Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/393,789

APPARATUSES AND METHODS FOR TARGETED VAPORIZATION OF CRYOGEN

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Dec 22, 2023
Examiner
SHOULDERS, ANNIE LEE
Art Unit
3794
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Varian Medical Systems, Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 11m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
131 granted / 182 resolved
+2.0% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+18.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 11m
Avg Prosecution
52 currently pending
Career history
234
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
53.3%
+13.3% vs TC avg
§102
17.7%
-22.3% vs TC avg
§112
21.2%
-18.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 182 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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. Election/Restrictions 3. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-14 drawn to a cryoablation apparatus, in the reply filed on 12/04/2025 is acknowledged. 4. Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/04/2025. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 5. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 6. Claims 1-5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baust U.S. 2012/0059364 (herein referred to as “Baust”). 7. Regarding Claim 1, Baust teaches a cryoablation apparatus (Fig. 1, ref num 30) comprising: a. a Dewar (Fig. 1, ref num 6) configured to retain a volume of cryogen (para 0057, “The dewar 6 stores liquid cryogen”); and b. a heater assembly positioned in the Dewar (Fig. 1, ref num 44), the heater assembly comprising at least one heater configured to heat a targeted portion of the cryogen as the volume of the cryogen in the Dewar changes (para 0058, “an immersion heater 44 housed in the internal open chamber 42 heats the cryogen to create a desired pressure…when the heater is activated, it boils the nitrogen within the immediate area… liquid nitrogen is converted to supercritical nitrogen (SCN) within the pressurization apparatus. The SCN is then directed to the heat exchanger for subcooling and tuned to the liquid phase to attain an excess temperature”). 8. Regarding Claim 2, Baust teaches the target portion of the cryogen comprises a portion of the cryogen at or near a liquid level of the cryogen (para 0057, “dewar 6 is filled with liquid nitrogen… to a maximum level 13”). 9. Regarding Claim 3, Baust teaches the targeted portion of the cryogen comprises a portion within a predetermined distance from the liquid level of the cryogen (para 0058-0059, 0067, 0072). 10. Regarding Claim 4, Baust teaches the heater is configured to convert liquid nitrogen to cryogen vapor (para 0057-0059). 11. Regarding Claim 5, Baust teaches the heater assembly is coupled to a transfer conduit inside the Dewar (Fig. 1, ref num 44 is coupled to ref num 40 and 1). 12. Regarding Claim 14, Baust teaches the cryogen is Nitrogen (para 0057-0058). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 13. 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. 14. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baust and in view of DeLonzer U.S. 2007/0244474 (herein referred to as “DeLonzer”). 15. Regarding Claim 6, Baust fails to teach the heater assembly is coupled to a wall of the Dewar. DeLonzer teaches a cryoablation apparatus of analogous art (Fig. 7) wherein the apparatus comprises a Dewar (Fig. 7, ref num 3) and a heater assembly positioned in the Dewar (Fig. 7, ref num 7), such that the heater assembly is coupled to a wall of the Dewar (para 0031, “heater 7… may be disposed on the inside wall of the dewar”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the heater assembly coupled to a wall of the Dewar, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. 16. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baust and in view of Levin U.S. 2013/0103020 (herein referred to as “Levin”). 17. Regarding Claim 7, Baust fails to teach the heater assembly is coupled to a support bar in the Dewar. Levin teaches a cryoablation apparatus of analogous art (Fig. 2a), wherein the apparatus comprises a Dewar (Fig. 2a, ref num 10) and a heater assembly positioned in the Dewar (Fig. 2a, ref num 241). The heater assembly is coupled to a support bar in the Dewar (Fig. 2a, ref num 271 is coupled to shaft, ref num 271). This achieves the desired operation pressure within the Dewar (para 0070, “An electrical heater 271 is placed on the lower section of the feeding conduit 262; this allows achieving operation pressure in the internal space of the Dewar flask 101”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Baust to have the heater assembly coupled to a support bar in the Dewar in order achieve the desired pressure within the Dewar. 18. Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baust and in view of Duong U.S. 2014/0276706 (herein referred to as “Duong”). 19. Regarding Claim 8, while Baust fails to explicitly teach the heater assembly comprises a plurality of heaters, another embodiment of Baust teaches a plurality of heaters (Fig. 4, ref num 44; para 0074, “the chambers 40, each comprising an individual immersion heater 44”). The plurality of heaters enhances the heater assembly (para 0073). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first embodiment of Baust to include a plurality of heaters in order to enhance the heater assembly. Baust fails to teach that each of the plurality of heaters are positioned at different height levels to a base of the Dewar. Duong teaches a cryoablation apparatus of analogous art (Figs. 1, 4, and 7), wherein the apparatus comprises a heater assembly with a plurality of heaters (Fig. 7, ref num 154 having heaters, ref nums 168, 172), such that the heaters are each positioned at a different height relative to a base of a Dewar (Fig. 7, ref num 170 = Dewar; ref num 168 is higher compared to the bottom of ref num 170; para 0080, “the heat exchanger 168 is positioned at the neck of a Dewar 170”). This ensures that the cryogen is a gas as it exits the Dewar, above the liquid level of cryogen (Fig. 7, ref num 176 is above ‘liquid level’; para 0080). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Baust to have the plurality of heaters at different heights relative to the base of the Dewar in order to continue the heating process above the liquid level of the cryogen. 20. Regarding Claim 10, Baust fails to teach the at least one heater is positioned at a top of the Dewar. Duong teaches a cryoablation apparatus of analogous art (Figs. 1, 4, and 7), wherein the apparatus comprises a heater assembly (Fig. 7, ref num 154 having heaters, ref nums 168, 172), such that the heater is positioned at a top of the Dewar (Fig. 7, ref num 170 = Dewar; ref num 168 is higher compared to the bottom of ref num 170; para 0080, “the heat exchanger 168 is positioned at the neck of a Dewar 170”). This ensures that the cryogen is a gas as it exits the Dewar, above the liquid level of cryogen (Fig. 7, ref num 176 is above ‘liquid level’; para 0080). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Baust to have the heater positioned at a top of the Dewar in order to continue the heating process above the liquid level of the cryogen. 21. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baust. Regarding Claim 9, Baust teaches the heater is positioned inside an insulated enclosure in the Dewar (para 0057, “vacuum insulating dewar 6”; Fig. 1, ref num 44 is inside the insulated enclosure). While Baust fails to explicitly teach the heater assembly comprises a plurality of heaters, another embodiment of Baust teaches a plurality of heaters (Fig. 4, ref num 44; para 0074, “the chambers 40, each comprising an individual immersion heater 44”). The plurality of heaters enhances the heater assembly (para 0073). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first embodiment of Baust to include a plurality of heaters in order to enhance the heater assembly. Allowable Subject Matter 22. Claims 11-13 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. 23. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to specifically teach the heater being configured to move in the Dewar, further that it is slidably positioned on a shaft in the Dewar and configured to slide along the shaft as a liquid level of the cryogen in the Dewar changes, such that the heater comprises a float having a predetermined buoyancy that is configured to maintain the at least one heater at a predetermined position relative to the liquid level of the cryogen in the Dewar. Conclusion 24. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 22, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 08, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Apr 03, 2026
Interview Requested

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599428
ENERGY TREATMENT TOOL AND TREATMENT SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599761
Systems And Methods For Removing And Replacing Conductive Adhesive Layers Of An Electrode Array
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599765
SHIFTING OF TRANSDUCER ARRAY TO REDUCE SKIN IRRITATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12582457
BIPOLAR COMBINATION DEVICE THAT AUTOMATICALLY ADJUSTS PRESSURE BASED ON ENERGY MODALITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12569288
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR OPERATING A TOUCHSCREEN IN AN ELECTROSURGICAL GENERATOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+18.9%)
3y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 182 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow 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