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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed February 5th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 14-30 remain pending in the application. Claims 1-13 have been cancelled. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed November 5th, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 5th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant has argued that Zhang does not disclose that the transition waveguide input port defines a first port and the transition waveguide input port defines a second axis, wherein the first axis is transverse to the second axis. However the examiner respectfully disagrees, as the applicant has not taken into account what the combination of references discloses. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The output port as defined by Ormsby defines a longitudinal axis in line with the coaxial cable of the device. Further, Zhang discloses a coaxial cable input port which defines a vertical axis transverse to the longitudinal axis of the coaxial cable of the device. Therefore, in combination, Ormsby in view of Zhang defines wherein the output port of the transition waveguide defines a second axis in the horizontal direction and the input port defines a first axis in the vertical direction, and therefore the combination discloses wherein the first and second axis are transverse to one another. See rejection below for further detail.
Therefore the arguments are not persuasive, see rejection below.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 14-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ormsby et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 2010/0268219) herein referred to as Ormsby further in view of Zhang et al. (CN 108030549) herein referred to as Zhang (see attached) further in view of Brannan (WO 2016054156) herein referred to as Brannan.
Regarding claim 14, Ormsby discloses a microwave ablation device (radiofrequency (RF) wave guide device or probe 10 forming part of a microwave ablation system, Paragraph [0032]), comprising:
a handle defining a chamber (handle 36 defines chamber housing all the parts within the handle (i.e. chamber), Figures 5-7, Paragraph [0042]);
a transition waveguide at least partially disposed within the chamber defined by the handle body, the transition waveguide (transition waveguide 70 is partially disposed within the chamber of the handle body 36, Figure 7) comprising:
a transition waveguide input port having a transition waveguide input port impedance (input port 70, (thin end of 70) is designed to adapt the norm 50 ohm impedance of the microwave system, see modified Figure 7 below, Paragraph [0042]),
and a transition waveguide output port disposed within the chamber defined by the handle body and having a transition waveguide output port impedance (output port 70 (wide end of 70) is designed to adapt the norm 50 ohm impedance of the microwave system, see modified Figure 7 below, Paragraph [0042]);
wherein a second axis of the transition waveguide output port (output port defines a second axis in line with the coaxial cable, Figure 7),
an electrically conductive element (the inner conductor 42 has a distal end portion which projects into the antenna, see modified Figure 7 below, Paragraph [0040]);
and a coaxial cable that defines a longitudinal axis (coaxial cable waveguide 34 has an inner tubular conductor 42 and outer tubular conductor 44 coaxial with the inner conductor, Figures 5-7, Paragraph [0040], coaxial cable defines a longitudinal axis in line with the conductive element, Figures 5-7), the coaxial cable comprising:
a coaxial cable input port disposed within the chamber defined by the handle body (input port (see modified Figure 7 below)),
and a coaxial cable output port (output port (see modified Figure 7 below)),
wherein: the coaxial cable input port is coupled to the transition waveguide output port (coaxial cable input port is coupled to transition waveguide output port 70, see modified Figure 7 below);
the transition waveguide output port is coaxial with the longitudinal axis (transition waveguide output port is coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the coaxial cable, see modified Figure 7 below),
and the coaxial cable output port is coupled to the electrically conductive element (coaxial cable is connected to the electrically conductive element 42, see modified Figure 7 below),
PNG
media_image1.png
559
1121
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However Ormsby does not explicitly disclose wherein the transition waveguide input port defines a first axis of the transition waveguide input port and the first axis is transverse to the second axis.
Zhang discloses an ablation needle (Abstract) wherein the transition waveguide defines a first axis of the transition waveguide input port (see modified Figure 1 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
477
928
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Ormsby to incorporate the teachings of Zhang by including wherein the transition waveguide input port defines a first axis of the transition waveguide input port because applicant has not disclosed that axially offsetting the coaxial input port from the longitudinal axis of the coaxial cable provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. As in combination, the first axis is transverse to the second axis of the output port as defined by Ormsby. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected Ormsby’s microwave ablation device and applicant’s invention to perform equally well with either location of the transition waveguide input port taught by Ormsby or the claimed location of the coaxial input port because both transition waveguide input ports would perform the same function of connecting the cable from the generator to the coaxial cable of the antenna. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Ormsby to incorporate the teachings as taught by Zhang to obtain the invention as specified in claim 14 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Ormsby in view of Zhang.
Further, Ormsby does not explicitly disclose wherein a coaxial cable that has a coaxial cable impedance and wherein, within a predetermined frequency range, the coaxial cable impedance is lower than at least one of the transition waveguide input port impedance or the transition waveguide output port impedance by at least a predetermined amount that exceeds a degree of tolerance.
Brannan discloses a coaxial cable that has a coaxial cable impedance (the impedance formed by the coaxial cable may range from 20 Ω to 150 Ω (which overlaps the 39 Ω to 45 Ω), Paragraph [0048])
and wherein, within a predetermined frequency range, the coaxial cable impedance is lower than at least one of the transition waveguide input port impedance or the transition waveguide output port impedance by at least a predetermined amount that exceeds a degree of tolerance (coaxial cable 114 impedance is lower than transition waveguide impedance (the impedance Z2 of the coaxial cable 114 is selected to range between the impedance Zi of the first transmission line segment 112 and the impedance Z3 of the third transmission line segment 116 (seen as the transition waveguide) wherein the impedance is lower by at least a predetermined amount (wherein the predetermined amount is determined by falling within the range) that exceeds a degree of tolerance (degree of tolerance is a limit of variation in impedances, see applicant’s specification [0037] (i.e. the range of impedances Zi < Z2 < Z3, seen as a degree of tolerance to each of the impedances Zi and Z3) in order to optimize the power transfer from the generator to the antenna by matching the impedance of the generator to the different segments of the microwave applicator (Paragraph [0036]), Figure 4C, Paragraphs [0063-0064]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ormsby to incorporate
the teachings of Brannan by modifying the coaxial cable to have a coaxial cable impedance and include wherein, within a predetermined frequency range, the coaxial cable impedance is lower than at least one of the transition waveguide input port impedance or the transition waveguide output port impedance by at least a predetermined amount that exceeds a degree of tolerance. The motivation to do so being to optimize the power transfer from the generator to the antenna by matching the impedance of the generator to the different segments of the microwave applicator (Brannan, Paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claim 15, Ormsby in view of Zhang and Brannan discloses the microwave ablation device of claim 14.
Ormsby further discloses wherein the transition waveguide input port impedance and the transition waveguide output port impedance are in a range from approximately 48 Ω to 52 Ω (transformer circuit 70 (i.e. transition waveguide) is designed to adapt the normal 50 ohm impedance (falls within the range of 48 ohms to 52 ohms) of the microwave system more closely to the ablation antenna impedance, Paragraph [0042]).
Regarding claim 16, Ormsby in view of Zhang and Brannan discloses the microwave ablation device of claim 14.
However Ormsby in view of Zhang does not explicitly disclose wherein the coaxial cable impedance is in a range from approximately 39 Ω to 45 Ω.
Brannan further discloses wherein the coaxial cable impedance is in a range from approximately 39 Ω to 45 Ω (the impedance formed by the coaxial cable may range from 20 Ω to 150 Ω (which overlaps the 39 Ω to 45 Ω), Paragraph [0048]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ormsby in view of Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Brannan by modifying the coaxial cable to have a coaxial cable impedance in a range from approximately 39 Ω to 45 Ω. The motivation to do so being to optimize the power transfer from the generator to the antenna by matching the impedance of the generator to the different segments of the microwave applicator (Brannan, Paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claim 17, Ormsby in view of Zhang and Brannan discloses the microwave ablation device of claim 14.
Ormsby further discloses wherein the coaxial cable comprises a center conductor and a dielectric layer that radially surrounds the center conductor (the coaxial cable waveguide 34 has an inner conductor 42 and an outer tubular conductor 44 coaxial with the inner conductor, with a layer 45 of dielectric material between the conductors, Paragraph [0040]).
Ormsby discloses wherein the outer diameter of the center conductor and the outer diameter of the dielectric layer comprise dimensions (Figure 7), however Ormsby in view of Zhang is silent on the specific dimensions of the outer diameter of the center conductor and the outer diameter of the dielectric layer.
However it would obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the dimensions disclosed by Ormsby to include the dimensions wherein the outer diameter of the center conductor is in a range from approximately 0.0070 inches to 0.0072 inches and an outer diameter of the dielectric layer is in a range from approximately 0.0189 inches to 0.0195 inches as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see applicant’s specification wherein the values are “in a range from approximately”, Paragraph [0065]) and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). The result being to ensure the center conductor and dielectric layer fit within the microwave applicator to transfer energy to the tip of the device to apply the energy within the patient which is known in the art.
Regarding claim 18, Ormsby in view of Zhang and Brannan discloses the microwave ablation device of claim 14.
Ormsby discloses wherein the predetermined frequency range is greater than 300 Megahertz (the radiofrequency antenna is adapted to receive and irradiate radiofrequency energy in the microwave range at a frequency typically greater than 300 Megahertz (MHz) in the electromagnetic spectrum for ablating biological tissue along a biological ablation pathway, Paragraph [0006]), however Ormsby does not explicitly disclose wherein the predetermined frequency range includes at least one of 915 MHz, 2.45 GHz, or 5.8 GHz.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate wherein the predetermined frequency range includes at least one of 915 MHz, 2.45 GHz, or 5.8 GHz as “microwave” generally refers to electromagnetic waves electromagnetic waves in the frequency range of 300 MHz to 300 GHz, which includes all of 915 MHz, 2.45 GHz, or 5.8 GHz as evidenced by Brannan (Brannan, Paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 19, Ormsby in view of Zhang and Brannan discloses the microwave ablation device of claim 14.
However Ormsby does not explicitly disclose wherein the device further comprises: a balun comprising: a balun insulator having an inner diameter; and a tubing member that radially surrounds the balun insulator and that has a maximum outer diameter, wherein the balun insulator inner diameter is in a range from approximately 0.0225 inches to 0.0235 inches, and the tubing member maximum outer diameter is in a range from approximately 0.0395 inches to 0.0425 inches.
Brannan discloses wherein the device further comprises: a balun (balun 118, Figure 2, Paragraph [0055]) comprising:
a balun insulator having an inner diameter (balun insulator 118a comprises an inner diameter, Figure 2, Paragraph [0055]);
and a tubing member that radially surrounds the balun insulator and that has a maximum outer diameter (tubing member 118b radially surrounds the balun insulator and has a maximum outer diameter, Figure 2, Paragraph [0055]),
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ormsby in view of Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Brannan by including wherein the device further comprises: a balun comprising: a balun insulator having an inner diameter; and a tubing member that radially surrounds the balun insulator and that has a maximum outer diameter. The motivation to do so being to improve impedance matching and to aid in focusing microwave energy into a predetermined shape (Brannan, Paragraph [0017]).
Brannan further discloses an inner diameter for the balun insulator and a maximum outer diameter of the tubing member (Figure 2); however Brannan is silent on the specific dimensions of the balun insulator inner diameter and the tubing member maximum outer diameter.
However it would obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the dimensions disclosed by Brannan to include dimensions wherein the balun insulator inner diameter is in a range from approximately 0.0225 inches to 0.0235 inches, and the tubing member maximum outer diameter is in a range from approximately 0.0395 inches to 0.0425 inches as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see applicant’s specification wherein the values are “in a range from approximately”, Paragraph [0018]) and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). The result being to ensure the balun insulator and tubing member fit within the microwave applicator to transfer energy to the tip of the device to apply the energy within the patient which is known in the art.
Regarding claim 20, Ormsby in view of Zhang and Brannan discloses the microwave ablation device of claim 14.
Ormsby further disclose wherein the microwave ablation device comprises an outer tubular member that houses the coaxial cable (an outer shield layer (not illustrated, seen as the outer tubular member) extends over the outer conductor 44 of the coaxial cable, Figure 7, Paragraph [0040]),
Ormsby discloses wherein the outer tubular member that houses the coaxial cable has an outer diameter (Figure 7), however Brannan is silent on the specific dimensions of an outer diameter of the outer tubular member.
However it would obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the dimension as disclosed by Ormsby in view of Zhang and Brannan to include wherein an outer diameter of the outer tubular member is in a range from approximately 0.072 inches to 0.0775 inches as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (wherein the values are “in a range from approximately”, Paragraph [0060]) and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). The result being to ensure the outer tubular member can house all the components necessary to transfer energy to the tip of the device to apply the energy within the patient which is known in the art.
Regarding claim 21, Ormsby in view of Zhang and Brannan discloses the microwave ablation device of claim 14.
Ormsby further discloses wherein the microwave ablation device comprises an outer tubular member having a proximal portion disposed within the chamber defined by the handle body and a distal portion extending distally from the handle body (an outer shield layer (not illustrated) extends over the outer conductor 44 (seen as an outer tubular member) wherein outer conductor 44 extends within the handle body 36, therefore the outer shield layer proximal portion would extend within the handle body and extend distally as outer conductor 44 extends distally to the tip portion 35 of the antenna, Figure 7, Paragraph [0040]).
Regarding claim 22, Ormsby in view of Zhang and Brannan discloses the microwave ablation device of claim 21.
Ormsby further discloses wherein the electrically conductive element is disposed within the distal end portion of the outer tubular member (outer shield layer (i.e., outer tubular member) extends over the outer conductor 44, wherein the electrically conductive element 42 extends within the distal end portion of the outer conductor 44 which is surrounded by the outer shield layer (i.e., outer tubular member), Figure 7).
Regarding claim 23, Ormsby in view of Zhang and Brannan discloses the microwave ablation device of claim 21.
Ormsby further discloses wherein the coaxial cable is at least partially housed within the outer tubular member (outer shield layer (i.e., outer tubular member) extends over the outer tubular conductor 44 (i.e., outer conductor of coaxial cable), Figures 5-7).
Regarding claim 24, Ormsby in view of Zhang and Brannan discloses the microwave ablation device of claim 21.
Ormsby further discloses wherein the coaxial cable input port is disposed proximal to a proximal-most end of the outer tubular member (coaxial cable input port is disposed proximal to a proximal-most end of the outer conductor 44 which is covered by the outer shield layer (i.e., outer tubular member), Figures 5-7, see modified Figure 6 below).
Regarding claim 25, Ormsby in view of Zhang and Brannan discloses the microwave ablation device of claim 14.
Ormsby further discloses wherein the coaxial cable input port is coupled to the transition waveguide output port within the chamber defined by the handle body (coaxial cable input port is coupled to the transition waveguide output port (wide end of 70) within the chamber of handle body 36, Figures 5-7, see modified Figure 6 below).
Claims 26 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ormsby further in view of Zhang (see attached).
Regarding claim 26, Ormsby discloses a microwave ablation device, comprising: a handle body defining a chamber (handle 36 defines chamber housing all the parts within the handle (i.e. chamber), Figures 5-7, Paragraph [0042]);
an outer tubular member having a proximal portion disposed within the chamber defined by the handle body and a distal portion extending distally from the handle body (an outer shield layer (not illustrated) extends over the outer conductor 44 (seen as an outer tubular member) wherein outer conductor 44 extends within the handle body 36, therefore the outer shield layer proximal portion would extend within the handle body and extend distally as outer conductor 44 extends distally to the tip portion 35 of the antenna, Figure 7, Paragraph [0040]);
a transition waveguide at least partially disposed within the chamber defined by the handle body (transition waveguide 34 is partially disposed within the chamber of the handle body 34, Figure 7),
the transition waveguide including a transition waveguide output port disposed within the chamber defined by the handle body and a transition waveguide input port (input port 70, (thin end of 70) and output port 70 (wide end of 70) is designed to adapt the norm 50 ohm impedance of the microwave system, wherein 70 is disposed within the chamber of handle body 36, see modified Figure 7 below, Paragraph [0042];
an electrically conductive element disposed within the distal portion of the outer tubular member (electrically conductive portion 42 within the distal portion of the outer tubular member (outer shield covering outer conductor 44, not illustrated), see modified Figure 7 below);
and a coaxial cable defining a longitudinal axis at least partially disposed within the outer tubular member (outer shield layer (i.e., outer tubular member) extends over the outer tubular conductor 44 (i.e., outer conductor of coaxial cable), Figures 5-7, coaxial cable defines a longitudinal axis in line with the conductive element, Figures 5-7)
and the coaxial cable including a coaxial cable input port disposed within the chamber defined by the handle body (coaxial cable input port is disposed within the chamber defined by the handle body 36, see modified Figure 7 below)
and a coaxial cable output port coaxial with the longitudinal axis coupled to the electrically conductive element within the distal portion of the outer tubular member (coaxial cable output port is coupled to the electrically conductive element 42 within the distal portion of the outer tubular member as outer shield layer covers the outer conductor 44 to the distal portion of the antenna 35, see modified Figure 7 below, the coaxial output port is coaxial with the longitudinal axis, see Figures 5-7),
wherein the coaxial cable input port is coupled to the transition waveguide output port within the chamber defined by the handle body (coaxial cable input port is coupled to the transition waveguide output port (wide end of 70) within the chamber of handle body 36, see modified Figure 7 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
441
751
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However Ormsby does not explicitly disclose wherein the transition waveguide input port defines a first axis of the transition waveguide input port and the first axis is transverse to the second axis.
Zhang discloses an ablation needle (Abstract) wherein the transition waveguide defines a first axis of the transition waveguide input port (see modified Figure 1 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
477
928
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Ormsby to incorporate the teachings of Zhang by including wherein the transition waveguide input port defines a first axis of the transition waveguide input port because applicant has not disclosed that axially offsetting the coaxial input port from the longitudinal axis of the coaxial cable provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. As in combination, the first axis is transverse to the second axis of the output port as defined by Ormsby. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected Ormsby’s microwave ablation device and applicant’s invention to perform equally well with either location of the transition waveguide input port taught by Ormsby or the claimed location of the coaxial input port because both transition waveguide input ports would perform the same function of connecting the cable from the generator to the coaxial cable of the antenna. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Ormsby to incorporate the teachings as taught by Zhang to obtain the invention as specified in claim 14 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Ormsby in view of Zhang.
Regarding claim 29, Ormsby in view of Zhang discloses the microwave ablation device of claim 26.
Ormsby further discloses wherein the coaxial cable input port is disposed proximal to a proximal-most end of the outer tubular member (coaxial cable input port is disposed proximal to a proximal-most end of the outer conductor 44 which is covered by the outer shield layer (i.e., outer tubular member), Figures 5-7, see modified Figure 6 below).
Claims 27-28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ormsby further in view of Zhang (see attached) further in view of Brannan.
Regarding claim 27, Ormsby discloses the microwave ablation device of claim 26.
Ormsby discloses wherein the impedance of the transition waveguide is 50 Ohms (Paragraph [0042]), however Ormsby in view of Zhang does not explicitly disclose wherein an impedance of the coaxial cable impedance is lower than at least one of an impedance of the transition waveguide input port or an impedance of the transition waveguide output port.
Brannan discloses wherein an impedance of the coaxial cable impedance is lower than at least one of an impedance of the transition waveguide input port or an impedance of the transition waveguide output port (the impedance formed by the coaxial cable may range from 20 Ω to 150 Ω and the impedance formed by the waveguide may range from 20 Ω to 150 Ω, Paragraph [0048], wherein the coaxial cable impedance is lower than the impedance of the transition waveguide input port or output port if the coaxial cable impedance is from 39 Ω to 45 Ω and the transition waveguide impedance is from 48 Ω to 52 Ω).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ormsby in view of Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Brannan by modifying the coaxial cable to have an impedance that is lower than at least one or an impedance of the transition waveguide input port or an impedance of the transition waveguide output port. The motivation to do so being to optimize the power transfer from the generator to the antenna by matching the impedance of the generator to the different segments of the microwave applicator (Brannan, Paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claim 28, Ormsby in view of Zhang and Brannan discloses the microwave ablation device of claim 27.
However Ormsby in view of Zhang does not explicitly disclose wherein the impedance of the coaxial cable impedance is lower than at least one of the impedance of the transition waveguide input port or the impedance of the transition waveguide output port within a predetermined frequency range and by at least a predetermined amount that exceeds a degree of tolerance.
Brannan discloses wherein an impedance of the coaxial cable impedance is lower than at least one of an impedance of the transition waveguide input port or an impedance of the transition waveguide output port (the impedance formed by the coaxial cable may range from 20 Ω to 150 Ω and the impedance formed by the waveguide may range from 20 Ω to 150 Ω, Paragraph [0048], wherein the coaxial cable impedance is lower than the impedance of the transition waveguide input port or output port if the coaxial cable impedance is from 39 Ω to 45 Ω and the transition waveguide impedance is from 48 Ω to 52 Ω, wherein the length of the line segments are scaled to be optimized for a specific frequency of operation (seen as a predetermined frequency range by at least a predetermined amount that exceeds a degree of tolerance), Paragraph [0051]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ormsby in view of Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Brannan by modifying the coaxial cable to have an impedance lower than at least one of the impedance of the transition waveguide input port or the impedance of the transition waveguide output port within a predetermined frequency range and by at least a predetermined amount that exceeds a degree of tolerance. The motivation to do so being to optimize the electrical performance at one quarter of the wavelength of the frequency of operation (Brannan, Paragraph [0051]).
Regarding claim 30, Ormsby in view of Zhang discloses the microwave ablation device of claim 26.
However Ormsby does not explicitly disclose wherein the transition waveguide input port is disposed exterior to the handle body.
Brannan discloses wherein the transition waveguide input port is disposed exterior to the handle body (input port of transition waveguide 112 within handle 140, is exterior to the handle body connected to cable 60, see modified Figure 1 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
569
910
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ormsby in view of Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Brannan by modifying the location of the input port of the transition waveguide of Ormsby to be positioned exterior to the handle body as taught by Brannan. The motivation to do so being to easily connect the antenna to the microwave generator (Brannan, Paragraph [0042-0043]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dana Stumpfoll whose telephone number is (703)756-4669. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 pm (CT), M-F.
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, Joanne Rodden can be reached on (303) 297-4276. 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.
/D.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOANNE M RODDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794