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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 29, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 11 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foxall et al (2022/0039856) in view of the teaching of Panescu et al (6,165,169).
Regarding claim 1, Foxall et al provide a system comprising a switching unit (120) comprising first sockets (130) configured to connect between the switching units and channels of one or more catheters (110), second sockets (126) configured to connect between the first sockets and a console (e.g. 106) and a switch (140) configured to route signals conducted in the channels between the first and second sockets. There is also circuitry to produce a control signal for routing of the signals (i.e. delivery of energy) based on information received from the one or more catheters (para. [0037-0038] which discusses connecting and disconnecting signals based on feedback from the catheter, such as contact sensing). Foxall et al use the system with a catheter having multiple channels for electrophysiology procedures (e.g. mapping, ablation, pacing), but fails to specifically disclose a memory device on the catheter to store the type of signal to be conducted to each channel of the EP catheter.
Panescu et al disclose another system for delivering energy to an EP catheter. Panescu et al disclose that various different catheters may be connected to the system, and each catheter may contain a memory component that stores data relevant to the catheter, including the shape, number of electrodes, function of the electrodes, etc. Each catheter has a plurality of channels for conducting signals to the multiple electrodes, and the electrodes may be used for different/multiple functions (e.g. mapping, ablating and pacing). The memory component also stores functional data for sending the proper signals to the proper electrodes/channels when the catheter is connected to the system. See, for example, columns 25-27 of Panescu et al.
To have provided the Foxall et al system with EP catheters having a memory device to store information about the catheter to control the signals sent to the multiple electrodes (i.e. channels) on the catheter would have been an obvious consideration for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention since Panescu et al fairly teach it is known to use such a memory device on a system to which multiple catheters may be connected to control the delivery of signals to the electrodes of the identified catheters.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, the Foxall et al console includes third sockets (i.e. connection to socket 126)). Each of the sockets contain interconnects (i.e. lines of connection from each socket, not individually labeled). The first socket (130) comprise a first number of interconnects (i.e. 5) and the third socket has a single interconnect, different from the first socket. Regarding claim 5, Panescu et al disclose the use of EPROM memory devices (col. 26, lines 65-67). Regarding claims 15-19, the Foxall and Panescu et al catheters each require several channels for the various electrodes (and different functions for the electrodes) on each catheter. The examiner maintains the specific number of channels would depend on the specific number of electrodes and functions and would obviously be any number necessary.
Regarding claim 7, Foxall et al disclose receiving signals from one or more catheters (e.g. contact information as addressed above), and based on the signals controlling signal routing of signals within a switching unit (120). See, for example, paragraphs [0037-0038] which discloses the feedback mechanism to control the delivery of energy to/from the various components (102,,104,106,108). The switching unit has first sockets and second sockets as addressed with respect to claim 1 above and the application of control signals and the control of signal routing between the sockets is disclosed in paragraphs [0037-0038] as addressed with respect to claim 1 above. Foxall et al use the system with a catheter for electrophysiology procedures (e.g. mapping, ablation, pacing), but fails to specifically disclose a memory device on the catheter to store the type of signal to be conducted to each channel of the EP catheter.
Panescu et al disclose another system for delivering energy to an EP catheter. Panescu et al disclose that various different catheters may be connected to the system, and each catheter may contain a memory component that stores data relevant to the catheter, including the shape, number of electrodes, function of the electrodes, etc. Each catheter has a plurality of channels for conducting signals to the multiple electrodes, and the electrodes may be used for different functions (e.g. mapping, ablating and pacing). The memory component also stores functional data for sending the proper signals to the proper electrodes/channels when the catheter is connected to the system. See, for example, columns 25-27 of Panescu et al.
To have provided the Foxall et al system with EP catheters having a memory device to store information about the catheter to control the signals sent to the electrodes on the catheter would have been an obvious consideration for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention since Panescu et al fairly teach it is known to use such a memory device on a system to which multiple catheters may be connected to control the delivery of signals to the electrodes of the identified catheters.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, see discussion of claims 2 and 3 above. Regarding claim 11, see discussion of claim 5 above. Regarding claims 13 and 14, Foxall et al disclose the use of a “focal” catheter, and Panescu et al discloses the use of various different types of catheters including basket catheters having multiple electrodes.
Claims 6 and 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foxall et al (2022/0039856) in view of the teaching of Panescu et al (6,165,169) and further in view of the teaching of DiCarlo et al (7,601,149).
Regarding claim 6, Foxall et al in view of Panescu et al fail to disclose the switching unit for detecting active and inactive catheters and controlling the switching to connect the active catheter and disconnect the inactive catheter.
DiCarlo et al provides a system that comprise multiple probes connected to an energy system, and based on feedback from the catheters, the circuitry is configured to detect a first active catheter and a second inactive catheter and control the switching unit to connect between the fist catheter and the console and to disconnect the second catheter from the console. See, for example, column 15, lines 35-65, for example.
To have provided the Foxall et al system, as modified by the teaching of Panescu et al, with a switching unit to switch signal delivery to an active catheter and disconnect an inactive catheter would have been an obvious modification for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention since DiCarlo et al fairly teach it is known to provide such a switching mechanism to connect an active catheter and disconnect an inactive catheter when multiple catheters are connected to a generator system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed January 29, 2026, with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Panescu only teaches storing information regarding the entire structure of the probe, but fails to disclose a memory configured to store a type of signal intended to be conducted in each channel (of the electrode) and a destination for each channel. The examiner asserts that Panescu does not only store information regarding the structure of the catheter device attached, but also stores information regarding the functionality (i.e. sensing, pacing, or therapeutic capability) for the electrodes of the catheter. See, for example, column 2, lines 31-39. Panescu further discloses the use of multiple circuit assemblies to control the multiple electrodes of the catheter (col. 6, lines 27-45). The code of Panescu specifically identifies the physical, mechanical and functional (i.e. sensing, pacing, or therapeutic capability) for the catheter (col. 26, lines 15-20), and hence identifies the various signals that would be sent to the various electrodes to perform the different functional capabilities. The control unit of Panescu additionally is used to set the operating parameters (i.e. specific signals for the electrodes) based upon the code (col. 26, lines 44-62). Hence, Panescu does disclose, in the examiner’s opinion, a catheter having a code that stores the signals (i.e. operating parameters) for the multiple electrodes of the catheters, which electrodes may be capable of multiple different functions. As addressed above, Foxall discloses a switching means to control the delivery of various different signals through multiple channels of a catheter that has multiple electrodes to control the delivery of the signals through different channels of each catheter to enable use of the device for multiple different functions. Panescu provides the teaching of providing such catheters with a memory component that identifies various different elements of the catheter, including the functional capabilities (i.e. sensing, pacing and ablation) of the catheter electrodes, and also stores information regarding the algorithms to set the operating parameters for the electrodes of the catheter based on the code XYZ saved on the memory component. The examiner maintains that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the catheters of Foxall could be provided with a memory component that stores not only the physical characteristics of the catheter, but also the functional elements of the catheter including the specific operating parameters that would be sent to the various electrodes (i.e. channels) to effectively operate the device.
Regarding the claims rejected in view of Foxall and Panescu and further in view of DiCarlo, applicant has only asserted that DiCarlo fails to disclose the particular memory component which Panescu allegedly fails to disclose. The examiner maintains the combination of the DiCarlo teaching with the Foxall and Panescu references remains a tenable rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wiener et al (2017/0000553) disclose another system for identifying different electrosurgical devices and controlling different signals (e.g. ultrasonic and RF) sent through different channels in each device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL PEFFLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4770. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 am-5 pm.
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, Linda Dvorak can be reached at (571) 272-4764. 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.
/MICHAEL F PEFFLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/M.F.P/ February 25, 2026