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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The numerous references cited on the Information Disclosure Statements have been afforded a cursory review, similar to what would be expected of a classification search of the prior art. Should there be any references of particular relevance to the instant application claims, applicant is respectfully requested to identify such references for further review by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 11, 12, 19, 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cosman, Jr. et al (2017/0049513).
Regarding claim 11, Cosman Jr. et al provide the method steps of delivering an impedance measurement signal to an energy delivery electrode (i.e. E1-E4) and a dispersive electrode (GP), and measure a voltage between the energy delivery electrode and another electrode (i.e. reference electrode) and monitoring an impedance based on the current of the impedance measurement signal and the voltage between an energy delivery electrode and a reference electrode. See, for example, paragraph [0113] which states that various parameters (e.g. impedance) may be derived from the various electrodes, and specifically teach that the voltage between individual electrodes may also be measured.
Regarding claim 12, the current of the impedance may be measured (para. [0113] and [0125]). Regarding claim 19, Cosman, Jr. et al disclose the use of a pulsed electric field (para. [0110], for example). Regarding claim 20, the signal is an RF signal (para. [0110]). Regarding claim 22, Cosman Jr et al provide a controller having a processor (para. [0077], for example).
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.
Claims 13-15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cosman, Jr. et al (‘513) in view of the teaching of Lorenzo et al (2021/0023362).
Regarding claims 13-15, Cosman, Jr. et al fail to disclose impedance measurements at low and high frequencies as recited, as well as the delivery of an impedance measurement signal prior to treatment to determine a baseline impedance, and using the baseline impedance with post treatment impedance to determine the effect of treatment on target tissue.
Lorenzo et al disclose another system that delivers pulsed RF energy to treat tissue, and monitors impedance to control the delivery of energy and determine the effects of treating tissue. In particular, Lorenzo et al disclose the use of both high frequency and low frequency impedance measurement signals to determine “saturation” and assure accurate impedance measurement. The impedance measurement signals may be provided prior to treatment to determine a baseline, and that baseline may be used with post-treatment measurement signals to determine the change in tissue state. See, for example, paragraphs [0104-0108].
To have provided the Cosman, Jr et al system with means to monitor high and low frequency impedance signals and determine a baseline impedance prior to treatment to determine tissue changes post treatment would have been an obvious modification for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention since Lorenzo et al fairly teach it is known to use such an impedance measurement scheme in an analogous RF treatment device.
Regarding claim 21, see Lorenzo et al discussion of monitoring impedance and various time points to determine the final result of the tissue state (para. [0106], for example).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 are allowed. The prior art fails to disclose the specific impedance and voltage measurement functions required by these claims.
Claims 16-18 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 11, 2026 with regard to claims 11-15 and 19-22 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that Cosman fails to disclose the step of monitoring an impedance of the target tissue based on a current of the impedance measurement signal and the voltage between the energy delivery electrode and a reference electrode. The examiner disagrees. Paragraph [0133] of Cosman expressly states that various different parameters may be measured, including impedance by dividing a voltage measurement by a current measurement. Cosman also expressly states that a voltage may be measured between two different electrodes (i.e. E1-E4). Hence, Cosman make clear that an impedance may be determined as a parameter based on a current (e.g. the current delivered to an active electrode) divided by a voltage measurement between two electrodes, as well as impedance measured at individual electrodes. As such, the examiner maintains that Cosman continues to anticipate the claims as rejected. Applicant has not substantively argued the obviousness rejections and the examiner maintains those rejections remain tenable.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL PEFFLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4770. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 am-5 pm.
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.
/MICHAEL F PEFFLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/M.F.P/April 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights