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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-27 remain pending in the present application. None are amended.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 appears to be missing a space in “rowwherein” in line 4.
Claim 12 appears to be missing a space in “distalopening” in the 3rd to last paragraph.
In claim 12, the third to last paragraph appears to have a misplaced common in “a third width, W the second”.
Appropriate correction is suggested.
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 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama et al. (US 2022/0401638 A1) (cited in 4/19/26 IDS) in view of Walzman (US 2022/0240955 A1) and Martin et al. (US 2022/0143373 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yokoyama teaches a cannula for conveying blood in an extracorporeal circulation system (Figs. 1 and 4; Abstract), the cannula comprising:
a tubular body having a proximal portion having a first diameter and a distal portion having a second diameter smaller than the first diameter (Fig. 4 shows catheter tube 31 being more narrow than at/leading up to connectors 35 and 36), the tubular body defining an internal lumen extending form a proximal end to a distal end along an axis (¶ 49 describes lumen 30A), the distal end including a distal opening (through-hole 47);
wherein the distal portion of the tubular body defines at least two rows of side holes in fluid communication with the internal lumen (side holes 46 and 63), a first row disposed proximal to the distal opening and a second row spaced in a proximal direction along the axis from the first row (Fig. 7 shows how the side holes 46/46A/46B are arranged in rows along L1/L2; Fig. 4 also shows at least a pair of side holes 63 also being arranged in a row).
Yokoyama does not explicitly teach:
the side holes of each row having a rectangular shape with a length L and a width W;
wherein the side holes of the first row have a first length L and a first width W and the side holes of the second row have a second length L and a second width W, each of which are less than the first length L and the first width W; and
wherein the L/W ratio of each side hole is between 2.3 and 2.7.
Walzman teaches a cannula for conveying blood (Fig. 3; Abstract and ¶ 2 describes the device is used for aspirating and irrigating fluids), thus being in the same field of endeavor, comprising side holes of various shapes including circles, ovals, and rectangles (¶ 215).
Thus, Walzman shows that shows that rectangular side holes are an equivalent structure known in the art. Therefore, because these two side hole configurations were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute rectangular side holes for circular side holes of Yokoyama. Doing so would thus comprise the side holes of each row having a rectangular shape with a length L and a width W.
The combination still does not explicitly teach wherein the side holes of the first row have a first length L and a first width W and the side holes of the second row have a second length L and a second width W, each of which are less than the first length L and the first width W; or
the L/W ratio of each side hole is between 2.3 and 2.7.
However, Martin teaches a fluid delivery and removal cannula (Figs. 1, 7, and 18; Abstract), thus being in the same field of endeavor, the cannula comprising:
a tubular body (Fig. 1 shows catheter 500 with proximal subassembly 540 and distal subassembly 560 where the proximal subassembly has a larger diameter shows; Fig. 18 also shows catheter 700 with proximal subassembly 740 and distal subassembly 760), the tubular body defining comprising a series of side hole rows (732b; ¶s 9-10 describe the openings may extend axially and circumferentially) wherein the side holes of a first row have a first length L and a first width W and the side holes of a second row have a second length L and a second width W, each of which are less than the first length L and the first width W (the more distal openings 732b have a larger diameter, and thus a greater length and width, than more proximal openings).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the side openings of Yokoyama and Walzman such that the side holes of the first row have a first length L and a first width W and the side holes of the second row have a second length L and a second width W, each of which are less than the first length L and the first width W, as taught by Martin. Doing so would be advantageous to produce non-uniform hydrodynamic resistance to provide more equal fluid flow (¶ 96 of Martin).
The combination still does not explicitly teach wherein the L/W ratio of each side hole is between 2.3 and 2.7.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Yokoyama, Walzman, and Martin to have L/W ratio of each side hole is between 2.3 and 2.7 since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Yokoyama, Walzman, and Martin would not operate differently with the claimed lengths and widths. Further, applicant places no criticality on the ranges claimed (¶ 52 discloses a wider range of L/W ratio and such ratios may vary between embodiments).
