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 .
Response to Arguments
The previous objection to the drawings is withdrawn due to the amendments made.
The previous 35 USC 112 rejection has been withdrawn due to the amendments made.
Applicant's remaining arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
When the switches 11 of Takubo are turned off forward current from power source 1 is blocked while reverse current through diodes 12 is still allowed to flow.
The previous rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takubo (20160036342).
In re Claim 11, Takubo teaches a method comprising: providing power to a load (connected at 4a) with a power supply (Q1-Q6); sensing current of the power supply (via 13a, paragraph 28); and blocking, in response to the current exceeding a threshold, forward current from an electrical source (1) while simultaneously allowing reverse current to flow to the electrical source (by controlling switch 11a to open, paragraph 29. When switch 11a is opened, reverse current is still allowed to flow via diode 12a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 11, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarnago Andia et al (2019/0126037) in view of Takubo (2016/0036342).
In re Claim 1, Sarnago Andia teaches a power supply comprising: a pulse generator (2, paragraph 35) configured to receive power from an electrical source (1, paragraph 35) and control logic (3, paragraph 41).
Furthermore, Sarnago Andia teaches the pulse generator comprises a DC/AC inverter (9) with a bridge configuration (paragraph 37).
Sarnago Andia fails to teach a switch, sensor, and the control logic configured as claimed.
Takubo teaches a DC/AC inverter (2a) with a bridge configuration as seen in Figure 1. Takubo further teaches a current sensor 13a that provides feedback to a controller 6 which contains logic that opens switch 11a in the event an overly large current such as from a short circuit flows (paragraphs 27-29). When the switch 11a is in an off state, reverse current is allowed to flow via diode 12a.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the current sensor, switch, and control logic as taught by Takubo with the power supply of Sarnago Andia since it would allow the inverter to be protected from damage that would result from an overcurrent condition.
In re Claim 8, Sarnago Andia teaches that the generator is configured to apply power pulses between the first node and the second node (paragraph 15).
In re Claim 11, an alternative rejection to the 102 rejection discussed above is made in order to best address dependent claims 12, 15, and 20 below. Sarnago Andia teaches providing power to a load with a pulse generator as a power supply (2, paragraph 35) configured to receive power from an electrical source (1, paragraph 35), and a controller (3, paragraph 41).
Furthermore, Sarnago Andia teaches the pulse generator comprises a DC/AC inverter (9) with a bridge configuration (paragraph 37).
Sarnago Andia fails to teach blocking a forward current as claimed.
Takubo teaches a DC/AC inverter (2a) with a bridge configuration as seen in Figure 1. Takubo further teaches a current sensor 13a that provides feedback to a controller 6 which contains logic that opens switch 11a in the event an overly large current such as from a short circuit flows (paragraphs 27-29). When the switch 11a is in an off state, reverse current is allowed to flow via diode 12a.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the current sensor, switch, and control logic as taught by Takubo with the power supply of Sarnago Andia since it would allow the inverter to be protected from damage that would result from an overcurrent condition.
In re Claims 16 and 17, Takubo demonstrates that an inverter comprises an switch network with an H bridge (Q1-Q4) as seen in Figure 1.
Claim(s) 2, 10, 12, 15, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarnago Andia et al (2019/0126037) in view of Takubo (2016/0036342) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above and further in view of Forsyth et al (2020/0289185).
In re Claims 2 and 12, Sarnago Andia teaches that the power supply is intended for an electroporation device (paragraph 1), but does not specifically teach the electrical source is a capacitor bank or a capacitor charger.
Forsyth teaches a power supply for an electroporation device (paragraph 51) as seen in Figure 14A that comprises a capacitor bank as an electrical source as well as a charger for the capacitor bank (paragraph 125).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a capacitor bank and charger as taught by Forsyth since Forsyth teaches they can be utilized as a power source for a electroporation device such as the one taught by Sarnago Andia.
In re Claims 10, 15, 18, and 20, Sarnago Andia teaches that the power supply is intended for an electroporation device (paragraph 1), but does not specifically teach a probe as claimed.
Forsyth teaches an electroporation device (paragraph 51) wherein a probe configured with a plurality of needle electrodes as seen in Figure 10 is utilized to deliver pulses to a patient (paragraph 84). Forsyth also teaches the probe may be detachably connected via a socket (paragraph 72).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the probe as taught by Forsyth since it provides a means to carry out the act of electroporation on a patient.
Claim(s) 6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarnago Andia et al (2019/0126037) in view of Takubo (2016/0036342) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Tsukamoto et al (2020/0402738).
In re Claim 6, Takubo teaches that the switch 11a is bidirectional (paragraph 25) and that when the switch is off, it blocks current in a forward direction to turn off the inverter (and therefore the inverter 9 of pulse generator 2 when modifying Sarnago Andia).
Sarnago Andia as modified by Takubo does not teach a latch as claimed.
Tsukamoto teaches a power supply arrangement as seen in Figure 1 that involves a switch 2 being controlled by a controller 5, wherein the arrangement further comprises current feedback circuitry to monitor current through the switch for an overcurrent condition comprising resistor R1, amplifier 42, and comparator 43 (paragraph 45). Tsukamoto further teaches the current feedback circuity comprises a latch circuit 45 that receives input from the comparator and outputs logic low level signal, in the event an overcurrent is detected, to an AND gate so that the switch remains biased in an open state (paragraphs 49-50).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the current feedback circuitry including the latch as taught by Tsukamoto with the power supply of Sarnago Andia as modified by Takubo since it would provide current feedback and control logic that keeps the switch biased off in the event of an overcurrent without having to rely on an additional controller processing to make an overcurrent determination.
In re Claim 9, Takubo teaches a current sensor 13a as discussed above, but does not specifically teach a shunt resistor and amplifier as claimed.
Sarnago Andia as modified by Takubo does not teach a latch as claimed.
Tsukamoto teaches a power supply arrangement as seen in Figure 1 that involves a switch 2 being controlled by a controller 5, wherein the arrangement further comprises current feedback circuitry to monitor current through the switch for an overcurrent condition comprising shunt resistor R1, amplifier 42, and comparator 43 (paragraph 45). Tsukamoto further teaches the current feedback circuity comprises a latch circuit 45 that receives input from the comparator and outputs logic low level signal, in the event an overcurrent is detected, to an AND gate so that the switch remains biased in an open state (paragraphs 49-50).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the current feedback circuitry including the shunt resistor and amplifier as taught by Tsukamoto with the power supply of Sarnago Andia as modified by Takubo since it would provide current feedback and control logic that keeps the switch biased off in the event of an overcurrent without having to rely on an additional controller processing to make an overcurrent determination.
Claim(s) 13, 14, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takubo (2016/0036342) in view of Tsukamoto et al (2020/0402738).
In re Claim 13, Takubo teaches that the switch 11a is bidirectional (paragraph 25) and that when the switch is off, it blocks current in a forward direction to turn off the inverter (and therefore the inverter 9 of pulse generator 2 when modifying Sarnago Andia).
Takubo does not teach a latch as claimed.
Tsukamoto teaches a power supply arrangement as seen in Figure 1 that involves a switch 2 being controlled by a controller 5, wherein the arrangement further comprises current feedback circuitry to monitor current through the switch for an overcurrent condition comprising resistor R1, amplifier 42, and comparator 43 (paragraph 45). Tsukamoto further teaches the current feedback circuity comprises a latch circuit 45 that receives input from the comparator and outputs logic low level signal, in the event an overcurrent is detected, to an AND gate so that the switch remains biased in an open state (paragraphs 49-50).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the current feedback circuitry including the latch as taught by Tsukamoto with the power supply of Sarnago Andia as modified by Takubo since it would provide current feedback and control logic that keeps the switch biased off in the event of an overcurrent without having to rely on an additional controller processing to make an overcurrent determination.
In re Claim 14, when switch 11a of Takubo is open, reverse current flows through diode 12a.
In re Claim 19, Takubo teaches a current sensor 13a as discussed above, but does not specifically teach a shunt resistor and amplifier as claimed.
Sarnago Andia as modified by Takubo does not teach a latch as claimed.
Tsukamoto teaches a power supply arrangement as seen in Figure 1 that involves a switch 2 being controlled by a controller 5, wherein the arrangement further comprises current feedback circuitry to monitor current through the switch for an overcurrent condition comprising shunt resistor R1, amplifier 42, and comparator 43 (paragraph 45). Tsukamoto further teaches the current feedback circuity comprises a latch circuit 45 that receives input from the comparator and outputs logic low level signal, in the event an overcurrent is detected, to an AND gate so that the switch remains biased in an open state (paragraphs 49-50).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the current feedback circuitry including the shunt resistor and amplifier as taught by Tsukamoto with the power supply of Sarnago Andia as modified by Takubo since it would provide current feedback and control logic that keeps the switch biased off in the event of an overcurrent without having to rely on an additional controller processing to make an overcurrent determination.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 4 and 5 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In re Claims 3 and 7, Takubo fails to teach a reverse blocking semiconductor switch arranged in series with the forward blocking semiconductor switch 11a.
Claims 4 and 5 would be allowable due to their dependence on claim 3.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRISTOPHER JAY CLARK whose telephone number is (571)270-1427. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00am - 6:00pm EST.
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, Thienvu Tran can be reached at 571-270-1276. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J CLARK/Examiner, Art Unit 2838
/THIENVU V TRAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2838