a-16b, paras [0189]-[0190]); and a sealing mechanism 34 or 47 (paras [0154]-[0155]) located in the port. However, Curtis does not disclose the balloon comprising multiple lobes, wherein the lobes are arranged adjacent to each other in a single layer. In the same field of art, namely valve assemblies, Fischvogt teaches in Figures 1, 7, 9-10 a balloon (inflatable) valve 220 or 320 (Figures 9-10; [0038]) that comprises multiple lobes arranged adjacent to each other in a single layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the balloon of Curtis to have multiple lobes as claimed, as taught by Fischvogt, since doing so would be substitution of one known balloon for another, which would yield predictable results, namely selectively opening and closing the valve. in the hemostatic valve assembly in order to receive an instrument. See MPEP 2143. Regarding claims 13 and 16, Curtis discloses a connection interface (including attachment ring 22, clamp 24; para [0154]) disposed on the hemostatic valve and configured to mate with a heart access device (Id.; clamp 24 can hold and seal attachment ring 22 against inflow conduit 10), and further comprising a sealing element 34 (paras [0154]-[0155]) matable with the access device (via sealing against an inflow conduit 10 when it is passed through) or sealing element 47 (para [0176]). Regarding claim 15, Curtis discloses the instrument is a cardiac assist unit (including pump 8/inflow conduit, [paras [0137]-[0138]; it is noted that the instrument is only functionally recited, as claim 12 [upon which claim 15 depends] recites “a port providing an instrument access to an interior of a heart”). Regarding claim 18, Curtis discloses a hemostatic valve for attachment to a heart comprising: first housing 46 separable from a second housing 54 (Figures 40f-40g); a port (through which a therapeutic instrument/inflow conduit 10 can pass; Figure 40f, para [0266]) sized for allowing a therapeutic instrument access to an interior of a heart (Id. and para [0268]; inflow conduit 10 can pass into heart 106), the port extending through the first and second housings (Id.); a balloon 16 (Figures 16a-16b, paras [0189]-[0190]); and a sealing mechanism 34 or 47 (paras [0154]-[0155]) located in the port. However, Curtis does not disclose the balloon comprising multiple lobes, wherein the lobes are arranged adjacent to each other in a single layer. In the same field of art, namely valve assemblies, Fischvogt teaches in Figures 1, 7, 9-10 a balloon (inflatable) valve 220 or 320 (Figures 9-10; [0038]) that comprises multiple lobes arranged adjacent to each other in a single layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the balloon of Curtis to have multiple lobes as claimed, as taught by Fischvogt, since doing so would be substitution of one known balloon for another, which would yield predictable results, namely selectively opening and closing the valve. Regarding claim 19, Curtis discloses a connection interface (including attachment ring 22, clamp 24; para [0154]) disposed on the hemostatic valve and configured to mate with a heart access device (Id.; clamp 24 can hold and seal attachment ring 22 against inflow conduit 10). Claims 8-9, 14, 17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curtis (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0296151) in view of Fischvogt (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0157779), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Burns (U.S. Patent No. 5,085,636). Regarding claims 8-9, Curtis and Fischvogt teach the claimed invention, as discussed above, except for the hemostatic valve assembly further comprising a pneumatic valve, and further a reservoir unit in fluid communication with the pneumatic valve. In Figure 4A, col. 5, lines 3-23, Burns teaches a pneumatic valve (inflatable balloon valve 90) in fluid communication with a reservoir unit via tube 92 (Id.; although a reservoir unit is not explicitly taught, Burn teaches a low viscosity fluid is supplied to the inflatable balloon valve, and therefore a fluid source or reservoir unit is in fluid communication with the tube 92 which is in fluid communication with the valve 90 for inflation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify Curtis and Fischvogt with a pneumatic valve and reservoir unit as claimed, as taught by Burns, in order to allow a user to selectively seal against a medical device and prevent leaks, and to facilitate supplying fluid to the valve in order to selectively close and seal against the medical device. Regarding claims 14, 17, 20, Curtis and Fischvogt teach the claimed invention, as discussed above, except for the sealing mechanism includes a controllable orifice size and pneumatic valve. In Figure 4A, col. 5, lines 3-23, Burns teaches a sealing mechanism including a controllable orifice size via a pneumatic valve (inflatable balloon valve 90 may be expanded to minimize the orifice size to seal against instrument such as 82) in fluid communication with a reservoir unit via tube 92. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify Curtis and Fischvogt with a controllable orifice size and pneumatic valve as claimed, as taught by Burns, in order to allow a user to selectively seal against a medical device and prevent leaks. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIANE D YABUT whose telephone number is (571)272-6831. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Darwin Erezo can be reached at 571-272-4695. 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. /DIANE D YABUT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 06, 2022
Application Filed
Sep 06, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 23, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jun 30, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 12, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Nov 17, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 24, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 26, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599374
DOUBLE-BENDING FLEXIBLE SURGICAL TOOL SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599481
SYSTEMS, METHODS AND DEVICES FOR DELIVERY SYSTEMS, METHODS AND DEVICES FOR IMPLANTING PROSTHETIC HEART VALVES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594072
MEDICAL SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588927
SURGICAL ACCESS DEVICE WITH FIXATION MECHANISM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588905
KNEE JOINT CAPSULAR DISRUPTION AND REPAIR
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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
62%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+28.0%)
4y 4m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 840 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