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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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, 5-13, and 17-28 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitations "the RF current signal component" and “RF current voltage component” in lines 7-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 also recites the term “SINAD” in line 9. However, this term is not defined in the claims, so it is unclear what this term is referring to.
Claim 5 recites the limitations "an RF current signal component " in line 3 and “an RF voltage signal component” in line 5. It is unclear whether these limitations are referring to the RF current signal component and RF voltage signal component recited in claim 1, or different components.
Claim 5 also recites the limitations “the RF current signal component” and “the RF current signal component” in lines 7-12. It is unclear whether these limitations are referring to the RF current signal component and the RF voltage signal component recited in claim 1 or the potentially different RF current signal component and RF voltage signal component recited earlier in claim 5.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "an RF current component " in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether this limitation is referring to the RF current signal component recited in claim 1, the potentially different RF current signal component recited in claim 5, or a completely different RF current signal component.
Claim 6 also recites the limitations "the RF current signal " in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 7-11 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitations "the RF current signal component" and “RF current voltage component” in lines 9-12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 also recites the term “SINAD” in lines 11-12. However, this term is not defined in the claims, so it is unclear what this term is referring to.
Claims 13 is rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitations "an RF current signal component " in line 3 and “an RF voltage signal component” in line 5. It is unclear whether these limitations are referring to the RF current signal component and RF voltage signal component recited in claim 12, or different components.
Claim 17 also recites the limitations “the RF current signal component” and “the RF current signal component” in lines 7-12. It is unclear whether these limitations are referring to the RF current signal component and the RF voltage signal component recited in claim 12 or the potentially different RF current signal component and RF voltage signal component recited earlier in claim 17.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "an RF current component " in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether this limitation is referring to the RF current signal component recited in claim 1, the potentially different RF current signal component recited in claim 5, or a completely different RF current signal component.
Claim 18 also recites the limitations "the RF current signal " in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 19-28 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-13, 17-23, and 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wham et al., (US 20140276753; hereinafter Wham) in view of Venkatesh (US 20090206950).
Regarding claim 1, Wham (Figures 1-3 and 7) discloses a method to control delivery of heat to biological tissue comprising: imparting an RF electrical signal to the biological tissue over a circuit that includes a first electrode (electrode of instrument 2 connected to active terminal 330 of generator 200) and a second electrode (6), wherein the biological tissue is electrically coupled between the first electrode (electrode of instrument 2 connected to active terminal 330 of generator 200) and the second electrode (6); measuring frequency content of the RF electrical signal between the first electrode (electrode of instrument 2 connected to active terminal 330 of generator 200) and the second electrode (6); and adjusting the RF electrical signal based upon the measured frequency content of the RF electrical signal ([0046]-[0048], [0050], [0056]).
Wham fails to disclose that measuring the frequency content of the RF electrical signal includes determining at least one of: a ratio of total harmonic distortion (THD) of the RF current signal component to the THD of RF voltage signal component, a ratio of signal to noise ratio (SNR) of the RF current signal component to the SNR of RF voltage signal component, and a ratio of SINAD of the RF current signal component to the SINAD of RF voltage signal component. However, Venkatesh (Figures 1-4) teaches a method of power control for a power system, wherein measuring frequency content of an electrical signal includes determining a ratio of THD of a current signal component to the THD of a voltage signal component ([0049]-[0058]: transformation ratio of the combined or composite current and voltage harmonic filter). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wham to include the step of determining at least one of: a ratio of THD of the RF current signal component to the THD of RF voltage signal component, as taught by Venkatesh, because the modification would dynamically cancel the harmonic current/voltage and limit the current/voltage harmonic distortion appearing on the load (Venkatesh; [0055]).
Regarding claim 5, Wham (Figures 1-3 and 7) further discloses wherein measuring frequency content of the RF electrical signal includes, digitally sampling an RF current signal component of the RF electrical signal flowing between the first electrode (electrode of instrument 2 connected to active terminal 330 of generator 200) and the second electrode (6); digitally sampling an RF voltage signal component of the RF electrical signal across the first electrode (electrode of instrument 2 connected to active terminal 330 of generator 200) and the second electrode (6), ([0059]-[0060], [0075]-[0078]). Wham/Venkatesh further teaches determining at the least one of the ratio of THD of the RF current signal component to THD of RF voltage signal component, the ratio of SNR of the RF current signal component to the SNR of RF voltage signal component, and the ratio of SINAD of the RF current signal component to SINAD of the RF voltage signal component, based upon digital samples of the RF current signal component and digital samples of the RF voltage signal component (Venkatesh; [0049]-[0058]).
Regarding claim 6, Wham (Figures 1-3 and 7) further discloses wherein measuring frequency content of the RF electrical signal includes, determining a quality factor (harmonic distortion) of an RF current component of the RF electrical signal flowing between the first electrode (electrode of instrument 2 connected to active terminal 330 of generator 200) and the second electrode (6) the RF current signal ([0075]-[0078]).
Regarding claim 7, Wham (Figures 1-3 and 7) further discloses wherein adjusting the RF electrical signal based upon the frequency content of the RF electrical signal includes: halting the RF electrical signal in response to the frequency content of the RF electrical signal meeting a threshold indicative of an occurrence of an aberrant arc ([0100]).
Regarding claim 8, Wham (Figures 1-3 and 7) further discloses wherein adjusting the RF electrical signal based upon the frequency content of the RF electrical signal includes: adjusting energy level of the RF electrical signal to adjust the frequency content of the RF electrical signal, based upon the determined frequency content of the RF electrical signal, to maintain the frequency content of the RF electrical signal within a prescribed frequency range ([0046], [0056], [0074]).
Regarding claim 9, Wham (Figures 1-3 and 7) further discloses wherein adjusting the RF electrical signal based upon the frequency content of the RF electrical signal includes: adjusting energy level of the RF electrical signal to adjust a voltage level of a voltage signal component of the RF electrical signal, based upon the determined frequency content of the RF electrical signal, to maintain the frequency content of the RF electrical signal within a prescribed frequency range ([0056]-[0057], [0085]).
Regarding claim 10, Wham (Figures 1-3 and 7) further discloses wherein imparting the RF electrical signal includes imparting the RF electrical signal according to a predetermined protocol; and wherein adjusting the RF electrical signal includes adjusting the predetermined protocol signal based upon the measured frequency content of the RF electrical signal ([0046], [0056], [0074]).
Regarding claim 11, Wham (Figures 1-3 and 7) further discloses wherein imparting the RF electrical signal includes imparting the RF electrical signal according to a predetermined protocol that includes imparting a prescribed sequence of RF electrical signal pulses to the biological tissue; and wherein adjusting the RF electrical signal includes adjusting the prescribed sequence of RF electrical signal pulses to the biological tissue ([0046]-[0048], [0074], [0086]).
Regarding claim 12, Wham (Figures 1-3 and 7) discloses an electrosurgical system (100) to deliver heat to biological tissue comprising: a radio frequency (RF) electrical signal source (200) operable to impart an RF electrical signal to the biological tissue ([0050], [0054]); a digital sampling circuit (302, 370, 380) coupled to digitally sample the RF electrical signal imparted to the biological tissue ([0059]-[0060]); frequency content logic (324) coupled to determine frequency content of the RF electrical signal based upon digital samples of the RF electrical signal ([0055]); and control logic (325) coupled to control the RF electrical signal source (200) based upon the determined frequency content of the RF electrical signal ([0055]).
Wham fails to disclose wherein the frequency content logic determines at least one of: a ratio of total harmonic distortion (THD) of the RF current signal component to the THD of RF voltage signal component, a ratio of signal to noise ratio (SNR) of the RF current signal component to the SNR of RF voltage signal component, and a ratio of SINAD of the RF current signal component to the SINAD of RF voltage signal component. However, Venkatesh (Figures 1-4) teaches a system of power control for a power system, wherein a frequency content logic determines a ratio of THD of a current signal component to the THD of a voltage signal component ([0049]-[0058]: transformation ratio of the combined or composite current and voltage harmonic filter). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wham to include the frequency content logic determining a ratio of THD of the RF current signal component to the THD of RF voltage signal component, as taught by Venkatesh, because the modification would dynamically cancel the harmonic current/voltage and limit the current/voltage harmonic distortion appearing on the load (Venkatesh; [0055]).
Regarding claim 13, Wham (Figures 1-3 and 7) further discloses wherein the digital sampling circuit (302, 370, 380) includes one or more analog to digital converter circuits (302), ([0059]-[0060]).
Regarding claim 17, Wham (Figures 1-3 and 7) further discloses wherein the digital sampling circuit (302, 370, 380) includes one or more digital sampling circuits (302) coupled to digitally sample an RF current signal component of the RF electrical signal ([0059]-[0060]); wherein the digital sampling circuit (302, 370, 380) includes one or more digital sampling circuits (302) coupled to digitally sample an RF voltage signal component of the RF electrical signal ([0059]-[0060], [0075]-[0078]). Wham/Venkatesh further teaches wherein the frequency content logic determines at the least one of the ratio of THD of the RF current signal component to THD of RF voltage signal component, the ratio of SNR of the RF current signal component to the SNR of RF voltage signal component, and the ratio of SINAD of the RF current signal component to SINAD of the RF voltage signal component using the digital sampled RF voltage signal component of the RF electrical signal (Venkatesh; [0049]-[0058]).
Regarding claim 18, Wham (Figures 1-3 and 7) further discloses wherein the frequency content logic (324) determines a quality factor (harmonic distortion) of an RF current component of the RF electrical signal ([0075]-[0078]).
Regarding claim 19, Wham (Figures 1-3 and 7) further discloses wherein the control logic (325) is configured to cause the RF electrical signal source (200) to halt imparting of the RF electrical signal in response to the determined frequency content of the RF electrical signal being indicative of an occurrence of an aberrant arc ([0100]).
Regarding claim 20, Wham (Figures 1-3 and 7) further discloses wherein the control logic (325) is configured to cause the RF electrical signal source (200) to adjust an energy level of the RF electrical signal, based upon the determined frequency content of the RF electrical signal, to maintain frequency content of the RF electrical signal within a prescribed frequency range ([0046], [0056], [0074]).
Regarding claim 21, Wham (Figures 1-3 and 7) further discloses wherein the control logic (325) is configured to cause the RF electrical signal source (200) to adjust a voltage level of a voltage signal component of the RF electrical signal, based upon the determined frequency content of the RF electrical signal, to maintain the frequency content of the RF electrical signal within a prescribed frequency range ([0056]-[0057], [0085]).
Regarding claim 22, Wham (Figures 1-3 and 7) further discloses wherein the control logic (325) is configured to cause the RF electrical signal source (200) to impart the RF electrical signal according to a predetermined protocol and to adjust the predetermined protocol signal, based upon the determined frequency content of the RF electrical signal ([0046], [0056], [0074]).
Regarding claim 23, Wham (Figures 1-3 and 7) further discloses wherein the control logic (325) is configured to cause the RF electrical signal source (200) to impart the RF electrical signal according to a predetermined protocol that includes imparting a prescribed sequence of RF electrical signal pulses to the biological tissue and to adjust the prescribed sequence of RF electrical signal pulses to the biological tissue, based upon the determined frequency content of the RF electrical signal ([0046]-[0048], [0074], [0086]).
Regarding claim 26, Wham (Figures 1-3 and 7) further discloses wherein the frequency content logic (324) includes processor circuitry configured according to executable instructions to determine the frequency content of the RF electrical signal based upon digital samples of the RF electrical signal; and wherein the control logic (325) includes a processor configured according to executable instructions to control the RF electrical signal source based upon the determined frequency content of the RF electrical signal ([0055]).
Regarding claim 27, Wham (Figures 1-3 and 7) further discloses wherein the frequency content logic (324) includes Field Programmable Gate Array circuitry configured to determine the frequency content of the RF electrical signal based upon digital samples of the RF electrical signal; and wherein the control logic (325) includes processor circuitry configured according to executable instructions to control the RF electrical signal source based upon the determined frequency content of the RF electrical signal ([0055]).
Regarding claim 28, Wham (Figures 1-3 and 7) further discloses wherein the RF electrical signal source (200) includes a first electrode (electrode of instrument 2 connected to active terminal 330 of generator 200) and a second electrode (return electrode 6 connected to return terminal 332 of generator 200) that are configurable to electrically couple the biological tissue therebetween; and wherein the RF electrical signal source (200) is operable to impart the RF electrical signal over the first electrode (electrode of instrument 2 connected to active terminal 330 of generator 200) and the second electrode (return electrode 6 connected to return terminal 332 of generator 200) with the biological tissue electrically coupled therebetween ([0050]).
Claim(s) 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wham/Venkatesh, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Flachenecker et al., (US 4818954; hereinafter Flachenecker).
Regarding claims 24-25, Wham/Venkatesh teaches the electrosurgical system of claim 12, but fails to teach wherein the RF electrical signal source includes a transformer circuit configured to impart the RF electrical signal and including a voltage control circuit coupled to control a voltage level of the RF electrical signal imparted by the transformer circuit. However, Flachenecker teaches an electrosurgical system in which the RF electrical signal source includes a transformer circuit (transformer as coupling element for the signal source) configured to impart the RF electrical signal and including a voltage control circuit (output filter) coupled to control a voltage level of the RF electrical signal imparted by the transformer circuit (Col. 5, lines 29-46). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the known RF electrical signal source method/system taught by Wham/Venkatesh with the known RF electrical signal source method/system taught by Flachenecker since the known methods/systems of Wham/Venkatesh and Flachenecker achieve the same result of voltage output control (Wham, [0056]; Flachenecker, Col. 1, lines 6-28). Therefore, the combined method/system including the teachings of Wham/Venkatesh and Flachenecker, as mentioned above, would yield the same predictable result of voltage output control, and it has been held that combining known methods/systems which yield the same predictable result is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP2143.I.A.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 02/03/2026, regarding the newly amended claim limitations, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art reference Venkatesh, which teaches a method/system of power control for a power system, wherein frequency control logic measures frequency content of an electrical signal by determining a ratio of THD of a current signal component to the THD of a voltage signal component. In combination with Wham, the modified method/system teaches the invention as claimed at least in the presently amended claims.
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 CATHERINE PREMRAJ whose telephone number is (571)272-8013. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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.
/C.C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/EUN HWA KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights