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 .
2. 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
3. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/01/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference or combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
6. Claims 1-5, 8-12, and 15-19 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.
7. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the electrodes" in lines 7 and 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 previously recites “ablation electrodes of the particular catheter” in line 6, making it unclear as to whether “the electrodes” recited in lines 7 and 14 are the same as the ablation electrodes previously mentioned, or entirely different electrodes. For examination purposes, “the electrodes” will be interpreted as “the ablation electrodes”. Proper correction is required.
8. Claim 2 recites the limitation "the electrodes" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This is rejected for the same reasons mentioned above in regards to Claim 1. For examination purposes, “the electrodes” will be interpreted as “the ablation electrodes”. Proper correction is required.
9. Claim 3 recites the limitation "the electrodes" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This is rejected for the same reasons mentioned above in regards to Claim 1. For examination purposes, “the electrodes” will be interpreted as “the ablation electrodes”. Proper correction is required.
10. Claim 4 recites the limitation "the electrodes" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This is rejected for the same reasons mentioned above in regards to Claim 1. For examination purposes, “the electrodes” will be interpreted as “the ablation electrodes”. Proper correction is required.
11. Claim 5 recites the limitation "the electrodes" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This is rejected for the same reasons mentioned above in regards to Claim 1. For examination purposes, “the electrodes” will be interpreted as “the ablation electrodes”. Proper correction is required.
12. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the electrodes" in lines 8, 14, and 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 previously recites “ablation electrodes of the particular catheter” in lines 6-7, making it unclear as to whether “the electrodes” recited in lines 8, 14, and 15 are the same as the ablation electrodes previously mentioned, or entirely different electrodes. For examination purposes, “the electrodes” will be interpreted as “the ablation electrodes”. Proper correction is required.
13. Claim 9 recites the limitation "the electrodes" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This is rejected for the same reasons mentioned above in regards to Claim 8. For examination purposes, “the electrodes” will be interpreted as “the ablation electrodes”. Proper correction is required.
14. Claim 10 recites the limitation "the electrodes" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This is rejected for the same reasons mentioned above in regards to Claim 8. For examination purposes, “the electrodes” will be interpreted as “the ablation electrodes”. Proper correction is required.
15. Claim 11 recites the limitation "the electrodes" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This is rejected for the same reasons mentioned above in regards to Claim 8. For examination purposes, “the electrodes” will be interpreted as “the ablation electrodes”. Proper correction is required.
16. Claim 12 recites the limitation "the electrodes" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This is rejected for the same reasons mentioned above in regards to Claim 8. For examination purposes, “the electrodes” will be interpreted as “the ablation electrodes”. Proper correction is required.
17. Claim 15 recites the limitation "the electrodes" in lines 7, 14, and 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 15 previously recites “ablation electrodes of the particular catheter” in lines 5-6, making it unclear as to whether “the electrodes” recited in lines 7, 14, and 15 are the same as the ablation electrodes previously mentioned, or entirely different electrodes. For examination purposes, “the electrodes” will be interpreted as “the ablation electrodes”. Proper correction is required.
18. Claim 16 recites the limitation "the electrodes" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This is rejected for the same reasons mentioned above in regards to Claim 15. For examination purposes, “the electrodes” will be interpreted as “the ablation electrodes”. Proper correction is required.
19. Claim 17 recites the limitation "the electrodes" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This is rejected for the same reasons mentioned above in regards to Claim 15. For examination purposes, “the electrodes” will be interpreted as “the ablation electrodes”. Proper correction is required.
20. Claim 18 recites the limitation "the electrodes" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This is rejected for the same reasons mentioned above in regards to Claim 15. For examination purposes, “the electrodes” will be interpreted as “the ablation electrodes”. Proper correction is required.
21. Claim 19 recites the limitation "the electrodes" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This is rejected for the same reasons mentioned above in regards to Claim 15. For examination purposes, “the electrodes” will be interpreted as “the ablation electrodes”. Proper correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
22. Claims 1-19 contain allowable subject matter.
28. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: a method for performing pulsed field ablation comprising determining by a controlled connected to a catheter at a first time to perform PFA using linear PFA mode and at a second time performing PFA using a focal PFA mode is well known in the art. This is supported by at least the references cited during the prosecution of this case, as well as other references in the general area that could be located with minimal effort. However, the prior art of record fails to specifically teach responsive to determining the user of linear PFA mode of focal PFA mode, outputting, by the controller and to ablation electrodes of a particular catheter that are disposed along a single continuous elongated structure of the catheter, energy to cause the ablation electrodes to generate a field with a geometry that is linear or focused along an active portion of the particular catheter. The prior art also fails to provide sufficient motivation to make such specific modifications and would require improper use of hindsight to arrive at the claimed invention when considered along or in any proper combination.
29. 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).
Conclusion
30. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNIE L SHOULDERS whose telephone number is (571)272-3846. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (alternate Fridays) 8AM-5PM 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, 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.
/ANNIE L SHOULDERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights