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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/09/2026.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 2 states “wherein the coolant conduit comprises a distal portion connected to a proximal portion, the distal portion comprising a different material from the proximal portion and terminating at the angled end surface” to mean that the distal portion ends at an angled surface. If the applicant wishes for a different interpretation of the claim (such as the proximal portion terminates at the distal portion with an angled end surface, or an alternative interpretation), then further clarification must be made.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over May (US 2023/0414281), herein after “May”, in view of Smith (US 2010/0234839), herein after “Smith”.
Regarding claims 1 and 17, May teaches “A microwave ablation probe (abstract) comprising a shell extending in an axial direction (shell 102, Fig. 1) and defining an inner cavity (p.[0073], Fig. 1, Fig. 2), a tip positioned on a distal end of the shell (Fig. 1, tip 104/114), a cable comprising a microwave antenna extending axially in the inner cavity (cable 106, antenna 108, p.[0069-0070]).” May does not describe a coolant conduit positioned radially outward of the cable defining a coolant flow path toward the tip, a distal end of the collant conduit including an angled end surface orientated relative to an axis of the coolant conduit, but Smith does in an analogous microwave ablation probe device. Smith teaches in Fig. 2 and p.[0030] that "Cooling chamber 148 may have a generally cylindrical shape and, additionally or alternatively, may have a stepped, tapered, conical, or other shape that is generally dimensioned in accordance with the shape of the tapered end 120 of the cylindroconical profile of trocar 122 to permit the flow of coolant to more effectively reach the distal regions of trocar 122." The Examiner is interpreting the coolant chamber 148 as the distal end of the coolant conduit with an angled (or tapered) end surface oriented at an angle relative to an axis of the coolant conduit (coolant inflow tube 126 of Fig. 2) and therefore teaches the claimed limitation as described. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a coolant conduit positioned radially outward of the cable defining a coolant conduit path toward the tip, a distal end of the coolant conduit including an angled end surface oriented relative to an axis of the coolant conduit, as taught in Smith, in May. As stated in Smith, this shape allows for "permit the flow of the coolant to more effectively reach the distal regions of trocar 122" and produces predictable results of permitting flow of coolant to the distal region of the device.
Regarding claim 2, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. May teaches the use of a distal portion and a proximal portion of the coolant conduit having a different material in a different embodiment (Fig. 18) than seen in Figure 1. May teaches "wherein the coolant conduit comprises a distal portion connected to a proximal portion, the distal portion comprising a different material from the proximal portion and terminating at the angled end surface (p.[0098])". It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the first embodiment of May in the alternative embodiment of May. As stated in May p.[0112], it is known in the art to modify the embodiments of May and produces predictable results. May does not teach the distal portion terminating at the angled end surface, but Smith does in an analogous microwave ablation probe device. Smith teaches in Fig. 2 and p.[0030] that "Cooling chamber 148 may have a generally cylindrical shape and, additionally or alternatively, may have a stepped, tapered, conical, or other shape that is generally dimensioned in accordance with the shape of the tapered end 120 of the cylindroconical profile of trocar 122 to permit the flow of coolant to more effectively reach the distal regions of trocar 122." The Examiner is interpreting the coolant chamber 148 as the distal end of the coolant conduit with an angled (or tapered) end surface oriented at an angle relative to an axis of the coolant conduit (coolant inflow tube 126 of Fig. 2) and therefore teaches the claimed limitation as described. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a coolant conduit positioned radially outward of the cable defining a coolant conduit path toward the tip, a distal end of the coolant conduit including an angled end surface oriented relative to an axis of the coolant conduit, as taught in Smith, in May. As stated in Smith, this shape allows for "permit the flow of the coolant to more effectively reach the distal regions of trocar 122" and produces predictable results of permitting flow of coolant to the distal region of the device.
Regarding claim 3, the limitations of claim 2 are taught as described above. May teaches the use of a distal portion and a proximal portion of the coolant conduit having a different material in a different embodiment (Fig. 18) than seen in Figure 1. May teaches "wherein the coolant conduit comprises a distal portion connected to a proximal portion, the distal portion comprising a different material from the proximal portion and terminating at the angled end surface (p.[0098])". It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the first embodiment of May in the alternative embodiment of May. As stated in May p.[0112], it is known in the art to modify the embodiments of May and produces predictable results.
Regarding claim 4, the limitations of claim 3 are taught as described above. May does not explicitly teach the limitation "wherein the distal portion comprises a polyimide material", instead only teaching in the embodiment of Fig. 18 that "the second portion may 1820 can be made of non-conductive material" (p.[0098]). However, Smith does in an analogous microwave ablation probe. Smith teaches the use of polyimide material for a coolant conduit in p.[0030]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Smith in May. May already teaches that the device can have a distal portion with a separate material as suitable, where Smith teaches that polyimide is a suitable material that can be used in a cooling conduit (p.[0030]) and produces predictable results of delivering fluid in the cooling conduit to the distal portion of the device.
Regarding claim 5, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. May teaches “wherein the coolant flow path toward the tip is located inside the coolant conduit (Fig. 2)”.
Regarding claim 6, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. May does not teach "wherein the angled end surface is not parallel to an end surface of the tip that faces the coolant conduit in the inner cavity" but Smith does in an analogous microwave ablation probe. Smith teaches "wherein the angled end surface is not parallel to an end surface of the tip that faces the coolant conduit in the inner cavity (Fig. 2)." It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an angled end surface that is not parallel to an end surface of the tip that faces the coolant conduit in the inner cavity, as taught in Smith, in May. As stated in Smith, this shape allows for "permit the flow of the coolant to more effectively reach the distal regions of trocar 122" and produces predictable results of permitting flow of coolant to the distal region of the device.
Regarding claim 7, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. May does not teach "wherein distal end of the coolant conduit is positioned at or near the antenna in the inner cavity" but Smith does in an analogous microwave ablation probe. Smith teaches "wherein distal end of the coolant conduit is positioned at or near the antenna in the inner cavity" in Fig. 2, which shows coolant conduit 128 near antenna 128. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the coolant conduit near the antenna, as taught in Smith, in May. As stated in Smith, this shape allows "permit the flow of the coolant to more effectively reach the distal regions of the trocar 112" and therefore the more distal regions of the antenna and produce predictable results of permitting flow of coolant to the distal region of the device.
Regarding claim 8, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. May does not teach "wherein the angled end surface defines a planar surface" but Smith does in an analogous microwave ablation probe. Smith teaches "wherein the angled end surface defines a planar surface" in Fig. 2, which shows the angled end surface as planar. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Smith in May. As stated in Smith, this shape allows for "permit the flow of the coolant to more effectively reach the distal regions of trocar 122" and produces predictable results of permitting flow of coolant to the distal region of the device.
Regarding claim 9, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. May does not teach "wherein the angled end surface defines a pointed end of the coolant conduit" but Smith does in an analogous microwave ablation probe. Smith teaches "wherein the angled end surface defines a pointed end of the coolant conduit (Fig. 2)." It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to us an angled end surface defining a pointed end of the coolant conduit, as taught in Smith, in May. As stated in Smith, this shape allows for "permit the flow of the coolant to more effectively reach the distal regions of trocar 122" and produces predictable results of permitting flow of coolant to the distal region of the device.
Regarding claim 10, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. May does not teach "wherein the angled end surface defines a pointed end located at a center axis of the coolant conduit", but Smith does in an analogous microwave ablation probe. Smith teaches "wherein the angled end surface defines a pointed end located at a center axis of the coolant conduit (Fig. 2)." It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an angled end surface that defines a pointed end located at a center axis of the coolant conduit, as taught in Smith, in May. As stated in Smith, this shape allows for "permit the flow of the coolant to more effectively reach the distal regions of trocar 122" and produces predictable results of permitting flow of coolant to the distal region of the device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Abigail M Bock whose telephone number is (571)272-8856. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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 5712724764. 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.
/ABIGAIL BOCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOANNE M RODDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights