DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/24/2026 has been entered.
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 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) 82-85, 87, and 90-103 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheib (US 7,575,566) in view of Stewart et al. (US 2002/0022839).
Scheib discloses an ablation catheter (Fig. 1) for treating atrial arrhythmia, comprising: an elongate proximal shaft (14); and a distal ablation probe (17), which comprises: an elongate distal shaft (17) that includes a first tubular portion, a second tubular portion, and a tubular connecting end portion that connects the first and second tubular portions; and ablation electrodes (col. 5, lines 34-47), which are configured to ablate an atrial wall of a heart (col. 1, lines 54-67), and wherein, when the distal ablation probe is unconstrained: the first and the second tubular portions are straight and the tubular connecting end portions is entirely curved (Figs. 4-5), the first tubular portion runs alongside the second tubular portion (Figs. 4-5), the ablation catheter defines a curved portion that connects a proximal end of the first tubular portion to a distal end of the elongate proximal shaft (Figs. 4-5), and a central longitudinal axis of the first tubular portion intersects and forms an axis-axis angle with a central longitudinal axis of the elongate proximal shaft that passes through the distal end of the elongate proximal shaft (Fig. 6), the axis-axis angle between 45 and 90 degrees (Fig. 6, col. 3, lines 52-55). Scheib discloses the subject matter substantially as claimed except for the ablation electrodes are arranged in at least one straight line. However, Stewart et al. teaches in the same field of endeavor a plurality of spaced apart electrodes (26; [0036]) to create an ablated lesion pattern ([0044]; Figs. 1C-1D and 3D). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted one electrode for another as a substitution of parts is well within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, the Examiner notes that a duplication of parts (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)), a rearrangement of parts (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)), or change in shape (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)) are also well within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claims 83-85, Scheib discloses wherein the axis-axis angle is 90 degrees (Fig. 6, col. 3, lines 52-55).
With respect to claim 87, Scheib discloses the subject matter substantially as claimed except for wherein the distal ablation probe is unconstrained, the proximal end of the first tubular portion is located at a location along the first tubular portion at a distance from a distal endpoint of the first tubular portion, the distance equal to between 40% and 60% of a length of the second tubular portion. However, Stewart et al. teaches in the same field of endeavor a shape wherein the proximal end of the first tubular portion is located at a location along the first tubular portion at a distance from a distal endpoint of the first tubular portion, the distance equal to between 40% and 60% of a length of the second tubular portion (Figs. 1C-1D). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Scheib with the shape as taught by Stewart et al. as a change in shape is well within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)).
With respect to claim 90, Scheib discloses wherein the first and second tubular portions are coplanar when the distal ablation probe is unconstrained (Fig. 6).
With respect to claim 91, Scheib discloses wherein the first and the second tubular portions are parallel to each other when the distal probe is unconstrained (Figs. 4 and 6).
With respect to claims 92-94, Scheib discloses the subject matter substantially as claimed except for the length and distance of the tubular portion. However, Scheib discloses shape memory material (col. 4, lines 1-5) and the region can comprise more than one loop or circle (col. 3, line 49-51). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the shape of Scheib as a change in shape and size is well within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A and B)).
With respect to claim 95, Scheib discloses wherein the distal ablation probe comprises one or more sensing electrodes (col. 5, lines 34-47).
With respect to claim 96, Scheib discloses a shape memory (col. 4, lines 1-5).
With respect to claims 97-99, Scheib discloses wherein when the distal ablation probe is unconstrained, wherein a best-fit plane defined by the first and second tubular portions forms a plane-axis angle with the central longitudinal axis of the elongate proximal shaft that passes through the distal end of the elongate proximal shaft, the plane-axis angle between 60 and 90 degrees (Fig. 6; col. 3, lines 52-55).
With respect to claim 100, Scheib discloses a sheath (62).
With respect to claim 101, Scheib discloses a source of RF ablation energy (col. 4, lines 41-45).
Claim(s) 86 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheib (US 7,575,566) in view of Gaiser et al. (US 6,200,315).
With respect to claims 102-103, Scheib in view of Stewart et al. discloses the ablation electrodes arranged in two straight lines (Fig. 1D).
Scheib discloses the subject matter substantially as claimed except for a radius of curvature of 0.25 cm – 1 cm. However, Gaiser et al. teaches in the same field of endeavor wherein the distal end of the cardiac ablation catheter has a radius of curvature which ranges from 0.5 cm to 2 cm (col. 2, lines 62-63). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Scheib with the radius of curvature as taught by Gaiser et al. as it is a well known dimension used in cardiac ablation catheters.
Claim(s) 88-89 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheib (US 7,575,566) in view of Chen (US 2018/0140347).
Scheib discloses the subject matter substantially as claimed except for the greatest major and minor dimensions. However, Chen teaches in the same field of endeavor wherein the probe shape may be elliptical ([0209]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the shape of Scheib to be elliptical as a change in shape and size is well within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A and B)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 82 and 85-103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER LUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1609. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6.
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, Anhtuan T Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-4963. 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.
/PETER LUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights