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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 5th, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed September 5th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-26 remain pending in the application. Claims 23-26 are withdrawn from consideration. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the rejections previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed July 7th, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The claim amendments changed the scope of the claimed invention. See new grounds for rejection below.
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 1-22 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.
Claim 1 recites “when the tissue type map includes a tumor type tissue, activate a camera proximate to the two or more electrodes”. It is unclear as to whether the camera is actively being claimed as part of the device or if it is broadly just part of the processing step and just seen as a capability of control. If the applicant intends to actively claim the camera, the examiner suggests incorporating it on the device in the claims. Claims 2-22 are rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 1.
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 1-5 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 2003/0109871) herein referred to as “Johnson” in view of Hannaford et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 10,092,355) herein referred to as “Hannaford”.
Regarding claim 1, Johnson discloses a medical device (apparatus 10, Figure 1), comprising:
an instrument head (distal tip 16, Figure 1), that includes:
two or more electrodes configured to acquire a plurality of impedance measurements at a location associated with the instrument head (one or more RF electrodes 18e, Paragraph [0086], Figures 1-2, electrode 18e can include one or more coupled sensors 22 to measure impedance, Paragraph [0088], one or more impedance measurements, Paragraph [0102]),
and a medical device tool (introducer 12 includes one or more lumens 13, wherein ports 24’ can be coupled to the one or more lumens 13 and can include fluid and gas ports/connectors for the delivery of cooling, electrolytic, irrigation, polymer and other fluid (both liquid and gas) described herein, (seen as a medical device tool), Paragraph [0084], Figure 2)
an impedance bridge selectively coupled to the two or more electrodes (impedance bridge between two or more electrodes 18e through sensors 22, Paragraph [0088], Figures 2-5);
and a processor coupled to the impedance bridge (monitoring device 19 or microprocessor 339 are configured to analyze an impedance profile 19p including real and imaginary components and perform tissue identification and/or tissue differentiation between one or more sampled volumes 5sv, Paragraph [0073]),
wherein the processor is configured to determine a tissue type map based on the plurality of impedance measurements (deployment of the impedance sensing member 22m or sensors 22 can be controlled such that telemetry can be used with impedance feedback to identify tissue types and map the topography of tissue masses, tumors or tissue structures, Paragraph [0058], impedance monitoring device 19 can be configured to perform tissue identification, and mapping of tissue masses and structures, Paragraph [0072], sub-module 19mi includes subroutines or algorithms configured to generate an impedance map or derived image 4’ of all or a portion of the target tissue volume 5’, Paragraph [0102], Figures 6 and 27, see also end of Paragraph [0102], and Paragraph [0105]).
However Johnson does not explicitly disclose wherein when the tissue map includes a tumor type tissue, activate a camera proximate to the two or more electrodes.
Hannaford discloses a surgical probe configured to be inserted into the body (Abstract) wherein when the tissue map includes a tumor type tissue, activate a camera proximate to the two or more electrodes (the surgical probe 100 could be operated to detect information about such a subject tissue, for example, to diagnose the presence, type, or other information about a growth or tumor of the subject tissue, Col. 9, lines 59-62, the surgical probe 100 can additionally include one or more sensors (not shown), such sensors could be contact sensors (e.g., electrode, electrical impedance sensors), such sensors could be a part of and/or operate in concert with other elements of the surgical probe, for example a camera or other optical sensor could be configured to detect one or more properties of the biological tissue, one or more sensor could have a limited field of view (e.g., could be capable of detecting a property of tissue within a specified volume and/or in a specified direction relative to the probe head) and a location angle and/or orientation of the probe head 11 could be controlled, (the impedance electrodes could operate in concert with the camera of the surgical probe), Col. 12, lines 6-40, Figure 1).
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 Johnson to incorporate
the teachings of Hannaford by including wherein when the tissue map includes a tumor type tissue, activate a camera proximate to the two or more electrodes. The motivation to do so being to determine information about the specific portion of biological tissue and to further display the information to a surgeon, pathologist, or other person to inform some course of action, e.g., to inform a surgical intervention (e.g., to indicate the location and extent of a diseased tissue to be incised, resected, ablated, or otherwise modified) (Hannaford, Col. 13, lines 19-33).
Regarding claim 2, Johnson in view of Hannaford discloses the medical device of claim 1.
Johnson further discloses wherein each of the two or more electrodes is shaped to curve outward relative to a longitudinal axis of the instrument head (impedance treatment apparatus 10 comprises one or more resilient members 18, resilient members can be deployed with curvature from introducer 12, one or more resilient members 18 can be an energy delivery device or energy delivery member 18e (i.e., an electrode), Figure 2 and Figure 25A, Paragraph [0053]).
Regarding claim 3, Johnson in view of Hannaford discloses the medical device of claim 1.
Johnson further discloses wherein each of the two or more electrodes includes a flexible material (one or more resilient members 18 can be an energy delivery device or energy delivery member 18e (i.e., an electrode), Figure 2 and Figure 25A, Paragraph [0053], resilient members 18 may be made of a suitable memory metal such as nitinol, Figure 2, Paragraph [0087]).
Regarding claim 4, Johnson in view of Hannaford discloses the medical device of claim 1.
Johnson further discloses wherein each of the two or more electrodes comprises Nitinol (one or more resilient members 18 can be an energy delivery device or energy delivery member 18e (i.e., an electrode), Figure 2 and Figure 25A, Paragraph [0053], resilient members 18 may be made of a suitable memory metal such as nitinol, Figure 2, Paragraph [0087]).
Regarding claim 5, Johnson in view of Hannaford discloses the medical device of claim 1.
Johnson further discloses wherein the two or more electrodes extend to an adjustable extension length relative to an aperture of the instrument head (resilient members 18 (i.e., electrodes) are configured to be in non-deployed positions while retained in introducer 12, as resilient members 18 are advanced out of introducer 12 they become distended to a deployed state as a result of their spring or shape memory that collectively defines an ablative volume 5av, Figures 1 and 2, Paragraph [0085]).
Regarding claim 17, Johnson in view of Hannaford discloses the medical device of claim 1.
Johnson further discloses wherein the instrument head (introducer 12 Figure 2) includes two or more guidewires (resilient members 18, 18’, Figure 2), each guidewire extends from the instrument head in a different direction (resilient members 18, 18’ extend from the instrument head in different directions, Figure 2), and each of the two or more electrodes is located at a tip of a respective one of the two or more guidewires (electrodes 18e including impedance sensors 22 and sensing members 22m can have a variety of shapes and geometries and are located on distal ends of the guidewires 18, Figure 2, and 15a-15f, Paragraph [0087]).
Regarding claim 18, Johnson in view of Hannaford discloses the medical device of claim 1.
Johnson further discloses wherein the instrument head (introducer 12, Figure 2) includes two or more guidewires (resilient members 18, 18’, Figure 2),
each guidewire protrudes from the instrument head in a different outward direction (each resilient member 18, 18’ protrudes outward in a different direction, Figure 2),
the two or more electrodes comprise a plurality of electrodes and each electrode included the plurality of electrodes is located at a lateral position along a at least one of the two or more guidewires (electrodes 18e including impedance sensors 22 and sensing members 22m can have a variety of shapes and geometries and are located at a lateral position along the respective guidewires 18, 18’, Figure 2, and 15a-15f, Paragraph [0087]).
Regarding claim 19, Johnson in view of Hannaford discloses the medical device of claim 18.
Johnson further discloses wherein the two or more electrodes are arranged in a grid pattern across two or more guidewires (electrodes 22 in grid pattern, see modified Figure 18 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
316
447
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Johnson in view of Hannaford discloses the medical device of claim 18.
Johnson further discloses wherein the two or more guidewires are coupled to an extension tip of the instrument head (advancement-retraction member 34 (seen as an extension tip of the instrument head), Figure 18), and retracting the extension tip changes a shape of each guidewire from a parallel configuration to a protruding configuration (retracting the advancement-retraction member 34 changes a shape of each guidewire 18 from a parallel configuration to a protruding configuration as the resilient members are advanced out of the introducer 12, see modified Figure 18, Paragraphs [0085] and [0088]).
PNG
media_image2.png
267
425
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Hannaford further in view of Prakash et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 2020/0237435) herein referred to as “Prakash”.
Regarding claim 6, Johnson in view of Hannaford discloses the medical device of claim 1.
However Johnson in view of Hannaford does not explicitly disclose wherein the medical device tool includes a clamp, and the two or more electrodes are located at different positions along a length of the clamp.
Prakash discloses a medical device for determining tissue type and the condition of the tissue being treated utilizing electrical property measurements of tissue (Paragraph [0002]). Prakash discloses a medical device (forceps, Paragraph [0012]) wherein the medical device tool includes a clamp (end effector 310, Figures 7 and 8, Paragraph [0056]),
and the two or more electrodes are located at different positions along a length of the clamp (two or more electrodes 250, 350, 450, and 550 are located at different positions along a length of the clamp, Figures 7 and 8, Paragraph [0056]).
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 Johnson in view of Hannaford to incorporate the teachings of Prakash by including wherein the medical device tool includes a clamp, and the two or more electrodes are located at different positions along a length of the clamp. The motivation to do so being to grasp the tissue to between jaw members to stabilize the tissue and determine the type of tissue between the jaw members (Prakash, Paragraph [0057]).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Hannaford further in view of Goedeke et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 2018/0161577) herein referred to as “Goedeke”.
Regarding claim 7, Johnson in view of Hannaford discloses the medical device of claim 1.
However Johnson in view of Hannaford does not explicitly disclose wherein the medical device tool includes a guidewire, and the two or more electrodes are located at different positions along a length of the guidewire.
Goedeke discloses a catheter (catheter 500, Paragraph [0501]) wherein the medical device tool includes a guidewire (guidewire 514-1, Figure 5, Paragraph [0503]), and the two or more electrodes are located at different positions along a length of the guidewire (two or more electrodes 518 located at different positions along a length of the guidewire, Figure 5, Paragraph [0502]).
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 Johnson in view of Hannaford to incorporate the teachings of Goedeke by including wherein the medical device tool includes a guidewire, and the two or more electrodes are located at different positions along a length of the guidewire. The motivation to do so being to provide stimulation across the electrodes in the electrode array (Goedeke, Paragraph [0502]).
Regarding claim 8, Johnson in view of Hannaford and Goedeke discloses the medical device of claim 7.
However Johnson in view of Hannaford does not explicitly disclose wherein the instrument head includes a sheath, and the guidewire selectively retracts into the sheath.
Goedeke discloses wherein the instrument head (instrument head 506, Figure 5) includes a sheath (sheath 502, Figure 5), and the guidewire selectively retracts into the sheath (guidewire 514 retracts into the sheath 502 of catheter, Figure 5).
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 Johnson in view of Hannaford to incorporate the teachings of Goedeke by including wherein the instrument head includes a sheath, and the guidewire selectively retracts into the sheath. The motivation to do so being to selectively deploy the catheter during the delivery and implantation of the catheter (Goedeke, Paragraph [0507]).
Regarding claim 9, Johnson in view of Hannaford and Goedeke discloses the medical device of claim 7.
However Johnson in view of Hannaford does not explicitly disclose wherein the instrument head includes a sheath, the sheath includes an extension, and the guidewire selectively retracts into the extension.
Goedeke discloses wherein the instrument head includes a sheath (instrument head 506, includes a sheath 502, Figure 5), the sheath includes an extension (extension (see modified Figure 5 below)), and the guidewire selectively retracts into the extension (guidewire 514 retracts into the extension, Figure 5, Paragraph [0507]).
PNG
media_image3.png
588
492
media_image3.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 Johnson in view of Hannaford to incorporate the teachings of Goedeke by including wherein the instrument head includes a sheath, the sheath includes an extension, and the guidewire selectively retracts into the extension. The motivation to do so being to selectively deploy the catheter during the delivery and implantation of the catheter (Goedeke, Paragraph [0507]).
Claims 10-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Hannaford further in view of Fang et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 2020/0297419) herein referred to as “Fang”.
Regarding claim 10, Johnson in view of Hannaford discloses the medical device of claim 1.
However Johnson in view of Hannaford does not explicitly disclose wherein the instrument head includes an extension, and the two or more electrodes are located at different positions along a length of the extension.
Fang discloses a catheter (Paragraph [0001]), wherein the instrument head (longitudinal axis of catheter body 12 comprises head, starting at 16, Figure 1, Paragraph [0030]) includes an extension (lasso electrode assembly 16, Figures 1 and 2, Paragraph [0030]), and the two or more electrodes are located at different positions along a length of the extension (electrodes 20 are located at different positions along the length of the extension 16, Figure 2, Paragraph [0031]).
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 Johnson in view of Hannaford to incorporate the teachings of Fang by including wherein the instrument head includes an extension, and the two or more electrodes are located at different positions along a length of the extension. The motivation to do so being to conform to a body tissue shape, thereby creating a desired degree of contact with the tissue to be ablated (Fang, Paragraph [0032]).
Regarding claim 11, Johnson in view of Hannaford and Fang discloses the medical device of claim 10.
However Johnson in view of Hannaford does not explicitly disclose wherein the extension selectively bends at a bending location.
Fang discloses wherein the extension selectively bends at a bending location (moveable spine 18 travels around the arc of lasso electrode assembly 16 within track 22, Figures 1 and 2, Paragraphs [0030]-[0032]).
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 Johnson in view of Hannaford to incorporate the teachings of Fang by including wherein the extension selectively bends at a bending location. The motivation to do so being to conform to a body tissue shape, thereby creating a desired degree of contact with the tissue to be ablated (Fang, Paragraph [0032]).
Regarding claim 12, Johnson in view of Hannaford and Fang discloses the medical device of claim 10.
However Johnson in view of Hannaford does not explicitly disclose wherein the extension selectively forms a curved shape.
Fang discloses wherein the extension selectively forms a curved shape (moveable spine 18 travels around the arc (seen as a curved shape) of lasso electrode assembly 16 within track 22, Figures 1 and 2, Paragraphs [0030]-[0032]).
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 Johnson in view of Hannaford to incorporate the teachings of Fang by including wherein the extension selectively forms a curved shape. The motivation to do so being to conform to a body tissue shape, thereby creating a desired degree of contact with the tissue to be ablated (Fang, Paragraph [0032]).
Regarding claim 13, Johnson in view of Hannaford and Fang discloses the medical device of claim 12.
However Johnson in view of Hannaford does not explicitly disclose wherein the extension selectively forms a first curved shape, a second curved shape, or a straight shape.
Fang discloses wherein the extension selectively forms a first curved shape, a second curved shape, or a straight shape (moveable spine 18 travels around the arc (seen as a first curved shape) of lasso electrode assembly 16 within track 22, Figures 1 and 2, Paragraphs [0030]-[0032]).
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 Johnson in view of Hannaford to incorporate the teachings of Fang by including wherein the extension selectively forms a first curved shape, a second curved shape, or a straight shape. The motivation to do so being to conform to a body tissue shape, thereby creating a desired degree of contact with the tissue to be ablated (Fang, Paragraph [0032]).
Regarding claim 14, Johnson in view of Hannaford and Fang discloses the medical device of claim 10.
However Johnson in view of Hannaford does not explicitly disclose wherein the extension selectively forms a circular shape that encircles a longitudinal axis of the instrument head.
Fang discloses wherein the extension selectively forms a circular shape that encircles a longitudinal axis of the instrument head (assembly 16 forms a circle that encircles a longitudinal axis of catheter body 12, Figure 2, Paragraph [0030]).
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 Johnson in view of Hannaford to incorporate the teachings of Fang by including wherein the extension selectively forms a circular shape that encircles a longitudinal axis of the instrument head. The motivation to do so being to conform to a body tissue shape, thereby creating a desired degree of contact with the tissue to be ablated (Fang, Paragraph [0032]).
Regarding claim 16, Johnson in view of Hannaford and Fang discloses the medical device of claim 10.
However Johnson in view of Hannaford does not explicitly disclose wherein the extension selectively forms a spiral shape.
Fang discloses wherein the extension selectively forms a spiral shape (assembly 16 forms a helical shape, Figure 2, Paragraph [0030]).
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 Johnson in view of Hannaford to incorporate the teachings of Fang by including wherein the extension selectively forms a spiral shape. The motivation to do so being to conform to a body tissue shape, thereby creating a desired degree of contact with the tissue to be ablated (Fang, Paragraph [0032]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Hannaford and Fang further in view of Goedeke.
Regarding claim 15, Johnson in view of Hannaford and Fang discloses the medical device of claim 10.
However Johnson in view of Hannaford and Fang does not explicitly disclose wherein the extension selectively forms a wave shape relative to a longitudinal axis of the instrument head.
Goedeke discloses a catheter for tissue modulation (Paragraph [0008]) wherein the extension (stimulation member elongate body 522, Figure 5, Paragraph [0503]) selectively forms a wave shape relative to a longitudinal axis of the instrument head (stimulation members form a wave shape relative to a longitudinal axis of the instrument head 506, Figure 5, Paragraph [0503]).
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 Johnson in view of Hannaford and Fang to incorporate the teachings of Goedeke by including wherein the extension selectively forms a wave shape relative to a longitudinal axis of the instrument head. The motivation to do so being to allow the stimulation members to extend into a volume for specific treatment of tissue (Goedeke, Paragraph [0503]).
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Hannaford further in view of Stone et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 2008/0125772) herein referred to as “Stone”.
Regarding claim 21, Johnson in view of Hannaford discloses the medical device of claim 1.
However Johnson in view of Hannaford does not explicitly disclose wherein the instrument head includes two or more bands, each band protruding from the instrument head in different outward directions, each of the two or more electrodes is located at a lateral position along one of the two or more bands, the two or more bands are coupled to an extension tip of the instrument head, and retracting the extension tip changes a shape of each band from a parallel configuration to a protruding configuration.
Stone discloses a catheter for diagnosis and treatment (Paragraph [0003]) wherein the instrument (catheter system 10, Figure 2) includes an instrument head (catheter body 14 includes an instrument head at the distal end, Figure 2) includes two or more bands (two or more struts 54, Figure 4), each band protruding from the instrument head in different outward directions (each strut 54 protrudes in a different directions, Figures 2 and 4), each of the two or more electrodes is located at a lateral position along one of the two or more bands (electrodes 50 are located at a lateral position along the struts 54, Figure 4, Paragraph [0104]), the two or more bands are coupled to an extension tip of the instrument head (struts 54 are coupled to extension tip 62, Figure 4),
and retracting the extension tip changes a shape of each band from a parallel configuration to a protruding configuration (expandable structure 26 is expanded by pulling a pull wire coupled to the distal portion 62, Figures 4, 5, 7A, and 7B, parallel configuration, Figure 7A, to protruding configuration, Figure 7B, Paragraph [0108]).
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 Johnson in view of Hannaford to incorporate the teachings of Stone by including wherein the instrument head includes two or more bands, each band protruding from the instrument head in different outward directions, each of the two or more electrodes is located at a lateral position along one of the two or more bands, the two or more bands are coupled to an extension tip of the instrument head, and retracting the extension tip changes a shape of each band from a parallel configuration to a protruding configuration. The motivation to do so being to use a device with a low profile configuration for insertion and positioning the device to an expandable configuration for engagement with the surrounding tissue once inserted (Stone, Paragraph [0106]).
Regarding claim 22, Johnson in view of Hannaford discloses the medical device of claim 1.
However Johnson in view of Hannaford does not explicitly disclose wherein the instrument head includes a balloon, a surface of the balloon includes two or more bands, each of the two or more electrodes is located at a lateral position along a respective one of the two or more bands, and inflating the balloon changes a shape of each band from a parallel configuration to a protruding configuration.
Stone discloses a catheter for diagnosis and treatment (Paragraph [0003]) wherein the instrument (catheter, Paragraph [0203]) includes an instrument head (distal end of catheter, Paragraph [0203]) including a balloon (balloon 26, Figures 36 and 37A, Paragraph [0201]), a surface of the balloon includes two or more bands (leads 718, Figures 36 and 37A, Paragraph [0201]), each of the two or more electrodes is located at a lateral position along a respective one of the two or more bands (electrodes 722 are located at a lateral position along leads 718, Paragraph [0201]), and inflating the balloon changes a shape of each band from a parallel configuration to a protruding are configuration (inflating the balloon changes the shape of each lead 18 from a parallel configuration to a protruding configuration, Figures 36 and 37A, Paragraph [0106]).
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 Johnson in view of Hannaford to incorporate the teachings of Stone by wherein the instrument head includes a balloon, a surface of the balloon includes two or more bands, each of the two or more electrodes is located at a lateral position along a respective one of the two or more bands, and inflating the balloon changes a shape of each band from a parallel configuration to a protruding configuration. The motivation to do so being to use a device with a low profile configuration for insertion and positioning the device to an expandable configuration for engagement with the surrounding tissue once inserted (Stone, Paragraph [0106]).
Conclusion
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