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 .
Response Filed
Applicant’s response, filed January 29, 2026, has been entered and made of record.
Previously Set Forth Rejections
All of the prior art rejections set forth in the previous Office action (mailed November 4, 2026) are hereby withdrawn.
The following new grounds of rejection are set forth:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9, 10 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gutbrod et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0369341).
In regard to claims 1-7, 9, 10 and 15-18, Gutbrod et al. teach a system for performing electroporation ablation of target tissue in a chamber of a patient’s heart (see Fig. 1 and para. 0052) comprised of: a catheter including an electrode assembly having a plurality of electrodes (see Figs. 2A and 2B) wherein the catheter is adapted to position the electrode assembly at a plurality of locations proximate the target tissue (see Figs. 2 and 4A-D); a graphical display (see Fig. 1); a controller (see Fig. 1 and para. 0056) where the controller is configured to: generate, on the graphical display, a graphical representation of the electrode assembly (see Figs. 4A-D and 5); generate, on the graphical display, a graphical representation of a model of electric fields generated in response to delivery of pulsed electrical signals to selected ones of the plurality of electrodes (see Figs. 4A-D and para. 0089); prior to delivery of the pulsed electrical signals to the selected ones of the plurality of electrodes at each of the plurality of locations, generate, on an anatomical map of the heart on the graphical display, a predicted lesion zone corresponding to an intersection of the model of electric fields and a surface of the anatomical map (see Figs. 4A-D and para. 0098); and after or concurrently with delivery of the pulsed electrical signals to the selected ones of the plurality of electrodes at each of the plurality of locations, automatically annotate the anatomical map on the graphical display by applying an ablation marker based on the predicted lesion zone corresponding to each of the plurality of locations (see Fig. 4D (430), paras. 102 and 111 and claims 7 and 14). With further respect to claim 9, the system is configured to display overlap between a previously ablated zone and a predicted new ablation zone (see claim 7).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 8 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gutbrod et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0369341) in view of in view of Asconeguy et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0401146).
In regard to claims 8 and 20, Gutbrod et al. are silent as to the system being configured for selective delivery of monopolar and bipolar energy. However, Asconeguy et al. teach a similar ablation device that can deliver energy in a monopolar mode or a bipolar mode (see para. 0107). Asconeguy et al. demonstrates that ablation devices that are configured for selective delivery of monopolar and bipolar energy are well known and desirable in the art. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the ablation device 110 of Viswanathan with the ability to delivery energy in both monopolar and bipolar modes, in the manner disclosed by Asconeguy et al. Furthermore, since Gutbrod et al. recognize the desirability of marking or labeling different expected ablation zones and actual ablation zones (see above) it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to make the device of Gutbrod et al. generate the expected ablation zones and actual ablation zones differently depending upon the type of energy being utilized.
Claim(s) 11-14 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gutbrod et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0369341) in view of in view of Viswanathan (U.S. Patent No. 10,842,572).
In regard to claims 11-14 and 19, Gutbrod et al. are silent as to annotating strings of overlap zones and identifying gaps on the graphical display. However, Viswanathan teaches a similar electroporation system 100 that includes a mapping system 140 that includes a processor 142 and an input/output device 148 (see Fig. 1B) where Viswanathan teaches placement of expected ablation zones that overlap adequately with previous ablated zones and gaps and the marking of such zones (see Fig. 12 and col. 18, lines 42-67). Viswanathan thus demonstrates that annotating strings of overlap zones and identifying gaps on the graphical display was well known in the art. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Gutbrod et al. with the ability to annotate strings of overlap zones and identifying gaps on the graphical display, in the manner disclosed by Viswanathan, in order to provide enhanced planning and execution of the ablation procedure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed January 29, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under Viswanathan have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as set forth above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BEVERLY MEINDL FLANAGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4766. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30AM to 5:00PM.
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.
/BEVERLY M FLANAGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794