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 .
Applicant’s amendments and comments, received February 23, 2026, have been fully considered by the examiner. The following is a complete response to the February 23, 2026 communication.
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 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brannan (2017/0319276).
Regarding claim 1, Brannan provides a microwave ablation probe system (Title) comprising a coolant delivery system (para. [0010]) to deliver a coolant to the ablation probe, a microwave generator (para. [0030]) and a computing system (100) in communication with a thermal sensor (TS) on the ablation probe to collect temperature data over time (para. [0046]) and determines the rate of temperature change over time (i.e. slope) and provides an indication of the probe being cooled (i.e. as represented by the slopes as seen in Figure 5).
Regarding claim 9, Brannan discloses the steps of activating a coolant delivery system and delivering microwave energy to a probe. Thermal sensors (TS) are used to measure the temperature of the probe over time and calculating a slope (i.e rate of change over time) of the temperature to compare to a preset slope value (para. [0046], 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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brannan (‘276) in view of the teaching of Burnside et al (6,511,478).
Brannan discloses the microwave ablation probe as addressed with respect to claim 1 above, but fails to expressly disclose the thermal sensor is provided on a flexible circuit. Brannan simply discloses the use of thermocouples located at various locations of the system including the coupling for the fluid inlet and outlet.
Burnside et al disclose another catheter system that includes a catheter for delivery of energy (e.g. microwave energy) for the heat treatment of tissue, the catheter including a plurality of thermocouples for detecting temperature at various locations along the catheter to control the delivery of energy to tissue. See, for example, Figure 2. In particular, Burnside et al teach that it is known to provide the thermocouples as wired components, or as a flexible circuit (210) along which the thermocouples are provided. See, for example, Figure 7 and associated description.
To have provided the Brannan probe with a flexible circuit assembly that carries the temperature sensors along the probe to monitor temperature would have been an obvious alternative design consideration for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention since Burnside et al fairly teach it is known to provide temperature sensors along a probe as either wired components (as is generally known) or as a flexible circuit that includes thermocouples disposed along the length of the probe.
Regarding claim 3, Burnside et al show the flexible circuit extending along the probe. Regarding claim 4, both Brannan and Burnside et al disclose the use of multiple temperature sensors.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brannan (‘276) in view of the teaching of Brannan (2016/0008069).
Brannan (‘276) discloses a coolant delivery system for the microwave probe, but fails to show and/or disclose any of the details of the coolant delivery system.
Brannan (‘069) disclose a substantially analogous microwave ablation system including a coolant delivery system, and specifically shows a conduit through the probe and a coupling for the inlet and outlet (see Figure 20 and paragraph [0089], for example).
To have provided the Brannan (‘276) system with the coolant delivery system taught by Brannan (‘069) to circulate the cooling through the probe as disclosed would have been an obvious modification for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention given that Brannan (‘069) show a coolant delivery system for an analogous microwave ablation probe.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brannan (‘276) in view of the teaching of Brannan (2016/0008069) and further in view of the teaching of Burnside et al (6,511,478).
Again, Brannan (‘276) fails to show the specific coupling and path for the coolant delivery system, but Brannon (‘069) shows the specifics of the coolant delivery system for an analogous microwave ablation probe.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Brannan (‘276) in view of Brannon (‘069) discloses a probe including an elongate shaft with a coupling attached to the shaft for connecting of the coolant delivery system (Figures 2, 8, 14 and 20, for example) including temperature sensors at the coupling (Figure 20). To have incorporated the Burnside et al flexible circuit in such a probe is deemed an obvious design consideration for one of ordinary skill in the art, particularly given that Burnside et al incorporate the flexible circuit within a similar catheter probe device.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brannan (‘276) further in view of the teaching of Cosman et al (9,717,552).
While Brannan (‘276) discloses the use of a temperature slope to monitor temperature for control of the delivery of energy and cooling fluid to a probe, there is no express step of troubleshooting the probe to verify coolant delivery based on the slope as required by these claims.
Cosman et al provide another probe device to deliver energy to tissue, that also delivers a cooling fluid to maintain desired temperature levels at the tissue site. In particular, Cosman et al teach that it is known to monitor the temperature and to perform a coolant check to verify sufficient coolant flow in the event the temperature drop is not consistent with expected results. See, for example, column 34, lines 35-65. As addressed previously, Brannan (‘276) discloses monitoring rate of change of temperature over time (i.e. slope) and thus measures positive and negative slopes of the temperature change. Incorporating the Cosman notion of verifying a rate of cooling into the Brannan (‘276) system would allow for the verifying of cooling based on the rate of change of temperature over time (i.e. slope).
To have provided the Brannan computer system and controller with a troubleshooting step to check temperature to verify that sufficient coolant is being delivered over a period of time during a procedure would have been an obvious modification for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention since Cosman et al fairly teach that such a temperature check and coolant delivery verification is known in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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/May 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights