DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 3, 2026 has been entered.
Currently, claims 1-15 and 17-26 are pending with claim 16 cancelled, claims 14-15 and 17-25 withdrawn, and claims 1 and 26 amended. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have obviated the previously-filed rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The following is a complete response to the March 3, 2026 communication.
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 § 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 2, 5 and 11 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.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites the limitation of “the cable”. Parent claim 1 recites both “a cable bundle” and “a power cable”. The Examiner is of the position that the recitation of “the cable” fails to have proper antecedent basis in the claims. The scope of claim 2 is further indefinite because it is unclear which of the cable bundle and the power cable the recitation of “the cable” refers to. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites the limitation of “the cable”. Parent claim 1 recites both “a cable bundle” and “a power cable”. The Examiner is of the position that the recitation of “the cable” fails to have proper antecedent basis in the claims. The scope of claim 5 is further indefinite because it is unclear which of the cable bundle and the power cable the recitation of “the cable” refers to. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites the limitation of “the cable”. Parent claim 1 recites both “a cable bundle” and “a power cable”. The Examiner is of the position that the recitation of “the cable” fails to have proper antecedent basis in the claims. The scope of claim 11 is further indefinite because it is unclear which of the cable bundle and the power cable the recitation of “the cable” refers to. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-12 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Cet (WO 2023/180355 A1) further in view of Ahrens et al. (US Pat. No. 6,346,671 B1).
Regarding claim 1, De Cet provides for a cable bundle (assembly 1) comprising a power cable configured to deliver a microwave signal from a microwave generator to an antenna (3 is power cable capable of delivering a signal),
a shell portion comprising an inner cavity wherein the power cable is positioned within the inner cavity (the shell formed of 5/7 with 2 placed therein),
a coolant conduit positioned adjacent the power cable (one of 6 or 8), and
a conductive layer positioned externally to the power cable and the coolant conduit (layer 7), and
one or more low-voltage wires (see at least col. 22; 18 providing for additional wiring; see page 31, lines 8-13 providing for “two electrical contacts 40 for connecting direct current (DC) lines” and that the number of DC lines can vary from 2-12 contact) configured to transfer signals that control at least the microwave signal from an ablation console of the microwave generator to the antenna (the wires/DC lines of De Cet are functionally capable of transferring the control signals as claimed; such a functional recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim).
While De Cet provides for the inner cavity of the shell to have a material therein (dielectric 4), De Cet fails to provide that such is one or more ribs wherein the one or more ribs project radially inward to maintain a shape of the power cable. Ahrens discloses a similar conductive device arrangement as that of De Cet and specifically provides for a power cable (1), a shell with an inner cavity therein (3) and one or more ribs that project radially inward to maintain a shape of the power cable (either one of helix 6 as in figure 4 or helix 9 as in figure 6). Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have utilized a rib-shaped dielectric as in Ahrens in place of the dielectric in De Cet to provide for a known alternative manner of separating the inner and outer conductor via a dielectric. Ahrens further provides that its dielectric arrangement provides for improved electrical properties and thermal resistance over conventional dielectric material arrangements (see at least col. 2; 1-12).
Regarding claim 2, De Cet provides that the conductive layer is in thermal communication with both the cable and the coolant conduit to conduct thermal energy from the cable to the coolant conduit (see either figure 1 or 3 with 2 and 6/8 in thermal communication with 7) .
Regarding claim 3, De Cet provides that the coolant conduit is configured to guide a flow of coolant through the cable bundle (via 6 being a fluid inlet and 8 being a fluid outlet).
Regarding claim 4, De Cet provides that the coolant conduit comprises a first coolant conduit (8) and the cable bundle further comprises a second coolant conduit (6), the first coolant conduit configured to guide coolant toward the antenna and the second coolant conduit configured to guide coolant away from the antenna (see page 23, 14-18).
Regarding claim 5, De Cet provides that the first coolant conduit, the second coolant conduit, and the cable each contact each other and contact the conductive layer (again, see either figures 1 or 3 with each of 6/8/3/4/5/27 being in thermal contact with one another and with 7).
Regarding claim 6, De Cet provides that the conductive layer comprises a plurality of braided fibers (see page 22, 19-22 providing for a braid 9).
Regarding claim 8, De Cet provides that the low-voltage wires are positioned inside the conductive layer (see at least col. 22; 18 providing for additional wiring).
Regarding claim 9, De Cet provides for an outer layer positioned externally to the conductive layer, the outer layer comprising an insulating material (outer hose 28).
Regarding claim 10, De Cet provides for a filler material positioned in one or more gaps between the coolant conduit and the conductive layer (see at least col. 22; 18 providing for additional wiring; such can be considered as a filler material in the gaps as claimed).
Regarding claim 11, De Cet provides for a console connector configured to electrically couple the cable to a microwave generator in a microwave ablation console (connector 31).
Regarding claim 12, De Cet provides that the coolant conduit is fluidly connected to a coolant cartridge configured to be received in a coolant port of a microwave ablation console (pigtail 32).
Regarding claim 26, De Cet provides for at least one coolant lumen (each of 6/8 contain a lumen therein with the claim term lumen taken as “the bore of a tube (as of a hollow needle or catheter)” per Merriam-Webster), wherein the at least one coolant lumen contains coolant and is configured to transfer heat from the power cable to the coolant (see at least page 22; lines 3-15 discussing the heat transfer effect between the cable 2 and each of 6/8 having a cooling fluid therein).
Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Cet (WO 2023/180355 A1) in view of Ahrens et al. (US Pat. No. 6,346,671 B1) as applied to claims 6 and 1 respectively above, and further in view of Dickhans et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2018/0036069 A1).
Regarding claim 7, while De Cet provides for a conductive braid including a plurality of braided fibers, but fails to specifically provide that such are formed from aluminum or copper fibers. Ahrens fails to cure this deficiency. Dickhans discloses a similar manner of constructing a microwave cable as that of De Cet and further provides for the construction of a conductive layer of the cable in the form of either braided aluminum or copper fibers (see [0078] with 120 being a copper braid). Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have utilized copper fibers as in Dickhans as the material for the conductive layer braid in De Cet to provide for a known conductive manner in the art to form a braided conductive layer in the prior art of microwave cable assemblies.
Regarding claim 13, De Cet, while having a cable bundle with a length, fails to specifically recite that the axial length of the bundle is at least 36 inches in length. Ahrens fails to cure this deficiency. Dickhans discloses a similar manner of constructing a microwave cable as that of De Cet and further provides for the construction of the cable assembly to have an axial length of at least 36 inches in length (see [0077] providing for a length in the range of 10-60 inches). Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have utilized an axial length of at least 36 inches as in Dickhans as the length of the cable assembly of De Cet to provide for a known coaxial length for a microwave cable assembly that is suitable for transmitting microwave energy to a transmitting portion on an electrosurgical device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8 of the Remarks filed March 3, 2026 with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as anticipated by De Cet have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, the amended version of claim 1 to require the shell, the inner cavity and the one or more radially inward projecting ribs define over the De Cet reference as noted on page 8 of the Remarks and as agreed to during the February 19, 2026 Interview. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, the following new grounds of rejection have been set forth in the action above:
Claims 1-6, 8-12 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Cet (WO 2023/180355 A1) further in view of Ahrens et al. (US Pat. No. 6,346,671 B1).
Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Cet (WO 2023/180355 A1) in view of Ahrens et al. (US Pat. No. 6,346,671 B1) as applied to claims 6 and 1 respectively above, and further in view of Dickhans et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2018/0036069 A1).
It is the Examiner’s position that the newly proffered rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on the combination of De Cet and Ahrens readily provide for each and every limitation set forth in claim 1 for at least the reasoning set forth in the action above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD HUPCZEY, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; 8 am - 4 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, 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.
/Ronald Hupczey, Jr./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights