DETAILED ACTION
A complete action on the merits of pending claims 1-20 appears 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.
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, 11-13, 15, and 17-19 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.
Regarding claims 4, 11, 15, and 17-19, it is unclear what the scope of the claims are since all of the variables are not defined.
It is important that the units of the equation match on each side or one side’s units cancel out the other side’s units to make unitless numbers. Claim 11 for instance, the examiner is not certain, depending on what v is, that the units for Pidt · Δt = m · ceq · ΔT = ½ · r · h · v · Δt · p · ceq · ΔT work out. Typically, the v would be volume or volts. As seen the rejection of 11 below Pidt · Δt is simply Joules of energy and the equation for heat energy is energy = m · ceq · ΔT. The equation says
m · ceq · ΔT = ½ · r · h · v · Δt · p · ceq · ΔT so the units on one side of the equation would have to equal the other. The ceq · ΔT units on each side of the equation would cancel out making the equation: m = ½ · r · h · v · Δt · p in simple units, making v volume, and taking out the ½ since it does not have units the equation is now:
kilograms = (meters) (meters) (meters3) (seconds) (kilograms/meters3) this simplifies to: kilograms = (meters) (meters) (seconds) (kilograms) and more simply:
(a unitless number) = meters2 · seconds.
Some of the claims will not have an exact art rejection regarding the equations since if the assumption above holds true some of the equations are not able to work, depending on the exact variables. Claims 12 and 13 are rejected based on dependency.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wham US 20160310202.
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 20, Wham teaches a high-frequency inverter ("HFI") having a full bridge (par. [0062]); a control system electrically coupled to the HFI that controls output parameters including one or more of an output power Pout(t) and an output voltage or current by varying power reference Pref(t) or switch states of the HFI (par. [0038]), wherein the control system causes a power adaptation ΔP(t) to a preset power Pset based on receiving at least one of impedance feedback and thermal feedback (par. [0061]) according to the following relationship: Pref(t) = Pset + ΔP(t) (par. [0061]).
Regarding claim 2, Wham teaches further comprising a multi-resonant- frequency ("MRF") filter electrically coupled to the HFI; wherein the MRF filter comprises a first resonant tank and a second resonant tank, wherein the first resonant tank resonates at a switching frequency (par. [0065]) and the second resonant tank resonates at least at third-, fifth-, and seventh-order harmonics (par. [0134]); and wherein a fundamental output frequency of the HFI is the same as a switching frequency of the HFI (par. [0065]).
Regarding claim 3, Wham teaches wherein the switching frequency is 390 kHz (par. [0047]).
Regarding claim 4, Wham teaches wherein the HFI generates a bipolar square waveform, and wherein the MRF filter shapes the bipolar square waveform into a sinusoidal waveform output, wherein a transformer primary side voltage of the HFI is determined based on the following: Vp(t) =
4
V
i
n
π
· cos(α) · sin(2πfst) (see 112 rejection, par. [0088] transfer function of inverter, par. [0047] filtering square into sine waves).
Regarding claim 5, Wham teaches further comprising: an electric scalpel electrically coupled to a transformer secondary side of the HFI; and a return pad electrically coupled to the transformer secondary side of the HFI, wherein the return pad is configured to receive a load in the form of biomedical tissue that permits current flow therethrough from the electric scalpel to the return pad thereby closing a path for the current flow (par. [0040]).
Regarding claim 6, Wham teaches further comprising: a thermal sensor electrically coupled to the control system, wherein the thermal sensor is configured to detect a surface temperature of a load (par. [0006] impedance sensor comes for temperature change, par. [0061] sensed impedance).
Regarding claim 7, Wham teaches wherein the control system comprises a modulator configured to output pulse-width modulation signals to the HFI, and a power controller that tracks the output power reference Pref(t) (par. [0053]).
Regarding claim 9, Wham teaches wherein receiving, via the control system, the at least one signal with the indication of the thermal feedback and/or the impedance feedback comprises: receiving, via the control system and per each switching cycle (par. [0061]), at least one signal indicating values for a plurality of pairs of output voltage and output current that are measured simultaneously during a given switching cycle (par. [0020]).
Regarding claim 10, Wham teaches further comprising: monitoring, via the control system, the output power Pout(t) and thereby tracking the output power reference Pref(t) (par. [0070]).
Regarding claim 11, Wham teaches determining, via the control system, an ideal average output power Pidt based on a cutting time duration Δt, a mass m of the load, a temperature rise ΔT of the load, a specific heat capacity ceq of the load, a density p of the load, an electrode insertion depth h, and/or a cutting width r, as set forth below: Pidt · Δt = m · ceq · ΔT = ½ · r · h · v · Δt · p · ceq · ΔT (see 112 rejection Pidt · Δt = m · ceq · ΔT is simply rearranging a known formula ΔT =
P
·
Δ
t
m
·
c
e
q
additionally P · Δt is the equation for energy in Joules and the equation for heat energy is energy = m · ceq · ΔT, therefore Pidt · Δt = m · ceq · ΔT is a known equation).
Regarding claim 12, Wham teaches wherein determining, via the control system, the power adaptation ΔP(t) based on the thermal feedback and/or impedance feedback comprises: determining, via the control system, a load impedance based on a largest value of sampled output voltage and output current for the given switching cycle; and determining, via the control system, the power adaptation ΔP(t) based on the load impedance and the ideal average output power Pidt (par. [0087] power based on load coupled to the generator).
