DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-11) in the reply filed on 22 January 2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The Information Disclosure Statement submitted on 25 October 2022 and 11 April 2023 have been considered by the Examiner.
Status of Claims
4. Claims 1-21 are pending, of which claims 12-21 have been withdrawn; and claims 1-11 are under consideration for patentability.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
6. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) and (a) (2) as being anticipated by DeCesare et al. (US 2005/0277915 A1).
Regarding clam 1, DeCesare teaches a surgical device (the electrosurgical instrument 10 is connected to an electrosurgical generator 12 and an aspirator 14 [0034-0035, FIG. 1]) comprising:
a body further comprising a proximal end and a distal end (the electrosurgical instrument 10 comprises a body or handle 42 [0035, 0037-0038, FIG. 1]. Specifically, figure 1 illustrates the body or handle 42 comprising a proximal end and a distal end [0038, FIG. 1]);
a hollow cannula extending from the distal end of the body (figures 1-2 illustrates the probe 40 comprising a cannula or tubing 48 which extends from the distal end of the handle 42 [0038-0039, FIGS. 1-2]. Specifically, the tubing 48 defines a hollow lumen 58 through the center of the probe 40 [0050, FIGS. 3-4]), the cannula further comprising a proximal end and a distal end (figures 1-3 illustrates the probe 40 comprising a cannula or tubing 48 having a proximal end and a distal end [FIGS. 1-3]);
an operative head positioned at the distal end of the cannula (figure 2 illustrates the operative head or electrode seat 52 being connected to the distal end of the cannula or tubing 48 [0039, 0044, FIG. 2]. Specifically, the operative head or electrode seat 52 provides a location for connecting a radiofrequency ablation electrode 50 [0040, 0044, FIG. 2]); and
a suction connector in fluid communication with the hollow cannula (the suction connector or port 32 is coupled to an extension tubing 36 which provides a fluid connection between the port 32 of the aspirator 14 and the probe 40 of the electrosurgical instrument 10 [0036-0037, 0050, FIG. 1]. For example, the probe 40 comprises a cannula or tubing 48 defining a hollow lumen 58 that is in fluid communication with the port 32 of aspirator 14 via the extension tubing 36 [0036-0037, 0050, FIGS. 1-2, FIG. 4]), the suction connector being configured for connection to a suction source (figure 1 illustrates the suction connector or port 32 being coupled to the suction source or aspirator 14 [0036, FIG. 1]);
wherein the hollow cannula further comprises diverters on an inside surface (the diverters or grooves 64b-64c may be formed on the lumen 58 (e.g., inner surface) of the tubing 48 [0022, 0050, 0052, 0066]. For example, the grooves 64b-64c are configured to extend beyond the terminal end of the lumen 58 to create an active edge 74 at the distal end of the lumen 58 [0022, 0055, 0066]. The Examiner further submits that the diverters or grooves 64b-64c are configured to direct gas and debris through the lumen 58 [0052, 0066]).
Regarding claim 2, DeCesare teaches wherein the operative head further comprises a radio frequency ablator (the operative head or electrode seat 52 provides a location for connecting a radiofrequency ablation electrode 50 [0040, 0044, FIG. 2]).
Regarding claim 3, DeCesare teaches wherein the operative head further comprises diverters on at least a portion of an inside surface (figures 3-4 illustrates the operating head or electrode seat 52 comprising an electrode 50 having a distal end 62 [0040, 0044, FIGS. 3-4]. Specifically, the diverters or grooves 64a-64d are configured to extend within the inner surface of the distal end 62 to reach the lumen 58 [0022, 0052, 0058]. The Examiner respectfully submits that the grooves 64a-d are configured to span the distal end 62 such that the gasses can be aspirated through the lumen 58 [0022, 0052, 0058]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claims 4, 6, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeCesare et al. in view of Bowe (US 2015/0342682 A1).
Regarding claim 4, DeCesare teaches wherein the surgical device of claim 1. DeCesare does not explicitly teach wherein the operative head further comprises rifling on at least a portion of an inside surface.
The prior art by Bowe is analogous to DeCesare, as they both teach devices which provide suction or aspiration during an ablation procedure ([0027]).
Bowe teaches wherein the operative head further comprises rifling on at least a portion of an inside surface (the cannula or catheter comprises an inner lumen extending from the distal end (e.g., operative head) towards the proximal end [0019, 0027-0028]. Specifically, the inner lumen may have ridges in a rifle-like manner to further control the aspiration or removal of the ablated material [0027-0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify DeCesare’s operative head to comprise rifling along at least a portion of an inside surface, as taught by Bowe. This modification is beneficial, as the rifling will help control the aspiration or removal of the ablated material (see paragraphs [0019, 0027-0028] by Bowe).
Regarding clam 6, DeCesare teaches the surgical device of claim 1, wherein the body further comprises a suction bore (extension tubing 36 [0036-0037, FIG. 1]) extending from the suction connector to a position near the hollow cannula (the suction connector or port 32 is coupled to an extension tubing 36 which provides a fluid connection between the port 32 of the aspirator 14 and the probe 40 of the electrosurgical instrument 10 [0036-0037, 0050, FIG. 1]. For example, the probe 40 comprises a cannula or tubing 48 defining a hollow lumen 58 that is in fluid communication with the port 32 of aspirator 14 via the extension tubing 36 [0036-0037, 0050, FIGS. 1-2, FIG. 4]).
DeCesare does not explicitly teach wherein the suction bore further comprises rifling along at least a portion of an inside surface.
However, Bowe teaches wherein the suction bore further comprises rifling along at least a portion of an inside surface (the inner lumen of the catheter comprises ribs or ridges formed in a rifle-like manner to control the aspiration or removal of the ablated material [0027-0028, 0040]. Specifically, a vacuum source is used to provide aspiration or suction through the inner lumen of the catheter to remove the ablated material [0027, 0040, 0113]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify DeCesare’s suction bore to comprise rifling along at least a portion of an inside surface, as taught by Bowe. This modification is beneficial, as the rifling will help control the aspiration or removal of the ablated material (see paragraphs [0027-0028, 0040, 0113] by Bowe).
Regarding claim 10, DeCesare suggests the surgical device of claim 1. DeCesare does not explicitly teach wherein the hollow cannula comprises rifling on at least a portion of an inside surface; and wherein the rifling is in a helical pattern.
However, Bowe teaches wherein the hollow cannula comprises rifling on at least a portion of an inside surface; and wherein the rifling is in a helical pattern (the cannula or catheter may comprise an internal helical rifled feature that is configured to aspirate the material (e.g., tissue) through the lumen [0019, 0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify DeCesare’s hollow conduit to comprise rifling arranged in a helical pattern on the inner surface, as taught by Bowe. This modification is beneficial, as the rifling will help improve the aspiration or removal of the tissue through the lumen (see paragraphs [0027-0028] by Bowe).
Regarding claim 11, DeCesare suggests the surgical device of claim 1. DeCesare does not explicitly teach wherein the hollow cannula comprises rifling on at least a portion of an inside surface; and wherein the rifling is in a double helix pattern.
However, Bowe teaches wherein the hollow cannula comprises rifling on at least a portion of an inside surface; and wherein the rifling is in a helix pattern (the cannula or catheter may comprise an internal helical rifled feature that is configured to aspirate the material (e.g., tissue) through the lumen [0019, 0028]).
Bowe does not explicitly teach the rifling to be in a double helix pattern.
The Examiner respectfully submits that Bowe teaches the use of a rifling that is arranged in a helix pattern (the cannula or catheter may comprise an internal helical rifled feature [0028]). Thus, configuring the rifling to form a double helix pattern would be a matter of changing the shape of the known element without producing a new and unexpected result, with such matters having been held by the Courts as being obvious to the skilled artisan (MPEP 2144.04).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify DeCesare’s hollow conduit to comprise a rifling arranged in a double helix pattern on the inner surface, as taught by Bowe. This modification is beneficial, as the rifling will help improve the aspiration or removal of the tissue through the lumen (see paragraphs [0027-0028] by Bowe).
9. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeCesare et al. in view of Mohan et al. (US 2006/0025762 A1).
Regarding claim 5, DeCesare teaches the surgical device of claim 1, wherein the body further comprises a suction bore (extension tubing 36 [0036-0037, FIG. 1]) extending from the suction connector to a position near the hollow cannula (the suction connector or port 32 is coupled to an extension tubing 36 which provides a fluid connection between the port 32 of the aspirator 14 and the probe 40 of the electrosurgical instrument 10 [0036-0037, 0050, FIG. 1]. For example, the probe 40 comprises a cannula or tubing 48 defining a hollow lumen 58 that is in fluid communication with the port 32 of aspirator 14 via the extension tubing 36 [0036-0037, 0050, FIGS. 1-2, FIG. 4]).
DeCesare does not explicitly teach wherein the suction bore further comprises diverters along at least a portion of an inside surface.
The prior art by Mohan is analogous to DeCesare, as they both teach devices which provide suction or aspiration during an ablation procedure ([0051]).
Specifically, Mohan teaches wherein the suction bore further comprises diverters along at least a portion of an inside surface (the vacuum lumen 30 may include diverters or slits to help maintain a vacuum within the lumen 30 when the vacuum is broken at one of the vacuum ports 28 [0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify DeCesare’s suction bore to comprise diverters along at least a portion of an inside surface, as taught by Mohan. This modification is beneficial, as the diverters (e.g., slits) will help maintain a vacuum within the lumen when the vacuum is broken at one or more vacuum ports (see paragraph [0051] by Mohan).
10. Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeCesare et al. in view of Malandain (US 2009/0031871 A1).
Regarding claim 7, DeCesare teaches the surgical device of claim 1, wherein the hollow cannula comprises diverters on at least a portion of an inside surface (the diverters or grooves 64b-64c may be formed on the lumen 58 (e.g., inner surface) of the tubing 48 [0022, 0050, 0052, 0066]. For example, the grooves 64b-64c are configured to extend beyond the terminal end of the lumen 58 to form an active edge 74 at the distal end of the lumen 58 [0022, 0055, 0066, FIG. 5A]. As stated previously in claim 1 above, the diverters or grooves 64b-64c are configured to direct debris, fluid (e.g., gas), and tissue through the lumen 58 [0052, 0055, 0066]).
DeCesare does not explicitly teach wherein the diverters further comprise a round profile.
The prior art by Malandain is analogous to DeCesare, as they both teach a suction device that is coupled to a tube or conduit to remove fluid and/or tissue particles ([0034, 0036-0037]).
Malandain teaches wherein the diverters further comprise a round profile (the flutes 214 may be grooves or channels of any shape suitable for transporting fluids and/or tissue particles [0037, FIG. 2B]. For example, the flutes 214 may be grooves that have a relatively rounded or circular cross-sectional shape [0037]. Alternatively, the flutes 214 may be grooves that have a rounded or curved portion [0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify DeCesare’s fluid diverters to comprise a round profile, as taught by Malandain. The advantage of such modification may improve the transportation of fluid and/or tissue particles (see paragraph [0037] by Malandain).
Regarding claim 8, DeCesare teaches the surgical device of claim 1, wherein the hollow cannula comprises diverters on at least a portion of an inside surface (the diverters or grooves 64b-64c may be formed on the lumen 58 (e.g., inner surface) of the tubing 48 [0022, 0050, 0052, 0066]. For example, the grooves 64b-64c are configured to extend beyond the terminal end of the lumen 58 to form an active edge 74 at the distal end of the lumen 58 [0022, 0055, 0066, FIG. 5A]. As stated previously in claim 1 above, the diverters or grooves 64b-64c are configured to direct debris, fluid (e.g., gas), and tissue through the lumen 58 [0052, 0055, 0066]).
DeCesare does not explicitly teach wherein the diverters are in a helical pattern.
However, Malandain teaches wherein the diverters are in a helical pattern (the flutes 214 may be grooves or channels of any shape suitable for transporting fluids and/or tissue particles [0037, FIG. 2B]. For example, the flutes 214 may be grooves that are arranged in helical pattern [0037, FIG. 2B]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify DeCesare’s fluid diverters to be arranged in a helical pattern, as taught by Malandain. The advantage of such modification may improve the transportation of fluid and/or tissue particles (see paragraph [0037] by Malandain).
Regarding claim 9, DeCesare teaches the surgical device of claim 1, wherein the hollow cannula comprises diverters on at least a portion of an inside surface (the diverters or grooves 64b-64c may be formed on the lumen 58 (e.g., inner surface) of the tubing 48 [0022, 0050, 0052, 0066]. For example, the grooves 64b-64c are configured to extend beyond the terminal end of the lumen 58 to form an active edge 74 at the distal end of the lumen 58 [0022, 0055, 0066, FIG. 5A]. As stated previously in claim 1 above, the diverters or grooves 64b-64c are configured to direct debris, fluid (e.g., gas), and tissue through the lumen 58 [0052, 0055, 0066]).
DeCesare does not explicitly teach wherein the diverters are in a double helix pattern.
However, Malandain teaches wherein the diverters are in a double helix pattern (the flutes 314 and 334 may be a groove or channel that transports fluids and/or tissue particles [0037, 0042, FIG. 3]. Furthermore, figure 3 illustrates the flutes 314 and 334 forming a double helix [0039-0040, 0042, FIG. 3]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify DeCesare’s fluid diverters to be arranged in a double helix pattern, as suggested by Malandain. The advantage of such modification may improve the transportation of fluid and/or tissue particles (see paragraphs [0037, 0039-0040, 0042] by Malandain).
Statement on Communication via Internet
11. Communications via Internet email are at the discretion of the applicant. All Internet communications between USPTO employees and applicants must be made using USPTO tools.
Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet email to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence and response will be placed in the appropriate patent application. Except for correspondence that only sets up an interview time, all correspondence between the Office and the applicant including applicant's representative must be placed in the appropriate patent application. If an email contains any information beyond scheduling an interview such as an interview agenda or authorization, it must be placed in the application.
For those applications where applicant wishes to communicate with the examiner via Internet communications, e.g., email or video conferencing tools, the following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
"Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file."
Please refer to MPEP 502.03 for guidance on Communications via Internet.
Conclusion
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA BRENDON SOLOMON whose telephone number is (571)270-7208. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am -4:30pm.
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, Niketa Patel can be reached on (571)272-4156. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSHUA BRENDON SOLOMON/Examiner, Art Unit 3792