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 .
A complete action on the merits of pending claims 1-35 appears herein.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/31/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Applicant respectfully maintains the patentability of the claims, prior to the amendments herein, at least in view of Applicant's remarks set forth in the Response After Final Action filed on June 25, 2026, with such remarks incorporated herein by reference.”
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).
Examiner respectfully contends that the remarks set forth in the Response After Final Action filed on June 25, 2026 were considered and responded to in the advisory action dated 07/14/2026.
Applicant argues “In this regard, for instance, Applicant respectfully maintains that the Vaska et al. reference's ablation-lesion-edge detection via movement along a guidewire is not the claimed determining, based at least on an analysis of at least part of the claimed location information, that at least a portion of the transducer-based device has reached a target location relative to the first particular location of the plurality of locations in the bodily cavity.”
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).
Examiner respectfully contends that, as further discussed in the rejection to claim 1 below, Vaska teaches locating previously formed lesions via measuring an electrical impedance and merging said previously formed lesions with subsequent lesions to create a continuous lesion. (Par. [0020]) In doing so, Vaska analyzes at least part of determined location information (impedance) and determining that at least a portion of the devices has reached a target location (the location of a subsequent lesion such that a merged continuous lesion can be formed) relative to a first particular location (the location of the previously formed lesion) of the plurality of locations in the bodily cavity. (the locations of surrounding tissue)
Applicant further argues “Further, for instance, Applicant respectfully maintains that the Vaska et al. reference's movement of its ablation device along a guidewire/track, along with the Sinelnikov et al. reference's ablation aiming confirmation features cited in the Office Action, provide no teaching or suggestion to modify the Reinders et al. reference to include at least Claim 1's determining, based at least on an analysis of at least part of the location information, that at least a portion of the transducer-based device has reached a target location relative to the first particular location of the plurality of locations in the bodily cavity. For example, Applicant respectfully submits that modifying the Reinders et al. reference (the primary rejecting reference) to shift to a track/guidewire based movement scheme according to the Vaska et al. reference would at least be a significant change in the principle of operation of the Reinders et al. reference per MPEP 2143.01 (VI).”
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).
Examiner respectfully contends that Vaska was not relied on to teach a track/guidewire based movement scheme. Vaska, as further discussed in the rejection to claims 1 and 35 below, was merely relied on to teach locating previously formed ablation lesions and merging said previously formed lesions with subsequent lesions to create a continuous lesion. Simply connecting lesion locations to form a single continuous lesion does not require a specific track/guidewire movement scheme, and would not necessarily require any change to the movement scheme of Reinders.
Applicant further argues “the Vaska et al. reference's ablation-lesion-edge detection via movement along a guidewire does not disclose, nor would it have any need for the claimed location information received from a catheter navigation system that indicates three-dimensional coordinate axis information associated with each location of the claimed plurality of locations, from which is determined the claimed (a) target location information indicative of a target location set, and (b) reaching of the claimed target location relative to the claimed first particular location by the at least the claimed portion of the transducer-based device, recalling that the claimed first particular location is the claimed previous location of the claimed part of the transducer-based device.”
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).
Examiner respectfully contends that, as further discussed in the rejection to claims 1, 34, and 35 below, Reinders teaches a catheter navigation system (sensing device system (325)) configured to determine a position and/or orientation of the device and/or surrounding tissue via impedance measuring. Vaska was used to teach using said impedance measurements to locate previously formed lesions such that a single merged continuous lesion can be formed. Forming a subsequent lesion in a plurality of lesions based at least partially on a previously formed lesion would require locational information of both the previous and subsequent lesions in order to ensure said lesions are close enough to properly merge into the continuous lesion, as suggested in Vaska. (Par. [0020])
Applicant further argues “Further in this regard, since the claimed first particular location is from the claimed plurality of locations, and the claimed location information indicates three- dimensional coordinate axis information associated with each location of the claimed plurality of locations, Applicant further submits that the Vaska et al. reference's ablation-lesion-edge detection via movement along a guidewire does not disclose, nor would it have any need for its 'previous location' also being indicated by three-dimensional coordinate axis information provided by a catheter navigation system.”
Examiner respectfully contends that, the current claim language of claim 1 does not require the first/previous location to be indicated by the three-dimensional coordinate axis information. The claims require the location information indicate the three-dimensional coordinate axis information. As further discussed in the rejection to claim 1 below, the location of the previously formed lesion determined by the measured impedance (location information) of Vaska would “indicate” three dimensional coordinate axis information due to the tissue surrounding the formed lesion and the device orientation being known.
Examiner Notes
Examiner notes claims 20 and 21 are being interpreted as referring to a case in which the “first portion/part of the transducer-based device” is a portion/part of the transducer-based device contacting/ablating a tissue location in a previously formed lesion (first location) and the “second portion/part of the transducer-based device” is the same portion/part of the transducer-based device contacting/ablating a tissue location in a subsequent lesion (second location). Due to this interpretation, claims 20 and 21 are not being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for referring to two portions of the same device as the same portion. As best understood by examiner, this interpretation is supported by Applicant’s remarks dated 01/07/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-16, 34, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reinders (US 9,198,592 B2) in view of Vaska (US 2003/0028187 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 35, Reinders teaches a tissue ablation system (Fig. 3A-B) comprising:
an input-output device system (Fig. 3A, Char. 320: input-output device system) communicatively connected to a catheter navigation system; (Fig. 3A, Char. 325: sensing device system)
a memory device system (Fig. 3A, Char. 330: memory device system) comprising a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Col. 8, Line 65 – Col. 9, Line 3) and storing a program; (Col. 18, Line 65 – Col. 19, Line 3) and
a data processing device system (Fig. 3A, Char. 310: data processing device system) communicatively connected to the input-output device system and the memory device system, (Col. 18, Line 54 – Col. 19, Line 28) the data processing device system configured at least by the program at least to:
receive, from the catheter navigation system via the input-output device system, location information (Col. 16, Lines 37-43: A sensed physical characteristic of tissue is used to determine a position or orientation of the device and tissue; Col. 19: Lines 5-27: Sensing device system (325) detects various tissue characteristics including tissue impedance and tissue type.) indicating a plurality of locations in a bodily cavity (Col. 16, Lines 37-43: the sensed physical characteristics are used to determine surrounding tissues, such as valves/ostias) in response to movement of at least part of a transducer-based device in the bodily cavity, (Col. 16, Lines 37-43: The device would be moved into proximity with the tissue prior to sensing the physical characteristic of the surrounding tissue.) the location information indicating three-dimensional coordinate axis information associated with each location of the plurality of locations; (Determining the surrounding tissue types and determining the position/orientation of the device/tissue within the target zone would indicate three-dimensional coordinate axis information associated with the surrounding tissues at least in that it would indicate the direction of said surrounding tissue in relation to the device)
determine, based at least on an analysis of at least part of the location information, target location information (Col. 16, Lines 37-43: the determined position/orientation of surrounding tissue relative to the device) indicative of a target location set relative to a first particular location of the plurality of locations in the bodily cavity; (Fig. 9; Col. 56, Line 54 – Col. 57, Line 11; and Col. 16, Lines 46-49: the selected identified regions for ablation surrounding the bodily openings, ports or pulmonary vein ostia)
cause the transducer-based device to deliver particular tissue-ablative energy via a communicative connection between the input-output device system and the transducer-based device. (Fig. 9 and Col. 58, Lines 38-47)
Reinders, as applied to claim 1 above, is silent regarding the data processing device system being configured to determine, based at least on an analysis of at least part of the location information, that at least a portion of the transducer-based device has reached a target location relative to the first particular location of the plurality of locations in the bodily cavity, the first particular location being a previous location of the part of the transducer-based device, the target location defined at least in part by the target location information and belonging to the target location set; and that the ablation is in response to the determination that at least the portion of the transducer-based device has reached the target location relative to the first particular location of the plurality of locations in the bodily cavity.
Vaska, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches an ablation device configured to determine, based at least on an analysis of at least part of received location information, (Par. [0020]: detected tissue impedance) that at least a portion of the transducer-based device has reached a target location relative to a first particular location of a plurality of locations in a bodily cavity, (Par. [0020]: Tissue impedance may be used to locating previously formed lesions so that subsequent lesions will merge with said previously formed lesions to create a continuous lesion.) the first particular location being a previous location of the part of the ablation device, (The area of a previously formed lesion would be a previous location of the ablation device) the target location defined at least in part by target location information (The previously formed lesion would be defined at least in part by the position/orientation of said lesion relative to the device) and belonging to a target location set; (A set of all target lesion locations created and/or intended to be created during the procedure) and that the ablation is in response to the determination that at least the portion of the transducer-based device has reached the target location relative to the first particular location of the plurality of locations in the bodily cavity. (Par. [0020]: The subsequent lesion would be made after confirmation that the device is in a close enough location/proximity to the previously formed lesion to form a merged continuous lesion.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Reinders, as applied to claim 1 above, to incorporate the teachings of Vaska, and configure the data processing device system (310) of Reinders to use the impedance measurements of sensing device system (325) of Reinders to locate previously formed lesions and to select locations of subsequent lesions to be at locations within close enough proximity to form merged continuous lesions with the previously formed lesions. Doing so would allow for the device to easily for larger continuous ablation patterns, as suggested in Vaska. (Par. [0020])
Regarding method claim 34, the claim is rejected by the same or substantially the same rationale as applied to the rejection of apparatus claim 1, since operation of the prior art relied on to reject apparatus claim 34 would naturally result in the step of method claim 1 being satisfied.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Reinders/Vaska, as applied to claim 1 above, teaches the data processing device system is configured at least by the program at least to determine, as at least part of the determination that at least the portion of the transducer-based device has reached the target location relative to the first particular location of the plurality of locations in the bodily cavity, that at least the portion of the transducer-based device has reached a target distance from the first particular location of the plurality of locations in the bodily cavity. (Vaska: Par. [0020]: The target distance would be a maximum distance required to form a continuous lesion with the previously ablated location – it is implicit that this feature be present in the Reinders/Vaska combination based on the rejection to claim 1 above.)
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Reinders/Vaska, as applied to claim 2 above, teaches the target location is a second particular location of the plurality of particular locations in the bodily cavity (Vaska: Par. [0020]: the location of the subsequent lesion would be a second particular location – it is implicit that this feature be present in the Reinders/Vaska combination based on the rejection to claim 1 above.) spaced by at least the target distance (the distance required to form a continuous lesion) from the first particular location of the plurality of locations in the bodily cavity. (Vaska: Par. [0020]: the location of the previously formed lesion – it is implicit that this feature be present in the Reinders/Vaska combination based on the rejection to claim 1 above.)
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Reinders/Vaska, as applied to claim 2 above, teaches the data processing device system is configured at least by the program at least to determine the target location as a second particular location of the plurality of locations in the bodily cavity in response to the determination that at least the portion of the transducer-based device has reached the target distance from the first particular location of the plurality of locations in the bodily cavity. (Reinders: Col. 48, Lines 43-48; and Vaska: Par. [0020]: Locations of subsequent lesions would be chosen at least partially due to their proximity to previously formed lesions such that the merged continuous lesion could be formed – it is implicit that this feature be present in the Reinders/Vaska combination based on the rejection to claim 1 above.)
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Reinders/Vaska, as applied to claim 1 above, teaches the target location information defines a target distance from the first particular location of the plurality of locations in the bodily cavity. (Vaska: Par. [0020]: In the event that a large continuous lesion is desired, the next tissue area to be ablated would define a maximum distance from the previously ablated first particular location required to form a single continuous lesion – it is implicit that this feature be present in the Reinders/Vaska combination based on the rejection to claim 1 above.)
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Reinders/Vaska, as applied to claim 1 above, teaches the portion of the transducer-based device that is determined to have reached the target location relative to the first particular location is the part of the transducer-based device that has moved. (The portion/part of the transducer-based device comprising transducers would move due to said transducers delivering the ablative energy to each lesion site.)
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Reinders/Vaska, as applied to claim 1 above, teaches the target location information (the determined position/orientation of surrounding tissue relative to the device) defines the target location set (the selected identified regions for ablation surrounding the bodily openings, ports or pulmonary vein ostia) as a plurality of possible target locations, each of the possible target locations spaced from the first particular location of the plurality of locations in the bodily cavity by a target radius. (Reinders: Col. 57, Lines 1-11; and Vaska: Par. [0020]: the next tissue area to be ablated would define a distance (radius) from the previously ablated first particular location required to form a single continuous lesion – it is implicit that this feature be present in the Reinders/Vaska combination based on the rejection to claim 1 above.)
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Reinders/Vaska, as applied to claim 1 above, teaches the data processing device system is configured at least by the program at least to determine, as at least part of the determination that at least the portion of the transducer-based device has reached the target location relative to the first particular location of the plurality of locations in the bodily cavity, a presence of contact between the transducer-based device and a tissue surface in the bodily cavity. (Reinders: Col. 48, Lines 43-48: Proper contact between each transducer and tissue is determined as part of a determination that the transducers are ready to ablate tissue.)
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Reinders/Vaska, as applied to claim 8 above, teaches the data processing device system is configured at least by the program at least to cause the transducer-based device to deliver the particular tissue-ablative energy also in response to determining the presence of the contact between the transducer-based device and the tissue surface in the bodily cavity. (Reinders: Col. 48, Lines 43-48: Proper contact between each transducer and tissue is determined as part of a determination that the transducers are ready to ablate tissue.)
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Reinders/Vaska, as applied to claim 1 above, teaches the first particular location of the plurality of locations is a location of a previously ablated tissue region. (Vaska: Par. [0020] – it is implicit that this feature be present in the Reinders/Vaska combination based on the rejection to claim 1 above.)
Regarding claims 11 and 12, the combination of Reinders/Vaska, as applied to claim 1 above, teaches the first particular location is one of the plurality of locations in the bodily cavity corresponding to a previous delivery of tissue ablation energy by the portion of the transducer-based device prior to delivery of the particular tissue-ablative energy. (Vaska: Par. [0020] – it is implicit that this feature be present in the Reinders/Vaska combination based on the rejection to claim 1 above.)
Regarding claims 13 and 14, the combination of Reinders/Vaska, as applied to claim 1 above, teaches the data processing device system is configured at least by the program at least to determine that at least the portion of the transducer-based device has reached a target distance from a location of at least the part of the transducer- based device during a previous delivery of tissue ablation energy; wherein the portion of the transducer-based device is the part of the transducer-based device. (Vaska: Par. [0020]: In the event that a large continuous lesion is desired, there would have to be a distance range or a maximum distance from the previously ablated first particular location required to form a single continuous lesion – it is implicit that this feature be present in the Reinders/Vaska combination based on the rejection to claim 1 above.)
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Reinders/Vaska, as applied to claim 1 above, teaches the target location (Reinders: Fig. 9 and Col. 56, Line 54 – Col. 57, Line 11 and Col. 16, Lines 46-49: the selected identified regions for ablation surrounding the bodily openings, ports or pulmonary vein ostia) is a second particular location of the plurality of locations in the bodily cavity, the second particular location other than the first particular location. (Vaska: Par. [0020]: The location of the subsequent lesion would be a second particular location and the location of the previously formed lesion would be a first particular location – it is implicit that this feature be present in the Reinders/Vaska combination based on the rejection to claim 1 above.)
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Reinders/Vaska, as applied to claim 1 above, teaches the data processing device system is configured at least by the program at least to cause the transducer-based device to deliver the particular tissue-ablative energy at the target location in response to determining that at least the portion of the transducer-based device has reached the target location. (Vaska: Par. [0020]: In order to create the merged continuous lesion, ablative energy delivery would be initiated after the device has been confirmed to have reached the subsequent lesion location – it is implicit that this feature be present in the Reinders/Vaska combination based on the rejection to claim 1 above.)
Claim(s) 17-27 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reinders (US 9,198,592 B2) in view of Vaska (US 2003/0028187 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sinelnikov (US 2016/0374710 A1).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Reinders/Vaska, as applied to claim 1 above, teaches ablating various regions within an intra-cardiac cavity to treat atrial fibrillation. (Reinders: Col. 37, Lines 19-22)
The combination of Reinders/Vaska, as applied to claim 1 above, is silent regarding the data processing device system is configured at least by the program at least to cause the transducer-based device to deliver the particular tissue-ablative energy via a discrete energy application set.
Sinelnikov, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches delivering acoustic energy via a discrete energy application set to ablate tissue (Par. [0249]) and that carotid body ablation may be used to treat atrial fibrillation. (Par. [0140])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of Reinders/Vaska, as applied to claim 1 above, to incorporate the teachings of Sinenlikov, and configure the data processing device system at least by the program at least to cause the transducers of Reinders to deliver acoustic energy via the discrete energy application set of Sinelnikov. Doing so would be a simple substitution of one ablative energy type for another for the predictable result of ablating tissue to treat conditions such as atrial fibrillation.
Regarding claims 18 and 33, the combination of Reinders/Sinelnikov/Vaska, as applied to claim 17 above, teaches the discrete energy application set is configured to cause pulsed field ablation of tissue. (Sinelnikov: Par. [0151]: the carotid body and other desired target structures may be ablated using pulsed wave ultrasound – it is implicit that this feature be present in the Reinders/Sinenlikov/Vaska combination based on the rejection to claim 17 above.)
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Reinders/Sinelnikov/Vaska, as applied to claim 17 above, teaches the portion of the transducer-based device is a first portion of the transducer-based device, (Reinders: A first transducer configured to create the previously formed lesion) wherein the target location is a first target location, (Reinders: Fig. 9 and Col. 56, Line 54 – Col. 57, Line 11 and Col. 16, Lines 46-49: A portion of tissue in the ablation pattern contacting a first ablative transducer) and the discrete energy application set is a first discrete energy application set, (the ablative energy emitted from the first ablative transducer) and wherein the data processing device system is configured at least by the program at least to: determine, after at least the first portion of the transducer-based device has reached the first target location, and based at least on an analysis of at least part of the location information, that at least a second portion of the transducer-based device has reached a second target location relative to the first target location; (Vaska: Par. [0020]; The determination that the transducers of Reinders have reached the location of a subsequent lesion would occur for all the transducers, including a second transducer of Reinders, and the respective portions of tissue in the ablative pattern contacting said transducers – it is implicit that this feature be present in the Reinders/Sinenlikov/Vaska combination based on the rejection to claim 1 above//The process of ablating multiple locations to form a larger merged continuous lesion can be repeated as many times as necessary. In which case, the most recently completed lesion would be the “first location” and the location of the next subsequent lesion would be the “second location”) and cause, in response to determining that at least the second portion of the transducer-based device has reached the second target location relative to the first target location, the transducer- based device to deliver a second discrete energy application set via the communicative connection between the input-output device system and the transducer-based device. (Vaska: Par. [0020]: The transducers of Reinders would deliver ablative energy to form the subsequent lesion once all of the transducers of Reinders are positioned such that the ablative pattern of the subsequent lesion forms a merged continuous lesion with the ablative pattern of the previously formed lesion – it is implicit that this feature be present in the Reinders/Sinenlikov/Vaska combination based on the rejection to claim 1 above.)
Regarding claims 20 and 21, the combination of Reinders/Sinelnikov/Vaska, as applied to claim 19 above, teaches wherein the second portion of the transducer- based device is the first portion of the transducer-based device, wherein the part of the transducer-based device is the second portion of the transducer-based device, which also is the first portion of the transducer-based device. (The process of ablating multiple locations to form a larger merged continuous lesion can be repeated as many times as necessary. In which case, the most recently completed lesion would be the “first location” and the location of the next subsequent lesion would be the “second location.” The first transducer of Reinders contacting the “first location” of the previously formed lesion and the “second location” of the subsequent lesion would then read on both the first portion of the transducer-based device being the second portion of the transducer-based device.)
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Reinders/Sinelnikov/Vaska, as applied to claim 19 above, teaches the data processing device system is configured at least by the program at least to: cause the transducer-based device to deliver the first discrete energy application set at the first target location in response to determining that at least the first portion of the transducer- based device has reached the first target location, and wherein the data processing device system is configured at least by the program at least to cause the transducer-based device to deliver the second discrete energy application set at the second target location in response to determining that at least the second portion of the transducer-based device has reached the second target location. (Vaska: Par. [0020]: The transducers of Reinders would deliver ablative energy to form the subsequent lesion once all of the transducers of Reinders are positioned such that the ablative pattern of the subsequent lesion forms a merged continuous lesion with the ablative pattern of the previously formed lesion – it is implicit that this feature be present in the Reinders/Sinenlikov/Vaska combination based on the rejection to claim 1 above.)
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Reinders/Sinelnikov/Vaska, as applied to claim 19 above, teaches the data processing device system is configured at least by the program at least to cause the transducer-based device to deliver the first discrete energy application set during a first time interval, and to cause the transducer-based device to deliver the second discrete energy application set during a second time interval, (Reinders: Fig. 9 and Col. 58, Lines 38-47: The ablative energy delivered to tissue via the ablative transducers of Reinders would be delivered for a duration for each transducer, including at least a first and second duration for a respective first and second transducer) a duration of the second time interval being the same as a duration of the first time interval. (Absent a statement otherwise, one of ordinary skill in the art would assume the first and second durations to be the same)
Regarding claims 24 and 26, the combination of Reinders/Sinelnikov/Vaska, as applied to claim 19 above, teaches the first discrete energy application set includes one or more discrete energy applications, each delivering a first particular amount of energy, and the second discrete energy application set includes one or more discrete energy applications, each delivering a second particular amount of energy. (In the combination of Reinders/Sinelnikov/Vaska, as applied to claim 19 above, each transducer of Reinders would output a discrete energy application set with its own particular amount of energy, even if the particular amounts of energy are the same.)
The combination of Reinders/Sinelnikov/Vaska, as applied to claim 19 above, is silent regarding the first discrete energy application set includes a different total number of discrete energy applications than the second discrete energy application set; and the second particular amount of energy different than the first particular amount of energy.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified/controlled the duration/amount of ablative energy being delivered to the treated tissue for each transducer, such that the desired ablation pattern is achieved. (e.g. to compensate for differences in target ablation depth along the pattern or differing tissue characteristics for tissues contacting different transducers (thickness, composition, etc.))
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Reinders/Sinelnikov/Vaska, as applied to claim 19 above, teaches the first discrete energy application set includes one or more discrete energy applications, each delivering a first particular amount of energy, and the second discrete energy application set includes one or more discrete energy applications, each delivering a second particular amount of energy, (Reinders: Fig. 9 and Col. 58, Lines 38-47: The ablative energy delivered to tissue via the ablative transducers of Reinders would be delivered with an amount of energy, including at least a first and second amount of energy for a respective first and second transducer) the second particular amount of energy the same as the first particular amount of energy. (Absent a statement otherwise, one of ordinary skill in the art would assume the first and second amounts of energy delivered via a first and second transducer to be the same)
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Reinders/Sinelnikov/Vaska, as applied to claim 19 above, teaches each of the first discrete energy application set and the second discrete energy application set includes one or more respective particular discrete energy applications, (Reinders: Fig. 9 and Col. 58, Lines 38-47: The ablative energy delivered to tissue via the ablative transducers of Reinders would be delivered with an amount of energy, including at least a first and second amount of energy for a respective first and second transducer) the one or more respective particular discrete energy applications of the first discrete energy application set and the one or more respective particular discrete energy applications of the second discrete energy application set applied in an overlapping manner. (Reinders: Fig. 9 and Col. 56, Line 54 – Col. 57, Line 11 and Col. 16, Lines 46-49: There would be at least some overlap in energy delivery between the border of the ablation pattern created by the transducer delivering the first discrete energy application and the ablation pattern created by the transducer delivering the second discrete ablation pattern to form a continuous lesion)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 28-32 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record fails to explicitly teach all of the limitations of claim 27, and further teach “wherein each of the first discrete energy application set and the second discrete energy application set forms a respective part of a group of discrete energy application sets, each discrete energy application set in the group of discrete energy application sets configured to deliver a respective amount of energy insufficient to produce a transmural tissue lesion in the bodily cavity, and wherein the discrete energy application sets in the group of the discrete energy application sets are configured to collectively deliver energy sufficient to produce a transmural tissue lesion in the bodily cavity” of claim 28. Claims 29-32 would be allowable due to their respective dependencies on claim 28.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS SHEA BORSCH whose telephone number is (571)272-5681. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30AM-5:30PM EST.
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 at 3032974276. 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.
/N.S.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOANNE M RODDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794