Regarding claim 13, Wham teaches wherein determining the power adaptation ΔP(t) is further based on a load impedance value determined from a moving average (par. [0069] sampling is done over predetermined time or number of samples per second) of the determined load impedance values over at least 10 switching cycles (par. [0069] sampling is an integer multiple of the frequency, par. [0044] frequency of the ADC is above 25Hz).
Regarding claim 14, Wham teaches further comprising: updating, via the control system, the output power reference Pref(t) for the HFI for each switching cycle in 3 µs or less (par. [0110]).
Regarding claim 15, Wham teaches wherein receiving, via the control system, the at least one signal with the indication of the thermal feedback and/or the impedance feedback (par. [0061]) comprises: receiving, via the control system and per each switching cycle, at least one signal indicating an output voltage Vo(t) corresponding to an output voltage positive peak at Ts/4 and a first and a second sample of output current, wherein the first sample of output current io(k) is measured between 0 and Ts/4 and the second sample of output current io(k + 1) is measured after the first sample output current such that the first and the second output current samples do not overlap in time (see 112 rejection Ts is not defined and the voltage depends on it and current is sampled at a quarter of it, par. [0053] states voltage output is based on peak voltage, par. [0019] digitally sampling sensed current).
Regarding claim 16, Wham teaches via the HFI, a bipolar square waveform; and shaping the bipolar square waveform into a sinusoidal waveform output (par. [0047] filtering square into sine waves), via a MRF filter electrically coupled to the HFI, wherein the MRF filter comprises a first resonant tank and a second resonant tank (par. [0065]), wherein the first resonant tank resonates at a switching frequency and the second resonant tank resonates at least at third-, fifth-, and seventh-order harmonics (par. [0134]), and wherein a fundamental output frequency of the HFI is the same as a switching frequency of the HFI (par. [0065]).
Regarding claim 17, Wham teaches determining, via the control system, a transformer primary side voltage of the HFI electrically coupled to the MRF filter based on the following: Vp(t) =
4
V
i
n
π
· cos(α) · sin(2πfst) (see 112 rejection, par. [0088] transfer function of inverter).
Regarding claim 18, Wham teaches adjusting, via the control system, a phase shift angle αo between gate signals of diagonal switch pairs of the HFI based on the following relationship: α0 = f(Vref) =
180
π
· cos-1(
π
·
V
r
e
f
4
·
n
·
V
i
n
) (see 112 rejection, par. [0059] phase shift for inverter).
Regarding claim 19, Wham teaches continuously monitoring, via the control system, a surface temperature of a load; determining, via the control system, that the surface temperature of the load differs from a predetermined nominal tissue temperature; and adjusting, via the control system, the power reference Pref(t) based on the relationships: Pref(t) = Pset + ΔP(t) ΔP(t) = Pset ·
(
T
n
o
m
m
a
x
(
T
t
i
s
s
u
e
t
)
-1)
such that the surface temperature of the load is controlled towards the predetermined nominal tissue temperature (see 112 rejection).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The 112(b) rejection and the different sections of arguments all, more or less, say the same thing. The applicant uses variables in the specification therefore they do not need to be defined in the claims. The examiner would like to point to MPEP 2111.01 where plain meanings are discussed. Section II states it is improper to impart limitations from the specification. However, the applicant is able to act as their own lexicographer. Even though some of these terms are used in the specification they don’t seem to be explicitly defined. To this point, it would appear on some level that the applicant did not believe so either since some of the variables are defined while others are not, for what could only be seen as arbitrarily. Further, if a person of ordinary skill in the art would not know what a “v” is in an equation. The examiner, who is considered a person of ordinary skill in the art, did not. When treating tissue, a “v” in an equation be seen to mean many things including volume, velocity, or voltage. All of these would seem to be reasonable to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, the claims are indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the variables but also for being inconsistent with the claim drafting.
Regarding the 102 rejection, section A is just an overview.
Section B the applicant is arguing that “a fundamental output frequency of the HFI is the same as a switching frequency of the HFI” and it is 390Hz. It is noted that this is part of claims 2 and 3. The applicant is not arguing the limitations of just the independent claims. Thus, this is simply a mere allegation of patentability, an application cannot be found allowable without the independent claim overcoming the prior art. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. To this, the applicant is arguing square and sine waves but these are not limitations in claims 2 or 3 either; thus, they are just saying Wham does not teach the limitations without arguing what is in the claim.
Section C the applicant argues Wham does note teach “a first resonant tank that resonates at the switching frequency and a second resonant tank that resonates at least at third-, fifth-…” The applicant argues that the claim has two separate resonant tanks where the first operates at 390 kHz and the second is tuned to 170 kHz, 1950 kHz, and 2730 kHz. First, there is nothing in the claim that says the tanks are distinct from one another. Each tune can be considered a tank. Further, the exact frequencies are not claimed. Additionally, if the tank is tuned to third the frequency should not be 170 kHz it should be 1170 kHz (the applicant may have just forgotten a 1 here, but cannot be sure) since it should be three times the frequency.
Section D is states that Wham does not disclose precision power adaptation for reduction of collateral tissue damage as claimed. The examiner does not see this in the claim at all. It would appear that is why the inventor made the device. However, why the applicant is doing something is not imparted into the claim limitations.
Section E argues that Wham does not disclose the specific equations. As stated in the 112 rejection, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not know what the variables in the equations are.
Section F argues that Wham does not disclose a non-transitory computer readable medium. The examiner points to par. [0038] for the controller which is a physical non-transitory device.
Therefore, the arguments presented by the applicant are not persuasive.
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 RYAN T. CLARK whose telephone number is (408)918-7606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-3PM MT.
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.
/R.T.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/SEAN W COLLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights