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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) 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.
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 2, 4, 6-9, 11, 12, 17 and 18 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 2 recites “wherein the control unit allows the monopolar-type current and the bipolar-type current to be output in an output setting pattern, which is selected by a user or automatically set” and this limitation is unclear in light of amended claim 1. Claim 1 already requires that the control unit be configured to allow the monopolar and bipolar type currents to be output in an output setting pattern and therefore it is unclear if “an output setting pattern” is meant to encompass the output setting pattern in claim 1 or is another output setting pattern.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the output setting pattern is set by a combination of high frequency irradiation characteristics as the bipolar-type current and the monopolar-type current are applied simultaneously or sequentially” and it is unclear if the combination of irradiation characteristics are those of claim 1 or different characteristics of the bipolar and monopolar-type currents. Additionally, claim 1 requires sequential application of the monopolar and bipolar-type currents and so it is unclear how they could then be applied simultaneously.
Claim 4 recites wherein a pattern output in the output setting pattern includes at least one of: a first pattern in which only the monopolar-type current is output; a second pattern in which only the bipolar-type current is output; a third pattern in which the monopolar-type current is output and then the bipolar-type current is output; a fourth pattern in which the bipolar-type current is output and then the monopolar-type current is output; a fifth pattern in which the bipolar-type current is output after the monopolar-type current is output, and then the monopolar-type current is output again; and a sixth pattern in which the monopolar-type current is output after the bipolar-type current is output, and then the bipolar-type current is output again.” This is unclear as claim 1 already requires an output setting pattern of monopolar-type current and bipolar-type current and it is unclear if the output pattern is as in claim 1 how it can also then include other output patterns in the output pattern of claim 1. The pattern of claim 4 appears to be broader than the pattern in claim 1.
Claims 6-9, 11 and 12 are necessarily rejected as being dependent on rejected claims 2 and 4.
Claim 17 recites “a second high frequency power generation unit connected to a separate electrode from the first high frequency power generation unit to supply a current” and it is unclear if “a separate electrode” is meant to reference one of the one or more first electrodes, one of the one or more second electrodes or another electrode not of the one or more first or second electrodes.
Claim 18 recites “the second electrodes” and it is unclear if this is meant to refer to the “one or more second electrodes” or a different group of second electrodes.
Claim 18 recites “a separate electrode and it is unclear if “a separate electrode” is meant to reference one of the one or more first electrodes, one of the one or more second electrodes or another electrode not of the one or more first or second electrodes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3, 5, 13-16, 19 and 20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not teach or fairly suggest the limitations of amended claim 1 or newly added claim 19.
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 KAITLYN E SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-5845. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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 M Rodden can be reached at (303) 297-4726. 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.
/KAITLYN E SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
