Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/311,617

TETHERED SYSTEM FOR CRYOGENIC TREATMENT

Non-Final OA §112§DP
Filed
May 03, 2023
Priority
May 25, 2017 — continuation of 10/492,844 +1 more
Examiner
ZINK, AMANDA L
Art Unit
3794
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Channel Medsystems Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1m
Est. Remaining
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allowance Rate
573 granted / 673 resolved
+15.1% vs TC avg
Minimal +3% lift
Without
With
+2.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
8 currently pending
Career history
690
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.1%
-38.9% vs TC avg
§103
55.2%
+15.2% vs TC avg
§102
13.2%
-26.8% vs TC avg
§112
1.7%
-38.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 673 resolved cases

Office Action

§112 §DP
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 . Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The first paragraph of the specification should be amended to include updated patent information. Appropriate correction is required. 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 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 and 14 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 the limitation "probe" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner notes the applicant previously cited an elongate probe. Claim 14 recites the limitation "probe" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner notes the applicant previously cited an elongate probe. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,678,926. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present application and the previously patented invention are directed towards a treatment system and method comprising an elongate probe with an infusion lumen, a detachable infusion attachment, a liner expandably surrounding and unclosing the distal tip of the elongate probe, a base having a reservoir for cryoablative fluid, a controller, a power supply, electrical contacts to electrically couple to the base, a port configured to release cryoablative fluid to the reservoir with a seal, a manifold configure d to pierce the seal and provide passageway for the cryoablative fluid, a pressure sensor, pump, exhaust pump and temperature sensor and separate microprocessor (claims 2-13 and 15-20 of application are significantly similar in claim language to the patented invention). Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-28 of U.S. Patent No. 10,492,844. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present application and the previously patented invention are directed towards a treatment system and method comprising an elongate probe with an infusion lumen, a detachable infusion attachment, a liner expandably surrounding and unclosing the distal tip of the elongate probe, a base having a reservoir for cryoablative fluid, a controller, a power supply, electrical contacts to electrically couple to the base, a port configured to release cryoablative fluid to the reservoir with a seal, a manifold configure d to pierce the seal and provide passageway for the cryoablative fluid, a pressure sensor, pump, exhaust pump and temperature sensor and separate microprocessor Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA L ZINK whose telephone number is (571)270-7103. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-12 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, Joanne Hoffman can be reached at (303)297-4276. 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. /A.L.Z/Examiner, Art Unit 3794 /MICHAEL F PEFFLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 03, 2023
Application Filed
Jun 11, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12653606
APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR TUMOR ABLATION
1y 6m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Patent 12623067
Electroporation Delivery Systems and Methods of Using Electroporation Delivery Systems
3y 11m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12575879
METHODS, APPARATUSES, AND SYSTEMS FOR THE TREATMENT OF PULMONARY DISORDERS
3y 9m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12558170
GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACES FOR ABLATION SYSTEMS
4y 6m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12558157
APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR PULSED FIELD ABLATION INCLUDING COMPRESSIBLE ELECTRODES
1y 2m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
85%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+2.9%)
3y 3m (~1m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 673 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month