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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 5-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 5-7, each instance of “the maximum width” should be “a maximum width”
In claim 8, line 2: “the length” should be “a length”
In claim 8, line 3: “the area” should be “an area”
In claim 8, line 3: “the total opening area” should be “a total opening area”
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 1-8 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the opening” in line 7 is indefinite because “the opening” could be any of the “one or more openings.” This opening should be rephrased to clarify that the opening is the one with “a width which tapers or reduces axially,” which is how the limitation is being interpreted for compact prosecution. Claims 2-8 are rejected for incorporating the above indefinite limitation due to their dependencies on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wilson et al (US 2012/0078159).
Regarding claim 1, Wilson discloses:
A cannula (12; Fig. 2) for delivering injectate to human or animal tissue (Fig. 1), the cannula (12) comprising: a hollow through bore (24; Fig. 3); and one or more openings (26, 28, 30, 30; Fig. 2; ¶0023) through in the side wall of the cannula (12; fully capable of being adapted to allow injectate to flow from the through bore to the outside environment); wherein one of the openings (30) has a width which tapers or reduces axially in an asymmetric manner (Fig. 2), so that the region (tail of opening 30) at one end of the opening (30) has a reduced area (Fig. 2) compared to the region (28) at the opposite end.
Regarding claim 3, Wilson discloses:
The cannula according to claim 1, wherein the cannula (12) includes a tip (38), and the width of the opening (30) tapers or reduces distally from the tip (38).
Regarding claim 4, Wilson discloses:
The cannula according to claim 3, wherein the tip (38) of the cannula is closed (¶0027).
Regarding claim 5, Wilson discloses:
The cannula according to claim 1, wherein the maximum width of the opening (30) is forward from a bisecting midline (Image 1) of the opening (30).
Image 1. Annotated portion of Fig. 2
PNG
media_image1.png
229
560
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Wilson discloses:
The cannula according to claim 1, wherein the width of the opening (30) decreases from the maximum width (see Image 1 above) of the opening (30) to the rear point or end of the opening (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Wilson discloses:
The cannula according to claim 1, wherein for a dividing line (bisecting midline of Image 1 above) located between 30% to 70% of the way along the length of the opening (30), the maximum width (Image 1) forward of the dividing line is greater than the maximum width rearward of the dividing line (Image 1).
Regarding claim 8, Wilson discloses:
The cannula according to claim 1, wherein for a dividing line (bisecting midline of Image 1 above) located n % of the way along the length of the opening, where n is between 30 and 70, the area of opening forward for the dividing line is greater than n % of the total opening area (Image 1 – for a line at the halfway point of the opening has a forward area that is more than half of the total area).
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McKinnon et al (US 2013/0289532).
Regarding claim 1, McKinnon discloses:
A cannula (Fig. 11A) for delivering injectate to human or animal tissue (¶0003), the cannula comprising: a hollow through bore (main lumen of catheter 550); and one or more openings (552) through in the side wall (558) of the cannula adapted to allow injectate to flow from the through bore to the outside environment (¶0003); wherein one of the openings (552) has a width which tapers or reduces axially in an asymmetric manner (Fig. 11A – the protrusion makes the opening 552 tapered into two corners), so that the region (region near protrusion 554) at one end of the opening (552) has a reduced area compared to the region at the opposite end.
Regarding claim 2, McKinnon discloses:
The cannula according to claim 1, wherein only one opening (552) is provided.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TASNIM M AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-9536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm Pacific time.
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, Bhisma Mehta can be reached at (571)272-3383. 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.
/TASNIM MEHJABIN AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights