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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 01/26/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-7 & 10-14 remain pending in the application. Claim 15 has been entered. Claims 8-9 have been cancelled. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the objections and rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 07/25/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-7 & 10-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The claim amendments changed the scope of the claimed invention. See new grounds for rejection below.
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.
Claim 15 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 15 recites the limitation "the measuring line" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since the measuring line is not claimed in claim 1 or 10 on which it depends. Examiner believes this is meant to be the “measurement line” taught in claim 1 and suggest to change the language to reflect that.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 1, 4-7, 10 & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Gilbert (US 20140253140), herein referred to as Gilbert and Radecker et al. (US 5615100) herein referred to as Radecker, in further view of Nalbant (US 8629660) herein referred to as Nalbant.
Regarding Claim 1, Regarding Claim 1, Gilbert discloses an electrosurgical generator (Figure 1A, 102) configured to output a high-frequency alternating voltage to an electrosurgical instrument (Figure 1A, 112; Paragraph [0041]-[0042]; wherein the generator is an RF electrosurgical generator which is a high frequency and the inverter is designed to convert from DC to AC therefore outputting a high-frequency alternating voltage to the electrosurgical instrument seen in Figure 1A) comprising a power supply unit (Figure 2A, 205) which, when operating, feeds a direct voltage circuit (Figure 2A; wherein voltage sensor 204 & 210, current sensor 206 & 212 and converter 208 make up the direct voltage circuit), and an inverter for high voltage that is fed from the direct voltage circuit (Figure 2A, 252), and generates a high-frequency alternating voltage that is applied to an output for connection of the electrosurgical instrument (Paragraph [0041]-[0042]; wherein the generator is an RF electrosurgical generator which is a high frequency and the inverter is designed to convert from DC to AC therefore outputting a high-frequency alternating voltage to the electrosurgical instrument seen in Figure 1A). However, Gilbert does not explicitly disclose wherein the inverter has a clock-driven power switch and a zero-crossing detector configured to detect zero crossings of oscillation generated by the inverter, wherein a signal for the generated high-frequency alternating voltage is applied to the zero-crossing detector via a first voltage dividers and via a signal line and a variable reference is applied to the zero-crossing detector as a zero reference, wherein said variable reference is a DC voltage that is taken from the voltage of the direct voltage circuit by a measurement line, wherein the first voltage divider is
Radecker discloses an inverter (Figure 4) wherein the inverter has a clock-driven power switch (Figure 4, 8; Column 8, lines 23-24; wherein the transistor acts as a switch; Column 3, lines 9-15; wherein control circuit controls the switch based on time on/off therefore is clock-driven) and a zero-crossing detector configured to detect zero crossings of oscillation generated by the inverter (Figure 4, UR; Column 9 lines 38-45; wherein voltage detection circuit UR detects if voltage is above a zero reference in which is a small voltage therefore acting as a zero-crossing detector wherein the whole circuit is the inverter therefore is detecting the zero-crossings of the inverter), wherein a signal for the generated high-frequency alternating voltage is applied to the zero-crossing detector via a first voltage dividers and via a signal line (See annotated Figure 4) and a fixed reference is applied to the zero-crossing detector as a zero reference (Column 9 lines 38-45; wherein the variable reference voltage is a small voltage based on the properties of the comparator being used as a baseline to measure the voltage from the resistor therefore is a zero reference since a zero reference is a baseline to measure a voltage in a circuit), wherein the first voltage divider is configured as a capacitive voltage divider comprising two capacitors for the high-frequency alternating voltage (Figure 4, CR1 & CR2: Column 6 lines 40-45; wherein the capacitor values can be changed for any voltage therefore the structure could operate at a high-frequency alternating voltage with the correct capacitor values), with at least one of the two capacitors being resistant to high voltage (Column 6 lines 40-45; wherein the capacitor values can be changed for any voltage therefore one capacitor could be at a capacitance to be resistant to higher voltages). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the inverter taught by Gilbert for the inverter taught by Radecker. The motivation being simple substitution of one known inverter, the inverter taught by Gilbert for another inverter, the inverter taught by Radecker to obtain predictable results of converting from DC to AC (MPEP 2143 (B)).
PNG
media_image1.png
572
849
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nalbant discloses a circuitry (Figure 2) comprising a variable reference is applied to the zero-crossing detector as a zero reference (Figure 5, 502 & 550; wherein 502 is a variable reference since it will change based on the Voltage coming in which is seen in Figure 2 where measurement line 224 feeds into ZTS which is 502), wherein said variable reference is a DC voltage that is taken from the voltage of the direct voltage circuit by a measurement line (Figure 2, 224; Column 14, lines 66-67; wherein the voltage taken from the direct voltage circuit, Vin, can be 10-300 volts DC therefore, the reference voltage is also in DC since there is no converter converting the voltage to AC). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the circuitry taught by Gilbert in view of Radecker to have changed Radeckers fixed reference to be a variable reference as taught by Nalbant. The motivation being to provide feedback to other elements when the voltage is nearing zero and is nearing an end of an energy delivery cycle (Nalbant, Column 7, lines 25-31).
Regarding claim 4, Gilbert and Radecker in further view of Nalbant discloses the electrosurgical generator as claimed in claim 1. Radecker also discloses wherein the capacitive voltage divider is connected in parallel with the clock-driven power switch (Figure 4, CR1 & CR2 & 8; wherein CR1 & CR2 make up the capacitive voltage divider and is connected in parallel with the clock-driven power switch 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the inverter taught by Gilbert and Radecker in further view of Nalbant to include the structure of the inverter taught by Radecker. The motivation being combining prior art elements such as the inverter of Gilbert in view of Radecker with elements of Radeckers inverter according to known methods such as connecting elements in parallel to yield the predictable results of allowing each element to operate independently of each other (MPEP 2143 (A)).
Regarding claim 5, Gilbert and Radecker in further view of Nalbant discloses the electrosurgical generator as claimed in claim 1. Radecker also discloses wherein the capacitive voltage divider is connected to the high-frequency alternating voltage generated by the clock-driven power switch directly or via a current limiting element (Figure 4; wherein capacitive voltage divider is connected to the switch 8 directly through the top gate of the transistor as well as connected through a resistor Rs through the bottom gate of the transistor). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the inverter taught by Gilbert and Radecker in further view of Nalbant to include the structure of the inverter taught by Radecker. The motivation being combining prior art elements such as the inverter of Gilbert in view of Radecker with elements of Radeckers inverter according to known methods such as connecting elements directly or via current limiting element to yield the predictable results of connecting each element together to allow for the current to flow through the circuit (MPEP 2143 (A)).
Regarding claim 6, Gilbert and Radecker in further view of Nalbant discloses the electrosurgical generator as claimed in claim 5. Radecker also discloses wherein an ohmic resistor (Column 6, lines 64-67), the resistance value of which is less than an impedance of the capacitive voltage divider (Column 6, lines 64-67; wherein the resistor is a small ohmic resistor; Column 6 lines 40-45; wherein the capacitor values can be changed for any voltage therefore can be changes to be within a value range that allows for an impedance larger than the already small ohmic resistor), is provided as the current limiting element (Column 6, lines 64-67 & Column 7, lines 1-10; wherein the voltage is being limited therefore since V=IR and we know that the resistor value is a set value, the current is also being limited by the small ohmic resistor therefore acting as a current limiting element). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the inverter taught by Gilbert in view of Radecker to include the structure of the inverter taught by Radecker. The motivation being combining prior art elements such as the inverter of Gilbert in view of Radecker with elements of Radeckers inverter according to known methods such as connecting elements via current limiting element to yield the predictable results of limiting the current inbetween elements (MPEP 2143 (A)).
Regarding claim 7, Gilbert and Radecker in further view of Nalbant discloses the electrosurgical generator as claimed in claim 1. Radecker also discloses wherein the signal line comprises a correction circuit for direct voltage offset (See annotated Figure 4 below), configured to minimize or remove a direct voltage potential in the signal line (Column 9, lines 55-63; wherein signal from the comparator 5, feeds into circuit 10 to calculate the adjustment/correction needing to be made to the current reference which is corrected through converter 9), wherein the correction circuit is implemented as a high-pass filter (Column 9, lines 55-63; wherein the converter 9 of correction circuit converts from DC to AC , and uses the output as a variable reference voltage of comparator 4, wherein comparator 4 will output which voltage is higher therefore checking to see if the voltage has reached it pre-determined value, in which acts as a high pass filter by ensuring that once the voltage has hit its pre-determined value, only the higher frequencies are passing through since converter 9 converts from DC to AC and AC is higher in frequency then DC). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the inverter taught by Gilbert in view of Radecker to include a correction circuit taught by Radecker. The motivation being to digitally adjust/correct the current (Radecker, Column 9, lines 55-58)
PNG
media_image2.png
477
638
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Gilbert and Radecker in further view of Nalbant discloses the electrosurgical generator as claimed in claim 1. Nalbant also discloses wherein the variable reference is generated via a second voltage divider that has a different type of construction from the first voltage divider (Figure 6; wherein the first voltage divider comprises resistors 612 & 614 and the second voltage divider comprises capacitor 630 & resistor 631 such that the variable reference will be generated through the second voltage divider then fed thru the measurement line 224). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the inverter as taught by Gilbert and Radecker to include the second voltage divider structure as taught by Nalbant. The motivation being reduces the magnitude of the sensed voltage at the zero-crossing detector (Nalbant, Column 7 lines 60-64)
Regarding claim 15, Gilbert and Radecker in further view of Nalbant discloses the electrosurgical generator as claimed in claim 10. Nalbant also discloses wherein the measuring line applies an upper potential of the direct voltage circuit to an upper terminal of the second voltage divider (Figure 6; wherein measurement line 224 applies an upper potential to an upper terminal 628 of the second voltage divider 630 & 631). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the inverter as taught by Gilbert and Radecker to include the upper potential being applied to an upper terminal of the second voltage divider as taught by Nalbant. The motivation is when the voltage goes towards zero or ground potential it is sensed immediately by the zero crossing detector to switch back to a high potential (Nalbant, Column 15, lines 34-35)
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Gilbert, Radecker and Nalbant in view of Duerr (US 5258718) herein referred to as Duerr.
Regarding claim 2, Gilbert and Radecker in further view of Nalbant discloses the electrosurgical generator as claimed in claim 1. However, Gilbert and Radecker in further view of Nalbant does not explicitly disclose wherein the capacitive voltage divider has a division ratio between 1:20 and 1:4.
Duerr discloses a circuitry used in combination with a high-frequency generator (Figure 4) wherein the capacitive voltage divider has a division ratio between 1:20 and 1:4 (Figure 4, 18 & 19; Column 4, lines 50-52; wherein Capacitor 18 is 40pf and capacitor 19 is 10pf therefore the division ratio is 1:5 which is within the range 1:20 and 1:4) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the capacitor values taught by Gilbert and Radecker in further view of Nalbant to be within the range of claim 2 as taught by Duerr. The motivation being it would be obvious to try different division ratio to see which functions the best when using a high-frequency generator (MPEP 2143 (E)).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Gilbert, Radecker and Nalbant in further view of Estes, Jr. (US 5013931) herein referred to as Estes.
Regarding Claim 3, Gilbert and Radecker in further view of Nalbant discloses the electrosurgical generator as claimed in claim 1. However, Gilbert and Radecker in further view of Nalbant does not explicitly disclose wherein values of the capacitors of the capacitive voltage divider are in a range between 50 pF and 10 nF.
Estes discloses a generator that can operator at high frequencies (Figure 4) wherein values of the capacitors of the capacitive voltage divider are in a range between 50 pF and 10 nF (Figure 4, 340a & 340b; Column 8, lines 22-24; wherein capacitor 340a is 4700pF and capacitor 340b is 680pF which falls within the range 50 pF and 10 nF). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the capacitor values taught by Gilbert and Radecker in further view of Nalbant to be within the range of claim 3 as taught by Estes. The motivation being it would be obvious to try different capacitor values to see which functions the best when using a high-frequency generator (MPEP 2143 (E)).
Claim 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Gilbert, Radecker and Nalbant in view of Fabbri et al. (US 4809702) herein referred to as Fabbri.
Regarding claim 11, Gilbert and Radecker in view of Nalbant discloses the electrosurgical generator as claimed in claim 10. However, Gilbert and Radecker in view of Nalbant does not explicitly disclose wherein an impedance converter is connected between the second voltage divider and the zero-crossing detector.
Fabbri discloses circuitry of a medical device (Figure 3) wherein an impedance converter
(Figure 3, 21; Column 4, lines 36-43; wherein offset circuit acts as an impedance converter by shifting the signal into a positive direction) is connected between the second voltage divider (Figure 2, R1 & R2) and the zero-crossing detector (Figure 3, 22). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the circuit disclosed by Gilbert and Radecker in view of Nalbant to include an impedance converter as taught by Fabbri. The motivation being that the positive offset value can be adjusted to a universally valuable value (Fabbri, Column 4, lines 43-46)
Regarding claim 12, Gilbert, Radecker and Nalbant in view of Fabbri discloses the electrosurgical generator as claimed in claim 11. Fabbri also discloses wherein an offset circuit is provided in the reference line, being configured, in the absence of an input signal, to apply a defined reference to the zero-crossing detector via the reference line (Claim 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the circuit disclosed by Gilbert, Radecker and Mistretta in view of Fabbri to include the circuit teachings of Fabbri. The motivation being for ensuring zero crossing only of signals having an amplitude greater than said threshold level (Fabbri, Claim 2).
Regarding claim 13, Gilbert, Radecker and Nalbant in view of Fabbri discloses the
electrosurgical generator as claimed in claim 12. Fabbri also discloses wherein the offset circuit is integrated into the impedance converter (Figure 3, 21; Column 4, lines 36-43; wherein offset circuit acts as an impedance converter by shifting the signal into a positive direction therefore is considered to be integrated in since they are one in the same) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the circuit disclosed by Gilbert, Radecker and Nalbant in view of Fabbri to include the circuit teachings of Fabbri. The motivation being by using this design the positive offset value can be adjusted to a universally valuable value (Fabbri, Column 4, lines 43-46)
Regarding claim 14, Gilbert and Radecker in view of Nalbant discloses the electrosurgical generator as claimed in claim 1. However, Gilbert and Radecker in view of Nalbant does not explicitly disclose wherein limiting circuits are provided at the input to the zero-crossing detector for the signal line and/or the reference line.
Fabbri discloses circuitry of a medical device (Figure 3) wherein limiting circuits are provided at the input to the zero-crossing detector for the reference line (Figure 3, 20 & 21; wherein circuit 20 and circuit 21 are provided at the input of zero-crossing detector 22 as the reference line wherein circuit 20 contains a low pass filter limiting high amplitudes through to circuit 21 where they shift the offset of the frequency before entering the zero-crossing detector). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the circuitry taught by Gilbert and Radecker in view of Nalbant to include the circuitry design taught by Fabbri. The motivation being The motivation being for ensuring zero crossing only of signals having an amplitude greater than said threshold level (Fabbri, Claim 2).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA M PAPE whose telephone number is (703)756-5947. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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 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.
ALYSSA M. PAPE
Examiner
Art Unit 3794
/JOANNE M RODDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights