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 § 102
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wiener et al (2017/0000553).
Regarding claim 1, Wiener et al provide an output device comprising an ultrasonic energy source (114 – Figure 3) for generating an ultrasonic drive signal and a high-frequency energy source (116), wherein both sources are located in the same casing (102). There is a signal port (shown but not labeled in Figure 3) for connecting to a surgical instrument (104,106,108) to provide ultrasonic and/or high-frequency energy to the instrument. There is an ultrasonic acquisition circuit and a high-frequency acquisition circuit used to obtain voltage and current feedback for the ultrasonic and high-frequency devices (para. [0122-0130], for example) and a control module that obtains the feedback signals to modify and control the output of the ultrasonic and high-frequency energy sources (para. [0122-0130]). The adjustment parameters may include frequency and power parameters that are used to adjust the output of the energy sources (para. [0122-0130]). The surgical instrument may comprise an ultrasonic-electric scalpel (Abstract – ultrasonic blade is used to cut tissue) and a bipolar or monopolar electrotome (para. [0112] and [0160], for example).
Regarding claim 2, Wiener et al disclose the use of impedance signals as feedback to control the energy output (para. [0126], for example) and also disclose matching the impedance to a tissue type (para. [0206], for example). Regarding claim 3, Wiener et al also disclose monitoring phase differences to control energy delivery (para. [0126], for example). Regarding claim 4, the Wiener et al system controls the duration of the output of the energy sources (i.e. stops energy delivery when certain criteria are met). See, for example, paragraph [0237] and Figure 49. Regarding claim 5, the system provides filtering of the feedback signals to provide accurate impedance (para. [0125-0126], for example). Regarding claim 6, both sources (i.e. Ultrasonic and high-frequency) provide for frequency and power regulation (para. [0122-0130], for example). Regarding claim 9, the signal port receives a signal from a manual switch (i.e. activation buttons 134,135 and 137) and the control module processes the signal to deliver power to the devices. Regarding claim 10, the control module includes an input module (110) for receiving parameter settings and the control module is configured to control the delivery of power based on the input settings and the adjustments made during operation of the device.
Regarding claim 11, Wiener et al provide a system comprising an output device (102) that comprises an ultrasonic energy source (114) and a HF energy source (116) located in the same casing (Figures 1 and 3). There is a signal port (shown but not labeled) for connecting a surgical instrument (Figures 1 and 3). There is an ultrasonic signal acquisition circuit and a HF signal acquisition circuit as discussed with respect to claim 1 above, and a control module to adjust parameters based on feedback signals also addressed with respect to claim 1 above. A variety of surgical instruments may be connected including an ultrasonic-electric scalpel (Abstract) and a HF electrotome (para. [99-104], for example). The HF device may be monopolar or bipolar (para. [0160] or [0162] for example).
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.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiener et al (2017/0000553) in view of the teaching of Weng et al (2022/0022934).
Wiener et al fails to specifically disclose first and second filters for the ultrasonic acquisition circuit, and third and fourth filters for the HF signal acquisition circuit as required by these claims. It is noted that Wiener et al disclose the use of filters as well as the use of various other components such as ADC modules and automatic gain controls. The various components are deemed to be generally within the purview of the skilled artisan. It is noted that applicant has not provided any specific criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed circuitry, and the use of the various components is commonly known to those of ordinary skill in the art.
Weng et al disclose a similar system for providing ultrasonic and HF energy to medical devices, and specifically disclose the use of multiple filters associated with both the ultrasonic and the HF energy sources (para. 0031], for example).
To have provided the Wiener et al system with any particular arrangement of filters to accurately send/receive signals to control the operation of the system would have been an obvious consideration for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in view of the teaching of Weng et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wang et al (11,786,267), Friedrichs et al (2017/0209202), Batross et al (9,326,788), Turner et al (9,168,054) and Tanaka et al (7,353,068) disclose various other systems that include an ultrasonic generator and a HF generator to connect and control multiple surgical devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL PEFFLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4770. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 am-5 pm.
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.
/MICHAEL F PEFFLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/M.F.P/March 20, 2026