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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-4, filed November 24, 2025 with respect to the restriction of September 24, 2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The restriction of September 24, 2025 has been withdrawn.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-38 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “tissue” in line 9, “a tissue surface in a bodily cavity” in lines 11-12, “the tissue surface” in line 15, and “the tissue” in lines 16, 18, 22, 24 and 25. There needs to be consistent language used throughout the claim in order to provide proper antecedence. The examiner suggests amending the first recitation to “a tissue surface in a bodily cavity” and the subsequent recitations to “the tissue surface” in order to provide proper antecedence. Dependent claims 2, 5-8, 17, 27 and 28 need to be similarly corrected.
Claims 2-36 include bolded bracketed text from the specification that should be removed.
Claim 37 recites “tissue” in line 7, “a tissue surface in a bodily cavity” in lines 9-10, “the tissue surface” in line 13, and “the tissue” in lines 14, 16, 20, 22 and 23. There needs to be consistent language used throughout the claim in order to provide proper antecedence. The examiner suggests amending the first recitation to “a tissue surface in a bodily cavity” and the subsequent recitations to “the tissue surface” in order to provide proper antecedence.
Claim 38 recites “tissue” in line 6, “a tissue surface in a bodily cavity” in line 9, “the tissue surface” in lines 12-13, and “the tissue” in lines 13, 16, 21, 24 and 25. There needs to be consistent language used throughout the claim in order to provide proper antecedence. The examiner suggests amending the first recitation to “a tissue surface in a bodily cavity” and the subsequent recitations to “the tissue surface” in order to provide proper antecedence.
Applicant is advised that should claim 15 be found allowable, claim 35 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-38 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.
Claim 1 recites “cause, based at least on an analysis of the first data set, determination, at least in response to a first state in which the analysis of the first data set is indicative of a first degree of proximity between the second transducer set and the tissue surface, of a first quality of a lesion producible in the tissue by the first high voltage pulse set” which is vague and indefinite. This claim is indefinite and fails to conform with current U.S. practice and seems to contain grammatical errors. It is not clear how these recitations are related and what exactly is being determined. Furthermore it is not clear how the recitation of “of a first quality of a lesion…” fits in with the other claim language.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a second transducer set " in line 11 and “at least a third transducer set” in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim in light of the recitation of “at least a first transducer set” in line 7. It is not clear if the claimed second and third transducer sets are part of the “at least a first transducer set” or if they are each their own distinct sets of transducers. Subsequent recitations of “the second transducer set” and “the third transducer set” found in the dependent claims are similarly rejected.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "a fourth transducer set" in line 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim in light of the recitation of “at least a first transducer set” in line 7 of claim one. It is not clear if the claimed fourth transducer set is part of the “at least a first transducer set” of claim one or if it is its own distinct set of transducers. Subsequent recitations of “the fourth transducer set” found in the dependent claims are similarly rejected.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the fourth transducer set of the transducer-based device is the second transducer set” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim in light of the recitation of “at least a first transducer set” in line 7 of claim one. Furthermore, it is not clear if another transducer set is being claimed and/or how it may relate to the second transducer set.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "wherein each of the second transducer set and the third transducer set is the first transducer set” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim in light of the recitation of “at least a first transducer set” in line 7 of claim one, “a second transducer set” in line 11 of claim one and “at least a third transducer set” in line 20 of claim one. Furthermore, it is not clear if another transducer set is being claimed and/or how it may relate to the third transducer set.
Claim 10 recites the limitation " wherein the fourth transducer set is the third transducer set” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim in light of the recitation of “at least a third transducer set” in line 20 of claim one and “a fourth transducer set” in claim two. Furthermore, it is not clear if another transducer set is being claimed and/or how it may relate to the third transducer set.
Claim 15 and 35 recite the limitation "wherein the third transducer set of the transducer-based device is the first transducer set” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim in light of the recitation of “at least a first transducer set” in line 7 of claim one and “at least a third transducer set” in line 20 of claim one. Furthermore, it is not clear if another transducer set is being claimed and/or how it may relate to the third transducer set.
Claim 16 recites the limitation " wherein the third transducer set of the transducer-based device is other than the first transducer set” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim in light of the recitation of “at least a first transducer set” in line 7 of claim one and “at least a third transducer set” in line 20 of claim one. Furthermore, it is not clear if another transducer set is being claimed and/or how it may relate to the third transducer set.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “wherein the second graphical element set is the first graphical element set” in lines 1-2 is vague and indefinite. It is unclear how two previously claimed elements can be the same element. This claim is indefinite and fails to conform with current U.S. practice.
Claim 35 recites the limitation "wherein the third transducer set of the transducer-based device is the first transducer set” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim in light of the recitation of “at least a first transducer set” in line 7 of claim one and “at least a third transducer set” in line 20 of claim one. Furthermore, it is not clear if another transducer set is being claimed and/or how it may relate to the third transducer set.
Claim 37 recites the limitation "a second transducer set " in line 9 and “at least a third transducer set” in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim in light of the recitation of “at least a first transducer set” in line 5. It is not clear if the claimed second and third transducer sets are part of the “at least a first transducer set” or if they are each their own distinct sets of transducers.
Claim 38 recites the limitation "a second transducer set " in line 8 and “at least a third transducer set” in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim in light of the recitation of “at least a first transducer set” in line 5. It is not clear if the claimed second and third transducer sets are part of the “at least a first transducer set” or if they are each their own distinct sets of transducers.
Claim 38 recites “first determination instructions configured to cause, based at least on an analysis of the first data set, determination, at least in response to a first state in which the analysis of the first data set is indicative of a first degree of proximity between the second transducer set and the tissue surface, of a first quality of a lesion producible in the tissue by the first high voltage pulse set” which is vague and indefinite. This claim is indefinite and fails to conform with current U.S. practice and seems to contain grammatical errors. It is not clear how these recitations are related and what exactly is being determined. Furthermore it is not clear how the recitation of “of a first quality of a lesion…” fits in with the other claim language.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-38 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the claim objections and 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: PG Pub 2017/0120080, PG Pub 2016/0317844, PG Pub 2001/0000791 and PG Pub 2014/0081262.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMANTHA M GOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-7480. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Wed, 7am to 3pm.
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, Linda Dvorak can be reached at 571-272-4764. 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.
/SAMANTHA M GOOD/Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/MICHAEL F PEFFLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794