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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3, 12, and 14 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 2: “are being commonly” should read –are commonly--;
Claim 2, line 3: “signals being generated” should read –signals generated--;
Claim 3, line 2: “are being synchronized” should read –are synchronized--;
Claim 12, line 3: “such as to” should read –to--;
Claim 12, line 5: “comparing the cross-currents” should read –compare the cross-currents--;
Claim 12, line 7: “selecting the polarity” should read –select the polarity--; and
Claim 14, line 3: “one of the group” should read –one of the groups--.
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 4-7, 13, 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the output " in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the claim language “the output” will be considered as “the output voltage”.
Regarding dependent claims 5-6, dependent claims inherit the deficiencies from the claims from which they depend and are similarly rejected over 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding claim 7, it is unclear if “at least two groups” in line 2 of the claim language is the same “at least two groups” in line 11 of claim 1, or if claim 7 is disclosing another at least two groups separate from the groups in claim 1. For examination purposes, the claim language “at least two groups” will be considered “the at least two groups”.
Regarding claim 13, it is unclear what the claim language “wherein the beat frequency monitor co-operates with a frequency following unit, synchronicity between the at least two groups” is disclosing. Clarity is needed.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the beat frequency monitor" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the frequency following unit" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the frequency following unit" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the frequency following unit" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Regarding claim 1, the closest prior art of record, Steimer (US 20140139167), Despesse (US 20140015488), Chen et al. (US 9825545), and Friedrichs et al. (US 20170209202), alone or in combination, fails to specifically teach an electrosurgical generator configured to output a high-frequency alternating voltage to an electrosurgical instrument, comprising an inverter unit generating a high-frequency alternating voltage to be supplied to at least two output sockets, wherein the inverter unit is configured for simultaneous activation of the output sockets and the respective connected electrosurgical instruments, wherein the inverter unit is a multilevel inverter and comprises a plurality of co-operating inverter cells, the plurality of inverter cells being connected in a cascaded manner in a first state and being split into at least two groups in a second state, each group being assigned one of the output sockets and feeding its generated high-frequency alternating output voltage via electrode lines to said assigned output socket, wherein the inverter unit is selectively switchable between first and second state upon direction and/or command. Steimer discloses inverted cells connected in a cascaded manner split into at least two groups that feed output voltage via electrode lines, as depicted in Figures 15-17, and described in paragraphs [0112]-[0115]. Despesse discloses a device that provides a three-phase supply in Figure 40 and using switches to connect or disconnect a particular cell, parallel switches, switches for selectively inverting the output voltage, and other switches in paragraphs [0232]-[0239]. Chen et al. discloses a device with a plurality of inverter cells that each output an inverted voltage from one input voltage as shown in Figure 2A. Finally, Friedrichs discloses a device with a dual-output generator that outputs two different energies to two different medical devices by using dual-frequency inverters as seen in Figures 3-5 and paragraphs [0036]-[0047]. Thus, none of these references alone or in combination teach the plurality of inverter cells being connected in a cascaded manner in a first state and being split into at least two groups in a second state when considered in combination with the additional requirements of the claim. The function and the arrangement of these circuit elements is seen as critical to the function of the device, and therefore, the device as a whole is seen as allowable.
Dependent claims 2-3, 8-12, and 14-16 are also allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nora W Rhodes whose telephone number is (571)272-8126. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm 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, Joanne Rodden can be reached at 3032974276. 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.
/N.W.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/SEAN W COLLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794