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.
Claims 1, 16, 18, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prakash (US 2011/0208179) in view of Darian (US 2015/0306428).
Regarding claims 1, 19 and 20, Prakash discloses an RF/microwave system that includes a transmitter comprising a coaxial cable, where the coaxial cable is included in a feed structure for connecting an applicator to an energy source for generating EM energy (fig. 3). Any electrosurgical instrument is “sized for insertion” through any unclaimed and therefore hypothetical structure including a surgical scoping device. Prakash does not disclose the use of a receiver for receiving power from transmitter by inductive coupling using a magnetic field. However, using receivers for receiving power from a transmitter by inductive coupling using a magnetic field is common in the art for powering other parts of electrosurgical systems. Darian, for example, discloses an electrosurgical device and teaches that a receiver inductively coupled with a transmitter can be used to power a light (fig. 5, [0039]). Therefore, before the application was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Prakash to include a transmitter that radiates a magnetic field to be used in conjunction with a receiver for receiving power from the transmitter by inductive coupling to power a light, as taught by Darian, (or other auxiliary powered element) that would produce the predictable result of allowing the system to be used have additional functionality.
Regarding claim 16, the claim only recites that two hypothetical signals can be employed, one having a frequency higher than the other, where the higher frequency signal will not generate a magnetic field. The claim does not recite a generator or other such structure, or even the other parameters these hypothetical signals. The claim is being interpreted as extremely broad rather than indefinite. Since some hypothetical signal with hypothetical properties including at least a frequency higher than a frequency of the signal used to generate the magnetic field (from Hz higher to GHz higher or more) exists that would not generate a magnetic field in the system of Prakash as modified, Prakash is understood to have a physical structure within the breadth of structures recited by the claim.
Regarding claim 18, Prakash as modified does not explicitly disclose that RF energy specifically is used by the receiver. However, Prakash employs RF energy (fig. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Prakash to use a receiver configured to collect energy from any commonly known signal frequency, including RF energy as employed by Prakash, that would produce the predictable result of powering an additional functional element.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prakash and Darian, further in view of Higgins (US 5,275,597).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, the system of Prakash does not disclose the use of helically wound conductor for the outer conductor. It is noted that Applicant’s use of “defect,” rather than indefinite, is being interpreted extremely broadly to mean any feature which allows the generation of a magnetic field under some conditions (e.g. page 2 of Applicant’s specification), where it is noted that the claims do not recite any steps or structure that would cause a specific waveform to be applied to any specific part(s) of the power transfer assembly. Using helically wound conductors is known in the art for use as outer conductors such as taught by Higgins (figs. 6-7) to allow improved flexibility of the cable (col. 3 lines 3-8). Therefore, before the application was filed, it would have been obvious to provide the system of Prakash with any commonly known configuration of outer conductor, including helically wound conductors as taught by Higgins, that would produce the predictable result of improved flexibility of the transmitter. This modification is understood to allow the outer conductor to retain the ability to emit a magnetic field for use with the receiver, as discussed above with respect to claim 1, where whatever feature of the outer conductor that generates a magnetic field can be considered a “defect.” The generation of a magnetic field for use with the receiver by definition means that the magnetic field is not canceled out.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prakash and Darian, further in view of in view of Wampler (US 2003/0139742).
Regarding claims 13-15, the system of Prakash does not disclose that the receiver comprises a receiver conductor wound around a magnetizable toroid. However, this is a common configuration where inductive coupling is desired. Wampler discloses another electrosurgical system that employs inductive coupling to power an auxiliary device (fig. 28) and teaches a wound conductor can be used with a magnetizable toroid (370, [0092]) for that purpose. It has been held that the combination of known elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is an obvious modification (MPEP 2141(III)). Therefore, before the application was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the system of Prakash to use any commonly known inductive coupling element, including a magnetizable toroid wrapped in a conductor such as taught by Wampler, that would produce the predictable result of allowing an auxiliary element to be powered using power harvested from the transmitter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-12 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 4-6, while power transfer assemblies for harvesting energy from power transmission lines are known in the art, as discussed above, there are none which generate the magnetic field using the helically wound conductor configurations recited in these claims.
Regarding claims 7-12, the prior art is at least familiar with creating voids using “auxiliary conductors” such as taught by Prakash (414, fig. 4A), but these are not electrically coupled to the outer conductor of a coaxial cable as part of a transmitter including the elements recited in claim 1. Claims 8-12 depend from claim 7.
Regarding claim 17, it might be true that any outer conductor which generates a magnetic field in the presence of a signal with a frequency less than microwave frequency (defined by Applicant on page 14 of the specification to be 400 MHz to 100 GHz) will necessarily not generate a magnetic field in the presence of a microwave signal. More specifically, it might be true that the prior art cited above will also function in the manner described. But the examination process does not involve testing how structures perform when subjected to signals of differing frequency and the prior art is unconcerned with this property. Therefore, the claim is indicated allowable because there is no evidence that the structural features described in the cited prior art necessarily perform in the claimed manner under the claimed conditions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL WAYNE FOWLER whose telephone number is (571)270-3201. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9-5).
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.
/DANIEL W FOWLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794