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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 7/20/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5, 8-11, 13-18, 45-48, and 50-55 remain pending in the application. Claim 4, 11, 45-48, and 50-55 have been withdrawn from further consideration as detailed in the Non-final Office Action mailed 6/2/2026.
Applicants amendments to the specification have overcome the drawing objections previously set forth in the Non-final Office Action mailed 6/2/2026.
Applicants amendments to the abstract have overcome the abstract objections previously set forth in the Non-final Office Action mailed 6/2/2026.
Applicants amendments to the specification have overcome the disclosure objections previously set forth in the Non-final Office Action mailed 6/2/2026.
Applicants amendments to the claims have overcome the claim objections previously set forth in the Non-final Office Action mailed 6/2/2026.
Applicants amendments to the claims have overcome the rejections under 35 USC 112 previously set forth in the Non-final Office Action mailed 6/2/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/24/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 10, 13, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar (U.S. PG publication 20150100011) further in view of Sahakian (U.S. PG publication 20160113707).
In regard to claim 1,
Kumar discloses a method (paragraph [0007]-[0008], [0066]-[0071], [0080]-[0083], and [0113]; see figure 6A-6B and figure 7), comprising:
inserting a carrier member (figure 7, item 728) comprising a plurality of electroporation electrodes (figure 7, item 748A and 748B) into a spatial region (part of cochlea that the distal end of the carrier member 728 is within) within a body of a recipient (paragraph [0067]-[0069] and [0080]);
introducing a treatment material (optically-sensitive elements within a solution; paragraph [0082]-[0083]) into the spatial region (paragraph [0080]-[0083]); and
delivering a series of current pulses from an external electroporation device (device which supplies signal to the plurality of electroporation electrodes; paragraph [0065]) to dynamically electroporate a population of cells located adjacent to the spatial region (see the population of cells in the cochlea located adjacent the spatial region in which a proximal end of the carrier member is within or which the carrier member is not within. Examiner notes the term “dynamically” means moving as defined in paragraph [0025] of the instant disclosure. See paragraph [0070] of Kumar which states “In accordance with certain embodiments, multipolar or other focused stimulation modes may be used to "steer" the electric field to other regions of the cochlea and/or the surrounding area so that transfection can occur at other sites. Paragraph [0070] supports that the electric field can be adjusted to modify the location of the electric field to electroporate other regions of the cochlea and/or surrounding area. See also figure 6A compared to figure 6B and paragraph [0067]-[0069] which also supports the population of cells can be dynamically electroporated by changing the size/location of the electric field; see also paragraph [0113] which states “The method may further comprise delivering a focused electrical field to a population of the cells such that the optically-sensitive elements are transfected into the cells and/or delivering a wide electrical field to a population of the cells such that the optically-sensitive elements are transfected into the cells. Paragraph [0113] therefore supports both a focused and wide electrical field can be applied during a method) and transfer the treatment material into the population of cells (paragraph [0008], [0067]-[0071] and [0082]).
Kumar is silent as to moving the carrier member along a path through the spatial region while simultaneously delivering a series of current pulses from an external electroporation device to the plurality of electroporation electrodes to dynamically electroporate a population of cells located adjacent to the spatial region and transfer the treatment material into the population of cells.
Sahakian teaches moving the carrier member along a path through the spatial region while simultaneously delivering a series of current pulses from an external electroporation device to the plurality of electroporation electrodes to dynamically electroporate a population of cells located adjacent to the spatial region and transfer the treatment material into the population of cells (paragraph [0034]-[0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kumar to include moving the carrier member along a path through the spatial region while simultaneously delivering a series of current pulses from an external electroporation device to the plurality of electroporation electrodes to dynamically electroporate a population of cells located adjacent to the spatial region and transfer the treatment material into the population of cells, as taught by Sahakian, for the purpose of creating three-dimensional regions of electroporation with desired shapes and sizes (paragraph [0034] of Sahakian). Examiner notes one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize based on the teachings of Sahakian that the carrier member of Kumar can be repositioned while simultaneously delivering a series of current pulses from the external electroporation device to the plurality of electroporation electrodes depending on the desired region of electroporation.
In regard to claim 2,
Kumar in view of Sahakian teaches the method of claim 1, moving the carrier member along the path through the spatial region while simultaneously delivering the series of current pulses includes:
delivering, via the plurality of electroporation electrodes, the series of current pulses to the population of cells to generate a dynamic electroporation electrical field proximate (Examiner notes the term “proximate” is construed as nearby) to the population of cells with the plurality of electroporation electrodes (see analysis of claim 1 above; paragraph [0067]-[0070] of Kumar and paragraph [0025]-[0026] of Sahakian; see also figure 6A and 6B of Kumar), wherein movement of the carrier member causes a time-varying change in a location of a locus of the dynamic electroporation electrical field through the spatial region (see analysis of claim 1 above; paragraph [0067]-[0070] of Kumar and paragraph [0025]-[0026] of Sahakian; Examiner notes movement of the carrier member causes a time-varying change in a location of a locus of the dynamic electroporation electrical field through the spatial region due to the location/size of the electrical field changing).
In regard to claim 3,
Kumar in view of Sahakian teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising:
while delivering the series of current pulses to the population of cells, moving the carrier member in a distal direction from a first position proximal to an external environment of the recipient to a second position distal to the external environment to create the time-varying change in the location of the locus of the dynamic electroporation electrical field through the spatial region (see analysis of claim 1 and 2 above and paragraph [0034]-[0035] and [0025]-[0026] of Sahakian).
In regard to claim 10,
Kumar in view of Sahakian teaches the method of claim 1, wherein moving the carrier member along the path through the spatial region while simultaneously delivering the series of current pulses from the external electroporation device to the plurality of electroporation electrodes comprises:
moving the carrier member along the path in a stepwise manner (see analysis of claim 1 above and paragraph [0034]-[0035] of Sahakian); and
applying one or more current pulses at each of a plurality of discrete positions along the path (see analysis of claim 1 above and paragraph [0034]-[0035] of Sahakian).
In regard to claim 13,
Kumar in view of Sahakian teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of electroporation electrodes is disposed at a distal end of the carrier member (see figure 7 of Kumar and analysis of claim 1 above).
In regard to claim 16,
Kumar in view of Sahakian teaches the method of claim 1, wherein introducing the treatment material into the spatial region comprises:
delivering a solution comprising the treatment material to the spatial region (see analysis of claim 1 above and paragraph [0082]-[0083] of Kumar).
In regard to claim 17,
Kumar in view of Sahakian teaches the method of claim 16, further comprising:
bringing one or more of the plurality of electroporation electrodes or one or more portions of the carrier member adjacent to one or more of the plurality of electroporation electrodes in contact with the population of cells located adjacent to the spatial region to substantially seal the solution comprising the treatment material within the spatial region for a period of time (paragraph [0083] of Kumar; Examiner notes when one or more portions of the carrier member adjacent to one or more of the plurality of electroporation electrodes are brought in contact with the population of cells located adjacent to the spatial region, the solution comprising the treatment material within the spatial region is substantially sealed for a period of time due to the structure of the carrier member and ports).
In regard to claim 18,
Kumar in view of Sahakian teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the carrier member comprises an elongate cannula (figure 7, item 760 of Kumar or figure 7, item 766 of Kumar) extending a length of the carrier member (see figure 7 of Kumar), and wherein delivering the solution comprising the treatment material to the spatial region comprises:
delivering the solution comprising the treatment material to the spatial region via the elongate cannula (paragraph [0081]-[0083] of Kumar).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar (U.S. PG publication 20150100011) in view of Sahakian (U.S. PG publication 20160113707) further in view of Murphy (U.S. PG publication 20170368331).
In regard to claim 5,
Kumar in view of Sahakian teaches the method of claim 2.
Kumar in view of Sahakian is silent as to wherein delivering the series of current pulses to the population of cells comprises: delivering a series of biphasic current pulses to the population of cells.
Murphy teaches wherein delivering the series of current pulses to the population of cells comprises: delivering a series of biphasic current pulses to the population of cells (paragraph [0047]-[0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kumar in view of Sahakian to substitute biphasic current pulses in place of the currant pulses of Kumar in view of Sahakian, as taught by Murphy, therefore resulting in wherein delivering the series of current pulses to the population of cells comprises: delivering a series of biphasic current pulses to the population of cells because the substitution is a simple substitution that would yield the same predictable result of causing electroporation (see paragraph [0047]-[0050] of Murphy and paragraph [0066] of Kumar). Furthermore, Kumar supports modifications can be made (paragraph [0116] of Kumar).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar (U.S. PG publication 20150100011) in view of Sahakian (U.S. PG publication 20160113707) further in view of Housley (U.S. PG publication 20120191032).
In regard to claim 15,
Kumar in view of Sahakian teaches the method of claim 1.
Kumar in view of Sahakian is silent as to wherein inserting the carrier member comprising the plurality of electroporation electrodes into the spatial region within the body of the recipient comprises: inserting the carrier member into a scala tympani of the recipient.
Housley teaches wherein inserting the carrier member comprising the plurality of electroporation electrodes into the spatial region within the body of the recipient comprises: inserting the carrier member into a scala tympani of the recipient (paragraph [0007], [0090] and [0093]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kumar in view of Sahakian to include wherein inserting the carrier member comprising the plurality of electroporation electrodes into the spatial region within the body of the recipient comprises: inserting the carrier member into a scala tympani of the recipient, as taught by Housley, for the purpose of targeting a useful location to restore hearing (paragraph [0093] of Housley).
Claims 1-3, 5, 10, 13-14, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy (U.S. PG publication 20170368331) further in view of Sahakian (U.S. PG publication 20160113707).
In regard to claim 1,
Murphy discloses a method (paragraph [0003], [0034], [0036]-[0037], [0039]-[0040]) comprising:
inserting a carrier member (figure 2, item 145) comprising a plurality of electroporation electrodes (figure 2, item 150) into a spatial region within a body of a recipient (Examiner notes the spatial region is construed as the part of the cochlea that the distal end of the carrier member is inserted within);
introducing a treatment material into the spatial region (paragraph [0036]-[0037] and [0039]); and
delivering a series of current pulses (paragraph [0047]-[0048] and [0051]-[0052]) from an external electroporation device (external current source; paragraph [0046]) to the plurality of electroporation electrodes (paragraph [0046]) to electroporate a population of cells located adjacent to the spatial region (population of cells in the cochlea located adjacent the spatial region in which a proximal portion of the carrier member is within or which the carrier member is not within; Paragraph [0056] states “multipolar or other focused stimulation modes may be used to “steer” the electric field to other regions of the cochlea and/or the surrounding area so that electroporation can occur at other sites”; paragraph [0054]-[0056] supports that the insertion tools can make use of a number of different electrical stimulation strategies or modes including, for example, using monopolar stimulation, multipolar stimulation, common ground mode, etc. to cause electroporation of the cochlea nerve cells. The various stimulation modes that may be used differ from another in the shape of the electrical field generated within each stimulation mode; paragraph [0063]-[0066] supports that the functional arrangement of the electrodes and/or the utilized stimulating mode is configurable (adjustable) via a switching circuit) and transfer the treatment material into the population of cells (paragraph [0037] and [0040]).
Although Murphy supports the plurality of electroporation electrodes can be used in different modes (paragraph [0054]-[0056] and [0063]-[0066]), Murphy is silent as to moving the carrier member along a path through the spatial region while simultaneously delivering a series of current pulses from an external electroporation device to the plurality of electroporation electrodes to dynamically electroporate a population of cells located adjacent to the spatial region and transfer the treatment material into the population of cells.
Sahakian teaches moving the carrier member along a path through the spatial region while simultaneously delivering a series of current pulses from an external electroporation device to the plurality of electroporation electrodes to dynamically electroporate a population of cells located adjacent to the spatial region and transfer the treatment material into the population of cells (paragraph [0034]-[0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murphy to include moving the carrier member along a path through the spatial region while simultaneously delivering a series of current pulses from an external electroporation device to the plurality of electroporation electrodes to dynamically electroporate a population of cells located adjacent to the spatial region and transfer the treatment material into the population of cells, as taught by Sahakian, for the purpose of creating three-dimensional regions of electroporation with desired shapes and sizes (paragraph [0034] of Sahakian). Examiner notes one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize based on the teachings of Sahakian that the carrier member of Murphy can be repositioned while simultaneously delivering a series of current pulses from the external electroporation device to the plurality of electroporation electrodes depending on the desired region of electroporation.
In regard to claim 2,
Murphy in view of Sahakian teaches the method of claim 1, moving the carrier member along the path through the spatial region while simultaneously delivering the series of current pulses includes:
delivering, via the plurality of electroporation electrodes, the series of current pulses to the population of cells to generate a dynamic electroporation electrical field proximate (Examiner notes the term “proximate” is construed as nearby) to the population of cells with the plurality of electroporation electrodes (see analysis of claim 1 above; paragraph [0025]-[0026] of Sahakian), wherein movement of the carrier member causes a time-varying change in a location of a locus of the dynamic electroporation electrical field through the spatial region (see analysis of claim 1 above; paragraph [0025]-[0026] of Sahakian; Examiner notes movement of the carrier member causes a time-varying change in a location of a locus of the dynamic electroporation electrical field through the spatial region due to the location/size of the electrical field changing).
In regard to claim 3,
Murphy in view of Sahakian teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising: while delivering the series of current pulses to the population of cells, moving the carrier member in a distal direction from a first position proximal to an external environment of the recipient to a second position distal to the external environment to create the time-varying change in the location of the locus of the dynamic electroporation electrical field through the spatial region (see analysis of claim 2 above and paragraph [0034]-[0035] and [0025]-[0026] of Sahakian).
In regard to claim 5,
Murphy in view of Sahakian teaches the method of claim 2, wherein delivering the series of current pulses to the population of cells comprises:
delivering a series of biphasic current pulses to the population of cells (paragraph [0047]-[0052] of Murphy).
In regard to claim 10,
Murphy in view of Sahakian teaches the method of claim 1, wherein moving the carrier member along the path through the spatial region while simultaneously delivering the series of current pulses from the external electroporation device to the plurality of electroporation electrodes comprises:
moving the carrier member along the path in a stepwise manner (see analysis of claim 1 above and paragraph [0034]-[0035] of Sahakian); and
applying one or more current pulses at each of a plurality of discrete positions along the path (see analysis of claim 1 above and paragraph [0034]-[0035] of Sahakian).
In regard to claim 13,
Murphy in view of Sahakian teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of electroporation electrodes is disposed at a distal end of the carrier member (see analysis of claim 1 above and figure 2 of Murphy).
In regard to claim 14,
Murphy in view of Sahakian teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
removing the carrier member from the spatial region (paragraph [0033] and [0086] of Murphy); and
inserting a stimulating assembly (item 118 of Murphy) comprising a plurality of stimulation electrodes into the spatial region (paragraph [0028] and [0030] of Murphy and paragraph [0034] and [0086] of Murphy), wherein the plurality of stimulation electrodes is configured to deliver stimulation signals to the population of cells of the recipient (Examiner notes “configured to deliver stimulation signals to the population of cells of the recipient” is a functional limitation. The plurality of stimulation electrodes is fully capable of the recited function as supported by paragraph [0031] of Murphy).
In regard to claim 16,
Murphy in view of Sahakian teaches the method of claim 1, wherein introducing the treatment material into the spatial region comprises:
delivering a solution comprising the treatment material to the spatial region (paragraph [0036], [0039], [0069] of Murphy).
In regard to claim 18,
Murphy in view of Sahakian teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the carrier member comprises an elongate cannula (paragraph [0039] of Murphy) extending a length of the carrier member (paragraph [0039] of Murphy), and wherein delivering the solution comprising the treatment material to the spatial region comprises:
delivering the solution comprising the treatment material to the spatial region via the elongate cannula (paragraph [0039] of Murphy).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy (U.S. PG publication 20170368331) in view of Sahakian (U.S. PG publication 20160113707) further in view of Housley (U.S. PG publication 20120191032).
In regard to claim 15,
Murphy in view of Sahakian teaches the method of claim 1.
Murphy in view of Sahakian is silent as to wherein inserting the carrier member comprising the plurality of electroporation electrodes into the spatial region within the body of the recipient comprises: inserting the carrier member into a scala tympani of the recipient.
Housley teaches wherein inserting the carrier member comprising the plurality of electroporation electrodes into the spatial region within the body of the recipient comprises: inserting the carrier member into a scala tympani of the recipient (paragraph [0007], [0090] and [0093]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murphy in view of Sahakian to include wherein inserting the carrier member comprising the plurality of electroporation electrodes into the spatial region within the body of the recipient comprises: inserting the carrier member into a scala tympani of the recipient, as taught by Housley, for the purpose of targeting a useful location to restore hearing (paragraph [0093] of Housley).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regard to claim 8,
The prior art of record does not teach or otherwise render obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in combination with all claim limitations the method of claim 1, further comprising: varying, at one or more locations in the spatial region, a rate at which the carrier member is moved through the spatial region. Murphy (U.S. PG publication 20170368331), Kumar (U.S. PG publication 20150100011), and Sahakian (U.S. PG publication 20160113707) all fail to disclose varying, at one or more locations in the spatial region, a rate at which the carrier member is moved through the spatial region. Paragraph [0027] of the instant disclosure provides a benefit for dynamic electroporation to enable a larger population of cells to be electroporated without increasing the size of the electrodes, without increasing the strength of the electrical field, without using a larger number of electrodes, and potentially in a shorter period of time. The subject matter of the method of claim 1, further comprising: varying, at one or more locations in the spatial region, a rate at which the carrier member is moved through the spatial region could not be found nor was suggested elsewhere in the prior art of record. Accordingly, claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Dependent claim 9 would be allowable by virtue of being dependent upon claim 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the cited portion of Sahakian describes a method of moving electrodes to a series of positions for tissue ablation which is not the same as “to dynamically electroporate a population of cells.. and transfer the treatment material into the population of cells.” Applicant argues in claim 1, the operation maintains the health of the cells so that the cells can receive the treatment material. It is noted that claim 1 does not claim/require that the operation maintains the health of the cells after receiving the treatment material. Additionally, Sahakian does support that the cells can receive the treatment material in paragraph [0034] which specifically states, “If desired, agent can be supplied to the tissue through the electrodes 24”. Paragraph [0025] of Sahakian also states “The agent is injected into the tissue, and at least one voltage pulse is applied between electrodes 24 disposed in the tissue, thereby generating electric fields in the cells of the tissue”. Paragraph [0025]-[0026] further supports a variety of agents can be delivered into the tissue via electroporation.
Applicant argues that the primary goal of Kumar is to deliver treatment to and improve the function of a region of tissue, while Sahakian teaches tissue ablation which destroys tissue. It is noted that the carrier member of Kumar is not being modified to perform tissue ablation. Both Kumar and Sahakian disclose electroporation devices which transfer material into the population of cells (see paragraph [0025]-[0026] and [0034]-[0035] of Sahakian and paragraph [0008], [0067]-[0071] and [0082] of Kumar). Sahakian further teaches moving the carrier member (moving while being navigated to a desired location) while simultaneously delivering a series of current pulses. The carrier member of Kumar is being modified to be moved along a path through the spatial region while simultaneously delivering a series of current pulses from an external electroporation device to the plurality of electroporation electrodes for the purpose of creating three-dimensional regions of electroporation with desired shapes and sizes.
Applicant argues that the statement “one with ordinary skill in the art would recognize based on the teachings of Sahakian that the carrier member of Kumar can be repositioned depending on the desired region of electroporation” is a completely false and unfounded assertion regarding Kumar. Examiner respectfully disagrees as repositioning, when advancing the carrier member to the desired location, is specifically taught by Sahakian. It is noted that the carrier member of Kumar is initially inserted and repositioned/moved to the desired location. As supported by paragraph [0025]-[0026] of Sahakian, when the carrier member is inserted and moved to the desired location, a series of current pulses can be applied. In regard to Applicant’s arguments pertaining to cochlear implants, it is noted that claim 1 does not require the carrier member to be a cochlear implant. Paragraph [0104] of Kumar further discusses that the embodiments disclosed may be used in other electrically simulating implantable medical devices besides cochlear implants.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 14 and Kumar are not found to be persuasive as claim 14 has not been rejected over Kumar. Additionally, claim 1 does not currently require the limitations of claim 14.
Applicant argues that the Examiner has not provided a reason that one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Kumar and Sahakian. Examiner respectfully disagrees. An explicit reason was provided on page 15 of the Non-final office action mailed 6/2/2026 and is provided in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Applicant argues that the combination of Kumar and Sahakian is improper because the reasoning provided by the Examiner is based on impermissible hindsight. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). As noted above, an explicit reason was provided on page 15 of the Non-final office action mailed 6/2/2026 and is provided in the rejection of claim 1 above.
In response to Applicant’s arguments regarding Murphy and Sahakian, see response to arguments regarding Sahakian above.
In response to Applicant’s argument regarding the dependent claims, see response to arguments regarding claim 1 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Forsyth (U.S. PG publication 20200129230) discloses a method, comprising: inserting a carrier member (figure 2 and 3, item 112) comprising a plurality of electroporation electrodes (figure 2 and 3, item 114) into a spatial region within a body of a recipient (paragraph [0037] and [0046]-[0047]); and moving the carrier member along a path through the spatial region while simultaneously delivering a series of current pulses from an external electroporation device to the plurality of electroporation electrodes to dynamically electroporate a population of cells located adjacent to the spatial region (paragraph [0037] and [0046]-[0047]). Sahakian as cited above, teaches the limitations “introducing a treatment material into the spatial region and transferring the treatment material into the population of cells (paragraph [0025] of Sahakian)” not taught by Forsyth. As noted above, claim 1 does not currently claim the specific location of the carrier member is inserted into.
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 ALEXANDRA ELIZABETH LALONDE whose telephone number is (313)446-6594. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Kevin Sirmons can be reached at (571) 272-4965. 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.
/ALEXANDRA LALONDE/Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/KAMI A BOSWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights