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.
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 24 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 24 recites the limitation "the airgap" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eder et al. (US 2009/0182323) in view of Kurs et al. (US 2015/0051750).
Regarding claim 1, Eder discloses an electrosurgical system for performing surgical procedures (see [0019], Fig. 1), comprising: an electrosurgical generator configured to supply RF energy to a surgical site (see 106 and 108; [0039], [0050]); an electrosurgical instrument comprising at least one active electrode adapted to treat tissue with the supplied RF energy (see 102, [0028], [0030], and [0035]); and an impedance matching network comprising a tunable resonant cell interposed along a path of RF energy and arranged to provide maximum power transfer from the electrosurgical generator to the electrosurgical instrument by varying dynamically an inductance of the tunable resonant cell to create a resonant condition, thereby adjusting a phase of the supplied RF energy to a predetermined phase value (see [0050]: “the module 108 may introduce impedance into the electrode circuitry to provide a predetermined, machine-selected, or user-selected impedance matching"; [0058]: "One example of an adjustable impedance is an adjustable inductor that may comprise any known inductance, such as a coil of conducting material wrapped around an adjustable ferromagnetic core"; [0060]: “the impedance is selected to achieve maximum power transfer… In this regard, the impedance is chosen to maintain an impedance match between the RF generator, namely, the power supply 106, and the tissue. Impedance matching is achieved when the phase-angle between applied voltage and current is zero… this is carried out with a continuously variable inductor, with a finite range and nearly infinite resolution. Such an inductor can be adjusted to a near zero phase."; [0060] and [0088]-[0091]). However, Eder fails to disclose wherein the inductance of the tunable resonant cell varies based on a size of an airgap formed in a magnetic core.
Kurs teaches a tunable resonant cell (see Fig. 13) comprising an adjustable inductive element coupled to a capacitive element in series (see tunable inductors 3010 and 3014 coupled in series with capacitors 3005-3008; [0225], Fig. 13), wherein an airgap is formed between the two identical halves of the mirror-image configuration and the inductance of the tunable resonant cell varies based on a size of the airgap (see Kurs: gaps 3112, 3132 and 3134, [0235]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tunable resonant cell as disclosed by Eder to comprise the inductive element being in series with a capacitive component and wherein the inductance of the tunable resonant cell varies based on a size of an airgap formed in a magnetic core in light of Kurs, the motivation being to provide adjustable capacitance to tune the impedance of the source-side circuitry to assist in achieving resonance in conjunction with the inductive element (see Kurs [0225]).
Regarding claim 2, Eder further discloses wherein the predetermined phase value is a zero-degree phase (see [0060] and [0088]-[0091]).
Regarding claim 4, Eder in view of Kurs further teaches wherein the tunable resonant cell comprises an inductive element electrically coupled to a capacitive element, wherein the inductive and capacitive elements are coupled in series (see Kurs: tunable inductors 3010 and 3014 coupled in series with capacitors 3006 and 3008; [0225], Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 5, Eder in view of Kurs further teaches wherein the capacitive element comprises one or more capacitors connected in series, parallel or any combination thereof (see Kurs: capacitors 3005-3008 connected in series and parallel, Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 6, Eder further teaches wherein the electrosurgical generator includes the impedance matching network (since 108 is considered included in the electrosurgical generator since it is connected to the generator components/power supply, Figs. 1 and 4).
Regarding claim 7, Eder in view of Kurs further teaches wherein the impedance matching network operates independently of the electrosurgical generator, acting as a self-contained module (see the impedance network operating independently of generator control and as a self-contained module since it is controlled independently with its own control circuit as shown in Kurs Figs. 2C and 14B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-16, 18-19, 21-23 and 25-28 are allowed.
Claim 24 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record, Eder et al. (US 2009/0182323), Kurs et al. (US 2015/0051750), and Sadinsky (US 5,424,691), fails to reasonably teach or suggest wherein the positional tuning mechanism comprises a solenoid having a solenoid plunger, wherein the solenoid plunger is connected to said one of the two identical halves using a leaf spring when considered in combination with the additional requirements of the claim. The closest prior art teaches a positional tuning mechanism that uses spring elements driven by shape memory structures to move magnetic cores, however fails to further suggest use of a solenoid in combination with the solenoid plunger being connected to one of the halves using a leaf spring.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejected claims 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. Specifically, the current arguments do not address the combination of references now used for the rejection of claim 1.
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 SEAN W COLLINS whose telephone number is (408)918-7607. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-5:00 PM ET.
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.
/SEAN W COLLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794