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/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1 – 11, drawn to a catheter, classified in A61M 25/00.
II. Claims 12 – 20, drawn to an end effector, classified in A61B 5/6859.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because the combination does not recite that “the second length extending outwardly from the main senor probe at an angle in an unconstrained state” (as required by the subcombination, see claim 12). The subcombination has separate utility such as a paper weight.
The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter
the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Korbin Blunck on 09/22/2025 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group II, claims 12 – 20. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 1 – 11 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 12 – 17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gough (U.S. 5,735,847).
Regarding claim 12, Gough teaches an end effector (10, Figures 1 – 8) for a stabilized coronary sinus catheter, the end effector comprising:
a main sensor probe (primary antenna 14, Figure 1) comprising a plurality of main sensors (sensors 24 disposed on antenna 14 as shown in Figure 1, Col. 6, lines 35 – 54 discusses different type of sensors 25) disposed along a first length of the main sensor probe (as shown in Figure 3 and discussed in Col. 6, lines 23 – 34);
and a plurality of secondary sensor probes (secondary antennas 16, Figures 1 and 8), each comprising:
a second length shorter than the first length (length of primary antenna ablation surface is greater than the length of secondary electrode ablation surface as discussed in Col. 4, line 54 – Col. 5, line 4),
the second length extending outwardly from the main sensor probe at an angle in an unconstrained state (secondary antennas are laterally deployed from the primary antenna lumen as discussed in Col. 4, lines 49 – 51 and as shown in Figure 8);
and a secondary sensor disposed on a distal end of the second length (see sensor 24 at the distal end of secondary antennas 16 as shown in Figure 3).
Regarding claim 13, Gough teaches that the plurality of secondary sensor probes configured to bend inwardly toward the main sensor probe when inserted into a sheath (secondary antennas 16 are initially positioned in a primary antenna lumen as shown in Figure 1 prior to being deployed laterally from the primary antenna lumen as shown in Figure 8). Since the secondary antennas are deployed laterally from the primary antenna lumen and are parallel with the primary antenna lumen prior to being deployed, the secondary antennas are bent inwardly toward the primary antenna when inserted into a sheath (primary antenna lumen) relative to the deployed configuration.
Regarding claim 14, Gough teaches that the second length comprising a plurality of sub lengths (sub length can be defined as the length of secondary antennas 16 extending distal of sleeve 18), and a portion of the plurality of secondary sensor probes each have a different sub length (see Figure 1 showing secondary antennas 16 having different lengths distal of sleeve 18).
Regarding claim 15, Gough teaches a midline axis, the main sensor probe is disposed approximately along the midline axis (See Figure 1 showing primary antenna 14 extending along the center axis of device 10); and the plurality of secondary sensor probes are approximately parallel to the midline axis in an sheathed position (see Figure 1 showing secondary antennas 16 extending parallel to the center axis while prior to being deployed) and form an angle away from the midline axis in an unsheathed position (deployed laterally from the primary antenna lumen as shown in Figure 8 and discussed in Col. 4, lines 49 – 51).
Regarding claim 16, Gough teaches a secondary sensor probe angle formed between a secondary sensor probe and the midline axis (angle between secondary antennas 16 and primary antenna 14 as shown in Figure 8).
Regarding claim 17, Gough teaches that the secondary sensor probe angle between approximately 0 degree and approximately 90 degrees (secondary antenna can be deflected a few degrees from longitudinal axis of primary antenna 14 as discussed in Col. 7, lines 12 – 14).
Regarding claim 19, Gough teaches that the plurality of main sensors configured to detect electrophysiological signals (temperature or impedance data from sensors 24 as discussed in Col. 9, lines 44 – 45)
Regarding claim 20, Gough teaches that the plurality of main sensors configured to deliver ablative energy to tissue (primary antenna 14 and secondary antennas 16 have exterior ablation surface for delivering electromagnetic energy to target tissue as discussed in Col. 4, lines 54 – 56).
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.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gough (U.S. 5,735,847).
Regarding claim 18, Gough teaches claim 12 as seen above.
Gough further discloses that there is a wide variation in the amount of deflection of secondary antenna 16 such as a few degrees from the longitudinal axis of primary antenna 14 or any number of geometric configurations (Col. 14, lines 10 – 16).
However, Gough does not specify that the secondary sensor probe angle between approximately 0 degree and approximately 10 degrees
At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the secondary sensor probe angle between approximately 0 degree and approximately 10 degrees for the purpose of achieving a certain geometric configuration of the secondary sensor probe; further, applicant has not disclosed that having the secondary sensor probe angle between approximately 0 degree and approximately 10 degrees provides an advantage, solves any stated problem, or is critical.
Furthermore, absent a teaching as to criticality that the secondary sensor probe angle between approximately 0 degree and approximately 10 degrees, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH T BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-1028. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8 - 5.
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, Bhisma Mehta can be reached at (571) 272-3383. 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.
ANH T. BUI
Examiner
Art Unit 3783
/Anh Bui/Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/SCOTT J MEDWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights