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 § 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bigley et al., (hereinafter ‘Bigley,’ U.S. PGPub. No. 2010/0204690) in view of Woloszko et al., (hereinafter ‘Woloszko,’ U.S. PGPub. No. 2014/0257277).
Regarding claim 1, Bigley discloses (Figs. 6-10) an electrosurgical device (probe 600) for use in arthroscopic procedures comprising: an elongate outer body (shaft 601); a first plate (active screen electrode 602) having a plurality of passages (slots 616, opening 618 in Fig. 7B) therethrough, and an insulator (insulating cap 612) disposed abutting the elongate outer body (601) at a first end (Fig. 6) and abutting the first plate (602) at a second end opposite the first end (Fig. 6), wherein when electricity is supplied to the electrosurgical device and a conductor is present at a distal end of the electrosurgical device (wire 613) ([0066], “Wires 613 extend from electrical connectors (i.e., electrical connectors 328 in FIG. 4), through shaft 601 and passages 624 in support member 604, terminating in proximity to slots 611 and tabs 610 of securing electrodes 606. Wires 613 are electrically connected to securing electrodes 606 (e.g., by a laser welding process) thereby electrically coupling securing electrodes 606 and screen electrode 602 to a high frequency power supply.”), a closed circuit is formed and the first plate is a first electrode (active screen electrode 602) of the electrosurgical device and the elongate outer body is a second electrode (return electrode 602) of the electrosurgical device.
Bigley is silent regarding wherein a distal end of the insulator includes at least one protrusion extending distally beyond the first plate, the at least one protrusion being adjacent to the first plate.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Woloszko teaches a similar electrosurgical device (Fig. 2a) comprising wherein a distal end of the insulator includes at least one protrusion extending distally beyond the first plate, the at least one protrusion being adjacent to the first plate (standoffs 210, 212, 214, and 216; [0037]-[0038]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the device as taught by Bigley to include wherein a distal end of the insulator includes at least one protrusion extending distally beyond the first plate, the at least one protrusion being adjacent to the first plate, as taught by Woloszko, in order “to limit the ability of the active electrode [ ] to physically contact the target tissue” ([0037]) and protect “the active electrode [ ] from ‘washout’ of the plasma formed on some portion of active electrode” ([0039]), thereby improving accuracy, efficiency, and control of treatment.
Regarding claim 2, Bigley discloses (Figs. 6-10) further including an elongate inner body (support member 604) having a cannulated portion extending from a proximal end to a distal end (Fig. 8) and two projections (securing electrodes 606), each extending distally from the distal end of the cannulated portion (Figs. 6 and 9), the elongate inner body (604) disposed partially within the elongate outer body (601), the first plate (602) being positioned such that each of the two projections extends (606) through a respective passage (616) of the plurality of passages of the first plate (602), the insulator (612) being disposed around the elongate inner body (604).
Regarding claim 3, Bigley in view of Woloszko teach all of the limitations of the electrosurgical device according claim 2. In view of the prior modification of Bigley in view of Woloszko, Woloszko (Fig. 2a) teaches wherein the distal end of the insulator includes first and second protrusions (standoffs 210, 212, 214, and 216) extending distally beyond the first plate (202), the first plate (202) interposed between the first and second protrusions (210, 212, 214, and 216).
Regarding claim 4, Bigley in view of Woloszko teach all of the limitations of the electrosurgical device according claim 3, but are silent regarding wherein a second plate is disposed on the first plate, the second plate being fixed to the at least one projection.
However, in an alternate embodiment, Woloszko teaches a similar electrosurgical device (Figs.1 and 3B) comprising a first plate (active electrode 202 in Fig. 3B) including a projection (conductor 324, amount 328 of portion 326 of conductor 324) that extends through a passage of the first plate (202; see Fig. 3B). Woloszko further teaches a ‘plate’ (weld 330) disposed on the first plate (202) is fixed to the projection (328, 326) such that the ‘plate’ (weld 330) “functions to electrically couple and mechanically secure active electrode 202 onto spacer 200” ([0047]). It is well known in the art (as can be seen in Woloszko) to provide additional plates, such that the additional plates are fixed to said projections, as claimed in claim 4, in order to electrically couple and mechanically secure the first plate to the device, thereby increasing security, durability and safety. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the device as taught by Bigley in view of Howard to further include a second plate is disposed on the first plate, the second plate being fixed to the at least one projection, as taught by Woloszko in order to electrically couple and mechanically secure the first plate to the device, thereby increasing security, durability and safety.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Bigley in view of Woloszko teach all of the limitations of the electrosurgical device according to claim 3, but are silent regarding wherein a second plate is disposed on the first plate, the second plate extending between the two projections, and wherein the second plate is a bar.
However, in an alternate embodiment, Woloszko teaches a similar electrosurgical device (Figs.1 and 3B) comprising a first plate (active electrode 202 in Fig. 3B) including a projection (conductor 324, amount 328 of portion 326 of conductor 324) that extends through a passage of the first plate (202; see Fig. 3B). Woloszko further teaches a bar shaped ‘plate’ (weld 330) disposed on the first plate (202) is fixed to and extending between the projection (328, 326) such that the ‘plate’ (weld 330) “functions to electrically couple and mechanically secure active electrode 202 onto spacer 200” ([0047]). It is well known in the art (as can be seen in Woloszko) to provide additional plates, such that the additional plates are fixed to and extending between said projections, as claimed in claims 5 and 6, in order to electrically couple and mechanically secure the first plate to the device, thereby increasing security, durability and safety. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the device as taught by Bigley in view of Howard to further include the second plate extending between the two projections, as taught by Woloszko in order to electrically couple and mechanically secure the first plate to the device, thereby increasing security, durability and safety.
Regarding claim 7, Bigley further discloses wherein the plurality of passages of the first plate (602) are apertures (slots 616, opening 618 in Fig. 7B) and include a first aperture (616), a second aperture (616) and a third aperture (618) between the first and second apertures (Fig. 7B).
Regarding claim 8, Bigley further discloses wherein the plurality of passages (slots 616, opening 618 in Fig. 7B) of the first plate (602) further includes at least a fourth aperture (see opening 618 in two parts), wherein at least a portion of the third aperture (618) extends beyond an inner diameter of the elongated inner body and at least a portion of the fourth aperture (618) is within the inner diameter of the elongated inner body (as broadly claimed, opening 618 constitutes two apertures wherein a portion extends beyond an inner diameter and a portion is within the inner diameter of the elongated inner body, see Figs. 6-10).
Regarding claim 9, Bigley in view of Woloszko teach all of the limitations of the electrosurgical device according to claim 5. In view of the prior modification of Bigley in view of Woloszko, Bigley in view of Woloszko would necessarily provide wherein the first plate is a first material and the second plate is a second material.
Bigley in view of Woloszko are silent regarding the second material with a melting temperature and corrosion resistance lower than that of the first material.
However, Bigley further discloses wherein the “[s]ecuring electrode 606 may be formed with a conductive material such as tungsten, and the shape and profile of securing electrode 606 may be manufactured via etching, laser cutting, or injection molding” ([0063]) and “screen electrode 602 will comprise a conductive material, such as tungsten, titanium, molybdenum, stainless steel, aluminum, gold, copper or the like” ([0064]). Additionally, Woloszko teaches “[t]he inventors of the present specification have found that is it beneficial to construct active electrode 202 of tungsten and conductor 324 of titanium or platinum in order to enhance joining properties of weld 330 in this configuration.” (0047]). Therefore, it is well known in the art (as can be seen in both Bigley and Woloszko) to mix and match a variety of different conductive materials in order to enhance the attachment of the electrodes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the materials of the plates as taught by Bigley in view of Woloszko such that the second material comprises a melting temperature and corrosion resistance lower than that of the first material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its art recognized suitability for the intended purpose. MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 10, Bigley in view of Woloszko teach all of the limitations of the electrosurgical device according to claim 9. Bigley discloses wherein the first material is tungsten ([0064], “screen electrode 602 will comprise a conductive material, such as tungsten, titanium, molybdenum, stainless steel, aluminum, gold, copper or the like”). Bigley in view of Woloszko, however, are silent regarding the second material is stainless steel.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the second material, as taught by Bigley in view of Woloszko, such that it is stainless steel, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its art recognized suitability for the intended purpose. MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 11, Bigley in view of Woloszko teach all of the limitations of the electrosurgical device according to claim 9. Bigley discloses wherein the first plate is steel ([0064]). Bigley in view of Woloszko, however, are silent regarding wherein the second plate is steel.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the material of the second plate, as taught by Bigley in view of Woloszko, such that it is steel, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its art recognized suitability for the intended purpose. MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 12, Bigley discloses (Figs. 6-10) an electrosurgical device (probe 600) for use in arthroscopic procedures comprising: an elongate outer body (shaft 601); an elongate inner body (support member 604) having a cannulated portion extending from a proximal end to a distal end (Fig. 8) and at least one projection (securing electrodes 606), the projection extending distally from the distal end of the cannulated portion (Figs. 6 and 9), the elongate inner body (604) disposed partially within the elongate outer body (601); a first plate having a plurality of passages (slots 616, opening 618 in Fig. 7B) therethrough, the first plate being positioned such that the projection extends through a respective passage of the plurality of passages of the first plate (Fig. 6) and is deformed to prevent pullout of the first plate from the elongate inner body (see Figs. 7A for leg 608, tab 610); and an insulator (insulating cap 612) disposed around the elongate inner body (604), the insulator (612) abutting the elongate outer body (601) at a first end (Fig. 6) and abutting the first plate (602) at a second end opposite the first end (Fig. 6), wherein when electricity is supplied to the elongate inner body and a conductor is present at a distal end of the electrosurgical device (wire 613) ([0066], “Wires 613 extend from electrical connectors (i.e., electrical connectors 328 in FIG. 4), through shaft 601 and passages 624 in support member 604, terminating in proximity to slots 611 and tabs 610 of securing electrodes 606. Wires 613 are electrically connected to securing electrodes 606 (e.g., by a laser welding process) thereby electrically coupling securing electrodes 606 and screen electrode 602 to a high frequency power supply.”), a closed circuit is formed and the first plate is a first electrode (active screen electrode 602) of the electrosurgical device and the elongate outer body is a second electrode (return electrode 602) of the electrosurgical device.
Bigley is silent regarding wherein at least a distal portion of the insulator extends distally beyond the first plate such that the distal end of the electrosurgical device is defined by the insulator.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Woloszko teaches a similar electrosurgical device (Fig. 2a) comprising wherein at least a distal portion of the insulator extends distally beyond the first plate such that the distal end of the electrosurgical device is defined by the insulator (standoffs 210, 212, 214, and 216; [0037]-[0038]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the device as taught by Bigley to include wherein at least a distal portion of the insulator extends distally beyond the first plate such that the distal end of the electrosurgical device is defined by the insulator, as taught by Woloszko, in order “to limit the ability of the active electrode [ ] to physically contact the target tissue” ([0037]) and protect “the active electrode [ ] from ‘washout’ of the plasma formed on some portion of active electrode” ([0039]), thereby improving accuracy, efficiency, and control of treatment.
Regarding claim 13, Bigley in view of Woloszko teach all of the limitations of the electrosurgical device according to claim 12. In view of the prior modification of Bigley in view of Woloszko teaches wherein the distal portion of the insulator includes first second protrusions (standoffs 210, 212, 214, and 216) extending distally beyond the first plate (202), the first plate (202) interposed between the first and second protrusions (Fig. 2a).
Regarding claim 14, Bigley in view of Woloszko teach all of the limitations of the electrosurgical device according claim 12, but are silent regarding wherein a second plate is disposed on the first plate, the second plate being fixed to the at least one projection.
However, in an alternate embodiment, Woloszko teaches a similar electrosurgical device (Figs.1 and 3B) comprising a first plate (active electrode 202 in Fig. 3B) including a projection (conductor 324, amount 328 of portion 326 of conductor 324) that extends through a passage of the first plate (202; see Fig. 3B). Woloszko further teaches a ‘plate’ (weld 330) disposed on the first plate (202) is fixed to the projection (328, 326) such that the ‘plate’ (weld 330) “functions to electrically couple and mechanically secure active electrode 202 onto spacer 200” ([0047]). It is well known in the art (as can be seen in Woloszko) to provide additional plates, such that the additional plates are fixed to said projections, as claimed in claim 14, in order to electrically couple and mechanically secure the first plate to the device, thereby increasing security, durability and safety. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the device as taught by Bigley in view of Howard to further include a second plate is disposed on the first plate, the second plate being fixed to the at least one projection, as taught by Woloszko in order to electrically couple and mechanically secure the first plate to the device, thereby increasing security, durability and safety.
Regarding claim 15, Bigley in view of Woloszko teach all of the limitations of the electrosurgical device according to claim 12, but are silent regarding wherein a second plate is disposed on the first plate, the second plate extending between the two projections.
However, in an alternate embodiment, Woloszko teaches a similar electrosurgical device (Figs.1 and 3B) comprising a first plate (active electrode 202 in Fig. 3B) including a projection (conductor 324, amount 328 of portion 326 of conductor 324) that extends through a passage of the first plate (202; see Fig. 3B). Woloszko further teaches a ‘plate’ (weld 330) disposed on the first plate (202) is fixed to and extending between the projection (328, 326) such that the ‘plate’ (weld 330) “functions to electrically couple and mechanically secure active electrode 202 onto spacer 200” ([0047]). It is well known in the art (as can be seen in Woloszko) to provide additional plates, such that the additional plates are fixed to and extending between said projections, as claimed in claim 15, in order to electrically couple and mechanically secure the first plate to the device, thereby increasing security, durability and safety. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the device as taught by Bigley in view of Howard to further include the second plate extending between the two projections, as taught by Woloszko in order to electrically couple and mechanically secure the first plate to the device, thereby increasing security, durability and safety.
Regarding claim 16, Bigley in view of Woloszko teach all of the limitations of the electrosurgical device according claim 15. In view of the prior modification of Bigley in view of Woloszko, Woloszko teaches wherein the second plate is a bar (330).
Regarding claim 17, Bigley further discloses wherein the plurality of passages of the first plate (602) are apertures (slots 616, opening 618 in Fig. 7B) and include a first aperture (616), a second aperture (616) and a third aperture (618) between the first and second apertures (Fig. 7B).
Regarding claim 18, Bigley further discloses wherein the plurality of passages (slots 616, opening 618 in Fig. 7B) of the first plate (602) further includes at least a fourth aperture (see opening 618 in two parts), wherein at least a portion of the third aperture (618) extends beyond an inner diameter of the elongated inner body and at least a portion of the fourth aperture (618) is within the inner diameter of the elongated inner body (as broadly claimed, opening 618 constitutes two apertures wherein a portion extends beyond an inner diameter and a portion is within the inner diameter of the elongated inner body, see Figs. 6-10).
Regarding claim 19, Bigley in view of Woloszko teach all of the limitations of the electrosurgical device according to claim 15. In view of the prior modification of Bigley in view of Woloszko, Bigley in view of Woloszko would necessarily provide wherein the first plate is a first material and the second plate is a second material.
Bigley in view of Woloszko are silent regarding the second material with a melting temperature and corrosion resistance lower than that of the first material.
However, Bigley further discloses wherein the “[s]ecuring electrode 606 may be formed with a conductive material such as tungsten, and the shape and profile of securing electrode 606 may be manufactured via etching, laser cutting, or injection molding” ([0063]) and “screen electrode 602 will comprise a conductive material, such as tungsten, titanium, molybdenum, stainless steel, aluminum, gold, copper or the like” ([0064]). Additionally, Woloszko teaches “[t]he inventors of the present specification have found that is it beneficial to construct active electrode 202 of tungsten and conductor 324 of titanium or platinum in order to enhance joining properties of weld 330 in this configuration.” (0047]). Therefore, it is well known in the art (as can be seen in both Bigley and Woloszko) to mix and match a variety of different conductive materials in order to enhance the attachment of the electrodes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the materials of the plates as taught by Bigley in view of Woloszko such that the second material comprises a melting temperature and corrosion resistance lower than that of the first material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its art recognized suitability for the intended purpose. MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 20, Bigley in view of Woloszko teach all of the limitations of the electrosurgical device according to claim 19. Bigley discloses wherein the first plate is steel ([0064]). Bigley in view of Woloszko, however, are silent regarding wherein the second plate is steel.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the material of the second plate, as taught by Bigley in view of Woloszko, such that it is steel, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its art recognized suitability for the intended purpose. MPEP 2144.07.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE A DEDOULIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2459. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am to 5pm.
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 at 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.
/C.A.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOANNE M RODDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights