Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/811,025

SOFT-THREAD CANNULA AND CANNULA SEAL ASSEMBLY

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Aug 21, 2024
Examiner
BYRD, BRIGID K
Art Unit
3771
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Conmed Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
70%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 70% — above average
70%
Career Allow Rate
215 granted / 306 resolved
At TC average
Strong +50% interview lift
Without
With
+50.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
43 currently pending
Career history
349
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
37.8%
-2.2% vs TC avg
§102
26.1%
-13.9% vs TC avg
§112
28.0%
-12.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 306 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . Drawings The drawings have been received on 08/21/2024 and these drawings have been objected to under 37 CFR 1.84 for the following reasons: lines, numbers and letters are not uniformly thick and well defined; and numbers and reference characters are not plain and legible for all figures (see specifically figs. 10-11 depicting poor shading). New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because of the reasons stated above. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections Claims 9-11 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 9, line 2, the phrase “the edges” should read “the one or more edges”. In claim 10, line 1, the phrase “the edges” should read “the one or more edges”. In claim 10, line 1, the phrase “the channels” should read “the one or more channels”. In claim 11, line 2, the phrase “the channels” should read “the one or more channels”. 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 4-11 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 4, the claim recites “a chamber” in line 1. It is unclear whether the phrase is referring to the chamber previously introduced, or introducing a new, separate chamber. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indefinite. For examination purposes, the phrase is interpreted to refer to the chamber previously introduced. Further, the claim recites “the inner wall” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since an inner wall has not been previously introduced. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indefinite. For examination purposes, the phrase is interpreted to refer to an inner wall of the assembly. Regarding claim 6, the claim recites “one or more transverse spacer slots” in line 1. It is unclear whether the phrase is referring to the one or more transverse spacer slots previously introduced, or introducing new, separate spacer slots. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indefinite. For examination purposes, the phrase is interpreted to refer to the one or more transverse spacer slots previously introduced. Regarding claim 7, the claim recites “the one or more transverse exterior slots” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since one or more transverse exterior slots have not been previously introduced. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indefinite. For examination purposes, the phrase is interpreted to refer to one or more transverse exterior slots. Claims 5 and 8-11 are indefinite due to their dependencies on indefinite base claims 4 and 6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Regarding claim 6, the claim recites “further comprising one or more transverse spacer slots extending through the spacer and into the reservoir”. Claim 1 previously recites the assembly comprising one or more transverse spacer slots extending through the spacer and into the reservoir (lines 8-9), such that claim 6 is in improper dependent form because it fails to limit the subject matter of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. 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. Claim(s) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Widenhouse (US 2010/0113882 A1). Regarding claim 1, Widenhouse discloses (see abstract; paras. [0021]-[0030]; figs. 1-17) a cannula seal assembly (fig. 9), comprising: a housing (20, para. [0021]) having a primary seal (56b, para. [0025]) and a secondary seal (56a) therein; a spacer (58, para. [0025]) connected between the primary seal and the secondary seal to maintain a space between the seals (fig. 9); and a reservoir (57) in the space between the primary seal and the secondary seal (fig. 9) to collect fluid bypassing the primary seal (para. [0026]) when the primary seal is disturbed by a surgical instrument (considered to prevent fluid from escaping, para. [0023]); and one or more transverse spacer slots (55, para. [0026]; fig. 9) extending through the spacer and into the reservoir (fig. 9) to allow fluid to pass out of the reservoir (considered to allow fluid to pass through device via port 55). Regarding claim 2, Widenhouse discloses the assembly of claim 1. Widenhouse further discloses wherein the spacer comprises at least one circular disk with a central aperture extending therethrough (spacer is in the shape of a ring, considered to include central aperture in which fluid is located, figs. 2 and 9). Regarding claim 3, Widenhouse discloses the assembly of claim 1. Widenhouse further discloses further comprising a chamber (chamber in which spacer 58 sits within, fig. 9) extending between the secondary seal and the housing (extends between seal 56a and housing including retaining ring 22, fig. 9). Regarding claim 4, Widenhouse discloses the assembly of claim 3. Widenhouse further discloses further comprising a chamber extending around the primary and secondary seals (chamber in which spacer 58 sits within, depicted as extending around membranes 56a and 56b, fig. 9), and one or more channels (threading of port 55, fig. 9) extending between the inner wall and the housing (extends from inner wall of spacer 58 outwards to outer wall of housing, fig. 9). Regarding claim 5, Widenhouse discloses the assembly of claim 4. Widenhouse further discloses further comprising a cannula (14) extending from the housing (figs. 2 and 9). Regarding claim 6, Widenhouse discloses the assembly of claim 1. Widenhouse further discloses further comprising one or more transverse spacer slots extending through the spacer and into the reservoir (55, see claim 1 above). Regarding claim 7, Widenhouse discloses the assembly of claim 6. Widenhouse further discloses wherein the one or more transverse spacer slots (annotated fig. 9) and the one or more transverse exterior slots (see annotated fig. 9, considered to be exterior to membranes 56a and 56b and slotted) are transverse to a central longitudinal axis extending through the cannula (depicted in annotated fig. 9). PNG media_image1.png 830 846 media_image1.png Greyscale Annotated Figure 7 of Widenhouse Regarding claim 8, Widenhouse discloses the assembly of claim 7. Widenhouse further discloses wherein the one or more transverse spacer slots and the one or more transverse exterior slots extend along an axis perpendicular to the central longitudinal axis (see annotated fig. 9 depicting a transverse axis along which each slot extends). Regarding claim 9, Widenhouse discloses the assembly of claim 4. Widenhouse further discloses wherein the inner wall has one or more edges (edges of threading of port 55) extending therealong such that the edges are between the inner wall and the housing (fig. 9), the one or more edges extending at least partially around the reservoir (formed within spacer 58 which circumferentially extends around gap 57, therefore edges formed within spacer 58 are considered to extend at least partially around gap 57, fig. 9). Regarding claim 10, Widenhouse discloses the assembly of claim 9. Widenhouse further discloses wherein the edges create the channels extending at least partially around the reservoir (creates threading of port 55). 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim(s) 3-4 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Widenhouse in view of Stearns (US 2009/0137943 A1). Regarding claim 3, Widenhouse discloses the assembly of claim 1. However, under an alternative interpretation with respect to the chamber of Widenhouse, Widenhouse fails to disclose further comprising a chamber extending between the secondary seal and the housing. Stearns teaches (paras. [0064]-[0067]; fig. 2), in the same field of endeavor, a cannula seal assembly (fig. 2) comprising a seal (annular insert 140, para. [0067]) and a housing (115, para. [0064]), and a chamber (fluid return plenum 121, para. [0066]) extending between the seal and the housing (fig. 2, considered to extend at least longitudinally between portion of housing and annular insert 140), for the purpose of providing a fluid return conduit that allows fluid to be recirculated through the system (paras. [0066]-[0067]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Widenhouse to further include a fluid return chamber extending between membrane 56a and the housing connected to a fluid return conduit, in order to provide a fluid return conduit allowing fluid to be recirculated through the system, based on the teachings of Stearns (paras. [0066]-[0067]). Regarding claim 4, Widenhouse (as modified) teaches the assembly of claim 3. Widenhouse (as modified) further teaches further comprising a chamber extending around the primary and secondary seals (combination considered to further teach chamber extending around membranes 56a and 56b), and one or more channels (fluid return conduit 222 of Stearns, para. [0066] of Stearns) extending between the inner wall and the housing (considered to extend between an inner wall of the assembly and an outer wall of the housing). Regarding claim 9, Widenhouse (as modified) teaches the assembly of claim 4. Widenhouse (as modified) further teaches wherein the inner wall has one or more edges extending therealong such that the edges are between the inner wall and the housing, the one or more edges extending at least partially around the reservoir (edges of fluid return conduit 222 of Stearns, fig. 2 of Stearns). Regarding claim 10, Widenhouse (as modified) teaches the assembly of claim 9. Widenhouse (as modified) further teaches wherein the edges create the channels extending at least partially around the reservoir (edges of fluid return conduit 222 create conduit 222). Regarding claim 11, Widenhouse (as modified) teaches the assembly of claim 10. Widenhouse (as modified) further teaches wherein the one or more channels are offset from the chamber (considered to be offset at least in a perpendicular direction, see fig. 2 of Stearns) with a fluid path provided out of the chamber and into the channels (paras. [0066]-[0067] of Stearns). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2014/0371681 A1 to Yi, disclosing a cannula for preventing spraying of liquid. US 2014/0121630 A1 to Dooney, Jr., disclosing cannula dams. US 2015/0065808 A1 to Van Wyk, disclosing a cannula including a spray shield. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIGID K BYRD whose telephone number is (571)272-7698. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00. 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. /BRIGID K BYRD/Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 21, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 09, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599453
Oral Expansion Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594092
FLY BY WIRE CONTROL FOR ATHERECTOMY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594085
SHOCK WAVE CATHETER WITH SHOCK ABSORBER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12582435
RETRACTABLE PROTECTION AND/OR SENSING FEATURES FOR POWERED SURGICAL CUTTING DEVICES AND SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12582432
Ultrasonic Surgical Irrigation Sleeve And Related Assemblies
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
70%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+50.5%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 306 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