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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the connection circuit (claim 3) and network/connection areas with pins/gaps (claim 7) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-10 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.
Regarding claim 1-10, claim 1 recites “to surgical instrument” and the lack of article renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear what the relationship is between the device and the instrument. Further, the claim recites that device comprises housing that is provided with a power supply module set, and the device further comprises a main board. This makes it unclear what the relationship is between the housing and the main board, in particular, whether the main board has some relationship to the housing (as the power supply module set does), or not. Claims 2-10 depend from claim 1 and are therefore also indefinite.
Regarding claim 7, the claim includes non-idiomatic English (“and the first application area the first element is located”) which makes it unclear if the claim is missing language as opposed to including a typographical error.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen (US 2017/0312004).
Regarding claim 1, Allen discloses a device for outputting drive signals to one or more surgical instruments comprising a housing (100, fig. 1) with a plurality of circuit boards, including RF and ultrasound energy circuits for generating respective drive signals (200, fig. 3, [0037]) that are connected to a “main board” (e.g. the circuitry that allows the various circuit boards to be connected to a single instrument, figs. 4A-D). Devices for outputting drive signals must be powered by definition. Because the claim does not define any of the structural elements of the power supply module set, whatever circuit elements allow energy to be transferred to the device to function as a power supply by the circuit boards can be considered a “power supply module” and “power supply circuit board” that together define a “power supply module set.” Further, each of the circuit boards is housed within an external structure (boxes 200a-d, fig. 3) that can be considered a “shielding unit” (i.e. the external structure will shield the enclosed elements from one thing or another). Allen discloses the circuit boards can be positioned in various locations within the housing but does not disclose that the RF and ultrasound circuits overlap when viewed from some angle (“bottom” being defined purely by frame of reference and not being an inherent location). However, Allen does teach that any of the circuits can be located in any of the various locations, at least some of which will overlap when viewed from some angle (e.g. the two left-most locations 105 as shown in fig. 3). Therefore, before the application was filed, it would have been obvious to modify Allen to use any of the circuits, including RF and ultrasound circuits, in any of the locations disclosed by Allen, including locations that overlap when viewed from an angle, that would produce the predictable result of a device that can be used to provide RF and ultrasound energy to an instrument.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen in view of Krumm (US 2018/0333190).
Regarding claim 2, Allen does not specifically disclose that the power and frequency of the drive signals are controlled. It is noted that because the claim does not define any of the structure of the various “modules,” any system that in fact controls power and frequency can be considered to have such “modules.” Krumm, for example, discloses an RF/ultrasound system with a “main board” (i.e. whatever circuitry exerts control over the function of the system, [0025]) that controls power and frequency of both RF and ultrasound drive signals (see discussion associated with fig. 6, noting that figure shows the control of all four parameters). Therefore, before the application was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the system of Allen to allow the “main board” to control the output of any of the attached circuits, including the power and frequency of both RF and ultrasound circuits as taught by Krumm, that would produce the predictable result of allowing a user to treat tissue in a desired manner.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen in view of Millis (US 2017/0020598).
Regarding claim 8, Allen does not disclose how far apart various elements are located. However, the claim recites 1cm to infinite as the desired range, where there is no evidence that this range is critical or produces an unexpected result (within the meaning of MPEP 716.02(a)). Electrosurgical generators are commonly measured in the centimeter range including as taught by Millis which teaches a generator with dimension of about 30cm for both length, depth and height ([0047]). Therefore, before the application was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the housing of Allen to have dimensions such as taught by Millis, where any of the various components are at least 1cm from another component, to produce the predictable result of a functional electrosurgical device.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen in view of Canady (US 2022/0192727).
Regarding claim 9, Allen further discloses the housing includes a display screen (106, fig. 2) separated from an interface (108) that includes at least bipolar/ultrasonic scalpel (i.e. cutting) interface (fig. 1, [0029]). Allen does not disclose an insulating plate with a dimension of 3cm or more. However, providing insulating plates is common in the art and a person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to select an appropriate dimension (including 3cm to infinity). Canady discloses a device with a housing and teaches that appropriately sized insulating plates (130, 250) can be used, including between a display (390) and other elements including interfaces (230, [0023]). Therefore, before the application was filed, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Allen to include appropriate insulating plates between the screen and interface, such as taught by Canady, including an insulating plate with an appropriate size including a dimension of 3cm or more, that would produce the predictable result of allowing the device to function without undesired interference.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen in view of Kasprzyk (US 2014/0257266).
Regarding claim 10, Allen does not disclose any of the three features recited. However, standby batteries are common in the art, where any battery is “below” any other element in the device depending on the frame of reference. Kasprzyk discloses a medical device and teaches that a standby battery can be used to minimize disruption of treatment ([0086]). Therefore, before the application was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the device of Allen to include a standby battery such as taught by Kasprzyk that would produce the predictable result of minimizing disruptions to operation of the device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claims 3-6, while combination HF/ultrasound systems are common in the art, the prior art does not teach or suggest such a system with the circuit components recited in claim 3 in conjunction with the structural elements of claim 1. Claims 4-6 depend from claim 3 and are therefore also indicated allowable.
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, the prior art does not teach an HF/ultrasound device as in claim 1 with the network areas, application area, crossing elements, gaps and pins as recited in claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Regarding another device for controlling the frequency and power of HF signals, see the abstract of US 5,542,916 to Hirsch. Regarding another device for controlling the frequency and power of ultrasound signal, see col. 7 lines 45-52 of US 6,589,174 to Chopra. Regarding a system with a series of circuits connected to a main board and power supply module set which may be closer to the disclosed invention, see discussion associated with figures 2-6 of US 5,997,528 to Bisch.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL WAYNE FOWLER whose telephone number is (571)270-3201. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9-5).
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, Joseph Stoklosa can be reached at 571-272-1213. 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.
/DANIEL W FOWLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794