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 .
This action is in response to the RCE filed on 06/08/2026.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/08/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the proximal end" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the distal end" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-29 and 31-36 (claims 31-36 were previously rejoined) are allowed.
Claim 30 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art fails to teach or render obvious an ultrasonic electromechanical system for an ultrasonic instrument, the ultrasonic electromechanical system comprising, inter alia, a control circuit configured to: determine a position of a tissue clamped between the ultrasonic blade and the clamp arm; and control a voltage of the drive signal power applied to the ultrasonic transducer based at least in part on the position of the tissue.
Each of the closest prior art of record, Sheldon, IV et al. (US Pub. No.: 2017/0202605), Wiener et al. (US Pub. No.: 2017/0086910), Houser (US Pub. No.: 2009/0036914), Ross et al. (US Pub. No.: 2013/0331874), and Houser (US Pub. No.: 2017/0189093) discloses an ultrasonic electromechanical system for an ultrasonic surgical instrument, the ultrasonic electromechanical system comprising: an ultrasonic blade; a clamp arm disposed opposite the ultrasonic blade; an ultrasonic transducer acoustically coupled to the ultrasonic blade, the ultrasonic transducer configured to ultrasonically oscillate the ultrasonic blade in response to a drive signal; and a control circuit coupled to the ultrasonic transducer. However, none of Sheldon, IV et al. (US Pub. No.: 2017/0202605), Wiener et al. (US Pub. No.: 2017/0086910), Houser (US Pub. No.: 2009/0036914), Ross et al. (US Pub. No.: 2013/0331874), and Houser (US Pub. No.: 2017/0189093) disclose or render obvious that the control circuit is configured to: determine a position of a tissue clamped between the ultrasonic blade and the clamp arm; and control a voltage of the drive signal power applied to the ultrasonic transducer based at least in part on the position of the tissue.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 30 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JING RUI OU whose telephone number is (571)270-5036. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am -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, Jackie Ho can be reached at (571) 272-4696. 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.
/JING RUI OU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights