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 .
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 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.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgement is made to the amendment received 12/24/2025.
Acknowledgement is made to the amendment of claims 1, 7, 14, and 16-18.
Acknowledgement is made to the cancellation of claims 13 and 15.
Any claims listed above as cancelled have sufficiently overcome any rejections set forth in any of the prior office actions.
Claims 1-12, 14, and 16-19 are pending. A complete action on the merits appears below.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-12, 14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dickerson (US 20180014872 A1) in view of Bek (US 20020120262 A1) and Dierl (US 20210272676 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Dickerson teaches a method for operating an electrosurgical generator to generate an energy supply of an electrosurgical instrument ([0021]), the method comprising:
- sending ([0087]), to a spatially separately arranged server device ([0057]), a configuration request comprising an item of identification information indicative of an identity of the electrosurgical generator;
- receiving ([0087]) an item of operating information indicative of an operating mode, wherein the operating mode is capable of at least partially controlling the energy supply of the electrosurgical instrument by the electrosurgical generator; and
- storing ([0005], [0008]) the operating information in a data memory of the electrosurgical generator.
However, Dickerson fails to teach the method comprising the operating information as being determined in dependence on the item of identification information indicative of the identity of the electrosurgical generator.
Bek teaches a system for treating a patient (Abstract), the system having a generator to supply treatment energy to electrodes ([0037]).
Bek further teaches the information which determines operational characteristics as being based on the specific characteristics of the generator, such as for the determination of compatibility ([0070]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the information relevant to the control of the operation as being determined based on characteristics of the generator, as is taught by Bek, into the generator as is taught by Dickerson, to produce the predictable result of determining compatibility with the generator characteristics being taken into account, as is taught by Bek, as it has been held that the incorporation and/or combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is an obvious modification. MPEP 2141(III).
Dickerson further fails to teach the operating information as providing an operating mode in addition to one or more preinstalled operation modes for operating the electrosurgical generator.
Dierl teaches a device for surgical treatment of a patient having an apparatus with an electrical generator (Abstract).
Dierl further teaches the information received by the generator, such as by selection, as being one which provides both modes which are provided by the manufacturer to the apparatus and additional modes for operating the generator, such as modes which are individual to the treating person ([0043]- [0044]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the generator which contains both preinstalled modes and additional operating modes based on provided operating information, as is taught by Dierl into the generator as is taught by Dickerson, to produce the predictable result of user controllability based on the treating person, as is taught by Dierl, as it has been held that the incorporation and/or combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is an obvious modification. MPEP 2141(III).
Regarding claim 2, Dickerson teaches the method according to Claim 1, further comprising:
- operating the electrosurgical generator in the operating mode for which the stored operating information is indicative ([0012]).
Regarding claim 3, Dickerson teaches the method according to Claim 2, wherein the operation of the electrosurgical generator comprises the control of the energy supply of an electrosurgical instrument ([0021]).
Regarding claim 4, Dickerson teaches the method according to Claim 1, wherein the sending of the identification information further comprises:
- sending, to a token, the identification information ([0083], [0087]);
- receiving, at the token, the identification information ([0083], [0087]);
- determining ([0092]), by way of the token and at least partially in dependence on the identification information, an item of operating information indicative of one operating mode of a plurality of predefined operating modes, wherein the operating modes are each capable of at least partially controlling an energy supply of an electrosurgical instrument by an electrosurgical generator ([0012], [0021]); and
- sending ([0087]), from the token to the server device, the configuration request comprising the identification information.
Regarding claim 6, Dickerson teaches the method according to Claim1, further comprising:
- providing an item of report information ([0021], [0048]), which is indicative of one or more items of operating information stored in the data memory of the electrosurgical generator.
Regarding claim 7, Dickerson teaches a method for operating a server device, the method comprising:
- receiving ([0021], [0057], [0087]) a configuration request comprising an item of identification information indicative of an identity of an electrosurgical generator;
- determining ([0005], [0008], [0012], [0021], [0092]), at least partially in dependence on the identification information, an item of operating information indicative of one operating mode from a plurality of predefined operating modes, wherein the operating modes are each capable of at least partially controlling an energy supply of an electrosurgical instrument by the electrosurgical generator; and
- sending ([0005], [0087], [0092]), to the electrosurgical generator, the operating information.
However, Dickerson fails to teach the method comprising the operating information as being determined in dependence on the item of identification information indicative of the identity of the electrosurgical generator.
Bek teaches a system for treating a patient (Abstract), the system having a generator to supply treatment energy to electrodes ([0037]).
Bek further teaches the information which determines operational characteristics as being based on the specific characteristics of the generator, such as for the determination of compatibility ([0070]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the information relevant to the control of the operation as being determined based on characteristics of the generator, as is taught by Bek, into the generator as is taught by Dickerson, to produce the predictable result of determining compatibility with the generator characteristics being taken into account, as is taught by Bek, as it has been held that the incorporation and/or combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is an obvious modification. MPEP 2141(III).
Dickerson further fails to teach the operating information as providing an operating mode in addition to one or more preinstalled operation modes for operating the electrosurgical generator.
Dierl teaches a device for surgical treatment of a patient having an apparatus with an electrical generator (Abstract).
Dierl further teaches the information received by the generator, such as by selection, as being one which provides both modes which are provided by the manufacturer to the apparatus and additional modes for operating the generator, such as modes which are individual to the treating person ([0043]- [0044]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the generator which contains both preinstalled modes and additional operating modes based on provided operating information, as is taught by Dierl into the generator as is taught by Dickerson, to produce the predictable result of user controllability based on the treating person, as is taught by Dierl, as it has been held that the incorporation and/or combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is an obvious modification. MPEP 2141(III).
Regarding claim 8, Dickerson teaches the method according to Claim 7, wherein the determination of the operating information additionally takes place in dependence on an item of request information, which is indicative of a specific operating mode ([0012], [0021], [0087], [0092] wherein the operating mode is dependent on the provided device and therefore the device information).
Regarding claim 9, Dickerson teaches the method according to Claim 8, wherein the request information is comprised by the configuration request ([0012], [0021], [0087], [0092]).
Regarding claim 10, Dickerson teaches the method according to Claim 1, wherein the reception, the determination, and/or the sending of the operating information comprises a check, at least partially in dependence on the identification information, of the permissibility of the operating mode for the electrosurgical generator, and wherein the operating information is stored in the event of a positive check of the permissibility ([0078], [0117], [0120]).
Regarding claim 11, Dickerson teaches the method according to Claim 1, wherein the determination and/or the sending of the operating information comprises a check, at least partially in dependence on the identification information, of the permissibility of the operating mode for the electrosurgical generator, and wherein the operating information is sent in the event of a positive check of the permissibility ([0078], [0117], [0120]).
Regarding claim 12, Dickerson teaches the method according to Claim 1, wherein the operating mode specifies one or more of the following operating parameters of the electrosurgical generator:
- a profile form of the energy supply of an electrosurgical instrument to be provided by the electrosurgical generator,
- a power, voltage, current and/or frequency of the energy supply of an electrosurgical instrument to be provided by the electrosurgical generator,
- a specific sequence of profile forms, powers, voltages, currents and/or frequencies of the energy supply of an electrosurgical instrument to be provided by the electrosurgical generator,
- an upper and/or lower limit for the energy supply of an electrosurgical instrument to be provided by the electrosurgical generator ([0120] teaches that the identifier which determines the use of the device by the generator as including use limits relevant to the amount of energy provided by the energy source to the device),
- a user-specific setting of the electrosurgical generator with respect to the energy supply of an electrosurgical instrument ([0090]- [0091]), and/or
- a software update of the electrosurgical generator.
Regarding claim 14, Dickerson teaches a computer program having program instructions to cause a processor to carry out and/or control the method according to Claim 1 when the computer program is executed on the processor ([0005], [0008], [0021], [0087]).
Regarding claim 16, Dickerson teaches an electrosurgical generator for the energy supply of an electrosurgical instrument having a processor, a communication interface, a data memory for storing one or more items of operating information, and a computer- readable data carrier, wherein instructions are stored in the data carrier which, upon execution by the processor, cause the method according to Claim 1 to be carried out ([0005], [0008], [0021], [0087]).
Regarding claim 17, Dickerson teaches a server device having a processor, a communication interface, a database for storing a plurality of items of operating information, and a computer-readable data carrier, wherein instructions are stored in the data carrier, which, upon execution by the processor, cause the method according to Claim 7 to be carried out ([0005], [0008], [0021], [0081], [0087]).
Regarding claim 18, Dickerson teaches the electrosurgical system, comprising an electrosurgical generator according to Claim 16 and a server device ([0005], [0008], [0021], [0087]).
Regarding claim 19, Dickerson teaches the electrosurgical system according to Claim 18, further comprising a token designed as a user terminal ([0045], [0083] teach this limitation as broadly as is currently is claimed).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dickerson (US 20180014872 A1) in view of Bek (US 20020120262 A1) and Dierl (US 20210272676 A1) further in view of Sade (US 20140013390 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Dickerson as modified teaches the method according to Claim 1, further comprising:
- sending ([0087]), from a token ([0083], [0087]), a request comprising an item of information; and
- receiving ([0087]), at the electrosurgical generator, the request.
However, Dickerson fails to teach the request as being a preliminary request, the information being preliminary information, and the configuration request as taking place in dependence on the preliminary information.
Sade teaches a server system and method, wherein the server receives requests from a client machine which interacts with the server (Abstract, [0002]- [0003], [0025]).
Sade further teaches the step of performing a preliminary request prior to connection to receive additional requests, so as to confirm that the request is legitimate and was not sent by an impersonator ([0003], [0031], [0032]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the step of performing a preliminary request prior to continuing additional actions between the server and the system it is connecting with, as is taught by Sade, into the server which is connected to a medical system, as is taught by Dickerson, to produce the predictable result of confirming that the request was legitimate and not sent by an impersonator, as is taught by Sade, as it has been held that the incorporation and/or combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is an obvious modification. MPEP 2141(III).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejection.
Specifically, applicant’s arguments of the limitations that art not taught by the Dickerson reference are moot in view of the new rejections under Dickerson in view of Bek and Dierl.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSAY REGAN LANCASTER whose telephone number is (571)272-7259. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8-4 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, Linda Dvorak can be reached on 571-272-4764. 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.
/LINDA C DVORAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/L.R.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights