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.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The Information Disclosure Statement submitted on 16 March 2023 and 18 July 2024 has been considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
3. The drawings (figures 1-13) were received on 23 December 2022 are acceptable. However, the abstract of the disclosure has been attached within the filing of the drawings. The Examiner respectfully submits that that the abstract should be filed separately from the drawings.
Specification
4. The abstract of the disclosure does not commence on a separate sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(4) and 1.72(b). A new abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. The Examiner respectfully submits that the abstract is included within the drawings filed on 23 December 2022. However, the abstract needs to be filed separately from the drawings.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
Claim 19 is 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 19 recites the limitation "injecting the agent" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner respectfully submits that claim 19 depends upon claim 1. However, claim 1 does not recite an agent that is used with the ablation probe.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 1-18 are allowed.
7. Claim 19 would be allowed if the 112 (b) rejection noted above was overcome.
8. Claim 20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
9. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not explicitly disclose or suggests an ablation probe comprising a separable outer sleeve, an inner probe, an outer sleeve, a handle, and a split assembly similar to those recited in the pending claims. Specifically, the prior art of record does not explicitly suggest wherein the ablation probe comprises a split assembly, the split assembly comprising a first split member and a second split member that are detachable, the first split member is fixed with the outer sleeve, and the second split member is partially fixed with the handle. The following description demonstrates how the prior art of record fails to suggest the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 1, Skorich (US 2020/0085485 A1) teaches an ablation probe (the cryoprobe 100 comprises a distal ablation section 101 [0050]) having a separable outer sleeve (the braided sleeve 113 that can be removably attached or fitted over the supply line 114 and the exhaust line 116 of the cryoprobe 100 [0050-0051]) and freezing function (the cryoprobe 100 is configured to freeze the nerves 700 [0082]), wherein the ablation probe includes an inner probe (the cryoprobe 100 comprises an inner probe or elongated shaft 104 that extends through an insulated tube 106 [0050, 0054]), an outer sleeve and a handle (the cryoprobe 100 comprises an inner probe or elongated shaft 104 that extends through an insulated tube 106 and into a handle housing 108 [0050]. Specifically, Applicant states that the outer sleeve is an insulation tube [claim 1]), the inner probe is slipped connected to the outer sleeve (the inner probe or elongated shaft 104 is slipped connected or compression fitted to the outer sleeve to the insulated tube 106 [0054]) and one end of the inner probe is fixed with one end of the handle (the inner probe or elongated shaft 104 that extends through an insulated tube 106 and into a handle housing 108 [0050]), and the outer sleeve is an insulation tube (the insulation tube 106 [0050, 0054]), the inner probe is a cryoablation probe with no thermal insulation structure (the inner probe or elongated shaft 104 includes a distal cryoablation section 101 [0050, 0082-0084]. Specifically, the structure of the cryoablation section 101 does not have any insulative components or materials [0050]).
Skorich does not explicitly teach wherein the ablation probe comprises a split assembly, the split assembly comprising a first split member and a second split member that are detachable, the first split member is fixed with the outer sleeve, and the second split member is partially fixed with the handle.
The Examiner concludes that the prior art does not provide the requisite teaching, suggestion, and motivation to suggest the claim limitation. Therefore, the inventive features recited in the pending claims are not disclosed by the prior art and are not suggested by an obvious combination of the most analogous prior art elements.
Claims 2-20 are considered to contain allowable subject matter, as claims 2-20 depend upon claim 1.
Statement on Communication via Internet
10. 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
11. 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