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 Amendment
Claims 1-29 are amended. No claims are added or cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 07/17/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-5, 7-9, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20. And 21 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Cited Document 1 (JP 2001522256A) and claims 10, 11, 14, 16, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Cited Document 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Sun (US 2022/0037904).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “inverter module”, “output module”, “energy distribution module”, “functional modules”, “communication modules”, and “control base module” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/13/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Office Action on 03/27/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2001522256A (herein after, Cited Document 1) in view of Sun (US 2022/0037904), herein after “Sun”.
Regarding claim 1, Cited Document 1 describes "an electrosurgical generator (system 1) for generating a power supply signal for supplying to an electrosurgical instrument (surgical device 19), and the electrosurgical generator comprising a plurality of functional modules (computer unit 3, module 13, and base unit shown in Fig. 2) and the plurality of functional modules comprises at least one inverter module for generating a power supply signal for supplying high-frequency energy for at least one of the electrosurgical instruments (it is recognized that the module 13 of the invention described in Cited Document 1 includes an inverter, and referring to lines 11-27 on page 37 of Cited Document 1, a module 13 for performing ultrasonic waves or bipolar coagulation is described, constituting an electrosurgical instrument. Note that the module 13 performs ultrasonic waves or bipolar coagulation and supplies high-frequency energy to the surgical device 19 connected thereto. Furthermore, considering that power from a DC power supply is supplied to the module 13 in Fig. 2, the fact that the module 13 for performing ultrasonic waves or bipolar coagulation to generate high-frequency energy includes an "inverter" is as follows.)”.
Cited Document 1 further teaches “at least one, a plurality or all of the functional modules comprises a coupling identifier for making a respective functional module distinguishable from the other functional modules which are different to the respective functional module, (see lines 3-14 on page 48 and Fig. 25 of Cited Document 1)”.
Cited Document 1 further teaches “at least one of the functional modules or a communication module is adapted to identify the respective functional modules by the combined identifier (see lines 3-14 on page 48 and Fig. 25 of Cited Document 1),”
“and wherein a bus system (backplane 101: see line 27 on page 19 to line 5 on page 20) is provided for communication between the functional modules and/or with the communication module,”
“and/or each of the plurality or all of the functional modules have a control base module for controlling the respective functional module and/or operating a communication of the respective functional module with another functional module and/or with the communication module (CPU245, neuron circuits 541, 627)”.
However, Cited Document 1 does not teach “an energy distribution module configured to control the feed of power from at least one of the inverter modules to the more than one output module”, but Sun does in an analogous energy distribution module. Sun teaches “an energy distribution module configured to control the feed of power from at least one of the inverter modules to the more than one output module (p.[0004-0011], Figs. 3-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Sun in the system of Cited Document 1. Sun and Cited Document 1 are both trying to solve the same problem of reducing the number of interfaces of energy storage and power outputs for devices, and produce predictable results of delivering the suitable and appropriate energy levels to the desired output devices.
Regarding claim 2, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. Cited Document 1 teaches "the plurality of functional modules further comprises an input power module (power supply 2) for supplying power to the electrosurgical generator (energy distribution module of Figs. 33, 35)", “the communication module (backplane 101) being coupled to two or more of the functional modules to provide communication between the communication module or two or more functional modules, and a module detector (see lines 21-25 on page 60 of Cited Document 1) for detecting which of the functional modules is implemented and configured”.
Regarding claim 3, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. Cited Document 1 discloses the limitations “wherein two or more of the modules each having a communication interface for communicating with other functional modules and/or with the communication module and/or a self-configuring communication network is provided (in lines 15-17 on page 30, line 27 on page 32 to line 9 on page 33, line 24 on page 72 to line 3 on page 73, and lines 20-27 on page 77)”.
Regarding claim 4, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. Cited Document 1 discloses the limitations of “a plurality of the functional modules each have a control base module for controlling the module, wherein each of these functional modules is configured to provide at least one module function, and in the control base module, a modular control method is implemented, that has at least a communication control module for operating the communication of the module and a function control module for controlling the function of the module (in lines 15-17 on page 30, line 27 on page 32 to line 9 on page 33, line 24 on page 72 to line 3 on page 73, and lines 20-27 on page 77.)”.
Regarding claim 5, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. Cited Document 1 teaches “in each of at least one of the plurality of functional modules, - a plurality of function control modules is provided, each as a software control unit for controlling different module functions of a functional module such that each module function is assigned to a function control module and -for selecting a module function a corresponding function control module is selected” in lines 15-17 on page 30, line 27 on page 32 to line 9 on page 33, line 24 on page 72 to line 3 on page 73, and lines 20-27 on page 77. It is recognized that “a plurality of the control base modules are provided as software units”, in addition to line 10 on page 43 to line 9 on page 44 that also describes that a module function is selected.
Regarding claim 7, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. Cited Document 1 teaches “a configuration file is given, including predetermined configurations in order to select and/or control base modules, and optionally, the electro surgical generator is adapted to conduct a check, whether actually chosen and/or set control base module matches the predetermined configuration” with set up file described in line 10 on page 43 to line 9 on page 44.
Regarding claim 8, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. Cited Document 1 teaches the limitation “wherein the electrosurgical generator is adapted to execute one, a plurality, or all of communication steps of the list comprising: - receiving information from functional modules, - evaluating the information received, - extracting control commands from the evaluated information, - transmitting control commands extracted from the evaluated information, - transmitting received information to other functional modules and - checking if transmitted information matches the functional module to which they were transmitted” in line 27 on page 32 to line 9 on page 33, which describes performing at least a communicative step of receiving control command information from the functional module and therefore teaches the limitation as described.
Regarding claim 9 and 13, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. Cited Document 1 teaches the limitation of claim 9 “wherein a communication device is coupled to the modules via communication wires and/or connected to the bus system for communication” and the limitation of claim 13 “wherein communication for the electro surgical generator: the communication module is interconnected with the functional module via communication lines, and/or the functional modules are interconnected with each other via communication lines and/or a bus system is used for communication” in line 27 on page 19 to line 5 on page 20, which teaches a communication module coupled to the functional module via a communication line, and moreover, lines 23-26 on page 38 also described that a serial bus system is used.
Regarding claim 12, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. Cited Document 1 teaches the limitation “wherein the electro surgical generator is adapted to – identify a connection situation reflecting an overall situation of modules currently installed and/or currently connected in the electrosurgical generator” in line 21 on page 60 to line 3 on page 64.
Regarding claims 10, 11, and 14, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. Cited Document 1 does not explicitly teach the claimed limitations. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the design choice of the bus systems, as taught in Cited Document 1. The specific configuration of the "bus system" is a design matter that could have been appropriately selected by a person skilled in the art according to the communication speed, communication amount, ease of implementation, etc. of each module.
Regarding claim 15, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. Cited Document 1 teaches the limitation “wherein a plurality of all of the functional modules each comprise a data interface for building a communication or participating in a communication with the communication module and/or with other functional modules” in computer unit 3, module 13, with base unit in Fig. 2, and the connection portion with the backplane 101 in network board 271 corresponding to the data interface.
Regarding claim 16, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. Cited Document 1 teaches "at least one of the functional modules has a configurable or selectable module configuration, and the electrosurgical generator is adapted such that for each functional module, the module configuration is set or selected according to the identified settings of the electrosurgical generator" is described in line 21 on page 60 to line 3 on page 64 of Cited Document 1. In addition, the specific configurations of the "functional module" and the "communication module" are design matters that could have been appropriately selected by a person skilled in the art according to the ease of implementation, etc.
Regarding claim 17, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. Cited Document 1 teaches the limitation “an enabling function is implemented wherein the enabling function is configured to enable a particular functional module to operate and/or to execute a function, such that the functional module is configured to only operate or execute the particular function if it is enabled by the enabling function, wherein - for enabling - a central enabling unit is provided, and/or - decentralized enabling units are provided such that each functional module comprises an enabling unit” in line 28 on page 38 to line 10 on page 39, lines 22-26 on page 45, and lines 13-15 on page 63.
Regarding claim 18, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. Cited Document 1 teaches the limitation “wherein - the electro surgical generator comprises a configuration file, having stored an intended setup of the electro surgical generator, defining which functional modules to be used in the electro surgical generator, and/or - the electro surgical generator is adapted to compare the setup of the electro surgical generator stored in the configuration file with an actually identified set up of the electro surgical generator” in line 10 on page 43 to line 9 on page 44, and lines 9-13 on page 46.
Regarding claim 19, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. Cited Document 1 teaches the "display 5" of the invention which corresponds to the "display module" of the invention according to Claim 19. In addition, since the "network board 271" of the invention described in Cited Document 1 can also communicate with the outside, it corresponds to the "external communication module" of the invention according to Claim 19. In addition, the "foot control assembly 15" of the invention described in Cited Document 1, the "user interface" and the "flat panel display 5" described in lines 2-7 on page 31 correspond to the "input module" of the invention according to Claim 19. The "module detector" is described in lines 21-25 on page 60 of Cited Document 1 as described above for Claim 2. Then, specific control of the "display module" and the "external communication module" is a design matter that could have been appropriately selected by a person skilled in the art in consideration of operability, convenience, etc.
Regarding claim 20, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. Cited Document 1 teaches the limitation “wherein the electro surgical generator comprises a support frame or casing on all functional modules and the support frame or casing comprises a power supply for supplying electrical power to the electro surgical generator” in lines 19-25 on page 34.
Regarding claim 21, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. Cited Document 1 teaches the limitation “wherein the electro surgical generator comprises a support frame or casing on which all functional modules and the support frame or casing comprises a power supply for supplying electrical power to the electro surgical generator” with mount portion 7, instruction cart 21, and power supply 275.
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 Abigail M Bock whose telephone number is (571)272-8856. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am - 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 (617) 320-2637. 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.
/ABIGAIL BOCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOANNE M RODDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights