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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements filed September 17, 2025, fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered: Copies of non-patent literature documents with lined-through citations have not been provided Applicant should note that the large number of references in the attached IDS 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 requested to point out any particular references in the IDS which they believe may be of particular relevance to the instant claimed invention in response to this office action. It is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. Clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information should be eliminated. If a long list is submitted, those documents which have been specifically brought to applicant's attention and/or are known to be of most significance should be highlighted. See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948, 175 USPQ 260 (S.D. Fla. 1972), affd , 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). See MPEP 2004. Applicant's duty of disclosure of material and information is not satisfied by presenting a patent examiner with "a mountain of largely irrelevant [material] from which he is presumed to have been able, with his expertise and with adequate time, to have found the critical [material]. It ignores the real world conditions under which examiners work. Applicant has a duty not just to disclose pertinent prior art references but to make a disclosure in such way as not to "bury" it within other disclosures of less relevant prior art; See Golden Valley Microwave Foods Inc. v. Weaver Popcorn Co. Inc., 24 USPQ2d 1801 (N.D. Ind. 1992); Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 26 USPQ2d 1889, at 1899 ( D.Del 1992); Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc. et al., 175 USPQ 260, at 272 (S.D. F1. 1972). The examiner is not afforded the time to thoroughly review each reference of the IDS of June 4, 2024, and September 17, 2025 , given the number of references cited. By initialing each of the cited references on the accompanying 1449 form(s), the examiner is merely acknowledging the submission of the cited references and indicating that only a cursory review was made of the cited references. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “a needle” (claim 14, line 1) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because: In line 8, “The first and second fluid paths” should be changed to “The first fluid path and the second fluid path” A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Claim Objections Claim s 1-2, 4, 8-9, 14, and 17-18 are objected to because of the following informalities: In regards to claim 1, lines 9-10, “the first and second fluid paths” should be changed to “the first fluid path and the second fluid path”. In regards to claim 2, line 2, “the first and second fluid paths” should be changed to “the first fluid path and the second fluid path”. In regards to claim 2, line 3, “the first and second fluid paths” should be changed to “the first fluid path and the second fluid path”. In regards to claim 4, lines 2-3, “external fluid pathway” should be changed to “an external fluid pathway”. In regards to claim 8, line 8, “attaching” should be changed to “the attaching”. In regards to claim 9, line 1, “attaching” should be changed to “the attaching”. In regards to claim 14, line 3, “the fluid” should be changed to “fluid”. In regards to claim 14, line 3, “the subject” should be changed to “a subject”. In regards to claim 17, line 1, “the first and second lumens” should be changed to “the first lumen and the second lumen”. In regards to claim 18, line 1, “the first and second connectors” should be changed to “the first connector and the second connector”. Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abrams (US 2022/0331567), and further in view of Haarala et al (US 2009/0137944) . In regards to claim 1, Abrams teaches an implantable cranial medical device (Figures 1- 24 ) comprising: a housing ( 101 ) configured to be positioned on a skull of a subject such that at least a portion of the housing covers a burr hole of the skull (Figure 14) a brain catheter connector (130) extending from the housing and configured to extend within the skull (Figure 14) , wherein the brain catheter connector comprises a first connector (132) and a second connector (134) a first fluid path (192) extending through the housing and the first connector a second fluid path (194) extending through the housing and the second connector, wherein the first and second fluid paths are not in fluid communication with one another within the housing (Figure 6) Abrams does not teach wherein the second connector extends farther away from the housing than the first connector , as Abrams instead teaches wherein the first connector and the second connector extend the same distance away from the housing (Figure 7). Haarala et al teaches an implantable cranial medical device (Figures 1-11) wherein a second connector (118) extends farther away from a housing (120) than a first connector (116). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second connector, of the device of Abrams, to extend farther away from the housing than the first connector , as taught by Haarala et al, as such will d efine a staggered arrangement in length that will facilitate insertion of the first and second connectors within lumens of a catheter (paragraph [0051]). In regards to claim 2, in the modified device of Abrams and Haarala et al, Abrams teaches wherein the housing comprises titanium at sections through which the first and second fluid paths extend (paragraph [0073]) , and wherein the housing comprises plastic at sections not defining the first and second fluid paths (paragraph [0068]). In regards to claim 3, in the modified device of Abrams and Haarala et al, Abrams teaches a port (150) defining an opening in the housing, wherein the port is in fluid communication with the first fluid path (Figure 6) . In regards to claim 4, in the modified device of Abrams and Haarala et al, Abrams teaches a septum (170) , wherein the septum seals the opening of the port while allowing fluid communication to external fluid pathway by way of a syringe that punctures the septum (Figure 6) . In regards to claim 5, in the modified device of Abrams and Haarala et al, Abrams teaches an external catheter connector (140) in communication with the second fluid path. the external catheter connector has a longitudinal axis that extends substantially parallel to a bottom of the housing (Figure 6) . In regards to claim 6, in the modified device of Abrams and Haarala et al, Abrams teaches wherein the housing defines a plurality of fastener openings (160) configured to receive fasteners to attach the implantable cranial medical device to the skull (Figure 5) . In regards to claim 7, in the modified device of Abrams and Haarala et al, Abrams teaches an upper flange portion (110) configured to rest on the skull about the burr hole; and a lower portion (120) configured to be placed within the burr hole (Figure 14) . In regards to claim 8, Abrams teaches a method comprising: providing an implantable cranial medical device (Figures 1-24) comprising a housing (101) and a brain catheter connector (130) extending from the housing, wherein the brain catheter connector comprises a first connector (132) and a second connector (134) attaching a brain catheter (200) to the brain catheter connector to define a first fluid path and a second fluid path through the implantable cranial medical device and the brain catheter (Figure 14)( paragraph [0154]) , wherein attaching the brain catheter to the brain catheter connector comprises: coupling a second lumen (214) of the brain catheter to the second connector such that at least a portion of the second lumen overlaps with the second connector, wherein the second lumen defines at least a portion of the second fluid path (Figure 14)( paragraph [0138]) coupling a first lumen (212) of the brain catheter to the first connector, wherein the first lumen defines at least a portion of the first fluid path (Figure 14)( paragraph [0138]) Abrams does not teach wherein the second connector extends farther away from the housing than the first connector , as Abrams instead teaches wherein the first connector and the second connector extend the same distance away from the housing (Figure 7). And Abrams is silent about coupling the first lumen of the brain catheter to the first connector “ after the second lumen is coupled to the second connector ”. Haarala et al teaches a method, wherein a second connector (118) extends farther away from a housing (120) than a first connector (116) , and coupling a first lumen (left one of 202) of a brain catheter (200) to a first connector (116) after a second lumen (right one of 202) is coupled to a second connector (118) (Figures 5, 7). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second connector, of the method of Abrams, to extend farther away from the housing than the first connector such that coupling the first lumen of the brain catheter to the first connector is after the second lumen is coupled to the second connector , as taught by Haarala et al, as such will d efine a staggered arrangement in length that will facilitate insertion of the first and second connectors within the lumens of the catheter (paragraph [0051]). In regards to claim 9, in the modified method of Abrams and Haarala et al, Abrams and Haarala et al do not teach wherein attaching the brain catheter to the brain catheter connector further comprises rotating the brain catheter after the second lumen is coupled to the second connector and before the first lumen is coupled to the first connector. But it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify attaching the brain catheter to the brain catheter connector , of the modified method of Abrams and Haarala et al, to comprise rotating the brain catheter after the second lumen is coupled to the second connector and before the first lumen is coupled to the first connector , as an obvious matter of design choice arriving at the same end result, as either not rotating the brain catheter after the second lumen is coupled to the second connector and before the first lumen is coupled to the first connector , as taught by the combination of Abrams and Haarala et al, or rotating the brain catheter after the second lumen is coupled to the second connector and before the first lumen is coupled to the first connector , as taught by Applicant, will arrive at the same end result of connecting the second lumen of the brain catheter to the brain catheter connector and then connecting the first lumen of the brain catheter to the brain catheter connector. In regards to claim 10, in the modified method of Abrams and Haarala et al, Abrams teaches coupling an infusion device (400) to the second fluid path of the implantable cranial medical device and infusing fluid from the infusion device to the second fluid path (paragraph [ 0160][ 0214]) . In regards to claim 11, in the modified method of Abrams and Haarala et al, Abrams teaches implanting a distal end of the brain catheter in a cerebrospinal fluid (CSF)-containing space of a subject (Figure 14)( paragraph [0137]) . In regards to claim 12, in the modified method of Abrams and Haarala et al, Abrams teaches wherein the CSF-containing space is a cerebral ventricle (paragraph [0137]) . In regards to claim 13, in the modified method of Abrams and Haarala et al, Abrams teaches implanting the implantable cranial medical device on a skull of a subject such that at least a portion of the housing is covering a burr hole of the skull (Figure 14) . In regards to claim 14, in the modified method of Abrams and Haarala et al, Abrams teaches placing a lumen of a needle in communication with the first fluid path of the implantable cranial medical device and aspirating the fluid from a CSF-containing space of the subject through the lumen of the needle (paragraph [0158]) . In regards to claim 15, in the modified method of Abrams and Haarala et al, Abrams teaches infusing a fluid to a CSF-containing space of a subject by infusing the fluid through the second fluid path of the implantable cranial medical device and through the second lumen of the brain catheter (paragraph [0160]) . In regards to claim 16, Abrams teaches a system (Figures 1-24) comprising: an implantable cranial medical device (Figures 1-24) comprising a housing (101) positioned on a skull of a subject such that at least a portion of the housing is within a burr hole of the skull (Figure 14) , the implantable cranial medical device further comprising a brain catheter connector (130) extending from the housing and configured to extend within the skull (Figure 14) , wherein the brain catheter connector comprises a first connector (132) and a second connector (134) a brain catheter (200) operably couplable to the brain catheter connector, wherein the brain catheter defines a first lumen (212) operably couplable to the first connector to define a first fluid path and a second lumen (214) operably couplable to the second connector to define a second fluid path (Figure 14) Abrams does not teach wherein the second connector extends farther away from the housing than the first connector , as Abrams instead teaches wherein the first connector and the second connector extend the same distance away from the housing (Figure 7). Haarala et al teaches a system (Figures 1-11) wherein a second connector (118) extends farther away from a housing (120) than a first connector (116). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second connector, of the system of Abrams, to extend farther away from the housing than the first connector , as taught by Haarala et al, as such will d efine a staggered arrangement in length that will facilitate insertion of the first and second connectors within lumens of a catheter (paragraph [0051]). In regards to claim 17, in the modified system of Abrams and Haarala et al, Abrams teaches wherein the first and second lumens of the brain catheter are side-by-side at a proximal end of the brain catheter (Figure 9) , wherein the brain catheter is couplable to the brain catheter connector at the proximal end (Figure 14) . In regards to claim 18, in the modified system of Abrams and Haarala et al, Abrams teaches wherein each of the first and second connectors comprises barbs extending from an outer surface (paragraph [0079]) . In regards to claim 19, in the modified system of Abrams and Haarala et al, Abrams teaches wherein the implantable cranial medical device further comprises a port (150) defining an opening in the housing, wherein the port is in fluid communication with the first fluid path ( Figure 6) . In regards to claim 20, in the modified system of Abrams and Haarala et al, Abrams teaches wherein the implantable cranial medical device further comprises: an upper flange portion (110) configured to rest on the skull about the burr hole; and a lower portion (120) configured to be placed within the burr hole (Figure 14) . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT SHEFALI D PATEL whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3645 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 8:30am-4:30pm EST . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Kevin C Sirmons can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /SHEFALI D PATEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783