Regarding claim 2, Yokoyama further teaches the first row includes a first side hole and the second row includes a second side hole, each of the first row and the second row including only a single side hole (said rows may also be interpreted as being perpendicular to the lumen axis, such as perpendicular to the direction of P1 in Fig. 7, thus said first and second rows would include only a single hole).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Yokoyama, Walzman, and Martin does not explicitly disclose the rows are spaced apart at a distance of about 7 to 9 mm in the proximal direction.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Yokoyama, Walzman, and Martin to have the rows be spaced apart at a distance of about 7 to 9 mm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Yokoyama, Walzman, and Martin would not operate differently with the claimed range. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed (¶ 54 indicates said range is only in “certain embodiments”).
Regarding claim 4, Yokoyama further discloses the first side hole and second side hole are circumferentially opposed (See annotated Fig. 6 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
535
548
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Yokoyama further teaches comprising third row having third side hole in the fourth row having fourth side hole, the third row spaced in a proximal direction along the axis from the second row and the fourth row spaced and a proximal direction along the axis from the third row (Figs. 6-7 show at least four side holes which each may be interpreted as being within their own circumferential rows).
Martin also teaches at least four side holes, with a third side hole of a third row has a third length L and a third width W and a fourth side hole of a fourth row have a fourth length L and a fourth width W, each of which are less than their respective length L and the width W of the preceding holes (the more distal openings 732b have a larger diameter, and thus a greater length and width, than more proximal openings).
As previously stated, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the side openings of Yokoyama and Walzman such that the side holes become progressively smaller, as taught by Martin. Doing so would thus comprise a third side hole of a third row has a third length L and a third width W, each of which are less than the second length and the second width W, and a fourth side hole of a fourth row have a fourth length L and a fourth width W, each of which are less than the third length L and the third width W. Doing so would be advantageous to produce non-uniform hydrodynamic resistance to provide more equal fluid flow (¶ 96 of Martin).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Yokoyama, Walzman, and Martin does not explicitly disclose first, second, third, and fourth rows are equally spaced apart at a distance of about 7 to 9 mm in the proximal direction.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Yokoyama, Walzman, and Martin to have the rows be spaced apart at a distance of about 7 to 9 mm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Yokoyama, Walzman, and Martin would not operate differently with the claimed range. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed (¶ 54 indicates said range is only in “certain embodiments”).
Regarding claim 7, Yokoyama further teaches the third row and four through include only a single side hole (said rows may also be interpreted as being perpendicular to the lumen axis, such as perpendicular to the direction of P1 in Fig. 7, thus said third and fourth rows would include only a single hole as Yokoyama discloses at least four side hole separated in this manner).
Regarding claim 8, Yokoyama further discloses the third side hole and fourth side hole are circumferentially opposed (See annotated Fig. 6 above).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Yokoyama, Walzman, and Martin does not explicitly disclose the second length, third length and fourth length are each progressively reduced by about one sixth of the first length and further wherein the second width, third width and forth width are each progressively reduced by about one sixth of the first width.
However, as previously stated, Martin discloses the size of the side holes being progressively reduced (the more distal openings 732b have a larger diameter, and thus a greater length and width, than more proximal openings) in order to produce non-uniform hydrodynamic resistance to provide more equal fluid flow (¶ 96 of Martin).
Thus, Martin demonstrates that the changing of the side hole sizes is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that changing the sizes of the side holes affects the hydrodynamic resistance and fluid flow through said holes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Yokoyama, Walzman, and Martin as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Yokoyama, Walzman, and Martin does not explicitly disclose the fourth length is about one half the first length and the fourth width is about one half the first width.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Yokoyama, Walzman, and Martin to have the relative sizes between the first and fourth dimensions such that the fourth length is about one half the first length and the fourth width is about one half the first width since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Yokoyama, Walzman, and Martin would not operate differently with the claimed relative dimensions. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed (¶ 14 only indicates said dimensions within an example; ¶ 63 also discloses various configurations).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Yokoyama, Walzman, and Martin does not explicitly teach wherein the L/W ratio of each side hole is 2.5.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Yokoyama, Walzman, and Martin to have L/W ratio of each side hole is 2.5 since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Yokoyama, Walzman, and Martin would not operate differently with the claimed L/W ratio. Further, applicant places no criticality on the ranges claimed (¶ 52 discloses a wider range of L/W ratio and such ratios may vary between embodiments).
Regarding claim 12, Yokoyama further teaches a cannula for conveying blood in an extracorporeal circulation system (Figs. 1 and 4; Abstract), the cannula comprising:
a tubular body having a proximal portion having a first diameter and a distal portion having a second diameter smaller than the first diameter (Fig. 4 shows catheter tube 31 being more narrow than at/leading up to connectors 35 and 36), the tubular body defining an internal lumen extending form a proximal end to a distal end along an axis (¶ 49 describes lumen 30A), the distal end including a distal opening (through-hole 47);
wherein the distal portion of the tubular body defines a first set of three rows of side holes in fluid communication with the internal lumen (side holes 46A, 46B, and 63), of which a first row is disposed proximal to the distal opening, a second row spaced in a proximal direction along the axis from the first row, and a third row is spaced in a proximal direction along the axis form the second row (Fig. 7 shows how the side holes 46/46A/46B are arranged in rows along L1/L2; Fig. 4 also shows at least a pair of side holes 63 also being arranged in a row);
wherein each row of the first set has at least two side holes (Fig. 7 shows numerous side holes which can be grouped together into rows, such as along L1/L2 or into vertical rows, such as with holes 63)
Yokoyama does not explicitly teach:
each of the side holes having a rectangular shape with a length L and a width W;
wherein the side holes of the first row have a first length L and a first width W and the side holes of the second row have a second length L and a second width W and the side holes of the third row have a third length L and a third width, W each of which are less than the first length L and the first width W; and
wherein the L/W ratio of each side hole is between 1.3 and 1.7.
Walzman teaches a cannula for conveying blood (Fig. 3; Abstract and ¶ 2 describes the device is used for aspirating and irrigating fluids), thus being in the same field of endeavor, comprising side holes of various shapes including circles, ovals, and rectangles (¶ 215).
Thus, Walzman shows that shows that rectangular side holes are an equivalent structure known in the art. Therefore, because these two side hole configurations were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute rectangular side holes for circular side holes of Yokoyama. Doing so would thus comprise the side holes of each row having a rectangular shape with a length L and a width W.
The combination still does not explicitly teach wherein the side holes of the first row have a first length L and a first width W and the side holes of the second row have a second length L and a second width W, each of which are less than the first length L and the first width W; or the L/W ratio of each side hole is between 1.3 and 1.7.
However, Martin teaches a fluid delivery and removal cannula (Figs. 1, 7, and 18; Abstract), thus being in the same field of endeavor, the cannula comprising:
a tubular body (Fig. 1 shows catheter 500 with proximal subassembly 540 and distal subassembly 560 where the proximal subassembly has a larger diameter shows; Fig. 18 also shows catheter 700 with proximal subassembly 740 and distal subassembly 760), the tubular body defining comprising a series of side hole rows (732b; ¶s 9-10 describe the openings may extend axially and circumferentially) wherein the side holes of a first row have a first length L and a first width W and the side holes of a second row have a second length L and a second width W and the side holes of a third row have a third length L and a third width W, the second length and width being less than the first length and width and the third length and width being less than the second length and width (the more distal openings 732b have a larger diameter, and thus a greater length and width, than more proximal openings).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the side openings of Yokoyama and Walzman such that the side holes of the first row have a first length L and a first width W and the side holes of the second row have a second length L and a second width W and the side holes of the third row have a third length L and a third width W, each of which are less than the preceding length L and the preceding width W, as taught by Martin. Doing so would be advantageous to produce non-uniform hydrodynamic resistance to provide more equal fluid flow (¶ 96 of Martin).
The combination still does not explicitly teach wherein the L/W ratio of each side hole is between 1.3 and 1.7.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Yokoyama, Walzman, and Martin to have L/W ratio of each side hole is between 1.3 and 1.7 since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Yokoyama, Walzman, and Martin would not operate differently with the claimed lengths and widths. Further, applicant places no criticality on the ranges claimed (¶ 63 discloses a wider range of L/W ratio and such ratios may vary between embodiments).
Regarding claim 13, Yokoyama further discloses the first side hole and second side hole are circumferentially opposed, and further wherein each 9of the side holes of the first row are circumferentially aligned with the side holes of the third row (see annotated Fig. 6 below)
PNG
media_image2.png
660
549
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Yokoyama, Walzman, and Martin does not explicitly disclose first, second, and third rows equally spaced apart.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Yokoyama, Walzman, and Martin to have the rows to be equally spaced since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Yokoyama, Walzman, and Martin would not operate differently with the claimed spacing. Further, applicant places no criticality on the dimensions claimed (¶ 10 indicates the claimed dimensions are only in an example).
Regarding claim 15 the combination of Yokoyama, Walzman, and Martin does not explicitly disclose first, second, and third rows are equally spaced from each other at a distance of from about 48 to 52 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Yokoyama, Walzman, and Martin to have the rows to be equally spaced at a distance of from about 48 to 52 mm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Yokoyama, Walzman, and Martin would not operate differently with the claimed spacing. Further, applicant places no criticality on the dimensions claimed (¶ 10 indicates the claimed dimensions are only in an example; ¶ 65 also discloses different ranges are suitable).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Yokoyama, Walzman, and Martin does not explicitly disclose first, second, and third rows are equally spaced from each other at a distance of from about 23 to 27 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Yokoyama, Walzman, and Martin to have the rows to be equally spaced at a distance of from about 23 to 27 mm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Yokoyama, Walzman, and Martin would not operate differently with the claimed spacing. Further, applicant places no criticality on the dimensions claimed (¶ 10 indicates the claimed dimensions are only in an example; ¶ 65 also discloses different ranges are suitable).
Regarding claim 17, Yokoyama further discloses having a second set of two single side hole rows disposed between the distal opening and the first row of the first set, including a fourth row disposed distal to a fifth row (Figs. 6-7 show at least five side holes which each may be interpreted as being within their own circumferential rows).
The combination of Yokoyama, Walzman, and Martin does not explicitly disclose the fifth row is spaced from the first row of the first set at a distance of from about 48 to 52 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Yokoyama, Walzman, and Martin to have the rows to be equally spaced at a distance of from about 48 to 52 mm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Yokoyama, Walzman, and Martin would not operate differently with the claimed spacing. Further, applicant places no criticality on the dimensions claimed (¶ 10 indicates the claimed dimensions are only in an example; ¶ 65 also discloses different ranges are suitable).
Regarding claim 18, Yokoyama further discloses having a second set of two single side hole rows disposed between the distal opening and the first row of the first set, including a fourth row disposed distal to a fifth row (Figs. 6-7 show at least five side holes which each may be interpreted as being within their own circumferential rows).
The combination of Yokoyama, Walzman, and Martin does not explicitly disclose the fifth row is spaced from the first row of the first set at a distance of from about 23 to 27 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Yokoyama, Walzman, and Martin to have the rows to be equally spaced at a distance of from about 23 to 27 mm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Yokoyama, Walzman, and Martin would not operate differently with the claimed spacing. Further, applicant places no criticality on the dimensions claimed (¶ 10 indicates the claimed dimensions are only in an example; ¶ 65 also discloses different ranges are suitable).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Yokoyama, Walzman, and Martin does not explicitly disclose wherein the side hole lengths of the second set are equal to each other and wherein the side hole widths of the second set are equal to each other, and wherein the L/W ratio of the second set of side holes is 1.3 to 1.7.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Yokoyama, Walzman, and Martin to have the respective lengths and widths of the second set of side holes and the L/W ratio of each side hole is between 1.3 and 1.7 since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Yokoyama, Walzman, and Martin would not operate differently with the claimed lengths and widths. Further, applicant places no criticality on the ranges claimed (¶ 63 discloses a wider range of L/W ratio and such ratios may vary between embodiments).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Yokoyama, Walzman, and Martin does not explicitly disclose the first length, second length, and third length of the first set of side holes are each progressively reduced by about one sixth of the second set length, and the first width, second width, and third width are each progressively reduced by about one sixth of the second side hole width.
However, as previously stated, Martin discloses the size of the side holes being progressively reduced (the more distal openings 732b have a larger diameter, and thus a greater length and width, than more proximal openings) in order to produce non-uniform hydrodynamic resistance to provide more equal fluid flow (¶ 96 of Martin).
Thus, Martin demonstrates that the changing of the side hole sizes is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that changing the sizes of the side holes affects the hydrodynamic resistance and fluid flow through said holes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Yokoyama, Walzman, and Martin as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Yokoyama, Walzman, and Martin does not explicitly disclose the fourth and fifth rows are spaced from each other at a distance of about 3 to 6 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Yokoyama, Walzman, and Martin to have the rows be spaced apart at a distance of about 3 to 6 mm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Yokoyama, Walzman, and Martin would not operate differently with the claimed range. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed (¶ 65 indicates said range is only in “some embodiments”).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Yokoyama, Walzman, and Martin does not explicitly teach wherein the L/W ratio of each side hole is 1.5.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Yokoyama, Walzman, and Martin to have L/W ratio of each side hole is 1.5 since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Yokoyama, Walzman, and Martin would not operate differently with the claimed L/W ratio. Further, applicant places no criticality on the ranges claimed (¶ 63 discloses a wider range of L/W ratio and such ratios may vary between embodiments).
Regarding claim 23, Yokoyama further discloses having a sixth row of side holes disposed between the fourth row of the second set and the distal opening (Figs. 6-7 show at least six side holes which each may be interpreted as being within their own circumferential rows).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Yokoyama, Walzman, and Martin does not explicitly disclose sixth row is spaced along the axis in a distal direction from the fourth row at a distance of from about 39 to 43 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Yokoyama, Walzman, and Martin to have the rows to be spaced from about 39 to 43 mm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Yokoyama, Walzman, and Martin would not operate differently with the claimed spacing. Further, applicant places no criticality on the dimensions claimed (¶ 63 discloses different ranges are suitable).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Yokoyama, Walzman, and Martin does not explicitly disclose sixth row is spaced along the axis in a proximal direction from the distal opening at a distance of from about 8 to 12 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Yokoyama, Walzman, and Martin to have sixth row be spaced from the distal opening at a distance of from about 8 to 12 mm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Yokoyama, Walzman, and Martin would not operate differently with the claimed spacing. Further, applicant places no criticality on the dimensions claimed (¶ 63 discloses different ranges are suitable).
Regarding claim 26, Martin also teaches at least six side holes where a fourth row, fifth row, and sixth row of side holes have the same length and width (openings 832b in Fig. 19) and that the size of the side holes can be adjusted in order to produce non-uniform hydrodynamic resistance to provide more equal fluid flow (¶ 96 of Martin).
Thus, Martin demonstrates that the changing of the side hole sizes is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that changing the sizes of the side holes affects the hydrodynamic resistance and fluid flow through said holes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Yokoyama, Walzman, and Martin as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 27, Martin also teaches the size of the side holes can be adjusted in order to produce non-uniform hydrodynamic resistance to provide more equal fluid flow (¶ 96 of Martin).
Thus, Martin demonstrates that the changing of the side hole sizes is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that changing the sizes of the side holes affects the hydrodynamic resistance and fluid flow through said holes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Yokoyama, Walzman, and Martin as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rauh (US 2024/0226405 A1) also teaches variation in size, shape, and spacing of cannula side holes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALESSANDRO R DEL PRIORE whose telephone number is (571)272-9902. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 - 5:30.
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, Rebecca E Eisenberg can be reached at (571) 270-5879. 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.
/ALESSANDRO R DEL PRIORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/GUY K TOWNSEND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights