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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 5-6 on page 5 of the specification need to be updated to reflect the updated status of application 16/874,286. 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 3-8 and 12-17 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 3 recites the limitation "first and second measured impedances" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim in light of the recitation of “comparing a representative of impedance” in line 5 of claim two. It is not if or how these recitations are related.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "a threshold time limit" in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim in light of the recitation of “a time limit” in line 9 of claim two. It is not if or how these recitations are related.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "first and second measured impedances" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim in light of the recitation of “comparing a representative of impedance” in line 5 of claim two. It is not if or how these recitations are related.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "first and second measured impedances" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim in light of the recitations of “measuring a representation of an impedance” in lines 4-5 and “comparing a representative of impedance” in line 12 of claim eleven. It is not if or how these recitations are related.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "a threshold time limit" in line 6 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim in light of the recitation of “a time limit” in line 17 of claim eleven. It is not if or how these recitations are related.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "first and second measured impedances" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim in light of the recitations of “measuring a representation of an impedance” in lines 4-5 and “comparing a representative of impedance” in line 12 of claim eleven. It is not if or how these recitations are related.
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.
Claims 2, 9-11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Highsmith et al (2017/0105783) in view of Woo et al (2016/0038216).
Referring to claims 2 and 11, Highsmith et al teaches a method of delivering an electrical signal and a surgical generator (13/21) configured to generate and provide controlled electrical power of an electrosurgical signal to biological tissue in electrical communication with an electrosurgical device (11) (paragraphs 0039-0040), the surgical generator comprising: a measurement circuit coupled to a control circuit (20) and configured for measuring a representation of an impedance of the biological tissue (paragraph 0041); and a control circuit (20) in communication with an electrical-energy source (21), the electrical- energy source electrically coupled to the electrosurgical device and configured to generate the electrosurgical signal (paragraphs 0039-0040; Figure 4), the control circuit configured for: initiating a timer in response to a delivery of an electrosurgical signal to biological tissue in electrical communication with two electrodes (18) of the electrosurgical device (11) (paragraphs 0039 and 0061; Figures 3, 4 and 7); comparing the representation of the impedance of the biological tissue to a threshold value (114) (paragraphs 0061-0063); continuing the delivery of the electrosurgical signal until the threshold value is met (paragraph 0065); and upon reaching the threshold value, recording an elapsed time (paragraph 0068).
Highsmith et al fails to teach declaring an error state if the elapsed time is less than a time limit. Woo et al teaches an analogous method and surgical generator comprising a control circuit (Figure 1A or 1B) that declares an error state if the elapsed time is less than a time limit (paragraphs 0065 and 0067-0069). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method or control circuit, as taught by Highsmith et al, to declares an error state if the elapsed time is less than a time limit, as taught by Woo et al, in order to control energy delivery (paragraph 0065).
Referring to claims 9 and 18, Highsmith et al teaches wherein the threshold value is a first threshold value, and wherein the control circuit is further configured for: during a finishing phase: comparing the representation of impedance of the biological tissue to a second threshold value; and delivering the electrosurgical signal at a constant power ramp rate until the representation of impedance meets or exceeds a second threshold value (paragraphs 0061-0065, 0068 and 0069; Figures 7 and 8).
Referring to claim 10, Highsmith et al teaches wherein before delivering the electrosurgical signal at the constant power ramp rate, delivering the electrosurgical signal at a constant power (paragraphs 0061-0065, 0068 and 0069; Figures 7 and 8).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMANTHA M GOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-7480. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Wed, 7am to 3pm.
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, Linda Dvorak can be reached at 571-272-4764. 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.
/LINDA C DVORAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/SAMANTHA M GOOD/Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights