DETAILED ACTION
Currently, claims 1-8 and 10-13 are being examined, while the remaining claims have been canceled/withdrawn.
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 Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, “bad” should be replaced with -band-. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the ablation probe configured for the operating frequency”. However, there is insufficient support for this specific claim language in the specification. Appropriate correction is required.
It should be noted that all other cited claims have been rejected for being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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 1-8 and 10-13 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.
Claim 1 is found to be indefinite because Examiner is unsure of what is meant by the limitation “the ablation probe configured for the operating frequency,” which renders the scope of the claim unclear.
Claim 2 is found to be indefinite because it recites the limitation “determine the operating frequency based on the length of the radiating portion” which appears to contradict the parent claim (since this length is now fixed). This renders the scope of the claim unclear.
It should be noted that all other cited claims have been rejected for being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rossetto, U.S. 9,173,706 (hereinafter Rossetto).
Regarding claim 1, Rossetto discloses (note paragraphs 6-7B) an energy delivery system comprising: a generator (14) configured to generate an electrical signal having a ‘predetermined’ (necessarily) operating frequency for an ablation operation; and an ablation probe (112) coupled to the generator and configured to receive the electrical signal from the generator, the ablation probe configured for the operating frequency (as best understood) and including: a flexible body portion (note col. 2, line 49) including an inner conductor (150), an outer conductor (158), and a dielectric (152) between the inner and outer conductors; and a radiating portion (170) ‘electrically coupled’ to the inner conductor, the radiating portion capable of being configured to radiate energy received from the electrical signal to provide a circular ablation zone (note col. 1, line 43; col. 6, lines 10-46), the radiating portion having a fixed length between 0.35 and 0.65 times an operating wavelength (note col. 5, line 20), the operating wavelength necessarily being dependent on the operating frequency of the electrical signal.
Regarding claims 4-5, Rossetto discloses (see above) an energy delivery system wherein the operating wavelength corresponds to the claimed operating frequency (note col. 5, lines 6).
Regarding claim 7, Rossetto discloses (see above) an energy delivery system wherein radiating portion is an extension of the inner conductor that is not surrounded by the outer conductor (note fig. 7B).
Regarding claim 8, Rossetto discloses (see above) an energy delivery system wherein the flexible body portion and the radiating portion comprises a coaxial cable (note col. 2, line 64).
Regarding claim 10, Rossetto discloses (see above) an energy delivery system further comprising: a fluid cooling system (note col. 2, line 43; col. 4, line 21) including one or more cooling conduits extending along the flexible body portion and providing inlet flow (via ‘86’); and an outer jacket enclosing the flexible body portion, the radiating portion, and the one or more cooling conduits in an interior thereof, the interior configured to be filled with saline (note col. 4, line 21) from the one or more cooling conduits and providing a conduit for outlet flow (to ‘88’).
Regarding claim 11, Rossetto discloses (see above) an energy delivery system wherein the ablation probe further comprises a ‘cap structure’ (180a) necessarily ‘encompassing’ (i.e., partially defining) the radiating portion.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossetto in view of Kroll, U.S. 9,987,485 (hereinafter Kroll).
Regarding claim 2, Rossetto discloses (see above) an energy delivery system comprising a generator that generates the electrical signal at the operating frequency. However, Rossetto fails to explicitly disclose a processor coupled to the generator, wherein the processor controls the generator and is configured to determine the operating frequency based on the length of the radiating portion and a speed of a radiated wave in a tissue of interest for the ablation operation. Kroll teaches (as best understood) a similar apparatus having a processor/controller configured to determine the operating frequency based on the length of the radiating portion (i.e., lead) and a speed of a radiated wave in a tissue of interest (note col. 5, line 6). It is well known in the art that the use of a processor/controller would result in increased safety and efficiency. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have modified the system of Rossetto to comprise a processor coupled to the generator for controlling the generator and determining the operating frequency based on the length of the radiating portion and a speed of a radiated wave in a tissue of interest for the ablation operation in order to increase safety and efficiency.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossetto in view of Hancock, U.S. 11,344,367 (hereinafter Hancock).
Regarding claim 3, Rossetto discloses (see above) an energy delivery system where the ablation probe necessarily provides a reflectivity. However, Rossetto fails to explicitly disclose that the reflectivity is equal to or less than -10 dB. Hancock teaches a similar system (see abstract) comprising an ablation probe that provides a reflectivity that is equal to or less than -10 dB (note col. 3, line 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have modified the system of Rossetto to comprise an ablation probe that provides a reflectivity that is equal to or less than -10 dB (as taught by Hancock). This is because this modification would have merely comprised a simple substitution with known parameter values in order to produce a predictable (and desirable) result.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossetto.
Regarding claim 6, Rossetto discloses (see above) an energy delivery system wherein the radiating portion is an extension of the inner conductor. However, Rossetto fails to explicitly disclose that the radiating portion is separate from the inner conductor and attached thereto. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have constructed the energy delivery system in this manner (i.e., multiple attached components instead of a single integral component), since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossetto in view of Kim, U.S. 2011/0238055 (hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 12, Rossetto discloses (see above) an energy delivery system comprising a flexible body portion, a radiating portion, and a cap structure. However, Rossetto fails to explicitly disclose a barrier encompassing these components. Kim teaches (note figs. 3-8) a similar apparatus comprising a flexible body portion (note paragraph 41), a radiating portion (portion of inner conductor ‘210’ that extends distally beyond outer conductor ‘260/660’), and a cap structure (351), and further comprising a barrier (322) encompassing these components. It is well known in the art that this insulative barrier configuration (note paragraph 65) would minimize unwanted electrical currents, thereby resulting in increased safety. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have modified the system of Rossetto to comprise a barrier encompassing the flexible body portion, the radiating portion, and the cap structure (as taught by Kim) in order to increase safety.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossetto in view of Kasevich, U.S. 6,233,490 (hereinafter Kasevich).
Regarding claim 13, Rossetto discloses (see above) an energy delivery system comprising a generator and an ablation probe, but fails to explicitly disclose an impedance matching device electrically coupled between the generator and the ablation probe to adjust reflected power to the generator. Kasevich teaches a similar system comprising a generator, an energy delivery probe, and an impedance matching device electrically coupled therebetween (note col. 2, line 21). This design has been utilized to “maximize power transfer therebetween” (note col. 2, line 21), thereby resulting in increased efficiency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have modified the system of Rossetto to comprise an impedance matching device electrically coupled between the generator and the ablation probe in order to maximize power transfer and increase efficiency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 31, 2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s arguments concerning the ‘fixed length’ of Rossetto, Examiner respectfully disagrees. More specifically, Examiner maintains that the cited claims have been met by Rossetto as they are currently written, due to the breadth of limitations such as “radiating portion” (see above rejections for updated interpretation). Regarding Applicant’s arguments concerning the ‘circular ablation zone’ of Rossetto, Examiner respectfully disagrees. More specifically, Examiner maintains that Rossetto would be capable of providing a circular ablation zone (note col. 6, lines 10-34) when it applies microwave energy at a single high frequency (note col. 1, line 43; col. 6, line 35). Therefore, Examiner asserts that the claims are still met in view of the cited references (as can be seen above).
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 THOMAS ANTHONY GIULIANI whose telephone number is (571)270-3202. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00-5:00.
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, Joanne Rodden can be reached at 303-297-4276. 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.
/THOMAS A GIULIANI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights