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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed August 21, 2024 has been entered and the references cited therein have been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on May 20, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Frushour et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0225728).
In regard to claims 1, 2, 4, 7 and 8, Frushour et al. teach a system 10 having an ablation device 130 having a microwave antenna that is used to ablate tissue (see para. 0049). The system 10 includes a computing device 100 that includes memory 202, a processor 204, a display 206, a network interface 208, an input device 210 and an output module 212 (see Fig. 2 and para. 0050). The processor 204 may be a general-purpose processor, a specialized graphics processing unit (GPU) configured to perform specific graphics processing tasks while freeing up the general-purpose processor to perform other tasks and/or any combination of such processors (see para. 0051). Display 206 may be touch sensitive and/or voice activated, enabling display 206 to serve as both an input and output device (see para. 0051). Input device 210 may be any device by means of which a user may interact with computing device 100 such as a mouse, keyboard, foot pedal, touch screen and/or voice interface (see para. 0052). Application 216 may, when executed by processor 204, cause display 206 to present user interfaces (see para. 0051). Application 216 may be one or more software programs stored in memory 202 and executed by processor 204 of computing device 100 (see para. 0053). Application 216 communicates with a user interface 218 that generates a user interface for presenting visual interactive features to a clinician on display 206 (see para. 0055). During an ablation procedure, the clinician navigates ablation device 130 (displayed as 614 on the user interface 600) along a pathway to a target (see Fig. 6 and para. 0067). User interface 600 includes a view 602 of the patient images 613 and a view for displaying status images related to the ablation procedure such as a power setting 616, duration of the ablation and/or time remaining until the ablation procedure is complete, progression of the ablation and/or temperature feedback 608 from the temperature sensor (see para. 0068). User interface 600 also displays a simulation of ablation growth 618 representing the growth of the ablation zone during application of energy overlayed onto the patient images 613 and a total predicted ablation zone 620 representing the area which will be ablated if the ablation procedure is allowed to run to completion (see Fig. 6 and para. 0068). The computing device 100 (which includes memory 202) extrapolates the volumetric dimensions of the ablation zone from the fiber-optic based temperature measurements which is displayed as a simulation of ablation growth 618 over time (see para. 0069). The simulation of ablation growth 618 may include a solid outer edge, a jagged line outer edge or a pulsing line outer edge which increases in size based on the duration of energy application and/or the real time fiber-optic based temperature measurements (see para. 0069). In regard to claim 5, the volumetric dimensions of the ablation zone would inherently include ether a length or a width (and would be necessary to make the computation of volume). In regard to claim 6, see paras. 0041 and 0048 of Frushour et al.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frushour et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0225728).
In regard to claim 3, Frushour et al. teach that display 206 may be touch sensitive and/or voice activated, enabling display 206 to serve as both an input and output device (see para. 0051) and that input device 210 may be any device by means of which a user may interact with computing device 100 such as a mouse, keyboard, foot pedal, touch screen and/or voice interface (see para. 0052). Since Frushour et al. clearly teach a third input to the system 10 by the user either via display 206 or input device 210, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to make the system 10 of Frushour et al. cease energizing the ablation device 130 in response to an input from the user, using either display 206 of input device 210, in order to provide a means to stop the ablation procedure for safety reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant should note the following examples of prior art references overlaying ablation zones on a display: Garrott et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0180616; Liu et al., PCT Publication No. WO 2013/014648; Kruecker et al., PCT Publication No. WO 2012/066449; Song et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0281242; and Brannan et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0071706.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BEVERLY MEINDL FLANAGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4766. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30AM to 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, 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.
/BEVERLY M FLANAGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights