Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/488,222

Electrode Support Structure Assembly

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Oct 17, 2023
Examiner
PREMRAJ, CATHERINE C
Art Unit
3794
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
St. Jude Medical
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
56%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
4y 4m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 56% of resolved cases
56%
Career Allow Rate
112 granted / 200 resolved
-14.0% vs TC avg
Strong +49% interview lift
Without
With
+49.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 4m
Avg Prosecution
57 currently pending
Career history
257
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
57.0%
+17.0% vs TC avg
§102
19.8%
-20.2% vs TC avg
§112
15.7%
-24.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 200 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/23/2025 has been entered. 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 . 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. 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. Claim(s) 1-7, 9-18, and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Just et al., (US 20130172715; hereinafter Just) in view of Kordis et al., (US 20020198522) and VanDusseldorp et al., (US 20030032953; hereinafter VanDusseldorp). Regarding claim 1, Just (Figures 1-2 and 6-7) discloses an electrophysiology electrode basket catheter (10), comprising: an elongate, deformable shaft (20) defining a longitudinal axis and comprising a proximal end and a distal end ([0036]); a basket electrode assembly (112) coupled to the distal end of the elongate shaft (20), the basket electrode assembly (112) having a proximal portion, a distal portion, and a plurality of support members (124) extending between the distal portion of the basket electrode assembly (112) and extending proximally to a proximal hub (44), ([0044], [0046]); and a plurality of mapping electrodes (54) spaced along plurality of support members (124), ([0052]), wherein the basket electrode assembly (112) transitions between a first (collapsed) configuration and a second (expanded) configuration during operation, wherein the first configuration is different from the second configuration ([0040]), wherein the basket electrode assembly (112) is configured to provide ablation therapy to a target tissue ([0052]). Just fails to disclose wherein distal portions of the support members are stacked at a distal tip in an axial direction along the longitudinal axis of the elongate shaft. However, Kordis (Figures 22-23) teaches an electrophysiology electrode basket catheter (10) comprising a basket electrode assembly (20), ([0073]-[0074]), with distal portions of the support members (22) stacked at a distal tip (24) in an axial direction along the longitudinal axis of the elongate shaft (40), ([0130]). It would have been obvious to substitute the distal portion configuration of the support members disclosed by Just with a stacked distal portion configuration of the support members, as taught by Kordis, since both distal portion configurations perform the same function of holding the support members together at the distal end of the device to form the shape of the basket electrode assembly, and it has been held that substituting parts of an invention which perform the same function involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.06 (II)(B). Just/Kordis fails to teach a central irrigation structure disposed within the basket electrode assembly and extending from the distal end of the elongate catheter shaft comprising a plurality of irrigation ports spaced along the central irrigation structure and along the longitudinal axis, wherein irrigation fluid is directed from the distal end of the elongate shaft and through the basket electrode assembly via the plurality of irrigation ports, wherein the central irrigation structure extends along the longitudinal axis. However, VanDusseldorp (Figure 8) teaches a basket catheter comprising a central irrigation structure (14) disposed within a basket assembly (110) and extending from the distal end of an elongate catheter shaft (12) comprising a plurality of irrigation ports (16) spaced along the central irrigation structure (14) and along the longitudinal axis, wherein irrigation fluid is directed from the distal end of the elongate shaft (12) and through the basket electrode assembly (110) via the plurality of irrigation ports (16), wherein the central irrigation structure (14) extends along the longitudinal axis ([0020]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Just/Kordis to include a central irrigation structure disposed within the basket electrode assembly and extending from the distal end of the elongate catheter shaft comprising a plurality of irrigation ports spaced along the central irrigation structure and along the longitudinal axis, wherein irrigation fluid is directed from the distal end of the elongate shaft and through the basket electrode assembly via the plurality of irrigation ports, wherein the central irrigation structure extends along the longitudinal axis, as taught by VanDusseldorp, because the modification would provide irrigation ports throughout the length of the central lumen (VanDusseldorp; [0020]) providing an overall distribution of irrigation fluid throughout the basket structure. Regarding claim 2, Just (Figures 1-2 and 6-7) further discloses an adjusting member (expander) for transitioning the basket electrode assembly (112) between the first configuration and the second configuration, wherein the first configuration is a collapsed arrangement, and the second configuration is an expanded arrangement, wherein the adjusting member (expander) transitions the basket electrode assembly (112) to a third configuration between the first configuration and the second configuration ([0010], [0040]). Regarding claim 3, Just (Figures 1-2 and 6-7) further discloses in the expanded arrangement, the plurality of electrodes (54) form a radial array of electrodes (54) in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis ([0040], [0052]). Regarding claim 4, Just (Figures 1-2 and 6-7) further discloses wherein each of the plurality of support members (124) includes a distal portion, a proximal portion, and an intermediate portion disposed between the distal portion and the proximal portion, wherein the plurality of electrodes (54) are disposed along the distal portion of each of the plurality of support members (124), ([0046], [0052]). Regarding claim 5, Just (Figures 1-2 and 6-7) further discloses wherein the intermediate portion of each of the plurality of support members (124) twists radially rotationally about the longitudinal axis during operation ([0046]). Regarding claim 6, Just (Figures 1-2 and 6-7) further discloses wherein the adjusting member (expander) is selectively and slidably moveable along the longitudinal axis ([0010], [0040]). Regarding claim 7, Just (Figures 1-2 and 6-7) further discloses wherein the adjusting member (expander) extends into and is slidably received within the elongate shaft (20), ([0010], [0040]). Regarding claim 9, Just (Figures 1-2 and 6-7) further discloses wherein the plurality of support members (124) are symmetric about the longitudinal axis in the first configuration and in the second configuration ([0040], [0046]). Regarding claim 10, Just (Figures 1-2 and 6-7) further discloses wherein the basket catheter (10) is an ablation catheter ([0052]). Regarding claim 11, Just (Figures 1-2 and 6-7) discloses a method for ablating target tissue within a heart of a patient to treat atrial fibrillation ([0004]), the method, comprising: advancing a sheath (delivery sheath) into cardiac vasculature of a body of a patient; advancing an electrophysiology electrode basket catheter (10) through the sheath (delivery sheath) and into the cardiac vasculature proximal to a target tissue ([0006], [0054]), the electrophysiology basket catheter (10) comprising: an elongate, deformable shaft (20) defining a longitudinal axis and comprising a proximal end and a distal end ([0036]); and a basket electrode assembly (112) coupled to the distal end of the elongate shaft (20) and having a proximal portion, a distal portion, and a plurality of support members (124) extending between the distal portion of the basket electrode assembly (112) and extending proximally to a proximal hub (44), ([0044], [0046]); and a plurality of mapping electrodes (54) spaced along the plurality of support members (124), ([0052]); transitioning the basket electrode assembly (112) from a first configuration to a second configuration during operation, wherein the first configuration is different from the second configuration ([0040]); and ablating the target tissue via the basket electrode assembly (112), ([0052]). Just fails to disclose wherein distal portions of the support members are stacked at a distal tip in an axial direction along the longitudinal axis of the elongate shaft. However, Kordis (Figures 22-23) teaches an electrophysiology electrode basket catheter (10) comprising a basket electrode assembly (20), ([0073]-[0074]), with distal portions of the support members (22) stacked at a distal tip (24) in an axial direction along the longitudinal axis of the elongate shaft (40), ([0130]). It would have been obvious to substitute the distal portion configuration of the support members disclosed by Just with a stacked distal portion configuration of the support members, as taught by Kordis, since both distal portion configurations perform the same function of holding the support members together at the distal end of the device to form the shape of the basket electrode assembly, and it has been held that substituting parts of an invention which perform the same function involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.06 (II)(B). Just/Kordis fails to teach a central irrigation structure disposed within the basket electrode assembly and extending from the distal end of the elongate catheter shaft comprising a plurality of irrigation ports spaced along the central irrigation structure and along the longitudinal axis, wherein irrigation fluid is directed from the distal end of the elongate shaft and through the basket electrode assembly via the plurality of irrigation ports, wherein the central irrigation structure extends along the longitudinal axis. However, VanDusseldorp (Figure 8) teaches a basket catheter comprising a central irrigation structure (14) disposed within a basket assembly (110) and extending from the distal end of an elongate catheter shaft (12) comprising a plurality of irrigation ports (16) spaced along the central irrigation structure (14) and along the longitudinal axis, wherein irrigation fluid is directed from the distal end of the elongate shaft (12) and through the basket electrode assembly (110) via the plurality of irrigation ports (16), wherein the central irrigation structure (14) extends along the longitudinal axis ([0020]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Just/Kordis to include a central irrigation structure disposed within the basket electrode assembly and extending from the distal end of the elongate catheter shaft comprising a plurality of irrigation ports spaced along the central irrigation structure and along the longitudinal axis, wherein irrigation fluid is directed from the distal end of the elongate shaft and through the basket electrode assembly via the plurality of irrigation ports, wherein the central irrigation structure extends along the longitudinal axis, as taught by VanDusseldorp, because the modification would provide irrigation ports throughout the length of the central lumen (VanDusseldorp; [0020]) providing an overall distribution of irrigation fluid throughout the basket structure. Regarding claim 12, Just (Figures 1-2 and 6-7) further discloses actuating an adjusting member (expander) to transition the basket electrode assembly (10) to a third configuration between the first configuration and the second configuration ([0010], [0040]). Regarding claim 13, Just (Figures 1-2 and 6-7) further discloses in the second configuration, the plurality of electrodes (54) form a radial array of electrodes (54) distributed over a flat surface ([0040], [0052]). Regarding claim 14, Just (Figures 1-2 and 6-7) further discloses wherein the plurality of electrodes (54) are disposed along a distal portion of each of the plurality of support members (124), ([0046], [0052]). Regarding claim 15, Just (Figures 1-2 and 6-7) further discloses wherein the adjusting member (expander) extends into and is slidably received within the elongate shaft (20), ([0010], [0040]). Regarding claim 16, Just (Figures 1-2 and 6-7) further discloses wherein transitioning the basket electrode assembly (10) from the first configuration to the second configuration includes moving intermediate portions of the plurality of support members (124) in an axial direction ([0040], [0046]). Regarding claim 17, Just (Figures 1-2 and 6-7) further discloses wherein transitioning the basket electrode assembly (112) from the first configuration to the second configuration includes radially rotationally twisting the plurality of support members (214) about the longitudinal axis during operation ([0046]). Regarding claim 18, Just (Figures 1-2 and 6-7) further discloses wherein the adjusting member (expander) is selectively and slidably moveable along the longitudinal axis ([0010], [0040]). Regarding claim 20, Just (Figures 1-2 and 6-7) further discloses ablating tissue with the electrophysiology electrode basket catheter (10) to treat atrial fibrillation ([0004], [0052]). Regarding claim 21, Just (Figures 1-2 and 6-7) discloses an electrophysiology electrode basket catheter (10), comprising: an elongate, deformable shaft (20) defining a longitudinal axis and comprising a proximal end and a distal end ([0036]); a basket electrode assembly (112) coupled to the distal end of the elongate shaft (20), the basket electrode assembly (112) having a proximal portion, a distal portion, and a plurality of support members (124) extending between the distal portion of the basket electrode assembly (112) and extending proximally to a proximal hub (44), ([0044], [0046]); and a plurality of mapping electrodes (54) spaced along the plurality of support members (124), ([0052]), wherein the basket electrode assembly (112) is configured to provide ablation therapy to a target tissue ([0052]). Just fails to disclose wherein distal portions of the support members are stacked at a distal tip in an axial direction along the longitudinal axis of the elongate shaft. However, Kordis (Figures 22-23) teaches an electrophysiology electrode basket catheter (10) comprising a basket electrode assembly (20), ([0073]-[0074]), with distal portions of the support members (22) stacked at a distal tip (24) in an axial direction along the longitudinal axis of the elongate shaft (40), ([0130]). It would have been obvious to substitute the distal portion configuration of the support members disclosed by Just with a stacked distal portion configuration of the support members, as taught by Kordis, since both distal portion configurations perform the same function of holding the support members together at the distal end of the device to form the shape of the basket electrode assembly, and it has been held that substituting parts of an invention which perform the same function involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.06 (II)(B). Just/Kordis fails to teach a central irrigation structure disposed within the basket electrode assembly and extending from the distal end of the elongate catheter shaft comprising a plurality of irrigation ports spaced along the central irrigation structure and along the longitudinal axis, wherein irrigation fluid is directed from the distal end of the elongate shaft and through the basket electrode assembly via the plurality of irrigation ports, wherein the central irrigation structure extends along the longitudinal axis. However, VanDusseldorp (Figure 8) teaches a basket catheter comprising a central irrigation structure (14) disposed within a basket assembly (110) and extending from the distal end of an elongate catheter shaft (12) comprising a plurality of irrigation ports (16) spaced along the central irrigation structure (14) and along the longitudinal axis, wherein irrigation fluid is directed from the distal end of the elongate shaft (12) and through the basket electrode assembly (110) via the plurality of irrigation ports (16), wherein the central irrigation structure (14) extends along the longitudinal axis ([0020]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Just/Kordis to include a central irrigation structure disposed within the basket electrode assembly and extending from the distal end of the elongate catheter shaft comprising a plurality of irrigation ports spaced along the central irrigation structure and along the longitudinal axis, wherein irrigation fluid is directed from the distal end of the elongate shaft and through the basket electrode assembly via the plurality of irrigation ports, wherein the central irrigation structure extends along the longitudinal axis, as taught by VanDusseldorp, because the modification would provide irrigation ports throughout the length of the central lumen (VanDusseldorp; [0020]) providing an overall distribution of irrigation fluid throughout the basket structure. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments filed 12/23/2025, with regard to the newly filed amendments of independent claims 1, 11, and 21 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection(s) has/have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is/are made in view of newly found prior art reference VanDusseldorp, which teaches a basket catheter comprising a central irrigation structure disposed within the basket electrode assembly and extending from the distal end of the elongate catheter shaft comprising a plurality of irrigation ports spaced along the central irrigation structure and along the longitudinal axis, wherein irrigation fluid is directed from the distal end of the elongate shaft and through the basket electrode assembly via the plurality of irrigation ports, wherein the central irrigation structure extends along the longitudinal axis. In combination with Just/Kordis, the modified device teaches the invention as recited at least in the amended claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE PREMRAJ whose telephone number is (571)272-8013. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00 AM - 5:00 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. /C.C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3794 /EUN HWA KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 17, 2023
Application Filed
May 17, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jul 24, 2024
Interview Requested
Aug 12, 2024
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Aug 20, 2024
Response Filed
Aug 25, 2024
Examiner Interview Summary
Dec 02, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Feb 06, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 04, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 06, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 20, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jun 26, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 21, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 15, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Dec 23, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 26, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 19, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594035
ORAL APPLIANCE FOR THE TREATMENT OF SLEEP APNEA
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12564438
ENERGIZED CORERS WITH POWERED CONVEYING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12558153
PULMONARY VEIN ISOLATION GAP FINDER
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12558154
BALLOON CATHETER HAVING ABLATION AND RETURN ELECTRODES
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12544169
SURGICAL INSTRUMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
56%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+49.4%)
4y 4m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 200 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month