Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/652,560

TISSUE MAPPING AND TREATMENT

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
May 01, 2024
Examiner
OUYANG, BO
Art Unit
3794
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Schuler Scientific Solutions LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
60%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
4y 1m
To Grant
67%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 60% of resolved cases
60%
Career Allow Rate
230 granted / 381 resolved
-9.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+6.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 1m
Avg Prosecution
59 currently pending
Career history
440
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.9%
-39.1% vs TC avg
§103
58.1%
+18.1% vs TC avg
§102
20.5%
-19.5% vs TC avg
§112
16.1%
-23.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 381 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Applicant's preliminary amendments and remarks, filed 2/6/26, are fully acknowledged by the Examiner. Currently, claims 21-34 and 36-41 are pending with claims 1-20 and 35 canceled, claims 21-34 and 36-41 added. The following is a complete response to the 2/6/26 communication. 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 Claims 21 and 37 are objected to because of the following informalities: A “;” or “,” should precede “a cap” in the claims. Appropriate correction is required. 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) 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kowalski (US 2015/0057563) in view of Stewart (US 2013/0030425). Regarding claim 41, Kowalski teaches an ablation system adapted to deliver electroporation energy treatment to a target tissue, the system comprising:an electrode array (array 38) comprising: (b) a mapping array comprising one or more pacing-recording electrodes (electrodes 38), the mapping array configured to be positioned adjacent to the target tissue and measure signal corresponding to a treatment zone of the target tissue (par. [0035] phrenic nerve in range of pacing in area 101); a catheter configured to position the electrode array at the target tissue (32 to position electrode array 38); one or more energy generators configured to provide electroporation energy to activate the electroporation electrode (par. [0034] power generator); and one or more hardware processors configured to be in electrical communication with the one or more pacing-recording electrodes (processing device 26 to in communication with electrodes 24), the one or more hardware processors configured to:generate a pacing signal at the one or more pacing-recording electrodes (pacing signal at pacing electrodes 38 as in at least par. [0028]);detect signal of the one or more pacing-recording electrodes responsive to application of the energy treatment (detect a signal according to injury detection of the nerve); anddetermine whether additional treatment is needed based on the detected signal (par. [0031] adjust ablation according to detected signal).Kowalski is silent regarding (a) an electroporation electrode adapted to deliver electroporation energy the target tissue, and detecting electroporation energy.However, Stewart teaches the use of electrosurgical energy via electroporation to treat tissue (pulsing electroporation energy as in par. [0044]).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kowalski with the electroporation of Stewart, as a method of delivering radiofrequency energy as desired by Kowalski to treat tissue. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 21-34 and 37-40 are allowed. Collins (US 2002/0107511), Kappel (US 2014/0046320), Phan (US 6,529,756), Rioux (US 2005/0171525), Kowalski, Stewart, and de Graff (US 2011/0034912) are the closest prior art of record found. However, Rioux fails to teach the mesh located between the one or more inner layers and the one or more outer layers, and the mesh of wires extends past a distal end of the catheter body. Rather, Rioux shows a conductive layer separate from the balloon conductivity (par. [0036]), and not a mesh. Other art, such as Laughner (US 2017/0143415) teaches mesh layers in catheters for stiffness, but not for conductivity. Examiner has not found any piece of art that discloses, fairly suggests, or makes obvious the arrangement. See also related cases 15/369,309 and 18/461,431. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BO OUYANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8831. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST. 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. /BO OUYANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3794 /MICHAEL F PEFFLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 01, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 16, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 06, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12588940
TESTING DEVICE FOR AN ELECTROSURGICAL GENERATOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588939
APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR REGULATING CRYOGENIC TREATMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12569294
TIMING SYSTEM FOR USE DURING ABLATION PROCEDURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12558149
SURGICAL END EFFECTOR JAW AND ELECTRODE CONFIGURATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12544168
SURGICAL INSTRUMENT AND METHOD OF ASSEMBLING 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
60%
Grant Probability
67%
With Interview (+6.2%)
4y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 381 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