Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/672,173

PULSED FIELD ABLATION APPARATUS AND RELATED METHODS

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
May 23, 2024
Examiner
PEFFLEY, MICHAEL F
Art Unit
3794
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
AtriCure, Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
1037 granted / 1334 resolved
+7.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+12.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
54 currently pending
Career history
1388
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.0%
-39.0% vs TC avg
§103
36.8%
-3.2% vs TC avg
§102
28.3%
-11.7% vs TC avg
§112
14.6%
-25.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1334 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of the invention of Group I, claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 10, 12-14, 16 and newly added claims 31-38 in the reply filed on February 4, 2026 is acknowledged. Additionally, applicant has also elected the species of Figures 15A-15C and has indicated that all pending claims read on the elected species. Applicant also asserted that Figure 2 was generic to Figures 15A-15C. The examiner disagrees that claims 14, 32, 35 and 37 are drawn to the elected embodiment. Claims 14 and 37 require a cryogenic tissue contact. There is no specific disclosure of a cryogenic contact in Figures 2 and 15A-15C. While the specification makes general statements about the inclusion of a cryogenic contact in certain embodiments, there is no express disclosure of such a cryogenic contact in the elected embodiment. As such, claims 14 and 37 are withdrawn from consideration. Claim 32 recites a “living hinge”. The only mention of such a hinge is in paragraph [0007] of the printed publication, and there is no express teaching of such a hinge in the elected embodiment. Given the lack of description, it is not possible to determine what is meant by this feature or structurally where it would be located on any embodiment, and claim 32 is withdrawn from consideration. Similarly, claim 35 recites longitudinal ribs, and the only mention of such ribs is again in paragraph [0007] of the printed publication. There is no express discussion of such longitudinal ribs in the elected embodiment, and this claim is also withdrawn from consideration. 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, 2, 4, 7, 10, 12, 13, 16, 31, 33, 34, 36 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Danitz et al (10,857,347). Regarding claim 1, Danitz et al provide a pulsed field ablation effector (Abstract, for example) comprising an electrode (1805 – Figures 18A-18F) including a surface for delivering current to tissue and a deformable insulator (shown but not labeled) selectively covering the electrode and configured to deform when contacting tissue to expose the electrode surface (Figures 18c and 18D, for example). See, also, column 32, line 42 to column 33, line 11). Regarding claim 2, the insulator includes slits (see Figures) that are occupied by the electrodes. Regarding claim 4, there is a rigid backer (i.e. housing 1803) to which the electrode and insulator are mounted. Regarding claim 7, the insulator includes raised features (i.e. individual sections seen in Figures 18A-18F) configured to concentrate contact force with tissue. Regarding claims 10 and 36, Danitz et al disclose the insulator may be made from an elastomer such as silicone (col. 4, lines 30-37). Regarding claims 12 and 13, the electrode is segmented into a plurality of electrodes (2 shown in Figure 18) and the insulator is segmented into a plurality of sections (on either side of the electrodes as seen in the Figures). The examiner maintains the individual insulator sections are inherently configured to independently deform when contacting tissue at any given section that would give cause to deformation. Regarding claim 16, the electrodes are RF electrodes for delivery of pulsed field ablation. Regarding claim 31, Figures 18A-18F show slits longitudinally extending is a dominant (i.e. lengthwise) direction with the electrode extending longitudinally within the slit. Regarding claim 33, the insulator is embedded in the rigid backer (i.e. housing 1803). Regarding claim 34, the raised feature (i.e. segments) comprises a plurality of raised features with at least two of the features on opposite sides of the electrodes. That is, Figure 18A shows 3 raised features (i.e. segments) for the insulator with the electrodes being located between two of the features (segments). Regarding claim 38, the electrodes are selectively covered by the deformable insulator (Figures 18A and 18B, for example). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Won (2019/0350636) discloses another electrode device that may be covered with a deformable insulator. 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/March 6, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 23, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599429
METHODS FOR CONTROLLING TREATMENT VOLUMES, THERMAL GRADIENTS, MUSCLE STIMULATION, AND IMMUNE RESPONSES IN PULSED ELECTRIC FIELD TREATMENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599426
ELECTROSURGICAL GENERATOR HAVING AN EXTENDED MEASUREMENT RANGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599406
METHODS AND DEVICES FOR PUNCTURING TISSUE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594115
LACERATION SYSTEM AND DEVICE, AND METHODS FOR LACERATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588941
ELECTROSURGICAL INSTRUMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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
78%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+12.6%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1334 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