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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not on a separate sheet. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 10, 22, and 29 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 3, line 2, “comprise” should be replaced with -comprises-; In claim 10, “increase” (line 3) should be replaced with -increasing- and “decrease” (line 4) should be replaced with -decreasing-; In claim 22, line 2, “and or” should be replaced with -and/or-; a period should be inserted at the end of claim 29. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-29 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 limitation "the input signal" in lines 5 and 7 (also see claims 3, 6, 24, and 26). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "a desired pulsed output signal" in lines 3-4. The antecedent basis for this limitation is confusing, since it’s unclear how/whether it’s related to the previously-recited “output signal”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "for each pulse" in line 2. While this limitation is being referred to as if it has already been recited, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 29 is found to be indefinite because Examiner is unsure of the scope of the limitation “according to any preceding claim” (line 4). Appropriate correction is required.
It should be noted that all other cited claims have been rejected for being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11-15, 18, 20-22, 24, and 26-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gilbert, U.S. 2014/0232463 (hereinafter Gilbert).
Regarding claim 1, Gilbert discloses (note figs. 1A-2; paragraphs 9 and 27) an apparatus comprising: an amplifier; an amplifier input configured to provide to the amplifier a signal to be amplified; bias circuitry configured to provide a bias signal to the amplifier, wherein amplifying of the input signal by the amplifier is dependent on the bias signal provided by the bias circuitry; an amplifier output configured to provide an output signal comprising an amplified version of the input signal, for providing energy delivery to a radiating element to produce electromagnetic radiation; and a controller configured to control operation of the bias circuitry to provide a time-varying bias signal thereby to provide a desired time variation of the output signal.
Regarding claim 3, Gilbert discloses (see above) an apparatus wherein the apparatus comprise a medical apparatus for applying r.f. or microwave radiation to a subject (note paragraph 22), and/or the input signal comprises an r.f. or microwave-frequency signal, and/or the amplifier output is arranged to provide the output signal to a device comprising an antenna or other radiating element, optionally comprising or forming part of a hand-held r.f. or microwave applicator.
Regarding claim 4, Gilbert discloses (see above) an apparatus wherein the apparatus comprises a medical apparatus for providing a treatment to a subject, and the controller is capable of controlling the time-varying bias signal to provide a corresponding desired time- varying treatment to the subject.
Regarding claim 6, Gilbert discloses (see above) an apparatus wherein the input signal is continuous and/or non-pulsed and/or has a different time dependence to the bias signal and/or a different modulation to the bias signal, and a desired pulsed output signal is obtained by control of the time variation of the bias signal (note paragraphs 25 and 33).
Regarding claim 7, Gilbert discloses (see above) an apparatus wherein the apparatus is capable of providing energy delivery during a series of energy delivery ‘periods’ (note paragraph 33).
Regarding claim 9, Gilbert discloses (see above) an apparatus wherein, for each energy delivery period, the controller is configured to control the bias signal to necessarily provide at least one desired property of the output signal, wherein the desired property includes at least one of a desired total energy or a desired power for the energy delivery period.
Regarding claim 11, Gilbert discloses (see above) an apparatus wherein for each of the energy delivery periods the energy is capable of being delivered as a series of pulses of the output signal.
Regarding claim 12, Gilbert discloses (see above) an apparatus wherein, for each pulse, the controller is configured to control the bias signal to necessarily provide at least one desired property of the pulse, wherein the desired property includes at least one of a desired total energy, a desired power or a desired duration of the pulse.
Regarding claim 13, Gilbert discloses (see above) an apparatus wherein the bias circuitry comprises a transistor and/or switch, and the controller controls operation of the transistor and/or switch to provide the time-varying bias signal (note paragraphs 9 and 27-28).
Regarding claim 14, Gilbert discloses (see above) an apparatus wherein the amplifier comprises negative and positive bias inputs, the bias circuitry is configured to provide a negative voltage to the negative input and a positive voltage to the positive input, and the bias circuitry and/or controller is configured to offset the application of the negative and positive voltages to the inputs, optionally so that the negative voltage is removed/reduced after and/or applied/increased before the positive voltage (note paragraphs 9, 27-28, and 40).
Regarding claim 15, Gilbert discloses (see above) an apparatus wherein the amplifier forms part of a gain stage and the apparatus comprises a further gain stage connected to the gain stage and comprising a further amplifier and further bias circuitry, and the controller is configured to control operation of the further bias circuitry to provide a time-varying bias signal thereby to provide a desired time variation of an output signal from the further amplifier (note fig. 2; paragraph 36).
Regarding claim 18, Gilbert discloses (see above) an apparatus wherein the controller is configured to control the bias signal in dependence on input from a sensor and/or in dependence on input from a user (note paragraph 9).
Regarding claim 20, Gilbert discloses (see above) an apparatus wherein the controller is capable of controlling the time-varying bias signal to reduce heat and/or thermal burden, by reducing or preventing overheating.
Regarding claim 21, Gilbert discloses (see above) an apparatus being a medical apparatus for providing treatment to a patient or other subject (note paragraph 22).
Regarding claim 22, Gilbert discloses (see above) an apparatus comprising or being for connection to a display device and/or analogue-to-digital and/or digital- to-analogue converter (note paragraph 32).
Regarding claim 24, Gilbert discloses (see above) an apparatus wherein the input (RF) signal necessarily has a frequency in a range of 0.1 GHz to 300 GHz (note paragraph 21).
Regarding claim 26, Gilbert discloses (see above) an apparatus wherein the input signal is necessarily frequency modulated, optionally wherein the frequency modulation is in a range 1 to 500 KHz (note paragraph 25).
Regarding claim 27, Gilbert discloses (see above) an apparatus wherein the controller is configured to control the bias signal so that the output signal is modulated in accordance with a pulse width modulation (PWM) or an on/off keying (OOK) modulation scheme (note paragraphs 10 and 31).
Regarding claim 28, Gilbert discloses (see above) an apparatus comprising an antenna or other radiating element that receives the output signal and outputs corresponding electromagnetic radiation (note paragraph 22).
Regarding claim 29, Gilbert discloses (note figs. 1A-2; paragraphs 9 and 27) an electromagnetic energy delivery system comprising: a signal generator for generating r.f. or microwave or other signals having a desired frequency (note paragraph 35); an apparatus according to any preceding claim (see above) configured so that the signals from the generator are provided to the amplifier input of the apparatus; and a radiating element arranged to receive output signals from the amplifier output of the apparatus and to produce corresponding electromagnetic radiation (note paragraph 22).
Regarding claim 30, Gilbert discloses (note figs. 1A-2; paragraphs 9 and 27) a method of controlling operation of an electromagnetic energy delivery apparatus comprising controlling a bias signal applied to an amplifier of the apparatus thereby to provide a desired time variation of an output signal of the apparatus.
Claim(s) 1-10, 12, 15-22, 24, 26, and 28-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Scott, U.S. 10,447,222 (hereinafter Scott).
Regarding claim 1, Scott discloses (note claim 1; col. 4, line 15) an apparatus comprising: an amplifier; an amplifier input configured to provide to the amplifier a signal to be amplified; bias circuitry configured to provide a bias signal to the amplifier, wherein amplifying of the input signal by the amplifier is dependent on the bias signal provided by the bias circuitry; an amplifier output configured to provide an output signal comprising an amplified version of the input signal, for providing energy delivery to a radiating element to produce electromagnetic radiation; and a controller configured to control operation of the bias circuitry to provide a time-varying bias signal thereby to provide a desired time variation of the output signal.
Regarding claim 2, Scott discloses (see above) an apparatus wherein the controller is configured to reduce or switch off the bias signal during time periods when no output signal is desired thereby to reduce power consumption (note col. 4, line 15).
Regarding claim 3, Scott discloses (see above) an apparatus wherein the apparatus comprise an apparatus capable of applying r.f. or microwave radiation to a subject, and/or the input signal comprises an r.f. or microwave-frequency signal, and/or the amplifier output is arranged to provide the output signal to a device comprising an antenna or other radiating element, optionally comprising or forming part of a hand-held r.f. or microwave applicator. It should be noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 4, Scott discloses (see above) an apparatus wherein the apparatus comprises an apparatus capable of providing a medical treatment to a subject, and the controller controls the time-varying bias signal to provide a corresponding desired time- varying treatment to the subject (note claim 1). It should be noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 5, Scott discloses (see above) an apparatus wherein the desired variation of the output signal comprises a series of ‘pulses’ (could necessarily be described in this manner), and the controller is configured to reduce or switch off the bias signal for times between the pulses (note col. 4, line 15).
Regarding claim 6, Scott discloses (see above) an apparatus wherein the input signal is continuous and/or non-pulsed and/or has a different time dependence to the bias signal and/or a different modulation to the bias signal (could necessarily be described in this manner), and a desired pulsed output signal is obtained by control of the time variation of the bias signal (note col. 4, line 15; col. 5, line 34).
Regarding claim 7, Scott discloses (see above) an apparatus wherein the apparatus is configured to provide energy delivery during a series of energy delivery periods (could necessarily be described in this manner - note col. 4, line 15).
Regarding claim 8, Scott discloses (see above) an apparatus wherein the controller is configured to reduce or switch off the bias signal during interval(s) between the energy delivery periods (note col. 4, line 15).
Regarding claim 9, Scott discloses (see above) an apparatus wherein, for each energy delivery period, the controller is configured to control the bias signal to necessarily provide at least one desired property of the output signal, wherein the desired property includes at least one of a desired total energy or a desired power for the energy delivery period.
Regarding claim 10, Scott discloses (see above) an apparatus wherein each energy delivery period is divided into a plurality of sub-periods (could necessarily be described in this manner), and, the controller is configured to control, by repeatedly switching on and off or increasing and decreasing, the bias signal (note col. 4, line 15) to necessarily provide at least one desired property of output signal for the sub-period and/or the energy delivery period, wherein the desired property includes at least one of a desired total energy or a desired power for the energy delivery period.
Regarding claim 12, Scott discloses (see above) an apparatus wherein, for each pulse (could necessarily be described in this manner), the controller is configured to control the bias signal to necessarily provide at least one desired property of the pulse, wherein the desired property includes at least one of a desired total energy, a desired power or a desired duration of the pulse.
Regarding claim 15, Scott discloses (see above) an apparatus wherein the amplifier forms part of a gain stage and the apparatus comprises a further gain stage connected to the gain stage and comprising a further amplifier and further bias circuitry, and the controller is configured to control operation of the further bias circuitry to provide a time-varying bias signal thereby to provide a desired time variation of an output signal from the further amplifier (note col. 8, line 3).
Regarding claim 16, Scott discloses (see above) an apparatus wherein the controller is further configured to ‘control power’ to at least one ‘further component or device’ (18), and to switch off or reduce power to such at least one further component or device in a power saving mode, and to provide higher, operational power to the at least one further component or device in an operational mode (note col. 4, lines 6-28).
Regarding claim 17, Scott discloses (see above) an apparatus wherein, in the operational mode, the controller is configured to reduce or switch off the bias signal during time periods when no output signal is desired thereby to reduce power consumption in the operational mode (note col. 4, line 15).
Regarding claim 18, Scott discloses (see above) an apparatus wherein the controller is configured to control the bias signal in dependence on input from a sensor and/or in dependence on input from a user (note col. 4, lines 6-28).
Regarding claim 19, Scott discloses (see above) an apparatus wherein the controller is configured to reduce or switch off the bias signal to enter a low power mode in response to the sensor and/or user input (note col. 4, lines 6-28).
Regarding claim 20, Scott discloses (see above) an apparatus wherein the controller is capable of controlling the time-varying bias signal to reduce heat and/or thermal burden, by reducing or preventing overheating. It should be noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 21, Scott discloses (see above) an apparatus that is capable of being a medical apparatus for providing treatment to a patient or other subject (i.e., capable of being used to medically treat a patient). It should be noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 22, Scott discloses (see above) an apparatus comprising or being for connection to a display device and/or analogue-to-digital and/or digital- to-analogue converter (note col. 5, line 1).
Regarding claim 24, Scott discloses (see above) an apparatus wherein the input (RF) signal necessarily has a frequency in a range of 0.1 GHz to 300 GHz (note claim 1).
Regarding claim 26, Scott discloses (see above) an apparatus wherein the input signal is capable of being ‘frequency modulated’, optionally wherein the frequency modulation is in a range 1 to 500 KHz.
Regarding claim 28, Scott discloses (see above) an apparatus comprising an antenna or other radiating element that receives the output signal and outputs corresponding electromagnetic radiation (note col. 3, line 64).
Regarding claim 29, Scott discloses (note claim 1; col. 4, line 15) an electromagnetic energy delivery system comprising: a signal generator for generating r.f. or microwave or other signals having a desired frequency (note col. 7, line 11); an apparatus according to any preceding claim (see above) configured so that the signals from the generator are provided to the amplifier input of the apparatus; and a radiating element arranged to receive output signals from the amplifier output of the apparatus and to produce corresponding electromagnetic radiation (note col. 3, line 64).
Regarding claim 30, Scott discloses (note claim 1; col. 4, line 15) a method of controlling operation of an electromagnetic energy delivery apparatus comprising controlling a bias signal applied to an amplifier of the apparatus thereby to provide a desired time variation of an output signal of the apparatus.
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(s) 23 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilbert.
Regarding claim 23, Gilbert discloses (see above) an apparatus wherein the output signal has power, or is such that the resulting electromagnetic radiation has power, but fails to explicitly disclose the claimed power range. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Gilbert accordingly, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 25, Gilbert discloses (see above) an apparatus wherein the controller is configured to control the bias signal to provide modulation of the output signal, but fails to explicitly disclose the claimed modulation frequency. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Gilbert accordingly, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 23 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott.
Regarding claim 23, Scott discloses (see above) an apparatus wherein the output signal has power, or is such that the resulting electromagnetic radiation has power, but fails to explicitly disclose the claimed power range. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Scott accordingly, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 25, Scott discloses (see above) an apparatus wherein the controller is configured to control the bias signal to provide modulation of the output signal, but fails to explicitly disclose the claimed modulation frequency. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Scott accordingly, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS ANTHONY GIULIANI whose telephone number is (571)270-3202. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00-5:00.
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, Joanne Rodden can be reached at 303-297-4276. 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.
/THOMAS A GIULIANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794