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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed March 20, 2026 has been entered and the references cited therein have been considered by the examiner.
Response and Amendment Filed
Applicant’s response and amendment, filed May 26, 2026, has been entered and made of record.
Previously Set Forth Objections and Rejections
The status of the objections and rejections as set forth in the previous Office action (mailed November 26, 2025) is as follows:
The objection to claim 11 has been overcome by amendments to claim 11.
The 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 1-16 has been overcome by amendments to the claims.
The 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-16 as being unpatentable over Applebaum et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,251,113) is hereby withdrawn.
The following new grounds of rejection are set forth:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kühne et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0108395) in view of Applebaum et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,251,113).
The applied reference has a common assignee and inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). Kühne et al. has an effective filing date of September 29, 2022 which predates the effective filing date of December 23, 2022 of the instant application.
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
In regard to claims 1-3, 7-11 and 13-15, Kühne et al. teach an electrosurgical generator 1 having a housing 10, at least one output socket 3, 3’, 3’’, 3’” for connection to an electrosurgical instrument 9, a power supply cable 13, a user interface 14 with a display 15 and an input device 16 (see Figs. 1 and 2 and para. 0074). The display 15 shows information concerning inputs made by the user and the status of the electrosurgical generator 1 and by virtue of the user interface 14, the user can issue directions and commands to a control unit 10 which controls operation of the electrosurgical generator 1 and its components, including frequency and voltage of the AC voltage emitted by the output socket 3 (see para. 0074). The generator 1 further comprises a power supply unit 21 that is fed with electrical energy by the supply cable 13 and the power supply unit 21 feeds a DC bus 22 connected to an inverter 23 configured for generating high-frequency alternating current (see Fig. 2 and para. 0075). Operation of the inverter 23 is governed by the control unit 20 (see para. 0075). The output socket 3 comprises a casing 4 having a plug socket 5 configured to receive the plug 94 of an electrosurgical instrument 9 and inserted into the casing 4 is a conductor board 6 and a connector 7 attached to the conductor board 6 (see Figs. 4a and 4b and para. 0076). Attached to the connector 7 are high-power, high-frequency alternating voltage lines (at a power section of connector 7) and other data and/or signal lines (at a data section of connector 7) which are symbolized by a dashed line 26 for communication and data exchange with the outer socket 3 (see para. 0076 and Figs. 4a and 4b). The output sockets 3, 3’, 3’’, 3’” have the same size and share the same external contour thereby enabling them to be placed into identical cutouts such that any one of the output sockets 3 can be placed into one of the cutouts within requiring any further modification (exchangeable) (see para. 0078). Kühne et al. are silent as to the data section having an independent memory that includes modes relating to usage of the module or representation rules. However, Appelbaum et al. teach a microsurgical control system 1 comprised of a computer unit 3 with a flat panel display 5 and a base unit 7 housing a plurality of modules 13 where each of the modules 13 controls at least one microsurgical instrument 19 (see Fig. 1 and col. 6, lines 34-45). Each module 13 controls one or more surgical instruments 19 connected to it and each module 13 is provided with a power bus and a data communications bus positioned on a backplane 101 (see Figs. 5 and 40-42 and col. 7, lines 29-33). Modules 13 engage the backplane 101 via a connector 171 at the rear of each module 13 and when engaged, backplane 101 provides power distribution and data communication between modules 13 and computer unit 3 (see col. 7, lines 32-40). Each module 13 includes a transceiver 223 for receiving data from and transmitting data to the data communications bus and a processor 225 (microcontroller) coupled to the transceiver 223 (see Fig. 15 and col. 11, lines 50-53). The data communications bus, the transceivers 223 and the processors 225 together form the communications network by which modules 13 and the computer unit 3 communication with each other (see col. 12, lines 1-7). Each of the modules 13 also uses embedded software (see col. 15, lines 23-25) and the user interface of computer unit 3 receives information representative of the various operating parameters of the instruments 19 while the hard drive 249 of the computer unit 3 stores programmable operating parameters for each of the instruments 19 (see col. 13, lines 46-55). Applebaum et al. thus demonstrate that providing an output socket (or module) with data section having an independent memory that includes modes relating to usage of the module or representation rules is well known in the art. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the output socket 3 of Kühne et al. with the data section having an independent memory that includes modes relating to usage of the module or representation rules in order to enhance the operability of the device of Kühne et al. as Kühne et al. teach communication and data exchange with the outer socket 3 and the storage of data blocks with information regarding status, interaction, static information, additional functionalities and the presence of other output sockets 3, in the manner disclosed by Applebaum et al. With further respect to claim 4 and in regard to claims 5 and 6, Appelbaum et al. teach that the user interface displays the operating parameters and their settings as well as other conditions on flat panel display 5 in a highly graphical, user-friendly operating environment which generates icons, symbols and the like (see col. 15, lines 5-15). Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the display 15 of Kühne et al. with sections assigned to each output socket 3 according to specific instructions stored in the output socket 3. In regard to claim 12, Applebaum et al. teach that the user interface also receives input from a touch-responsive screen 255 and a floppy drive 247 allows the user to install software updates or application specific software for use with new modules 13 (see col. 15, lines 38-54). In regard to claim 16, Applebaum et al. teach that the operating parameters for controlling the instruments 19 include air/fluid pressure, air/fluid flow, etc. (see col. 14, lines 10-22).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. It should be noted that the language of claim 1, “at least one module selected from the group consisting of the inverter unit and the output socket is configured to be exchangeable” allows the application of a prior art reference that teaches only a module that is an exchangeable output socket. In other words, even though Kühne et al. does not teach an exchangeable inverter, Kühne et al. meets the claimed limitations as it teaches an exchangeable output socket (see above).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BEVERLY MEINDL FLANAGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4766. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30AM to 5:00PM.
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 (303) 297-4276. 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.
/BEVERLY M FLANAGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights