DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendments and remarks, filed June 25, 2026, are fully acknowledged by the Examiner. Currently, claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 11-15, 17-25 and 27 are pending with claim 27 newly added, claims 14, 15 and 17-25 withdrawn, claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 11 and 12 amended, and claims 2, 5-8, 10, 16 and 26 cancelled. 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 June 25, 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 § 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, 3, 4, 9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rudie et al. (US Pat. No. 6,496,737 B2) further in view of Grundy et al. (US Pat. No. 5,603,697).
Regarding claim 1, Rudie provides for a cable bundle comprising:
a power cable configured to deliver a microwave signal from a microwave generator to an antenna (57);
an integral shell portion (shaft 32, see figure 3) defining:
a power cable opening, wherein the power cable is positioned within the inner cavity power cable opening (70 where 57 is placed within 70),
a coolant supply lumen disposed adjacent to the power cable opening (80), and
and a coolant return lumen disposed adjacent to the power cable opening and the coolant supply lumen (78).
While Rudi provides for the inclusion of a temperature sensing lumen (72) such is disclosed as containing temperature sensing fibers and not the claimed one or more low-voltage wires configured to transfer signals that control at least the microwave signal from an ablation console of the microwave generator to the antenna. Grundy discloses a similar device as that of Rudie and specifically provides for temperature sensing to be accomplished either with fibers (as in Rudie) or with a plurality of wires (65 as in col. 4; 45-55). 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 wires as in Grundy in place of the fibers for sensing temperature along the at the distal end of the cable bundle. Grundy readily establishes that the use of either arrangement functions equally as well as one another rand with a reasonable expectation of success. The Examine is further of the position that such wire can provide signals to control an exemplary microwave signal as required in the claim.
Regarding claim 3, Rudie provides that the coolant supply lumen is configured to guide a flow of coolant through the cable bundle (via 80 functioning to direct fluid to the distal end of the bundle).
Regarding claim 4, Rudie provides that the coolant supply lumen is configured to guide coolant away from the antenna (via 80 functioning to direct fluid to the distal end of the bundle) and the coolant return lumen is configured to guide coolant away from the antenna ( via 78 functioning to direct fluid back to the proximal end of the bundle).
Regarding claim 9, Rudie provides for an outer layer positioned externally to the integral shell portion, the outer layer comprising an insulating material (balloon material 58 is external to 32 and formed of a insulative material such as a thermoplastic film).
Regarding claim 11, Rudie provides for a console connector configured to electrically couple the power cable to a microwave generator in a microwave ablation console (67).
Regarding claim 12, Rudie provides that the coolant supply lumen is fluidly connected to a coolant cartridge configured to be received in a coolant port of a microwave ablation console (coupled to 36 via the coolant portion at 46 through 60B/65A).
Regarding claim 13, Rudie is silent with respect to the cable bundle having an axial length of at least 36 inches in length. Grundy provides for an exemplary sizing of approximately one meter (see col. 3; 66-67). Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position to provide the cable bundle of Rudie with an exemplary length of 36 inches in view of the general direction and sizing set forth in Grundy. The Examiner is further of the position that the selection of a length of 36 inches would have been an obvious consideration to one of ordinary skill given that such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rudie et al. (US Pat. No. 6,496,737 B2) in view of Grundy et al. (US Pat. No. 5,603,697) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cao et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2020/0197089 A1).
Regarding claim 27, neither Rudie nor Grundy provides that the shell portion comprises one or more ribs projecting radially inward into at least one of the coolant supply lumen and the coolant return lumen. Cao provides for a similar arrangement as each of Rudie and Grundy and specifically provides for one or more inwardly projecting ribs in either one or both of the coolant supply lumen and coolant return lumen (see figure 3 with the ribs within a coolant flow channel; see [0004]). Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide inwardly projecting surface modifications to one or both of the coolant lumens of Rudie in view of the teaching of Cao to provide for an exemplary manner of providing an increase in surface area for fluid to contact when passing through each lumen. Such would provide greater heat transfer in a desired direction within the probe to more effectively cool the device in use (see [0043 of Cao).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-9 of the Remarks filed June 25, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over the combination of De Cet and Ahrens have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, and as agreed to during the June 24, 2026 Interview, neither De Cet nor Ahrens provide for the integral shell portion defining each of the power cable opening, the coolant supply lumen and the coolant return lumen. Therefore, the prior rejections based on the combination of De Cet and Ahrens have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, the following new grounds of rejection have been set forth in the action above:
Claims 1, 3, 4, 9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rudie et al. (US Pat. No. 6,496,737 B2) further in view of Grundy et al. (US Pat. No. 5,603,697).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rudie et al. (US Pat. No. 6,496,737 B2) in view of Grundy et al. (US Pat. No. 5,603,697) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cao et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2020/0197089 A1).
It is for at least the reasoning set forth in the action above that the Examiner finds that each of the new proffered rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are 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 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