DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendment and remarks, filed December 23, 2025, are fully acknowledged by the Examiner. Currently, claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 22, 23, 25-27 and 30-33 are pending with claims 31 and 33 newly added, claims 4, 5, 8, 11-21, 24, 28 and 29 cancelled, claims 1 and 9 amended, and claims 22, 23, 26, 27 and 30 withdrawn. The following is a complete response to the December 23, 2025 communication.
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 .
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 32 and 33 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.
Regarding claims 32 and 33, each claim recites the limitation of “the through openings” therein. Parent claim 1 has been amended to require that the sidewall has “one or more through openings formed therein.” The Examiner is of the position that the at-issue limitation in each of claims 32 and 33 render the scope of each respective claim as indefinite because it is unclear if each claim is being positively limitation to require multiple through openings formed in the sidewall of the choke, or if each claim only requires the broader recitation of “one or more through openings” as set forth in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3, 6, 9, 10 and 31-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trembly et al. (US Pat. No. 6,485,486 A1) further in view of Eaton-Evans et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2020/0205894 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Trembly provides for an electrosurgical device for ablative treatment comprising: an elongate catheter comprising proximal and distal catheter ends (catheter 74), the catheter distal end being configured for insertion into a body comprising the target tissue for ablation (the catheter 74 is disclosed throughout as capable of insertion into the body),
a transmission cable at least partially located within the catheter and comprising a cable proximal end configured to be connected to a power source for generating microwave power and a cable distal end (70 as in figure 2B), the transmission cable comprising at least one inner conductor and an outer conductor (with respect to the disclosure, the cable 70 is provided with an inner conductor at 72 as in figure 2 and outer shield of the cable forming the outer conductor), the inner and outer conductors being electrically isolated from each other by a dielectric material (insulating layer of 70),
an antenna extending from the cable distal end and configured to emit microwave energy therefrom (monopole 104 ),
and a choke element surrounding at least a portion of the transmission cable (102), the choke element comprising choke distal and proximal ends (as in figure 2B), the choke element distal end being electrically connected to the outer conductor (see col. 7; 5-14), the choke element proximal end being radially spaced from the outer conductor (via layer 102b).
While Brannan provides that the choke element (102) is a tubular-shaped element including a sidewall that surrounds at least a portion of the transmission cable (with the choke 102 having a cylindrical shape with a sidewall at the portion of 102a that surrounds the portion of the cable therein; see figure 2b), Brannan fails to provide that the sidewall has one or more through openings formed therein.
Eaton-Evans provides for a similar device as that of Brannan and further provides for an alternative manner of supplying a choke element to a similar electrosurgical device. Eaton-Evans further provides for the choke to be a tubular-shaped element (see figure 3A with the generally tubular shape of 208) including a sidewall having one or more openings formed therein (via the helical cutout between the twists of the sidewall 208c as seen in figure 3A). Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have utilized a helical-shaped choke as in Eaton-Evans as the shape and structural arrangement of the choke 208 of Brannan to provide for an alternative shape to the choke. Eaton-Evans readily provides that such a helical shape provides a number of advantages to a solid choke arrangement including to aide in the overall flexibility of the device (See [0011] of Eaton-Evans).
Regarding claim 3, Trembly provides that the antenna is a linear antenna selected from the group consisting of monopole, dipole, slot, and helical radiating antennae (see figure 2B with 104 being a monopole).
Regarding claim 6, Trembly provides that the electrosurgical device comprises an insulative material positioned between the choke element and the outer conductor (102b), except for an electrical connection between the choke element and outer conductor at the choke element's distal end (see the described distal connection in col. 7; 5-14).
Regarding claim 9, Trembly provides that the choke distal end is electrically connected to the cable distal end (see col. 7; 5-14).
Regarding claim 10, Trembly provides that the antenna comprises a segment of the inner conductor surrounded by the dielectric material (monopole 104 with the construction of such described in col. 6; 33-50 to the inner conductor surrounded by the insulating layer).
Regarding claim 31, in view of the combination with Eaton-Evans above, the combined arrangement provides that the tubular-shaped element comprises a spring (via the form of 208 from Eaton-Evans).
Regarding claim 32, in view of the combination with Eaton-Evans above, the combined arrangement provides that the through opening comprised a plurality of slitted openings spaced along the sidewall (via the helical openings of 208 of Eaton-Evans being slits along the sidewall).
Regarding claim 33, in view of the combination with Eaton-Evans above, the combined arrangement provides that the through opening comprised a helical slit that extends between the distal and proximal end of the choke (via the helical opening of 208 of Eaton-Evans).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over T Trembly et al. (US Pat. No. 6,485,486 A1) in view of Eaton-Evans et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2020/0205894 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Turovskiy et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2005/0015081 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Trembly fails to provide that the catheter is a multi-lumen catheter, the transmission cable being located within one of the lumens, at least one other lumen being configured to circulate a cooling fluid between the catheter proximal and distal ends. Turovskiy provides for an alternative arrangement for a catheter of a microwave antenna wherein the catheter is a multi-lumen catheter (108 with the first lumen at 132 and the second lumen formed by the opening in 108 which both 132 and the antenna are placed in), the transmission cable being located within one of the lumens, at least one other lumen being configured to circulate a cooling fluid between the catheter proximal and distal ends (via the structural arrangement shown in figure 4D and for the lumen in 132 functioning to provide for a flow of cooling fluid). Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have utilized the catheter arrangement as in Turovskiy as the catheter of Trembly to provide for an exemplary arrangement that provides for cooling fluid at the distal end of the antenna. Turovskiy readily teaches that the cooling of a microwave antenna allows for effective delivery of microwave energy to tissue while preventing unnecessary charring/ablation of tissue adjacent the shaft of the device.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trembly et al. (US Pat. No. 6,485,486 A1) in view of Eaton-Evans et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2020/0205894 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brannan (US Pat. Pub. 2009/0187180 A1) and Grundy et al. (US Pat. No. 5,603,697).
Regarding claim 7, while Trembly provides for a conductive joint between the choke and the outer conductor and for various electrical connections to be achieved by soldering, Trembly fails to provides for the inclusion of a doping element providing a radiopaque marker for identifying the location of the electrical connection during an imaging process, wherein the doping element includes a joint that provides the electrical connection between the choke element and the outer conductor. Eaton-Evans fails to cure this deficiency. Brannan, however, provides that it is known to utilize soldering to provide an electrical connection between an outer conductor of a microwave antenna and a choke (See [0058]) Brannan fails to specifically provide that such soldering is a doping element providing a radiopaque marker for identifying the location of the electrical connection during an imaging process. Grundy specifically contemplates that the use of a silver solder is suitable for joining materials within the antenna (see col. 5; 35-38). Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have utilized silver solder to provide for the electrically conductive joint between the shield and outer conductor in the device of Trembly in view of the combined teachings of Brannan and Grundy. Such would achieve the requisite connective joint already contemplated in Trembly with known materials suitable for the required mechanical and electrical connections. The Examiner is further of the position that via the use of silver solder, the resultant joint would form a radiopaque marker for identifying the location of the electrical connection during an imaging process given that silver solder is well-known and appreciated in the art as being a radiopaque material. Such would provide a user with the ability to image the location of the device during treatment within the body.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6 of the Remarks filed December 23, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Trembly (US Pat. No. 6,485,486 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, Trembly fails to provide for the specifics of the choke element as presented set forth in claim 1 and as argued for on page 6 of the Remarks. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, the following new grounds of rejection have been set forth in the action above:
Claims 1, 3, 6, 9, 10 and 31-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trembly et al. (US Pat. No. 6,485,486 A1) further in view of Eaton-Evans et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2020/0205894 A1).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over T Trembly et al. (US Pat. No. 6,485,486 A1) in view of Eaton-Evans et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2020/0205894 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Turovskiy et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2005/0015081 A1).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trembly et al. (US Pat. No. 6,485,486 A1) in view of Eaton-Evans et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2020/0205894 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brannan (US Pat. Pub. 2009/0187180 A1) and Grundy et al. (US Pat. No. 5,603,697).
It is the Examiner’s position that the newly cited Eaton-Evans readily cures the deficiency in the Trembly reference with respect to the specific structural arrangement of the claimed choke to include tubular-shaped element having a sidewall and one or more through openings formed therein for at least the reasoning set forth in the Action above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD HUPCZEY, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; 8 am - 4 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, Joseph Stoklosa can be reached at (571) 272-1213. 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.
/Ronald Hupczey, Jr./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794