DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 16-35 are pending.
Claims 25-35 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-15 are cancelled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/31/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument has been fully considered but it is not persuasive. See discussion below.
Note that all claims are drawn to the same invention claimed in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 and could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b) (“For an application in which an RCE has been filed, claims may be finally rejected in the first action following the filing of the RCE (with a submission and fee under 37 CFR 1.114 ) when all the claims in the application after the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 and any entered supplemental amendments (A) are identical to, patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with the claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (in other words, restriction (including lack of unity of invention) would not have been proper if the new or amended claims had been entered prior to the filing of the RCE), and (B) would have been properly finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to the filing of the RCE under 37 CFR 1.114.”). See also MPEP § 1207.03(a)(II)(3) (explaining how relying on fewer than all references in support of a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, but relying on the same teachings, does not constitute a new ground of rejection). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 16-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yates et al. (US 20150196348 A1, 2015-07-16) (hereinafter “Yates”) in view Gibson et al. (US 20180166990 A1, 2018-06-14) (hereinafter “Gibson”).
Regarding claim 16, Yates teaches surgical instrument comprising: a motor; a regulator; a converter circuit; and a control circuit coupled to the regulator and the converter circuit. See, e.g., [0087]-[0090] ]; Fig. 17 and associated text.
Yates does not expressly teach wherein the control circuit is to: couple either the regulator or the converter circuit based on a pre-determined voltage or current load applied to the motor.
However, Yates teaches that power regulators may comprise power converters (e.g., [0087]) and other converter topologies may be employed. See, e.g., [0088] (“In other embodiments, different power converter topologies may be employed, including linear or switch-mode power converters. Other switch-mode topologies that may be employed include a flyback, forward, buck, boost, and SEPIC.”).
[G] Gibson teaches switching between buck, boost, or buck-boost converters depending on voltage and current characteristics. See, e.g., Fig. 5 and associated text. Note that Gibson teaches switching between converters based on pre-determined voltage levels. See, e.g., [0026], [0009] (“The controller 102 needs to change modes as the input voltage varies, needs to change modes as the load varies, and needs to respond rapidly to a load transient.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Gibson with the invention taught by Yates such that the invention further comprises wherein the control circuit is configured to: determine at least one of a voltage applied to the motor or a current supplied to the motor, determine whether the determined voltage or current satisfies a first pre- determined motor load condition associated with the regulator or a second pre-determined motor load condition associated with the converter circuit, and couple the regulator to the motor to supply power to the motor in response to determining that the determined voltage or current satisfies the first pre-determined motor load condition, and couple the converter circuit to the motor to supply power to the motor in response to determining that the determined voltage or current satisfies the second pre-determined motor load condition ([G]) (as recited in claim 16); wherein the converter circuit is a boost converter circuit ([G]) (as recited in claim 17); wherein the boost converter circuit is coupled based on a voltage applied to the motor exceeding the pre-determined voltage load ([G]) (as recited in claim 18); wherein the control circuit is to: determine a voltage sag at the motor; and couple the boost converter circuit to the motor ([G]) (as recited in claim 19); wherein the converter circuit is a buck converter circuit ([G]) (as recited in claim 20); wherein the buck converter circuit is coupled based on a current supplied to the motor exceeding the pre-determined current load ([G]) (as recited in claim 21); wherein the control circuit is to disconnect control electronics from a power source ([G]) (as recited in claim 22); wherein the regulator is a low dropout (LDO) regulator, and wherein the control circuit is to couple the motor to the LDO regulator based on the voltage applied to the motor being below a pre-determined voltage load([G]) (as recited in claim 23); further comprising at least one more converter circuit, wherein the converter circuit and the at least one more converter circuit are configured to power the motor for different load conditions ([G]) (as recited in claim 24) in order to more efficiently power the motor.
Conclusion
All claims are drawn to the same invention claimed in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 and could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 extension fee 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 SCOTT T LUAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1860. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm, M-F (generally).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Thomson, can be reached on 571-272-3718. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Scott Luan
/SCOTT LUAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights