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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bezalel et al (US 2021/0187287) in view of Chang et al (US 2015/0088050).
Regarding claim 1, Bezalel discloses a device for vacuum-assisted in vivo electroporation of tissue, comprising: a housing 112 defining a receptacle 114 and at least one opening into the receptacle (fig 1); at least one port 115 extending through the housing, wherein the at least one port is remote from the at least one opening and is connectable to a vacuum source (fig 1; ¶28), such that the at least one port is configured to communicate vacuum pressure from the vacuum source to the receptacle (¶28); a plurality of electrodes 118 positioned within the chamber (¶32).
While Bezalel substantially discloses the invention as claimed, it does not disclose an insert receivable within the receptacle, the insert defining an internal chamber that is in communication with the vacuum source when the insert is received in the receptacle, the insert including: a plurality of electrodes positioned within the chamber, wherein the plurality of electrodes are configured to deliver one or more electroporation pulses to a targeted portion of tissue extending through the at least one opening and at least momentarily held in the chamber responsive to the vacuum pressure.
Chang discloses a plurality of inserts (fig 16; different inserts with different apertures 634) receivable within the receptacle (fig 17), the insert defining an internal chamber that is in communication with the vacuum source when the insert is received in the receptacle (fig 17, arrows leading to 659). The different inserts allow for different types of tips to be used as needed/desired (¶134).
One of ordinary skill in the art when viewing Bezalel in view of Chang would be motivated to provide a variety of different inserts with a variety of different electrode arrangements to allow for different electroporation patterns, as desired.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Bezalel such that it comprises an insert receivable within the receptacle, the insert defining an internal chamber that is in communication with the vacuum source when the insert is received in the receptacle, the insert including: a plurality of electrodes positioned within the chamber, wherein the plurality of electrodes are configured to deliver one or more electroporation pulses to a targeted portion of tissue extending through the at least one opening and at least momentarily held in the chamber responsive to the vacuum pressure as suggested by Chang to allow for different arrangements of electrodes to be chosen, depending on the area/surface to be treated.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is allowed.
The examiner did not find a teaching or suggestion for modifying closest art Bezalel such that the plurality of inserts define different respective chamber diameters, in addition to the other limitations. Chang (see above) discloses a suggestion for different tip/insert types, but it is seen as impermissible hindsight to use its teachings for different sized inserts.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY JAMES OSINSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3640. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 9AM to 5PM.
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, Michael Tsai can be reached at (571)270-5246. 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.
/BRADLEY J OSINSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights