DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to applicant’s election of Group I in the response to a Restriction requirement received on 7/2/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 12-20 have been withdrawn from consideration. A complete action on the merits of claims 1-11 follows below.
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant should note that the large number of references in the attached IDS have been considered by the examiner in the same manner as other documents in Office search files are considered by the examiner while conducting a search of the prior art in a proper field of search. See MPEP 609.05(b). Applicant is requested to point out any particular references in the IDS which they believe may be of particular relevance to the instant claimed invention in response to this office action.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group of invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/2/2025.
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 7 and 8 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the light emitting device includes at least one of a plurality of light emitting diodes or a single white light diode”. It is noted that claim 1 on which claim 7 depend on claims the limitation “an optical module configured to measure the light reflected by the indicator and determine a color of the indicator; and a controller configured to identify a type of the electrosurgical attachment based on the color of the indicator”. It is at most unclear how this function would take place or make sense if the light emitting device only includes a singe white light. It would appear that the light emitting device would have to include a plurality of light emitting diodes in order to determine which one is activated to determine a color of the indicator in order to identify a type of the electrosurgical attachment based on the color of the indicator. Clarification and appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is rejected due to dependency over claim 7.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gregg (US Pub. No. 2009/0036884) in view of McEwen (US Pub. No. 2003/0036771).
Regarding Claim 1, Gregg teaches an electrosurgical system (Figs. 1-2) comprising:
an electrosurgical attachment (instrument 11 and return electrodes 14, 15, 16, Fig. 1) including a plug having an indicator (Figs. 1-2, “return electrodes 14, 15 and 16 are electrically connected to the generator 10 through the cable 12 and in series to current monitors 43, 53 and 63, which are connected to the microprocessor 26” [0026] and “determining the size of the return electrode to be utilized, e.g. adult, infant, neonate, and adjusting the heating and cooling constants accordingly. The user could inform the generator of the size being used, or alternatively, the size can be automatically sensed by the generator based on the differences in the return electrode connector” [0071]);
an electrosurgical generator 10 including: a port configured to couple to the plug, the port including a detection circuit (Fig. 2) and a controller configured to identify a type of the electrosurgical attachment based on the connector ([0071]); however, Gregg does not go in detail on what elements the return electrode connector have and/or how the size of the return electrodes can be automatically sensed by the generator based on the differences in the return electrode connector and therefore, Gregg is silent in teaching a light emitting device configured to illuminate the indicator with a light; and an optical module configured to measure the light reflected by the indicator and determine a color of the indicator; and the controller configured to identify a type of the electrosurgical attachment based on the color of the indicator as claimed.
McEwen teaches the use of an optical module for automatic cuff identification by visual identification of an attachment means based on a connector allowing a source identify specific characteristics related to the attachment means ([0004], [0031]-[0034]). McEwen further teaches “Cuff identification module 32 communicates with cuff identification display 15 to indicate to a user the type of cuff connected to instrument 12” in [0033], wherein the cuff connector includes identification means indicative of the physical characteristic and detectable by cuff identification module 32 comprises a set of LEDs and a photodiode 30. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the current invention to use optical sensing means in the connector of Gregg in order to automatically identifying a characteristic of an attachment means to a console/generator based on visual identification through a set of colored LEDs and a photodiode as McEwen teaches as there are many different means of identification of an attachment connector such as RFID, optical, electrical that are known equivalents to determining a specific characteristics of an attachment means within the level of ordinary skill.
Regarding Claim 2, Gregg teaches wherein the electrosurgical attachment is a return electrode pad (return electrodes 14, 15, 16 in Figs. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 3, Gregg teaches “pads of different size or shape can be used with adjustment made to the allowable ratio” in [0027] and “determining the size of the return electrode to be utilized, e.g. adult, infant, neonate, and adjusting the heating and cooling constants accordingly … the size can be automatically sensed by the generator based on the differences in the return electrode connector” in [0071], but does not teach wherein the color of the indicator corresponds to a property of the return electrode pad. McEwen teaches “The computed relative intensity levels of red, green and blue light reflected by cuff connector 20 are compared by cuff identification module 32 to predetermined ranges of relative intensities stored within cuff identification module 32 and corresponding to each cuff in cuff set 16 ... The cuff type is determined when a predetermined number of reflected light pulses (for example five consecutive series of red, green and blue light pulses) all have relative intensities falling within the predetermined range matching the cuff type. Once identified, the cuff type and/or related predetermined information may be displayed on cuff identification display 15 and recorded within cuff identification module 32” in [0039]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the current invention to use a plurality of colored LEDs such that the light reflected by the connector in order to allow the module to identify the type of the attachment means coupled thereto, thus a type/size of the return electrode coupled to the generator of Gregg.
Regarding Claim 4, Gregg teaches wherein the controller is further configured to modify operation of the electrosurgical generator based on the property (“determining the size of the return electrode to be utilized, e.g. adult, infant, neonate, and adjusting the heating and cooling constants accordingly. The user could inform the generator of the size being used, or alternatively, the size can be automatically sensed by the generator based on the differences in the return electrode connector” [0071]).
Regarding Claim 5, Gregg teaches wherein the property is a size of the return electrode pad (“determining the size of the return electrode to be utilized, e.g. adult, infant, neonate, and adjusting the heating and cooling constants accordingly. The user could inform the generator of the size being used, or alternatively, the size can be automatically sensed by the generator based on the differences in the return electrode connector” [0071]).
Regarding Claim 6, Gregg in view of McEwen teaches wherein the plug includes a plurality of contacts and the indicator forms at least a portion of one contact of the plurality of contacts (Fig. 2 of McEwen).
Regarding Claim 7, Gregg in view of McEwen teaches wherein the light emitting device includes at least one of a plurality of light emitting diodes or a single white light diode ([0031]-[0034] and [0039]-[0041] of McEwen).
Regarding Claim 8, Gregg in view of McEwen teaches wherein the plurality of light emitting diodes includes a red-light emitting diode, a green-light emitting diode, and a blue-light emitting diode ([0031]-[0034] and [0039]-[0041] of McEwen).
Regarding Claim 9, Gregg in view of McEwen teaches wherein the optical module includes at least one photodiode ([0031]-[0034] and [0039]-[0041] of McEwen).
Regarding Claim 10, Gregg teaches wherein the electrosurgical attachment is an electrosurgical instrument 11 (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 11, Gregg teaches wherein the controller is further configured to modify operation of the electrosurgical generator based on the type of the electrosurgical attachment (“determining the size of the return electrode to be utilized, e.g. adult, infant, neonate, and adjusting the heating and cooling constants accordingly. The user could inform the generator of the size being used, or alternatively, the size can be automatically sensed by the generator based on the differences in the return electrode connector” [0071]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHADIJEH A VAHDAT whose telephone number is (571)270-7631. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6 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.
/KHADIJEH A VAHDAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794