Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 04, 2026
Application No. 18/929,359

METHODS, SYSTEMS, AND APPARATUSES FOR TISSUE ABLATION USING A MODULATED EXPONENTIAL DECAY PULSE

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Oct 28, 2024
Priority
Sep 04, 2014 — nonprovisional of PCTUS2019049588 +2 more
Examiner
PEFFLEY, MICHAEL F
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Inter Science GmbH
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 6m
Est. Remaining
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allowance Rate
1074 granted / 1380 resolved
+17.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+13.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
1406
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.9%
-38.1% vs TC avg
§103
38.3%
-1.7% vs TC avg
§102
24.5%
-15.5% vs TC avg
§112
15.7%
-24.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1380 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 large number of references cited on the Information Disclosure Statements have been afforded a cursory review, similar to what would be expected of a classification search of the prior art. Should there be any references of particular relevance to the instant application claims, applicant is respectfully requested to identify such references for further review by the examiner. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 21-55 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,127,779. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of ‘779 anticipate the claims of the instant application. Accordingly, the instant application claims are not patentably distinct from the ‘779 claims. Here, the more specific patent claims encompass the broader instant application claims. Following the rationale in In re Goodman cited in the preceding paragraph, where applicant has once been granted a patent containing a claim for the specific narrow invention, applicant may not obtain a second patent with a claim for the generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. It is noted the instant application claims are substantially similar in scope to the claims in the above referenced ‘779 patent. Rubinsky et al (2018/0193082), as cited in the parent application (now the ‘779 patent), discloses a similar system and method using pulsed energy to cause electroporation and electrolysis at a target site, but fails to expressly disclose a controller configured to modulate the waveform by providing a decaying signal during delivery periods and interruptions (i.e. pause periods) as required by the instant application claims. Srimathveeravalli et al (2016/0184003) disclose another system for delivering pulses of energy to tissue, but fail to disclose the specific decaying waveform having delivery periods and pause periods as required by the instant application claims. . 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, Joseph Stoklosa can be reached at (571) 272-1213. 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/September 9, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 28, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 14, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12740823
RADIO FREQUENCY CATHETER CONTROLLING SYSTEM AND METHOD
2y 4m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12740822
THERMAL CUTTING ASSEMBLY WITH CONDUCTIVE BRIDGE
1y 11m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12733970
RF ABLATION SYSTEMS WITH A BIPOLAR RF ELECTRODE AND METHODS FOR MAKING AND USING
2y 11m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12734065
MEDICAL COOLING DEVICE AND COOLING METHOD USING THE SAME
2y 4m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12733971
INTEGRATED SURGICAL SYSTEM
2y 2m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+13.0%)
3y 5m (~1y 6m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1380 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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