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 .
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 7 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.
The term “approximately 3.45:1” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “approximately” is a relative term in which the specification has not provided upper and lower bounds.
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) 1-6, 8 and 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eaton-Evans et al (2021/0113261).
Regarding claim 1, Eaton-Evans et al disclose an interface joint for interconnecting an electrosurgical generator and an electrosurgical instrument, the interface joint comprising:
a housing (joining member may form a housing in which respective ends of the proximal and distal portions 4a, 4b of the feeding cable 4 are received – [0071]) made of electrically insulating material (at least part of the joining member may be filled with a potting agent (for example a low-permittivity and/or heat resistant material that may be an epoxy – [0023]), the housing having:
an inlet (inlet for proximal portion 4b of feeding cable – fig.3) for receiving radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic (EM) energy and/or microwave frequency EM energy from the electrosurgical generator (the applicator 2 may be arranged to emit microwave or RF radiation – [0064]); and
an outlet (outlet for distal portion 4a of feeding cable – fig.3); and
a coaxial cable assembly for connecting the outlet to the electrosurgical instrument (the feeding cable may be formed by two lengths of coaxial cable to form an electrical circuit to deliver electromagnetic energy to the applicator – [0110]), the coaxial cable assembly comprising a first cable section and a second cable section, wherein the first cable section has a lower loss per unit length than the second cable section (feeding cable portion 204b is a larger diameter than 204b and implicitly has a lower loss per unit length – fig.15a, similarly seen in figure 3).
Regarding claim 2, Eaton-Evans et al disclose wherein the first cable section has a larger diameter than the second cable section (feeding cable portion 204b is a larger diameter than– fig.15a, similarly seen in figure 3).
Regarding claim 3, Eaton-Evans et al disclose wherein the first cable section has a diameter of at least 2mm (the diameter of the proximal portion 4b is about 0.508 mm or more - [0066]).
Regarding claim 4, Eaton-Evans et al disclose wherein the second cable section has a diameter of less than 5 mm (the diameter of the distal portion 4a is 0.381 – [0066]).
Regarding claim 5, Eaton-Evans et al disclose wherein the first cable section and the second cable section are coupled together by a transition portion, wherein the transition portion comprises a tapering section of the coaxial cable (fig.15a).
Regarding claim 6, Eaton-Evans et al disclose wherein a ratio of an inner diameter of an outer conductor to an outer diameter of an inner conductor is constant through the tapering section (fig.15a).
Regarding claim 8, Eaton-Evans et al disclose wherein a length of the tapering section is no more than one eight of a wavelength of the EM energy received from the electrosurgical generator at the inlet (radiation with frequency 2.45GHz has a wavelength of about 12.24cm. One eighth of this is approximately 1.53 cm, i.e, about 15mm. The length of the joining member 12 is in a ranged between 5 to 15 mm and hence the length of the tapering section is no more than one eighth of the used wavelength - figs.3-6; [0070];[0130]).
Regarding claim 12, Eaton-Evans et al disclose an electrosurgical apparatus comprising:
an electrosurgical generator configured to generate radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic (EM) energy and/or microwave frequency EM energy (power delivery -[0063];[0065];[0068]);
an electrosurgical instrument configured to deliver RF and/or microwave frequency EM energy to tissue (the applicator 2 may be arranged to emit microwave or RF radiation – [0064]);
an interface joint according to claim 1 (see claim 1); and
an interface cable configured to deliver RF and/or microwave frequency EM energy from the electrosurgical generator to the interface joint (the feeding cable may be formed by two lengths of coaxial cable to form an electrical circuit to deliver electromagnetic energy to the applicator – [0110]).
Regarding claim 13, Eaton-Evans et al disclose further comprising a surgical scoping device having an instrument channel for receiving at least a portion of the coaxial cable assembly ([0063]).
Regarding claim 14, Eaton-Evans et al disclose wherein only the second cable section of the coaxial assembly is configured to be received within the instrument channel ([0067]).
Regarding claim 15, Eaton-Evans et al disclose wherein an outer diameter of the first cable section is greater than a diameter of the instrument channel of the surgical scoping device (fig.3).
Regarding claim 16, Eaton-Evans et al disclose wherein a length of the second cable section is at least the same as the length of the instrument channel of the surgical scoping device (fig.3).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eaton-Evans et al (2021/0113261).
Regarding claim 7, Eaton-Evans et al disclose providing a constant impedance (which is proportional to the ratio between the diameter of the inner conductor, the inner diameter of the joining member and the dielectric properties of the dielectric between them) ([0021]) and improving impedance matching (e.g. may help provide a 50 Ohm impedance match) ([0088]). Eaton-Evans et al fail to explicitly disclose wherein the ratio is approximately 3.45:1.
However, the claimed ratio is merely one of several straightforward possibilities from which a skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would select, in accordance with circumstances and without the exercise of inventive skill. Applicant states the ratio of the inner diameter of the outer conductor to the outer diameter of the inner conductor may be shown by the equation of paragraph [0011] and the ratio of 3.45:1 is preferable based on the impedance of the coaxial cable being 50 ohms and relative permittivity of the dielectric material PTFE being 2.2 as stated in paragraph [0012].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the constant impedance which is proportional to the ratio between the diameter of the inner conductor, the inner diameter of the joining member and the dielectric properties of the dielectric between them with the explicit disclosure of a ratio of 3.45:1 as it would provide one of a limited number of options for ratios without undo experimentation to provide improved impedance matching as set forth in Eaton-Evans et al.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eaton-Evans et al (2021/0113261) in view of Hancock et al (2020/0008872).
Regarding claims 9-11, Eaton-Evans et al disclose the invention substantially as claimed, but fail to explicitly disclose wherein the first cable section and the second cable section are coupled together by a microstrip transmission line, wherein the microstrip transmission line is configured to match an impedance of the first cable section and the second cable section and further comprising an outer shaft about the coaxial cable assembly and defining a passageway therebetween.
However, Hancock et al teach in the same medical field of endeavor, wherein a first cable section and a second cable section are coupled together by a microstrip transmission line (microstrip impedance transformer 100 – [0037]; fig.2B), wherein the microstrip transmission line is configured to match an impedance of the first cable section and the second cable section (the microstrip impedance transformer is configured to perform impedance matching between the microwave feed line and the instrument cable – abstract) and further comprising an outer shaft about a coaxial cable assembly and defining a passageway therebetween (the cable 30 is a coaxial transmission line including an internal passage way – [0038]; the cable 30 may have an outer sheath made from a flexible biocompatible material – [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first and second cable sections coupled together and the coaxial cable assembly of Eaton-Evans et al with a microstrip line as it would provide improved impedance matching for the cable sections and with an outer shaft about the coaxial cable to provide a biocompatible material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROCHELLE DEANNA TURCHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7104. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 6:30-2:30.
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, Christopher Koharski can be reached at (571)272-7230. 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.
/ROCHELLE D TURCHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797