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 .
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 final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendments filed August 18, 2025 have been entered. Currently, claims 1, 13, and 21 have been amended, and claims 1-24 are pending in the application.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
Claims 1 and 13 recites the limitation "the generated waveform" in lines 7-8 and line 6, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-12, and 14-20 are also rejected because they are dependent on claims 1 and 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8, 11-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Robinson (U.S. Application No. 20190090934 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Robinson discloses an electrosurgical system (610) (pa. 0072), comprising:
an electrosurgical device (10) (pa. 0047 & Fig. 1), including:
an electrode (i.e., active and return electrode on the jaw members 110, 120) (pa. 0072);
a coating (400) covering at least a portion of the electrodes (pa. 0053 & Fig. 3B);
a waveform generator (700) configured to be coupled to the electrosurgical device (pa. 0072, 0074, 0080 & Fig. 7); and
a controller (724) coupled to the waveform generator (pa. 0079, 0082 & Fig. 9), the controller configured to make multiple different modifications to the generated waveform (via a closed loop control scheme which allows the controller to adjust one or more energy delivery parameters, such as power, current, voltage, energy, etc. or sealing parameters, such as energy rate limiters, sealing duration, etc., pa. 0077) over multiple uses of the electrosurgical device to compensate for changes in the coating and to apply a consistent delta in the generated waveform between a first waveform value and a second waveform value (pa. 0021, 0087), wherein the multiple different modifications include a first use modification, and a subsequent use modification that adjusts a baseline value to account for changes in the coating after the first use modification.
Examiner is interpreting the resistance as an impedance parameter as since impedance is a broader term that includes resistance. Moreover, Applicant has not made a distinction between both terms, as either may be used interchangeably as stated in the specification of the instant invention (pa. 0022). In more detail, Robinson discloses a controller, including a processor (pa. 0081), adapted to perform operations, calculations, and/or set of instructions that allow for the modification of a generated waveform (pa. 0083) based on a closed loop scheme which receives feedback from a sensed coating property extracted from a storage medium (pa. 0087). The different modifications to the waveform include adjusting one or more energy delivery parameters, such as power, current, voltage, energy, etc. or sealing parameters, such as energy rate limiters, sealing duration, etc., (pa. 0077). The electrosurgical system is capable of being utilized multiple times (i.e., neither the controller nor the waveform generator are limited as a one-time-use-only device. Examiner highlights that the data stored in the storage medium may be encoded in an RFID tag, for example, wherein an RFID tag may be either a rewriteable, or Read-Write (RW) type which allows for new information to be added to replace or update the original data on the tag, or it may be a read-only type; this is not specified the Robinson reference). As such, every time the surgical device with the coating on the electrode is attached to the generator, the controller is capable of reading the respective stored information/data (i.e., the sensed impedance that is affected by the wear/tear of the coating on the electrode) about the coating covering the electrode, and make the desired change to at least one parameter of the electrosurgical energy compensate for any changes in the coating (pa. 0078, 0087). The first/initial time the electrosurgical device is utilized, the dielectric property of the coating is sensed and encoded in the RFID tag. Based on this information, the controller instructs the waveform generator to perform multiple different modifications of the generated waveform (this is interpreted as the first use modification). When the electrosurgical device is utilized a second/subsequent time, the coating on the electrode may have changed and so the dielectric property of the coating is sensed for a second time and the data is encoded in either the same RFID tag (if the tag is a RW type) or in a different RFID tag (if the tag is a read-only type); in either scenario, the updated data extracted from the coating will be stored in the storage medium for the controller to later extract and use as a basis of its vessel sealing algorithm and to adjust other parameters of the energy delivery algorithm (this is interpreted as the second use modification that adjusts a baseline value to account for changes in the coating after the first use modification).
Regarding claim 2, Robinson discloses wherein the first waveform value includes a baseline resistance, and wherein the controller is configured to change the baseline resistance of the electrode based on a predicted coating wear (pa. 0087).
Examiner is interpreting the resistance as the impedance parameter as since impedance is a broader term that includes resistance. Moreover, Applicant has not made a distinction between both terms, as either may be used interchangeably as stated in the specifications of the instant invention (pa. 0022).
Regarding claim 3, Robinson discloses wherein the first waveform value includes a baseline resistance, and the controller is configured to measure a baseline resistance (pa. 0078 & Fig. 8).
Examiner continues to use the same interpretation of resistance as stated above.
Regarding claim 4, Robinson discloses wherein the first waveform value includes a baseline resistance, and the controller is configured to measure a baseline resistance at least once with each use (pa. 0078 & Fig. 8).
Examiner continues to use the same interpretation of resistance as stated above.
Regarding claim 5, Robinson discloses wherein the electrode is included as a component of an electrosurgical forceps (pa. 0047).
Regarding claim 6, Robinson discloses wherein the first waveform value includes an electrical value (pa. 0082).
Regarding claim 7, Robinson discloses wherein the first waveform value includes a thermal value (pa. 0048, 0078).
Regarding claim 8, Robinson discloses wherein the coating includes a polymer (pa. 0040).
Regarding claim 11, Robinson discloses wherein the coating includes a hydrophobic physical structure (i.e., non-stick) (pa. 0040). Examiner is interpreting a non-stick property of the coating to be equivalent to a hydrophobic property since they both repel water due to their low surface energy.
Regarding claim 12, Robinson discloses wherein the waveform generator is configured to provide radio frequency (RF) energy (pa. 0042).
Regarding independent claim 13, Robinson discloses an electrosurgical waveform generator (700) (pa. 0080 & Fig. 7), comprising:
an output to send a generated waveform to an electrosurgical device (pa. 0075);
an input to receive measurements of an electrical property at a coated electrode of the electrosurgical device (pa. 0083); and
a controller (724) configured to make multiple different modifications to the generated waveform over multiple uses of the electrosurgical device, including a first modification to determine a first baseline value, and a subsequent modification to adjust the baseline value of the electrical property to correlate with changes in the coated electrode (pa. 0021, 0082, 0087).
Examiner is interpreting the resistance as an impedance parameter as since impedance is a broader term that includes resistance. Moreover, Applicant has not made a distinction between both terms, as either may be used interchangeably as stated in the specification of the instant invention (pa. 0022).
In more detail, Robinson discloses a controller, including a processor (pa. 0081), adapted to perform operations, calculations, and/or set of instructions that allow for the modification of a generated waveform (pa. 0083) based on a closed loop scheme which receives feedback from a sensed coating property extracted from a storage medium (pa. 0087). The different modifications to the waveform include adjusting one or more energy delivery parameters, such as power, current, voltage, energy, etc. or sealing parameters, such as energy rate limiters, sealing duration, etc., (pa. 0077). The electrosurgical system is capable of being utilized multiple times (i.e., neither the controller nor the waveform generator are limited as a one-time-use-only device. Examiner highlights that the data stored in the storage medium may be encoded in an RFID tag, for example, wherein an RFID tag may be either a rewriteable, or Read-Write (RW) type which allows for new information to be added to replace or update the original data on the tag, or it may be a read-only type; this is not specified the Robinson reference). As such, every time the surgical device with the coating on the electrode is attached to the generator, the controller is capable of reading the respective stored information/data (i.e., the sensed impedance that is affected by the wear/tear of the coating on the electrode) about the coating covering the electrode, and make the desired change to at least one parameter of the electrosurgical energy compensate for any changes in the coating (pa. 0078, 0087). The first/initial time the electrosurgical device is utilized, the dielectric property of the coating is sensed and encoded in the RFID tag. Based on this information, the controller instructs the waveform generator to perform multiple different modifications of the generated waveform (this is interpreted as the first modification to determine a first baseline value). When the electrosurgical device is utilized a second/subsequent time, the coating on the electrode may have changed and so the dielectric property of the coating is sensed for a second time and the data is encoded in either the same RFID tag (if the tag is a RW type) or in a different RFID tag (if the tag is a read-only type); in either scenario, the updated data extracted from the coating will be stored in the storage medium for the controller to later extract and use as a basis of its vessel sealing algorithm and to adjust other parameters of the energy delivery algorithm (this is interpreted as the subsequent modification that adjusts the baseline value of the electrical property to correlate with changes in the coated electrode).
Regarding claim 14, Robinson discloses wherein the electrical property includes resistance (pa. 0087). Examiner is interpreting the resistance as the impedance parameter as since impedance is a broader term that includes resistance. Moreover, Applicant has not made a distinction between both terms, as either may be used interchangeably as stated in the specifications of the instant invention (pa. 0022).
Regarding claim 15, Robinson discloses wherein the electrical property includes impedance (pa. 0087).
Regarding claim 16, Robinson discloses wherein the electrical property includes phase angle (pa. 0087).
Regarding claim 17, Robinson discloses wherein the controller is configured to change a baseline resistance of the coated electrode based on a predicted coating wear (pa. 0087).
Examiner continues to use the same interpretation of resistance as stated above.
Regarding claim 20, Robinson discloses wherein the controller is configured to measure a baseline resistance of the coated electrode at least once with each use of the electrosurgical device (pa. 0087).
Examiner continues to use the same interpretation of resistance as stated above.
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Greep (U.S. Application No. 20030109865 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Robinson discloses a non-limiting selection of materials in (pa. 0040).
However, Robinson does not disclose wherein the coating includes a monomer.
Greep, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an electrosurgical instrument (116) comprising an electrode tip (130) (pa. 0038 & Fig. 1) coated with a hydrophilic monomer material (pa. 0012).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the material of the coating of Robinson to include a monomer in order to assist in cooling and/or lubricating an electrosurgical tip (abstract).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Patel (C.N. Application No. 108472073 A).
Regarding claim 10, Robinson discloses a non-limiting selection of materials in (pa. 0040).
However, Robinson does not disclose wherein the coating includes a glass.
Patel, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an electrosurgical device comprising a conductive element (180) with coating (182) including a glass (page 3, lines 32-33 & Fig. 6).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the coating of Robinson to include glass in order to serve as a hear shield that protects the tissue region from heat damage (page 3, lines 34-35).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Woloszko (U.S. Application No. 20140257269 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Robinson discloses the invention substantially as claimed in claims 13 and 17 discussed above.
However, Robinson does not disclose quantifying a duration of use in an electrosurgical device.
Woloszko, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an electrosurgical system (100) comprising an electrosurgical wand (102) coupled to a controller (104) (pa. 0035 & Fig. 1). The distal end of the wand includes a plurality of electrodes for the application of radio frequency (RF) signals to the tissue (pa. 0040). The controller is able to measure the impedance of the electrodes in order to determine a scale of its “useful life”, specifically being able to estimate a duration time of use before the impedance increases to an unacceptable level (pa. 0101), signifying that the electrode has eroded or cracked over time and is no longer viable/useable (pa. 0099).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included this method of determining the duration of use since using defective devices may lead to serious complications or decreased therapeutic effects (pa. 0098).
Regarding claim 19, Robinson discloses the invention substantially as claimed in claims 13 and 17 discussed above.
However, Robinson does not disclose quantifying a number of procedures in an electrosurgical device.
Woloszko, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the controller being able to calculate or estimate the remaining useful life of the active electrode based on the current ablation mode (e.g., on the provided energy level). The controller then uses a display device (130) to show the surgeon, during or after each procedure, the calculated or estimated value of the remaining useful life of the electrode (pa. 0102-0103), so that they may make informed decisions about how many more procedures the device can handle.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included this method of determining the number of procedures since using defective devices may lead to serious complications or decreased therapeutic effects (pa. 0098).
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 1, 5-6, 8, 11, 13-14, 17, and 20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, and 26 of U.S. Application No. 17/932,770 in view of Robinson (U.S. Application No. 20190090934 A1).
Regarding instant claim 1, it is the Examiner’s position that copending independent claims 1, 11, and 26 are narrower in some aspects given that the copending claims recite a plurality of the limitations that overlap, or otherwise narrower in scope than, those in instant claims 1 and 13. These narrower aspects include the claimed coating on the electrode, the waveform generator, and portions of the functionality of the controller. With respect to the narrower aspects, the Examiner notes that it has been held that the generic aspects of the instant invention would be anticipated by the narrower species aspects of the copending claim. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
With respect to the broader aspects of the copending claim, the Examiner notes that the difference between the instant claim 1 and the copending claims 1, 11, and 26 exist in that the copending claims 1, 11, and 26 fail to provide that the controller functions “to make multiple different modifications to the generated waveform over multiple uses of the electrosurgical device to compensate for changes in the coating and to apply a consistent delta in the generated waveform between a first waveform value and a second waveform value, wherein the multiple different modifications include a first use modification, and a subsequent use modification that adjusts a baseline value to account for changes in the coating after the first use modification.” Robinson, however, provides for a similar system as that of the copending claim and specifically contemplates making multiple different modifications to the generated waveform over multiple uses to compensate for changes in the coating and to apply a consistent delta in the generated waveform between a first waveform value and a second waveform value (pa. 0021, 0087). Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have utilized the controller functionality of Robinson in combination with the system and controller in copending claim 1 to provide for a combined controller functionality that changes the applied waveform to the electrode based on the coating on the electrode.
Moreover, the Examiner notes that the difference between the instant claim 13 and the copending claims 1, 11, and 26 exist in that the copending claims 1, 11, and 26 fail to provide that the controller functions to “make multiple different modifications to the generated waveform over multiple uses of the electrosurgical device, including a first modification to determine a first baseline value, and a subsequent modification to adjust the baseline value of the electrical property to correlate with changes in the coated electrode.” Robinson, however, provides for a similar system as that of the copending claim and specifically contemplates the controller being able to make multiple different modifications to the generated waveform to adjust a baseline value of the electrical property to correlate with changes in the coated electrode (pa. 0021, 0082, 0087). Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have utilized the controller functionality of Robinson in combination with the system and controller in copending claim 1 to provide for a combined controller functionality that changes the applied waveform to the electrode based on the coating on the electrode.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
With respect to dependent claims 5-6, 8, 11, 14 see copending application dependent claims 2, 8-10, 13.
Claims 1-6, 8, 11, 13-17, 19-20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 15 of U.S Application No. 17/812017 in view of Robinson (U.S. Application No. 20190090934 A1).
Regarding instant claim 1, it is the Examiner’s position that copending independent claims 1 and 15 are narrower in some aspects given that the copending claims recite a plurality of the limitations that overlap, or otherwise narrower in scope than, those in instant claims 1 and 13. These narrower aspects include the claimed electrosurgical device, the coating on the electrode, the waveform generator, and portions of the functionality of the controller. With respect to the narrower aspects, the Examiner notes that it has been held that the generic aspects of the instant invention would be anticipated by the narrower species aspects of the copending claim. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
With respect to the broader aspects of the copending claims, the Examiner notes that the difference between the instant claim 1 and the copending claims 1 and 15 exist in that the copending claims 1 and 15 fail to provide that the controller functions “to make multiple different modifications to the generated waveform over multiple uses of the electrosurgical device to compensate for changes in the coating and to apply a consistent delta in the generated waveform between a first waveform value and a second waveform value, wherein the multiple different modifications include a first use modification, and a subsequent use modification that adjusts a baseline value to account for changes in the coating after the first use modification.” Robinson, however, provides for a similar system as that of the copending claim and specifically contemplates making multiple different modifications to the generated waveform to compensate for changes in the coating and to apply a consistent delta in the generated waveform between a first waveform value and a second waveform value (pa. 0021, 0087). Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have utilized the controller functionality of Robinson in combination with the system and controller in copending claim 1 to provide for a combined controller functionality that changes the applied waveform to the electrode based on the coating on the electrode.
Moreover, the Examiner notes that the difference between the instant claim 1 and the copending claims 1 and 15 exist in that the copending claims 1 and 15 fail to provide that the controller functions to “make multiple different modifications to the generated waveform over multiple uses of the electrosurgical device, including a first modification to determine a first baseline value, and a subsequent modification to adjust the baseline value of the electrical property to correlate with changes in the coated electrode”. Robinson, however, provides for a similar system as that of the copending claim and specifically contemplates the controller being able to make multiple different modifications to the generated waveform to adjust a baseline value of the electrical property to correlate with changes in the coated electrode (pa. 0021, 0082, 0087). Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have utilized the controller functionality of Robinson in combination with the system and controller in copending claim 1 to provide for a combined controller functionality that changes the applied waveform to the electrode based on the coating on the electrode.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
With respect to dependent claims 2-6, 8, 11, 14-17, 19-20 see copending application dependent claims 2, 4-5, 11, 18.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to newly amended independent claims 1 and 13, Applicant argues that the primary reference of Robison does not disclose the newly incorporated language. Specifically, Applicant explains how even though Robison does recite adjusting “one or more parameters of the vessel sealing algorithm, based on the coating properties extracted from the storage” that the data in the storage is “static for a given coating”. However, Examiner, respectfully disagrees.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language is that the controller as claimed is configured to make multiple different modifications to the generated waveform over multiple uses of the electrosurgical device to compensate for changes in the coating, wherein the multiple different modifications include a first use modification, and a subsequent use modification that adjusts a baseline value to account for changes in the coating after the first use modification. The language of the claim is broad and does not specify that the baseline value acquired during the subsequent use modification needs to be stored in a specific manner (i.e., a static or dynamic memory storage medium), since the end result of either storage medium will lead to the same predictable results of providing a medium for which data can be stored and extracted from. More explicitly, if the storage medium is static, in order for the electrosurgical system, during a subsequent use modification, to adjust a baseline value, a new storage medium may be used (for example a new/second RFID tag may be used, especially if there is nothing in the prior art inhibiting the user/system from doing so). On the other hand, if the storage medium is dynamic, in order for the electrosurgical system, during a subsequent use modification, to adjust a baseline value, the same storage medium may be used and the new data/information is rewritten over the old. Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Furthermore, as described above, the Robinson discloses a controller, including a processor (pa. 0081), adapted to perform operations, calculations, and/or set of instructions that allow for the modification of a generated waveform (pa. 0083) based on a closed loop scheme which receives feedback from a sensed coating property extracted from a storage medium (pa. 0087). The different modifications to the waveform include adjusting one or more energy delivery parameters, such as power, current, voltage, energy, etc. or sealing parameters, such as energy rate limiters, sealing duration, etc., (pa. 0077). The electrosurgical system is capable of being utilized multiple times (i.e., neither the controller nor the waveform generator are limited as a one-time-use-only device. Examiner highlights that the data stored in the storage medium may be encoded in an RFID tag, for example, wherein an RFID tag may be either a rewriteable, or Read-Write (RW) type which allows for new information to be added to replace or update the original data on the tag, or it may be a read-only type; this is not specified the Robinson reference). As such, every time the surgical device with the coating on the electrode is attached to the generator, the controller is capable of reading the respective stored information/data (i.e., the sensed impedance that is affected by the wear/tear of the coating on the electrode) about the coating covering the electrode, and make the desired change to at least one parameter of the electrosurgical energy compensate for any changes in the coating (pa. 0078, 0087). The first/initial time the electrosurgical device is utilized, the dielectric property of the coating is sensed and encoded in the RFID tag. Based on this information, the controller instructs the waveform generator to perform multiple different modifications of the generated waveform (this is interpreted as the first use modification). When the electrosurgical device is utilized a second/subsequent time, the coating on the electrode may have changed and so the dielectric property of the coating is sensed for a second time and the data is encoded in either the same RFID tag (if the tag is a RW type) or in a different RFID tag (if the tag is a read-only type); in either scenario, the updated data from the coating will be stored in the storage medium for the controller to later extract and use as a basis of its vessel sealing algorithm and to adjust other parameters of the energy delivery algorithm (this is interpreted as the second use modification that adjusts a baseline value to account for changes in the coating after the first use modification). Therefore, based on the reasonings set-forth above, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANA VERUSKA GUERRERO ROSARIO whose telephone number is (571)272-6976. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 - 4:30 PM EST.
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.
/A.V.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3794 /Ronald Hupczey, Jr./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights