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 proIn 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/06/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “liquid inlet module”, heat exchange module and “control module” in claim 1, “heat exchange module” in claim 16 and “control module” in claim 17. Based on the specification: Liquid inlet manual seen as a aperture that allows a fluid to enter, heat exchange module is seen as a apparatus that transfers heat energy between two objects, control module is seen as a logic and or computer based apparatus that can control a physical action of a component.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 12 and 16-17 state: “the ablation system according to claim 1”; the claim states dependance on claim 1 which is canceled. Therefore claims 12 and 16-17 are of improper dependent form. For examination purposes claim 1 is taken to mean claim 11.
Claim 13 states: “the ablation system according to claim 2”; the claim states dependance on claim 2 which is canceled. Therefore claim 13 is of improper dependent form. For examination purposes claim 2 is taken to mean claim 12.
Claims 14 and 15 state: “the ablation system according to claim 3”; the claim states dependance on claim 3 which is canceled. Therefore claim 14 and claim 15 are of improper dependent form. For examination purposes claim 3 is taken to mean claim 13.
Claim 18 states: “the ablation system according to claim 7”; the claim states dependance on claim 7 which is canceled. Therefore claim 18 is of improper dependent form. For examination purposes claim 7 is taken to mean claim 17.
Claim 19 states: “the ablation system according to claim 5”; the claim states dependance on claim 5 which is canceled. Therefore claim 19 is of improper dependent form. For examination purposes claim 5 is taken to mean claim 15.
Claim 20 states: “the ablation system according to claim 9”; the claim states dependance on claim 9 which is canceled. Therefore claim 20 is of improper dependent form. For examination purposes claim 9 is taken to mean claim 19.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoey et al (US 20090149846 A1) herein referred to as “Hoey” in view of Truckai (US 20100100094 A1) herein referred to as “Truckai” further in view of Berzak et al. (US 20110306958 A1) herein referred to as “Berzak”.
Regarding claim 11, Hoey discloses: An ablation system, wherein the ablation system ([0020]; The apparatus is used for tissue ablation) comprises: a medium storage device used for storing a liquid medium ([0069]; Liquid source 120); wherein the probe is provided with an air inlet channel ([0104]; air inlet 124) and an air return channel ([0104]; air return 340); a liquid inlet module ([Figure 15C]; liquid inlet 402) provided with a gas-liquid separation device ([0105]; Solenoid 432 that directs vapor, which is seen as separating , the gas-liquid separation device comprising a gas pipeline ([Figure 15C]; Channel 340’) and a plurality of liquid pipelines ([Figure 15C]; Channels 435 and 435’ within the component 402), wherein each liquid pipeline is enable to be communicated with or isolated from the air inlet channel of the probe ([Figure 15C]; The channels 435 and 435’ are isolated from the air inlet channel 124); and a control module electrically connected to each probe ([Figure 2]; Controller 150 is electrically connected to the probe) and the heat exchange module respectively ([0070]; The controller is connected to an energy source used to vaporize liquid), wherein the control module obtains the temperature of each probe and controls the flow rate Q2 of the gas medium flowing out of the heat exchange module. ([0013]; The controller is disclosed as being capable of controlling the temperature of the probe, which is seen as obtaining the temperature of the probe, further the controller is disclosed as controlling the flow rate of media from the probe). Hoey does not explicitly disclose: a plurality of probes; a heat exchange module provided with a heat exchanger, wherein the heat exchanger is communicated with the air return channel to convert the liquid medium delivered in the air return channel into a gas medium.
However, Truckai discloses: a plurality of probes; ([0105]; Plurality of probes 450A-450D)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the ablation system as disclosed by Hoey with the plurality of probes as disclosed by Truckai. The motivation being directional control of energy transferred to tissue ([0105]).
However, Berzak discloses: a heat exchange module provided with a heat exchanger, wherein the heat exchanger ([0030]; Two way valve 120 which contains heater and is seen as a heat exchange module. Heater 122 which is seen as a heat exchanger) is communicated with the air return channel to convert the liquid medium delivered in the air return channel into a gas medium; ([0030]; The heater 122 is disclosed as being connected to the return line, which is seen as the air return line, wherein the heater keeps the temperature above boiling of the liquid cryogen which is seen as converting liquid into gas medium)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the ablation system as disclosed by Hoey with the heater as disclosed by Berzak the motivation being to maintain a gaseous state cryogen to be stored and reused ([0011]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoey in view of Truckai further in view of Berzak further in view of Zhou et al. (CN 107822705 A) herein referred to as “Zhou” further in view of Vancelette (US 20080119834 A1) herein referred to as “Vancelettte”.
Regarding claim 12, Hoey in view of Truckai further in view of Berzak disclose: The ablation system according to claim 1. Hoey in view of Truckai further in view of Berzak do not explicitly disclose: wherein the ablation system further comprises a first-type joint and a second-type joint, and the first-type joint is enable to be clamped with or detached from the second-type joint; when the first-type joint is clamped with the second-type joint, each liquid pipeline is communicated with the air inlet channel of each probe; when the first-type joint is detached from the second-type joint, the first-type joint automatically closes to prevent the liquid medium in the liquid pipeline from flowing out.
However, Zhou discloses: wherein the ablation system further comprises a first-type joint ([Figure 1]; First joint 100) and a second-type joint ([Figure 1]; Second joint 200), and the first-type joint is enable to be clamped with or detached from the second-type joint ([Specific execution examples pp3]; First joint 100 and second joint 200 are disclosed as being detachably fixed to each other); when the first-type joint is clamped with the second-type joint, each liquid pipeline is communicated with the air inlet channel of each probe ([Specific execution examples pp3]; When clamped first medium passage and second medium passage are connected which is seen as liquid pipeline in communication with the air inlet channel);
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the ablation system as disclosed by Hoey in view of Truckai further in view of Berzak with the detachably connected joint as disclosed by Zhou. The motivation being to improve efficiency ([Specific execution examples pp1]).
However, Vancelette discloses: when the first-type joint is detached from the second-type joint, the first-type joint automatically closes to prevent the liquid medium in the liquid pipeline from flowing out. ([0022]; Valves connecting the fluid flow are biased to be closed when the joints are not connected)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the ablation system as disclosed by Hoey in view of Truckai further in view of Berzak with the sealed valves as disclosed by Vancelette. The motivation being to prevent air from entering or fluid from escaping the lines ([0022]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoey in view of Truckai further in view of Berzak further in view of Zhou in further in view of Vancelette further in view of Eum et al. (CN 101188977 A) herein referred to as “Eum”.
Regarding claim 13, Hoey in view of Truckai further in view of Berzak further in view of Zhou further in view of Vancelette disclose: The ablation system according to claim 2. Zhou further discloses: wherein the first-type joint comprises two first pipelines ([Contents of utility model pp17]; The first medium channel is disclosed as comprising two channels), the second-type joint comprises two second pipelines ([Contents of utility model pp17]; The second medium channel is disclosed as comprising two channels), the two first pipelines are connected to the liquid pipeline and the heat exchanger respectively ([Contents of utility model pp17]; The first medium channel, which is seen as the liquid pipeline, connected to the two first pipelines) , and the two second pipelines are connected to the air inlet channel and the air return channel of the probe respectively ([Contents of utility model pp17]; The two channels of the second medium channel are disclosed as being for inflow and reflux which is seen as air return and air inlet channel); when the first-type joint is clamped with the second-type joint, the two first pipelines are communicated with the two second pipelines respectively. ([Contents of utility model pp17]; The first and second medium channels and the first and second channels are disclosed as connected and sealed together when the joints are connected).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify ablation system as disclosed by Hoey in view of Truckai further in view of Berzak further in view of Zhou further in view of Vancelette with the channels as further disclosed by Zhou. The motivation being to allow for inflow and outflow between the connected medium channels ([Contents of utility model pp17]).
Eum discloses: Pipeline connected to the heat exchanger ([Detailed description of the invention pp27]; Multi-pass assembly is disclosed as connected to a heat exchanger)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify ablation system as disclosed by Hoey in view of Truckai further in view of Berzak further in view of Zhou further in view of Vancelette with the heat exchanger as disclosed by Eum. The motivation being to provide heat exchange between the inlet and outlet gas ([Detailed description of the invention pp20]).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoey in view of Truckai further in view of Berzack further in view of Zhou further in view of Zhou further in view of Bart (SE 1650599 A1) Herein referred to as “Bart”.
Regarding claim 14, Hoey in view of Truckai further in view of Berzak further in view of Zhou further in view of Vancelette further in view Eum disclose: The ablation system according to claim 3. Zhou further discloses: wherein each of the first pipelines comprises a first pipe segment, a second pipe segment, and a third pipe segment connected sequentially ([Figure 5]; Zhou disclose first, second and third pipe sections connected sequentially as show in the figure 5 image below), wherein the inner diameter of the second pipe segment is greater than that of the first pipe segment and the third pipe segment ([Figure 5]; The width of the second pipe section disclosed by Zhou is larger than the first and second pipe sections therefore the second pipe section has a larger diameter). the outer diameter of a first end of each second pipeline is less than the inner diameter of the third pipe segment, such that when the first-type joint is docked with the second-type joint, the first end of each second pipeline passes through the third pipe segment and enters the second pipe segment. ([Figure 5]; As shown below the second pipeline has a diameter that allows passage through the third pipe section into the second pipe section. Further Figure 5 is disclosed with the first and second joints docked together)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the ablation system as disclosed by Hoey in view of Truckai further in view of Berzak further in view of Zhou further in view of Vancelette further in view of Eum with the pipe segments as further disclosed by Zhou. The motivation being to ensure the first and second medium channels are connected ([Contents of utility model pp16])
[Zhou, Figure 5]
[AltContent: textbox (First pipe section )]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Third pipe section )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second pipeline)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second pipe section )]
PNG
media_image1.png
187
387
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Vancelette discloses: when the first-type joint is detached from the second-type joint, a closed valve ([0022]; Biased valve closes fluid channels when the members are not connected)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the ablation system Hoey in view of Truckai further in view of Berzak further in view of Zhou further in view of Vancelette further in view of Eum with the closed valve as further disclosed by Vancelette. The motivation being to prevent air from entering or fluid from escaping the lines ([0022]).
Bart discloses: an elastic member and a ball are provided in an inner cavity of the second pipe segment ([Figure 2]; Spring 9 and ball 8 located in an inner pipe segment which is seen as the second pipe segment), the elastic member presses against an end of the second pipe segment ([Figure 2]; Spring 9 is disclosed as pushing against the inner segment), and the inner diameter of the third pipe segment is less than the diameter of the ball and less than the inner diameter of the second pipe segment ([Figure 2]; The third pipe segment as shown below is less than that of the ball and the second pipe segment); the ball is clamped between the second pipe segment and the third pipe segment; ([Detailed description pp 42]; The ball 8 is disclosed as positioned between the third and second sections ) and the ball moves away from an end of the third pipe segment. ([Figure 2]; Ball 8 is disclosed as away from the third pipe segment)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the ablation system as disclosed by Hoey in view of Truckai further in view of Berzak further in view of Zhou further in view of Vancelette further in view of Eum with the ball and spring as disclosed by Bart. The motivation being to block the flow of medium due to high pressure ([Detailed description pp 42])
[Bart, Figure 2]
[AltContent: textbox (Third section )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second section )][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
153
229
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Hoey in view of Truckai further in view of Berzak further in view of Zhou in further in view of Vancelette further in view of Eum disclose: The ablation system according to claim 3. Hoey in view of Truckai further in view of Berzak further in view of Zhou in further in view of Vancelette further in view of Eum do not explicitly disclose: wherein the second pipeline is provided with an extension portion and a first pore channel, wherein the extension portion extends radially outward along the first end of the second pipeline, and the first pore channel is formed between the extension portion and a body of the second pipeline.
However, Bart discloses: wherein the second pipeline is provided with an extension portion and a first pore channel, wherein the extension portion extends radially outward along the first end of the second pipeline ([Figure 2 and Figure 4]; The bypass 15, which is seen as the extension portion, and pore channel as shown below comprise the end of the second pipeline. Further, the extension portion extends radially), and the first pore channel is formed between the extension portion and a body of the second pipeline. ([Figure 4]; the pore channel is between the extension portion and the body of the second pipeline)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the ablation system as disclosed by Hoey in view of Truckai further in view of Berzak further in view of Zhou in further in view of Vancelette further in view of Eum with the pore channel and the bypass as disclosed by Bart. The motivation being to retain an o-ring ([Figure 2]) and regulate velocity of fluid ([Summary of invention] pp 2)
[Bart, Figure 2]
[AltContent: textbox (Pore Channel)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second pipeline)][AltContent: textbox (Third section )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second section )][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
153
229
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[Bart, Figure 4]
[AltContent: textbox (Second pipeline)]
[AltContent: textbox (Extension portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
342
491
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoey et al in view of Truckai further in view of Berzak further in view of Wittenberger et al. (US 20140276698 A1) herein referred to as “Wittenberger”.
Regarding claim 16, Hoey in view of Truckai further in view of Berzak disclose: The ablation system according to claim 1. Hoey in view of Truckai further in view of Berzak don’t explicitly disclose: wherein the heat exchange module further comprises a first proportional valve, the first proportional valve is connected to the heat exchanger, and the control module controls the flow rate Q2 of the gas medium via the first proportional valve.
However, Wittenberger discloses: wherein the heat exchange module further comprises a first proportional valve the first proportional valve is connected to the heat exchanger ([Figure 2]; Proportional vale 60 is connected to heat exchanger 60), and the control module controls the flow rate Q2 of the gas medium via the first proportional valve ([0009]; A controller is used to control the flow rate of medium through the first proportional valve).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the ablation system as disclosed by Hoey in view of Truckai further in view of Berzak with the proportional valve as disclosed by Wittenberger the motivation being to control the temperature and pressure of medium ([0029]).
Regarding claim 17, Hoey in view of Truckai further in view of Berzak disclose: The ablation system according to claim 1. Hoey in view of Truckai further in view of Berzak do not explicitly disclose: wherein the control module adjusts the flow rate Q2 of the gas medium according to the difference A T between a temperature T of the probe and a target temperature T2, to ensure that the temperature T of the probe tends towards the target temperature T2.
However, Wittenberger discloses: wherein the control module (105) adjusts the flow rate Q2 of the gas medium according to the difference A T between a temperature T of the probe (102) and a target temperature T2, to ensure that the temperature T of the probe (102) tends towards the target temperature T2. ([0009]; The controller is disclosed as adjusting the flow of the proportional valve in relation to the temperature of the treatment element, which is seen as the probe. [0026-0026]; Further adjusting the temperature of the probe based on the desired ablation temperature)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the ablation system as disclosed by Hoey in view of Truckai further in view of Berzak with the proportional valve as disclosed by Wittenberger the motivation being to ensure the temperature of the treatment element is at ablation temperature ([0026]).
Regarding claim 18, Hoey in view of Truckai further in view of Berzak further in view of Wittenberger disclose: The ablation system according to claim 7. Wittenberger further discloses wherein the relationship between the flow rate Q2 of the gas medium and the target temperature T2 roughly conforms to an empirical formula: T2=al-a2*a3^Q2, wherein al, a2, and a3 are constants. ([0029]; Fluid flow is disclosed as relating to the desired temperature. Further, constants a1-a3 are simply constants and therefore can be any integer therefore, it is seen that a combination of integers can be used to describe the relationship of desired temperature using the above formula.)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the ablation system as disclosed by Hoey in view of Truckai further in view of Berzak with the proportional valve as disclosed by Wittenberger the motivation being to ensure the temperature of the treatment element is at ablation temperature ([0026]).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoey in view of Truckai further in view of Berzack further in view of Zhou further in view of Zhou further in view of Bart further in view of Shadduck (US 8016823 B2) herein referred to as “Shadduck”.
Regarding claim 19, Hoey in view of Truckai further in view of Berzak further in view of Zhou in further in view of Vancelette further in view of Eum further in view of Bart disclose: The ablation system according to claim 5. Hoey in view of Truckai further in view of Berzak further in view of Zhou in further in view of Vancelette further in view of Eum further in view of Bart do not explicitly disclose: wherein the gas-liquid separation device comprises an inner casing and an outer casing, a channel is formed between the inner casing and the outer casing, a plurality of first through holes are spaced apart on a wall of the inner casing, an end of the outer casing is provided with a second through hole, and the second through hole is connected to the heat exchanger via a pipeline.
However, Shadduck discloses: wherein the gas-liquid separation device comprises an inner casing and an outer casing ([Figure 7]; electrode 255A, which is seen as inner casing, electrode 255B, which is seen as an outer casing), a channel is formed between the inner casing and the outer casing ([Figure 7]; Inner chamber 225, which is seen a channel, formed between electrode 255A and 255B), a plurality of first through holes are spaced apart on a wall of the inner casing ([Figure 7]; Ports 260, which are seen as through holes located on electrode 255A), an end of the outer casing is provided with a second through hole ([Figure 7]; Outflow channel 212, which is seen as a second through hole), and the second through hole is connected to the heat exchanger via a pipeline ([(32)]; outflow channel 212 is connected to 255B which is connected to Rf energy source, which is seen a heat exchanger, via 252B).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the ablation system as disclosed by Hoey in view of Truckai further in view of Berzak further in view of Zhou in further in view of Vancelette further in view of Eum further in view of Bart with the gas-liquid separation device as disclosed by Shadduck. The motivation being to introduce pressurized liquid media (32).
Regarding claim 20, Hoey in view of Truckai further in view of Berzack further in view of Zhou further in view of Zhou further in view of Bart further in view of Shadduck disclose: The ablation system according to claim 9. Shadduck further discloses: wherein an end of the gas-liquid separation device is provided with a plurality of second pore channels ([Figure 7]; channels 264 and 276), each second pore channel is communicated with the inner casing ([Figure 7]; Channels 264 and 267 are disclosed as being in communication with 255B), each second pore channel is also communicated with the air inlet channel of the probe ([Figure 7]; Channel 264 and channel 276 are in communication with 244, which is seen as air inlet channel.), and the channel runs through the end of the gas-liquid separation device among the second pore channels ([Figure 7]; Channel 225 runs along the entirety of the device and further channels 264 and 276 run along the device as well).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the ablation system as disclosed by Hoey in view of Truckai further in view of Berzak further in view of Zhou in further in view of Vancelette further in view of Eum further in view of Bart with the gas-liquid separation device as disclosed by Shadduck. The motivation being to introduce pressurized liquid media (32).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASEY GEORGE CHA whose telephone number is (571)272-0749. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00.
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 3032974276. 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.
/CASEY GEORGE CHA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOANNE M RODDEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794
