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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 1/9/2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/19/2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In the first paragraph, the continuity data should be updated to indicate that that US App. No. 16/940,381 is now US Patent No. 11,904,164.
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.
Claim 20 is 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 20 recites the limitation "a second high-voltage, low-capacitance digital isolator" in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because a first high-voltage, low-capacitance digital isolator was never previously recited. The claim is indefinite because it is unclear if the claim requires 2 high-voltage, low-capacitance digital isolators or only a single high-voltage, low-capacitance digital isolator.
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, 6-11, 13-14, 17 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Athos et al. (US 2017/0319851, hereinafter Athos) in view of Stulen (US 2019/0274719).
Regarding claims 1, 6-11, 13, 14, 17 and 21-25, Athos discloses a system for delivering nanosecond pulsed electrical energy having voltage greater than 5kV, current greater than 300A, a 10kV/us slew rate, a frequency of 0.1-10,000 Hz and a pulse width of 0.1-1000 ns (par. 0077-0080 and 0251). The system comprises a console 105 including a treatment controller 2175 (“triggering an timing section”) and a nanosecond pulse generator 2155 configured to provide a high voltage pulsed output (par. 0101, 0232). A console-handpiece isolation board (also the “system interconnect circuit section”) is configured to receive the high voltage pulses output from the nanosecond pulse generator (read as the console portion comprising the high voltage connector 112 seen in figure 1 and described in par. 0077). A handpiece subsystem comprises a handpiece 114 configured to deliver the high voltage pulsed output from a detacheable treatment tip 102 (par. 0077, 0144). A handpiece cable is shown in figure 1 coupled to the handpiece and coupled to the consol-handpiece board.
Athos discloses the benefits of electrical isolation in par. 0078 but is silent as to the console handpiece isolation board specifically being coupled to the high voltage pulsed output through a multi-functional isolation connection with the handpiece cable. Stulen also discloses a nanosecond pulsed electrical energy system, and thus is analogous art with Athos (par. 0089-0091). Stulen discloses that the handpiece and generator should be isolated from each other by a power transformer 1560 for the power line (the transformers also considered “a low leakage inductance pulse transformer”), by isolation transformers 1820 for voltage/current sensing (i.e., a “control line”), and by an infrared communication link IrDA for handpiece identification signals (i.e., “encrypted information from the treatment tip”) (par. 0125, 0128 and 0140-0145). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the applicant’s effective filing date to modify Athos to include the multi-functional isolation connections between the board and the handpiece, as taught by Stulen, in order to provide form improved patient electrical isolation and avoid high voltage risks to the patient, as preferred by Athos in par. 0078.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Athos and Stulen in view of Adanny et al. (US 2014/0249522, hereinafter Adanny).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Athos, as described and modified above, discloses the applicant’s basic invention but is silent as to the isolating transformer specifically having a capacitance of 20pF or less. Adanny also discloses an electrical treatment device, and thus is analogous art with Athos. Adanny discloses that isolating transformers can have a capacitance of 4-10pF (par. 0032-0033). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the applicant’s effective filing date to modify the isolating transformer of Athos, as modified above, to specifically have a capacitance between 4-10pF as taught by Adanny in order to completely eliminate parasitic capacitance (par. 0032).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Athos and Stulen in view of Zhu et al. (US 2010/0000480, hereinafter Zhu).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Athos, as described and modified above, discloses the applicant’s basic invention but is silent as cable having a shield and conductive wires that electrically float. Zhu also discloses medical device, and thus is analogous art with Athos. Zhu discloses that cables can have a shield and conductive wires that electrically float (claims 14, 21, 25). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the applicant’s effective filing date to modify cable of Athos to specifically have a shield and conductive wires that electrically float as taught by Zhu in order to reduce heating of the cable in certain environments (par. 0069-0070).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric D Bertram whose telephone number is (571)272-3446. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-6pm Central Time.
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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at 571-270-3061. 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.
/Eric D. Bertram/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796