DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to preliminary amendments received on 12/07/2022. It is acknowledged that all of the originally filed claims 1-17 have been amended. A complete action on the merits of claims 1-17 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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the boxes shown in Figs. 2 and 4a should include a descriptive label to indicate what they are. For example, the box numbered 22 should include a text that labels the box "power supply unit”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
the “.” After “output” in line 6 of claim 1 should be changed to “,” or “;”.
“below which a fault signal is not yet output” in claim 2 should be amended to take the “yet” out and recite --below which a fault signal is not output--.
“interacts” in claim 16 should be amended to recite is configured to --interact--.
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 4 and 13 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 4 recites the limitation “different minimum thresholds are provided for the active electrode and the neutral electrode”. It is at most unclear how different minimum thresholds are provided for each of the active electrode and the neutral electrode. It is unclear if the claim is stating that a minimum threshold is provided for the active electrode and a different minimum threshold provided for the neutral electrode? It is unclear how two different minimum thresholds can be provided for the active electrode and the neutral electrode and how they are used in the invention when claim 1 states “an asymmetry detector configured to compare an upper voltage between upper connection and center tap with a lower voltage between lower connection and center tap, and to output a fault signal for leakage current in the case of deviation of the ratio of upper voltage to lower voltage from the predetermined fixed ratio” and claim 2 states “the asymmetry detector has a minimum threshold, below which a fault signal is not yet output”. Therefore, it is unclear how multiple different thresholds can be used. Clarification and appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “wherein coupling is at high impedance relative to the voltage divider”. First, it is unclear if “coupling” is the same or different than “a capacitive coupling” introduced in claim 1. Furthermore, it is unclear what is meant by “coupling is at high impedance relative to the voltage divider”. Clarification and appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6 and 8-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikuno (US Pat. No. 4,102,341) in view of Hobborn (US Pat. No. 5,246,439).
Regarding Claim 1, Ikuno teaches an electrosurgical generator (oscillator 1, Fig. 1) configured to output a high-frequency AC voltage to an electrosurgical instrument (Col. 2, ll. 10-15 and Fig. 1), comprising an inverter 25 for high voltage (Col. 2, ll. 49-61), which generates the high-frequency AC voltage that is passed via an output line to an output for connection of the electrosurgical instrument (knife electrode 10), and a leakage current detecting device for the electrosurgical instrument connected to the output (Col. 1, ll. 50-53, Col. 3, ll. 7-63),
wherein the leakage current detecting device comprises a voltage measuring device, which is connected by its inputs in each case to an active and a neutral line of the output line and has a bipolar voltage divider having a predetermined fixed ratio, which has an upper connection and a lower connection, to which the coupling is applied, and also a center tap (Col. 2, ll. 49-61 and Col. 3, ll. 7-Col. 4, ll. 19), and
an asymmetry detector configured to compare an upper voltage between upper connection and center tap with a lower voltage between lower connection and center tap, and to output a fault signal for leakage current in the case of deviation of the ratio of upper voltage to lower voltage from the predetermined fixed ratio (Col. 4, ll. 9-64);
however, Ikuno teaches the coupling being by wires and not via a capacitive coupling.
In the same field of invention, Hobborn teaches coupling via capacitors as seen in Fig. 1 and Col. 2, ll. 12-36. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the current invention to make the coupling via capacitors in order to block the dc voltage and allow ac voltage to pass.
Regarding Claim 2, Ikuno teaches wherein the asymmetry detector has a minimum threshold, below which a fault signal is not yet output (Col. 4, ll. 9-19).
Regarding Claim 3, Ikuno teaches wherein the minimum threshold is adjustable (the predetermined level corresponds to a reference value, which is predetermined, thereby examiner takes the position that it is adjustable at the determination stage prior to the use of the device, see Col. 3, ll. 31-48).
Regarding Claim 4, Ikuno teaches wherein different minimum thresholds are provided for the active electrode and the neutral electrode (see the 112 rejection above as it is unclear how multiple thresholds can be used, for analysis it is interpreted to be one predetermined threshold, which is interpreted to be chosen prior to the procedure and thus adjustable to multiple thresholds, the predetermined level corresponds to a reference value, which is predetermined, thereby examiner takes the position that it is adjustable at the determination stage prior to the use of the device, see Col. 3, ll. 31-48).
Regarding Claim 5, Ikuno teaches wherein the minimum threshold is defined in an instrument-dependent manner (Col. 3, ll. 31-48).
Regarding Claim 6, Ikuno teaches wherein the asymmetry detector is provided with a polarity detector for the leakage current (current flowing through each of wires 9 and 11 are measured separately, see Col. 3, ll. 49-Col. 4, ll. 19 and Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 8, Ikuno teaches wherein the asymmetry detector 22 has a comparator having two inputs, the upper connection being connected to one of the inputs and the lower connection being connected to the other input (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 9, Ikuno teaches wherein the comparator is embodied using analog technology (Col. 2, ll. 49-61 and Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 10, Ikuno teaches wherein the asymmetry detector is embodied as a difference calculating unit with a threshold value switch connected downstream (Col. 2, ll. 33-61 and Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 11, Ikuno teaches wherein the asymmetry detector has an analog/digital converter 25 (Col. 2, ll. 33-61).
Regarding Claim 12, Ikuno teaches wherein the analog/digital converter is arranged on the input side of the asymmetry detector (Col. 2, ll. 33-61 and Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 13, Ikuno teaches wherein coupling is at high impedance relative to the voltage divider (see the 112 rejection above, as it is unclear what is being claimed, as best understood see Col. 2, ll. 33-61 and Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 14, Ikuno in view of Hebborn teaches wherein the voltage divider is capacitive (Col. 2, ll. 12-36 of Hebborn).
Regarding Claim 15, Ikuno teaches wherein the center tap is connected to a fixed potential (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 16, Ikuno teaches wherein the leakage current detector interacts with a device for determining a magnitude of the current (Col. 3, ll. 31-48).
Regarding Claim 17, Ikuno teaches wherein the voltage divider is a symmetrical voltage divider (resisters 20, 21 Fig. 1 and Col. 3, ll. 7-22).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikuno (US Pat. No. 4,102,341) in view of Hobborn (US Pat. No. 5,246,439).
Regarding Claim 7, Ikuno teaches wherein the polarity detector signals whether a leakage current occurs at the active electrode or the neutral electrode (Col. 3, ll. 7-63); however, does not teach the polarity detector interacts with a display device.
In the same field of invention, Ikuno’787 teaches “he determination circuit 150 is supplied to a display circuit 161. The display circuit 161 indicates that the electric surgical knife 4 is in a normal state when the AND gate 153 supplies an output signal to the display circuit 161 and that the electric surgical knife 4 is in an abnormal state when the AND gate 153 does not produce any output signal” Col. 4, ll. 6-12. 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 display device in order to indicate normal state vs. abnormal state to the user as Ikuno’787 teaches.
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