Read the independent claim before the title, and the scope of US20260183052A1 — a Biosense Webster (Israel) Ltd. application published July 2, 2026 — comes into focus around a single structural limitation: the length of the ablation electrodes relative to the tip that carries them. This is a published application, not a granted patent; its claims define what the applicant is seeking, and their scope may narrow during examination. As published, claim 1 is directed to an end effector — the working tip of a medical probe — built as a planar body with a first and second side, carrying a plurality of ablation electrodes configured to deliver bipolar pulsed field ablation signals between them.

An end effector of a medical probe, the end effector comprising: a planar body comprising a first side and a second side opposite the first side and extending along a longitudinal axis; and a plurality of ablation electrodes and comprising a first ablation electrode disposed on the first side of the planar body and a second ablation electrode, the end effector being configured to provide bipolar pulse filed ablation electrical signals between the first ablation electrode and the second ablation electrode, the first ablation electrode and the second ablation electrode each having a respective length of at least half of a total length of the end effector as measured from a distal end of the end effector to a distal end of a shaft of the medical probe such that the respective length of the first ablation electrode and the second ablation electrode define a distal portion of the end effector.— PLANAR END EFFECTOR FOR ATRIAL FIBRILLATION ABLATION BY PULSE FIELD ABLATION, US20260183052A1

The limitation that matters

The limitation doing the work in claim 1 is dimensional. Each of the first and second ablation electrodes must have a length of at least half the total length of the end effector, measured from the tip's distal end to the distal end of the probe shaft, so that the two electrodes together define the distal portion of the effector. That is a claim written around geometry, not clinical use: it does not recite a disease, a dose, or an outcome, but a proportion — long electrodes occupying the distal half of a flat tip, energized in bipolar pairs. The recited function, bipolar pulsed field ablation, situates the claim in the electroporation regime rather than thermal ablation, but the metes and bounds are the electrode arrangement and length.

The CPC classifications assigned to the application track that reading. It is classified under A61B 18/1492 (electrodes for high-frequency electrosurgery on internal tissue) and carries A61B 34/20 (navigation systems for surgery), alongside electroporation-oriented sub-symbols such as A61B 2018/126 and contact-related A61B 2018/00839. The pairing of an electrosurgery electrode class with a navigation class is the classification-level fingerprint of a tip meant to both ablate and be tracked — which is exactly what the dependent claims build out.

How the dependent claims narrow and add

The dependent claims layer additional structure onto that core. Claim 2 adds at least one diagnostic electrode, electrically isolated from the ablation electrodes and configured to receive electrical signals from tissue; claim 3 arranges those diagnostic electrodes in diametric pairs across the two sides. Claim 4 adds pairs of tissue-contact electrodes spaced along the longitudinal axis. Claim 5 recites four individually addressable ablation electrodes per side that can be interconnected to form a larger combined electrode — a claim to reconfigurable electrode area. Claims 6 and 7 are the intricate ones: claim 6 places a diagnostic electrode entirely within the width and length of a longitudinally elongated ablation segment, and claim 7 recites a serpentine ablation electrode that bends around at least three of the four sides of a diagnostic electrode. Those are claims to co-locating a sensing point inside an ablation zone without electrical overlap.

Further dependent claims reach the materials and drive parameters. Claim 14 adds a planar high-dielectric layer overlapping the ablation electrodes; claim 15 specifies that layer as a ceramic-doped polymer; and claim 17 describes longitudinally extending ceramic plates angled to overlap side-on-side as the tip retracts into a sheath — a collapsibility limitation. Claim 18 fixes a drive range, reciting pulses of about 600 to 1,200 volts between electrode pairs. Claims 19 and 20 constrain the layout further, placing first and second electrodes non-overlapping on opposite halves of the planar body and bounding the count at two, three, or four ablation electrodes per side.

Where it sits in the filing landscape

The application does not stand alone in the record. Biosense Webster published nine electrophysiology-tip applications in the same July 2 drop, and several are directed to the flexible circuit that would carry claim 1's electrodes: US20260183055A1 claims a reinforced flexible circuit, and US20260182888A1 claims a flexible circuit with a stiffened zone. US20260182900A1 claims a sensing loop co-located with electrodes on one flexible circuit for magnetic position sensing — the navigation limb that the A61B 34/20 classification anticipates. Adjacent geometry filings claim different tip forms: fanned leaves in US20260183054A1, a semi-spherical or semi-conical membrane in US20260183032A1, a curved basket in US20260182889A1, and a combined focal and expandable mapping-ablation tip in US20260183051A1.

For anyone tracking the electrophysiology estate, the family reads as a coordinated set of pending claims covering a PFA-plus-mapping tip from several angles — electrode arrangement, flexible-circuit construction, position sensing, and tip geometry. What can be stated from the record is limited to what is on its face: these are published, pending applications; claim 1 is directed to a planar end effector with ablation electrodes spanning at least half its length; and the dependent claims add diagnostic, contact, and reference electrodes, reconfigurable electrode area, dielectric materials, a 600–1,200-volt drive range, and collapsibility. Whether those claims issue as filed, and in what scope, is a question for examination.