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 Group I (Claims 1-11) in the reply filed on 03/19/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-21 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventive group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/19/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 reading “A cannula for de-airing” should read --A cannula configured for de-airing--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 3 reading “the wall” should read --the tubular wall--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 6 reading “the wall” should read --the tubular wall--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 8 reading “the wall” should read --the tubular wall--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 10 reading “the wall” should read --the tubular wall--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 11 reading “the wall” should read --the tubular wall--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 12 reading “the wall” should read --the tubular wall--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 13 reading “the wall” should read --the tubular wall--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 reading “the second end” should read --the closed second end--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 reading “the wall” should read --the tubular wall--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 reading “the wall” should read --the tubular wall--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 reading “the wall” should read --the tubular wall--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 3 reading “the wall” should read --the tubular wall--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 4 reading “the wall” should read --the tubular wall--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 reading “the first and second lumens” should read --the first lumen and the second lumen--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 6 recites the limitation "the third aperture" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10 recites the limitation "the third lumen" in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. Examiner recommends changing the dependency of Claims 6 and 10 from Claim 3 to Claim 4. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
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 1-7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Macoviak et al. (USPGPub 2003/0138350).
Re Claim 1, Macoviak teaches a cannula (100) configured for de-airing a patient's heart following surgery (Macoviak Fig. 1), the cannula (100) comprising a tubular wall (102) having a distal end portion and a proximal end portion, the tubular wall (102) also having a length extending from the distal end portion to the proximal end portion (Macoviak Fig. 1), the tubular wall (102) at least partially defining a first lumen (118) extending lengthwise of the tubular wall (102) into the distal end portion and terminating in a closed first end (Macoviak ¶ 0060), the tubular wall (102) also at least partially defining a second lumen (108) extending lengthwise of the tubular wall and terminating in a closed second end (Macoviak ¶ 0059), the tubular wall (102) being configured and dimensioned such that the cannula (100) can be inserted into the patient's heart (Macoviak ¶ 0003; Fig. 7); a first aperture (128) extending through the tubular wall (102) from the first lumen (118) to an exterior surface of the tubular wall (102) (Macoviak ¶ 0060; Fig. 1); and a second aperture (124) extending through the tubular wall (102) from the second lumen (108) to the exterior surface of the tubular wall (102) (Macoviak ¶ 0059; Fig. 1).
Re Claim 2, Macoviak teaches wherein the closed second end is located proximally of the closed first end of the first lumen (118) (Macoviak ¶ 0059-0060; Fig. 1).
Re Claim 3, Macoviak teaches wherein the second aperture (124) extends through the distal end portion of the tubular wall (102) (Macoviak ¶ 0060; Fig. 1).
Re Claim 4, Macoviak teaches wherein the tubular wall (102) at least partially defines a third lumen (110) extending lengthwise of the tubular wall (102) and terminating in a closed third end, the cannula (100) including a third aperture (126) extending through the tubular wall (102) from the third lumen (110) to the exterior surface of the tubular wall (102) (Macoviak ¶ 0059; Fig. 1).
Re Claim 5, Macoviak teaches wherein the second aperture (124) is located proximal of the first aperture (128) (Macoviak Fig. 1).
Re Claim 6, Macoviak teaches wherein the second aperture (124) is located proximal of the first aperture (128) and of the third aperture (126) (Macoviak Fig. 1).
Re Claim 7, Macoviak teaches the cannula (100) including a manifold (150) selectively connecting each of the first lumen (118) and the second lumen (108) to at least one of a source of fluid and a source of suction for de-airing the patient's heart (Macoviak 0059-0060, 0062).
Re Claim 9, Macoviak teaches the cannula (100) including a first fitting (168) connecting the first lumen (118) to a source of suction (as described in embodiment of Fig. 32 with regard to drainage lumen 3197 and drainage ports 3193 at ¶ 0141) and a second fitting (162) connecting the second lumen (108) to a source of fluid (Macoviak ¶ 0062; Fig. 1).
Re Claim 10, Macoviak teaches the cannula (100) including a first fitting (168) selectively connecting the first lumen (118) to a source of suction (as described in embodiment of Fig. 32 with regard to drainage lumen 3197 and drainage ports 3193 at ¶ 0141), a second fitting (162) selectively connecting the second lumen (108) to a source of fluid (Macoviak ¶ 0062; Fig. 1), and a third fitting (164) selectively connecting the third lumen (110) to the source of fluid (Macoviak ¶ 0062; Fig. 1).
Re Claim 11, Macoviak teaches the cannula (100) including an atraumatic member (Macoviak teaching distal end 106 being skewed slightly up out of the plane of the curve to accommodate the forward angulation of the patient's ascending aorta) distally adjacent to the closed first end (Macoviak ¶ 0053).
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macoviak et al. (USPGPub 2003/0138350) in view of Farivar (USPGPub 2014/0081197).
Re Claim 8, Macoviak teaches all of the limitations of Claim 7. Macoviak fails to teach wherein the fluid is carbon dioxide. Farivar teaches a surgical pressurization device used during cardiac surgery wherein carbon dioxide gas is diffused into the cardiovasculature of a subject to displace undesired air, thereby reducing (1) the time spent de-airing a subject undergoing a surgical procedure and (2) the potential risk of strokes and heart attacks in subjects undergoing surgical procedures (Farivar ¶ 0017). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to at the time of the invention to have had the fluid of Macoviak be carbon dioxide wherein Farivar teaches using carbon dioxide in a subject during cardiac surgery to reduce the time spent de-airing a subject undergoing a surgical procedure and reduce the potential risk of strokes and heart attacks in subjects undergoing surgical procedures (Farivar ¶ 0017).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM R FREHE whose telephone number is (571)272-8225. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30AM-7:30PM.
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, Kevin Sirmons can be reached at 571-272-4965. 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.
/WILLIAM R FREHE/Examiner, Art Unit 3783 /NILAY J SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights