DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. This action is responsive to the Preliminary Amendment filed on 06/20/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending, and have been examined on the merits.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 1, 3, 4, 13, & 16-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
a. In claim 1, line 6, the recitation of “by means of the transformer” should instead recite --by the transformer--.
b. In claim 3, line 6, the recitation of “by means of the transformer” should instead recite --by the transformer--.
c. In claim 4, line 6, the recitation of “by means of the square-wave generator” should instead recite --by the square-wave generator--.
d. In claim 13, line 4, the recitation of “by means of the measuring device” should instead recite --by the measuring device--.
e. In claim 16, lines 1-2, the recitation of “comprising a high-frequency generator according to claim 1” should instead recite --comprising the high-frequency generator according to claim 1--.
f. In claim 16, line 4, the recitation of “connected to a secondary circuit of the high-frequency generator” should instead recite --connected to the secondary circuit of the high-frequency generator--.
g. In claim 17, line 2, the recitation of “by means of a high-frequency generator” should instead recite --by a high-frequency generator--.
h. In claim 17, line 4, the recitation of “by means of a transformer” should instead recite --by a transformer--.
i. In claim 17, line 6, the recitation of “by means of a voltage conversion device” should instead recite --by a voltage conversion device--.
j. In claim 17, line 8, the recitation of “by means of the transformer” should instead recite --by the transformer--.
k. In claim 18, line 3, the recitation of “by means of a rectifier” should instead recite --by a rectifier--.
l. In claim 18, line 5, the recitation of “by means of the transformer” should instead recite --by the transformer--.
m. In claim 18, lines 7-8, the recitation of “by means of at least one square-wave generator” should instead recite --by at least one square-wave generator--.
n. In claim 18, line 9, the recitation of “the H-bridge circuit” should instead recite --that at least one H-bridge circuit--.
o. In claim 19, line 4, the recitation of “the H-bridge circuit” should instead recite --that at least one H-bridge circuit--.
p. In claim 19, lines 5-6, the recitation of “by means of a measuring device” should instead recite --by a measuring device--.
q. In claim 19, lines 6-7, the recitation of “by means of the measuring device” should instead recite --by the measuring device--.
r. In claim 19, line 7, the recitation of “by means of a processing device” should instead recite --by a processing device--.
s. In claim 19, line 8, the recitation of “the H-bridge circuit” should instead recite --that at least one H-bridge circuit--.
t. In claim 19, lines 10-11, the recitation of “by means of the processing device” should instead recite --by the processing device--.
u. In claim 19, lines 11-12, the recitation of “by means of a control device” should instead recite --by a control device--.
v. In claim 20, line 4, the recitation of “the H-bridge circuit” should instead recite --that at least one H-bridge circuit--.
w. In claim 20, line 6, the recitation of “by means of the control device” should instead recite --by the control device--.
x. In claim 20, line 10, the recitation of “the H-bridge circuit” should instead recite --that at least one H-bridge circuit--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
6. Claim 1 recites the limitation “a primary circuit to which an AC voltage can be applied” in lines 1-2. The recitation of “can be” renders the claim indefinite, because it is susceptible to more than one plausible construction. It is unclear, for example, whether the limitation refers to a capability that is required to be present in the claimed device, or whether it refers to a device capability that is a mere possibility that is not required. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Clarification is required.
7. Claims 2-16 are rejected as ultimately depending from a claim (claim 1) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
8. Claim 2 recites the limitation “a high-frequency apparatus, in particular an electrosurgical instrument for coagulating and/or cutting biological tissue” in lines 3-4.
The recitation of “in particular” renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear whether the limitation following the phrase is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
9. Claim 2 recites the limitation “can be connected to the secondary circuit” in line 4. The recitation of “can be” renders the claim indefinite, because it is susceptible to more than one plausible construction. It is unclear, for example, whether the limitation refers to a capability that is required to be present in the claimed device, or whether it refers to a device capability that is a mere possibility that is not required. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Clarification is required.
10. Claim 2 recites the limitation “can be applied to the high-frequency apparatus” in line 5. The recitation of “can be” renders the claim indefinite, because it is susceptible to more than one plausible construction. It is unclear, for example, whether the limitation refers to a capability that is required to be present in the claimed device, or whether it refers to a device capability that is a mere possibility that is not required. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Clarification is required.
11. Claim 3 recites the limitation “at least one H-bridge circuit which is integrated in the secondary circuit and to which the working voltage can be applied” in lines 7-8. The recitation of “can be” renders the claim indefinite, because it is susceptible to more than one plausible construction. It is unclear, for example, whether the limitation refers to a capability that is required to be present in the claimed device, or whether it refers to a device capability that is a mere possibility that is not required. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Clarification is required.
12. Claim 3 recites the limitation “the high-frequency square-wave voltage can be formed in the bridge branch” in lines 10-11. The recitation of “can be” renders the claim indefinite, because it is susceptible to more than one plausible construction. It is unclear, for example, whether the limitation refers to a capability that is required to be present in the claimed device, or whether it refers to a device capability that is a mere possibility that is not required. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Clarification is required.
13. Claims 4-8 are rejected as ultimately depending from a claim (claim 3) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
14. Claim 4 recites the limitation “a plurality of H-bridge circuits” in line 3. This recitation enders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear whether the recited “a plurality of H-bridge circuits” are intended to include the “at least one H-bridge circuit” previously recited in claim 3 (from which claim 4 depends), or whether they are provided in addition to the “at least one H-bridge circuit” of claim 3. As such, the structure required by the claim is not clear, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Clarification is required.
15. Claim 4 recites the limitation “a plurality of H-bridge circuits, preferably connected in parallel with one another” in lines 3-4. The recitation of “preferably” renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear whether the limitation following the phrase is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
16. Claim 4 recites the limitation “in particular two or three H-bridge circuits” in line 4. The recitation of “in particular” renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear whether the limitation following the phrase is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
17. Claim 4 recites the limitation “the high-frequency square-wave voltage can be formed in each of the bridge branches” in line 7. The recitation of “can be” renders the claim indefinite, because it is susceptible to more than one plausible construction. It is unclear, for example, whether the limitation refers to a capability that is required to be present in the claimed device, or whether it refers to a device capability that is a mere possibility that is not required. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Clarification is required.
18. Claim 4 recites the limitation “preferably independently of one another” in line 8. The recitation of “preferably” renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear whether the limitation following the phrase is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
19. Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein the switches are designed as transistors, in particular bipolar transistors or field-effect transistors (FET), in particular insulated gate field-effect transistors (IGFET), in particular metal oxide semiconductor field-effect transistors (MOSFET)” in lines 4-6. The recitations of “in particular” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
20. Claim 7 recites the limitation “wherein the working voltage is at least 100 V, preferably at least 200 V, particularly preferably at least 300 V” in lines 4-5.
a. The recitations of “preferably” and “particularly preferably” render the claim indefinite, because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
b. Further, the claim is indefinite due to the broader recitation of “at least 100 V” followed by the recitations of “at least 200 V” and “at least 300 V “which are narrower statements of the range/limitation. The broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
21. Claim 8 recites the limitation “a supply voltage can be applied to the H-bridge circuit” in line 4. The recitation of “can be” renders the claim indefinite, because it is susceptible to more than one plausible construction. It is unclear, for example, whether the limitation refers to a capability that is required to be present in the claimed device, or whether it refers to a device capability that is a mere possibility that is not required. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Clarification is required.
22. Claim 8 recites the limitation “the working voltage that can be applied to the H-bridge circuit” in lines 4-5. The recitation of “can be” renders the claim indefinite, because it is susceptible to more than one plausible construction. It is unclear, for example, whether the limitation refers to a capability that is required to be present in the claimed device, or whether it refers to a device capability that is a mere possibility that is not required. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Clarification is required.
23. Claim 9 recites the limitation “the high-frequency square-wave voltage has a frequency of at least 150 kHz, preferably of at least 200 kHz, particularly preferably of at least 300 kHz” in lines 4-5.
a. The recitations of “preferably” and “particularly preferably” render the claim indefinite, because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
b. Further, the claim is indefinite due to the broader recitation of “at least 150 kHz” followed by the recitations of “at least 200 kHz” and “at least 300 kHz “which are narrower statements of the range/limitation. The broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
24. Claim 11 recites the limitation “to which a supply voltage can be applied” in line 5. The recitation of “can be” renders the claim indefinite, because it is susceptible to more than one plausible construction. It is unclear, for example, whether the limitation refers to a capability that is required to be present in the claimed device, or whether it refers to a device capability that is a mere possibility that is not required. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Clarification is required.
25. Claim 11 recites the limitation “in such a way that the AC voltage can be generated” in line 7. The recitation of “can be” renders the claim indefinite, because it is susceptible to more than one plausible construction. It is unclear, for example, whether the limitation refers to a capability that is required to be present in the claimed device, or whether it refers to a device capability that is a mere possibility that is not required. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Clarification is required.
26. Claim 13 recites the limitation “wherein a signal can be output by means of the measuring device” in line 4. The recitation of “can be” renders the claim indefinite, because it is susceptible to more than one plausible construction. It is unclear, for example, whether the limitation refers to a capability that is required to be present in the claimed device, or whether it refers to a device capability that is a mere possibility that is not required. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Clarification is required.
27. Claim 13 recites the limitation “the measuring device” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
28. Claim 13 recites the limitation “to use the signal to conclude an operating state, in particular a correct or incorrect operating state” in lines 5-6. The recitation of “in particular” renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear whether the limitation following the phrase is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
29. Claims 14 & 15 are rejected as ultimately depending from a claim (claim 13) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
30. Claim 14 recites the limitation “the signal describing the operating state can be output” in line 4. The recitation of “can be” renders the claim indefinite, because it is susceptible to more than one plausible construction. It is unclear, for example, whether the limitation refers to a capability that is required to be present in the claimed device, or whether it refers to a device capability that is a mere possibility that is not required. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Clarification is required.
31. Claim 16 recites the limitation “a high-frequency apparatus, in particular an electrosurgical instrument for coagulating and/or cutting biological tissue” in lines 2-3. The recitation of “in particular” renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear whether the limitation following the phrase is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
32. 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.
33. Claims 1, 3-5, 17, & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0350896 to Fan et al. (“Fan”) [made of record in Applicant’s 01/02/25 IDS].
34. Regarding claim 1, Fan discloses a high-frequency generator, comprising
a primary circuit to which an AC voltage can be applied [the circuit on the left side of transformer (10) in FIG. 3 - ¶[0038],
a secondary circuit [the circuit on the right side of transformer (10) in FIG. 3 - ¶’s [0037]-[0039]],
a transformer [transformer (10) - ¶’s [0034], [0035], [0038]; FIG. 3] for coupling the primary circuit to the secondary circuit in a manner galvanically isolated from the secondary circuit [implicit, as those skilled in the art will readily appreciate that a transformer is a common means of galvanic isolation], and
a voltage conversion device [discharge control circuit (40) - ¶’s [0034]-[0037]; FIG. 3] which is designed to generate a high-frequency square-wave voltage from the AC voltage transmitted from the primary circuit to the secondary circuit by means of the transformer [¶’s [0037]-[0038]].
35. Regarding claim 3, Fan discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Fan further discloses wherein the voltage conversion device [(40)] comprises a rectifier integrated in the secondary circuit for converting the AC voltage transmitted from the primary circuit to the secondary circuit by means of the transformer into a rectified working voltage and comprises at least one H-bridge circuit which is integrated in the secondary circuit and to which the working voltage can be applied [see ¶[0037]; FIG. 3], the H-bridge circuit having four electronic switches [S1, S2, S3, S4 - FIG. 3] and a bridge branch [FIG. 3], the voltage conversion device comprising at least one square-wave generator (22, 37, 38, 39) which is set up to control the switches in such a way that the high-frequency square-wave voltage can be formed in the bridge branch [see ¶’s [0037]-[0038]; FIG. 3].
36. Regarding claim 4, Fan discloses all of the limitations of claim 3 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Fan further discloses wherein the voltage conversion device [(40)] comprises a plurality of H-bridge circuits [note the multiple discharge control circuits in FIG. 4 (see also ¶[0040])], preferably connected in parallel with one another, in particular two or three H-bridge circuits, the H-bridge circuits each having four electronic switches and one bridge branch [see ¶’s [0037], [0040]; FIGS. 3-4], the switches being controllable by means of the square-wave generator in such a way that the high-frequency square-wave voltage can be formed in each of the bridge branches, preferably independently of one another[see ¶’s [0037]-[0040]; FIGS. 3-4].
37. Regarding claim 5, Fan discloses all of the limitations of claim 3 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Fan further discloses wherein the switches are designed as transistors, in particular bipolar transistors or field-effect transistors (FET), in particular insulated gate field-effect transistors (IGFET), in particular metal oxide semiconductor field-effect transistors (MOSFET) [e.g., ¶’s [0013], [0042]].
38. Regarding claim 17, Fan discloses a method for generating a high-frequency square-wave voltage [¶’s [0037]-[0038]; FIG. 3] by means of a high-frequency generator [pulse voltage generation device - ¶[0037]; FIG. 3], wherein an AC voltage is applied to a primary circuit of the high-frequency generator [the circuit on the left side of transformer (10) in FIG. 3 - ¶[0038], wherein a secondary circuit [the circuit on the right side of transformer (10) in FIG. 3 - ¶’s [0037]-[0039]] of the high-frequency generator is coupled to the primary circuit by means of a transformer (13) [transformer (10) - ¶’s [0034], [0035], [0038]; FIG. 3] of the high-frequency generator in a manner galvanically isolated from the primary circuit [implicit, as those skilled in the art will readily appreciate that a transformer is a common means of galvanic isolation], wherein the high-frequency square-wave voltage is generated by means of a voltage conversion device (14) [discharge control circuit (40) - ¶’s [0034]-[0037]; FIG. 3] of the high-frequency generator from the AC voltage transmitted from the primary circuit to the secondary circuit by means of the transformer [¶’s [0037]-[0038]].
39. Regarding claim 18, Fan discloses all of the limitations of claim 17 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Fan further discloses wherein by means of a rectifier of the voltage conversion device [(40)] integrated in the secondary circuit, the AC voltage transmitted from the primary circuit to the secondary circuit by means of the transformer is transformed into a rectified working voltage, the working voltage being applied to at least one H-bridge circuit integrated in the secondary circuit [see ¶[0037]; FIG. 3], four electronic switches [S1, S2, S3, S4 - FIG. 3] of the H-bridge circuit being controlled by means of at least one square-wave generator of the voltage conversion device such that the high-frequency square-wave voltage is formed in a bridge branch [FIG. 3] of the H-bridge circuit [see ¶’s [0037]-[0038]; FIG. 3].
40. Claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 16, & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0110103 to Assmus et al. (“Assmus”) [made of record in Applicant’s 06/20/24 IDS].
41. Regarding claim 1, Assmus discloses a high-frequency generator, comprising
a primary circuit to which an AC voltage can be applied [intermediary circuit (11) - ¶’s [0030] & [0032]; FIG. 2],
a secondary circuit [application part (10) - ¶[0030]; FIG. 2],
a transformer [transformer (14) - ¶[0032]; FIG. 2] for coupling the primary circuit [(11)] to the secondary circuit [(10)] in a manner galvanically isolated from the secondary circuit [see ¶[0030] (“For sake of security of users and patients, application part 10 and intermediary circuit 11 are galvanically separated”)], and
a voltage conversion device [control signal generator (8) - ¶’s [0033]-[0034]; FIG. 2] which is designed to generate a high-frequency square-wave voltage from the AC voltage transmitted from the primary circuit [(11)] to the secondary circuit [(10)] by means of the transformer [(14)] [e.g., ¶[0035]].
42. Regarding claim 2, Assmus discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Assmus further discloses wherein a high-frequency apparatus, in particular an electrosurgical instrument for coagulating and/or cutting biological tissue [electrosurgical instrument (2) - ¶’s [0026], [0027] (“The electrosurgical instrument 2 is designed both for cutting and coagulating biological tissue”); FIG. 2], can be connected to the secondary circuit [(10)] such that the high-frequency square-wave voltage can be applied to the high-frequency apparatus [¶’s [0027]-[0029], [0036]].
43. Regarding claim 9, Assmus discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Assmus further discloses wherein the high-frequency square-wave voltage has a frequency of at least 150 kHz, preferably of at least 200 kHz [see ¶[0035] (“approximately 250 Hz.”)], particularly preferably of at least 300 kHz.
44. Regarding claim 10, Assmus discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Assmus further discloses wherein the high-frequency generator comprises an AC voltage generator for generating the AC voltage [¶[0032]].
45. Regarding claim 16, Assmus discloses a system comprising a high-frequency generator according to claim 1 [see the rejection of claim 1 set forth above which is incorporated herein] , and a high-frequency apparatus, in particular an electrosurgical instrument for coagulating and/or cutting biological tissue [electrosurgical instrument (2) - ¶’s [0026], [0027] (“The electrosurgical instrument 2 is designed both for cutting and coagulating biological tissue”); FIG. 2], which is connected to a secondary circuit [(10)] of the high-frequency generator [¶’s [0027]-[0029], [0036]; FIG. 2].
46. Regarding claim 17, Assmus discloses a method for generating a high-frequency square-wave voltage by means of a high-frequency generator [HJF surgical device (1) - ¶[0029]; FIG. 2], wherein an AC voltage is applied to a primary circuit [intermediary circuit (11) - ¶’s [0030] & [0032]; FIG. 2] of the high-frequency generator, wherein a secondary circuit [application part (10) - ¶[0030]; FIG. 2] of the high-frequency generator is coupled to the primary circuit [(11)] by means of a transformer (13) [transformer (14) - ¶[0032]; FIG. 2] of the high-frequency generator in a manner galvanically isolated from the primary circuit [see ¶[0030] (“For sake of security of users and patients, application part 10 and intermediary circuit 11 are galvanically separated”)], wherein the high-frequency square-wave voltage is generated by means of a voltage conversion device (14) [control signal generator (8) - ¶’s [0033]-[0034]; FIG. 2] of the high-frequency generator from the AC voltage transmitted from the primary circuit [(11)] to the secondary circuit [(10)] by means of the transformer [(14)] [e.g., ¶[0035]].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
47. 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.
48. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Rejections Under § 103 Based on FAN as the Primary Reference
49. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan.
50. Regarding claim 8, Fan discloses all of the limitations of claim 3 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Fan does not, however, disclose:
wherein a supply voltage can be applied to the H-bridge circuit in addition to the working voltage that can be applied to the H-bridge circuit.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Fan such that a supply voltage also be applied to the H-bridge circuit in addition to the working voltage, since such a modification constitutes a minor structural modification of the generator of Fan - one that falls within the scope of what a person skilled in the art would customarily do in the course of standard practice, particularly since the resulting advantages are readily foreseeable.
51. Claims 6, 7, 19, & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0069525 to Dijkstra et al. ("Dijkstra") [made of record in Applicant’s 01/02/25 IDS].
52. Regarding claim 6, Fan discloses all of the limitations of claim 3 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Fan does not, however, disclose:
wherein the square-wave generator is designed to generate pulse width modulated (PWM) signals.
Dijkstra, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches an electrosurgical generator that is designed to output a high-frequency AC voltage to an electrosurgical instrument [¶[0001]].
Dijkstra further teaches that it was known to generate PWM signals [e.g., ¶[0069]].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Fan such that the square-wave generator be designed to generate pulse width modulated (PWM) signals, since PWM allows for, and enables, high-frequency, finely-tuned control of the average power delivered to a surgical site, facilitating better control over cutting and coagulation compared to continuous, non-modulated energy.
53. Regarding claim 7, Fan discloses all of the limitations of claim 3 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Fan is silent, however, regarding working voltage values, and therefore does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the working voltage is at least 100 V, preferably at least 200 V, particularly preferably at least 300 V.
Dijkstra, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches an electrosurgical generator that is designed to output a high-frequency AC voltage to an electrosurgical instrument [¶[0001]], and teaches that it was known to utilize working voltages of at least 300 volts [see ¶[0073]; FIGS. 7a & 7b, and 8a & 8b].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Fan to utilize known working voltage levels including, e.g., working voltages of at least 300 V, since utilizing such working voltage levels was clearly recognized as being within the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as demonstrated by Dijkstra, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of utilizing such voltage levels with the device of Fan and the results would have been entirely predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
54. Regarding claim 19, Fan discloses all of the limitations of claim 18 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Fan further discloses a control device [second controller (61) - ¶[0039]; FIG. 3] of an AC voltage generator of the high-frequency generator [FIG. 3], and four electronic switches [S5, S6, S7, S8] of an H-bridge circuit [conversion circuit (60) - ¶0039]; FIG. 3] of the AC voltage generator integrated in the primary circuit [¶’s [0038]-[0039]; FIG. 3].
Fan does not, however, disclose:
wherein when the high-frequency generator is started up, a supply voltage is first applied to the H-bridge circuit [see ¶[0037]; FIG. 3] integrated in the secondary circuit, a voltage formed in the bridge branch and/or a current formed in the bridge branch being measured by means of a measuring device of the high-frequency generator, a signal being output by means of the measuring device, the signal being received by means of a processing device of the high-frequency generator, a correct or incorrect operating state of the H-bridge circuit integrated in the secondary circuit being concluded on the basis of the signal, and a signal describing the operating state being generated, the signal describing the operating state being output by means of the processing device, the signal describing the operating state being received by means of a control device [second controller (61) - ¶[0039]; FIG. 3] of an AC voltage generator of the high-frequency generator, and four electronic switches [S5, S6, S7, S8] of an H-bridge circuit [conversion circuit (60) - ¶0039]; FIG. 3] of the AC voltage generator integrated in the primary circuit [¶’s [0038]-[0039]; FIG. 3] being controlled on the basis of the signal describing the operating state such that if the operating state is correct, the generation of the AC voltage is initiated and/or if the operating state is incorrect, the generation of the AC voltage is not initiated.
Dijkstra, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches an electrosurgical generator that is designed to output a high-frequency AC voltage to an electrosurgical instrument [¶[0001]].
Dijkstra further teaches use of a measuring device [current and voltage sensor (18) - ¶[[0058]] which supplies signals to a processing device [processing unit (19) - ¶[0058]] describing the operating state for feedback control purposes.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Fan to include a measuring device and processing device for feedback control purposes, or more particularly, wherein when the high-frequency generator is started up, a supply voltage is first applied to the H-bridge circuit [see ¶[0037]; FIG. 3] integrated in the secondary circuit, a voltage formed in the bridge branch and/or a current formed in the bridge branch being measured by means of a measuring device of the high-frequency generator, a signal being output by means of the measuring device, the signal being received by means of a processing device of the high-frequency generator, a correct or incorrect operating state of the H-bridge circuit integrated in the secondary circuit being concluded on the basis of the signal, and a signal describing the operating state being generated, the signal describing the operating state being output by means of the processing device, the signal describing the operating state being received by means of a control device [second controller (61) - ¶[0039]; FIG. 3] of an AC voltage generator of the high-frequency generator, and four electronic switches [S5, S6, S7, S8] of an H-bridge circuit [conversion circuit (60) - ¶0039]; FIG. 3] of the AC voltage generator integrated in the primary circuit [¶’s [0038]-[0039]; FIG. 3] being controlled on the basis of the signal describing the operating state such that if the operating state is correct, the generation of the AC voltage is initiated and/or if the operating state is incorrect, the generation of the AC voltage is not initiated, since such a modification would provide greater control over the generator during a procedure.
55. Regarding claim 20, the combination of Fan and Dijkstra teaches all of the limitations of claim 19 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Fan, as modified above by Dijkstra, further teaches wherein after starting up, during operation of the high-frequency generator, the working voltage is applied to the H-bridge circuit integrated in the secondary circuit [Fan, ¶[0037]; FIG. 3] in addition to the supply voltage, the four electronic switches [S5, S6, S7, S8] of the H-bridge circuit integrated in the primary circuit being controlled by means of the control device on the basis of the signal describing the operating state such that if the operating state is correct, the generation of the AC voltage is maintained [Djikstra, ¶[0058]] and/or if the operating state is incorrect, the generation of the AC voltage is aborted, and therefore after the generation of the AC voltage is aborted, only the supply voltage continues to be applied to the H-bridge circuit integrated in the secondary circuit.
Rejections Under § 103 Based on ASSMUS as the Primary Reference
56. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Assmus in view of Fan.
57. Regarding claim 11, Assmus discloses all of the limitations of claim 10 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Assmus does not, however, disclose:
wherein the AC voltage generator comprises an H-bridge circuit integrated in the primary circuit, to which a supply voltage can be applied, the H-bridge circuit having four electronic switches, the AC voltage generator comprising a control device which is designed to control the switches in such a way that the AC voltage can be generated.
Fan, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a high-frequency generator, comprising a primary circuit to which an AC voltage can be applied [the circuit on the left side of transformer (10) in FIG. 3 - ¶[0038], a secondary circuit [the circuit on the right side of transformer (10) in FIG. 3 - ¶’s [0037]-[0039]], a transformer [transformer (10) - ¶’s [0034], [0035], [0038]; FIG. 3] for coupling the primary circuit to the secondary circuit in a manner galvanically isolated from the secondary circuit [implicit, as those skilled in the art will readily appreciate that a transformer is a common means of galvanic isolation], and a voltage conversion device [discharge control circuit (40) - ¶’s [0034]-[0037]; FIG. 3] which is designed to generate a high-frequency square-wave voltage from the AC voltage transmitted from the primary circuit to the secondary circuit by means of the transformer [¶’s [0037]-[0038]].
Fan further teaches:
wherein the AC voltage generator comprises an H-bridge circuit integrated in the primary circuit [conversion circuit (60) - ¶’s [0038]-[0039]; FIG. 3], to which a supply voltage can be applied, the H-bridge circuit having four electronic switches [S5, S6, S7, S8 - FIG. 3] , the AC voltage generator comprising a control device [controller (61) - ¶[0039]; FIG. 3] which is designed to control the switches in such a way that the AC voltage can be generated [¶[0039]].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Assmus such that the AC voltage generator comprises an H-bridge circuit integrated in the primary circuit, to which a supply voltage can be applied, the H-bridge circuit having four electronic switches, the AC voltage generator comprising a control device which is designed to control the switches in such a way that the AC voltage can be generated, all as taught by Fan, for the benefits described in ¶[0038] of Fan, as well as because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
58. Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Assmus in view of Dijkstra.
59. Regarding claim 12, Assmus discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Assmus does not, however, disclose:
wherein the high-frequency generator comprises a measuring device for measuring a voltage formed in the secondary circuit and/or a current formed in the secondary circuit.
Dijkstra, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches an electrosurgical generator that is designed to output a high-frequency AC voltage to an electrosurgical instrument [¶[0001]].
Dijkstra further teaches a measuring device for measuring a voltage formed in the secondary circuit and/or a current formed in the secondary circuit for feedback control purposes [a combined voltage and current sensor (18) - e.g., ¶[0058]].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Assmus such that the high-frequency generator comprises a measuring device for measuring a voltage formed in the secondary circuit and/or a current formed in the secondary circuit for feedback control purposes, as taught by Dijkstra.
60. Regarding claim 13, Assmus discloses all of the limitations of claim 10 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Assmus does not, however, disclose:
wherein a signal can be output by means of the measuring device, the high-frequency generator comprising a processing device which is designed to receive the signal, to use the signal to conclude an operating state, in particular a correct or incorrect operating state, of the voltage conversion device, and to generate a signal describing the operating state.
Dijkstra, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches an electrosurgical generator that is designed to output a high-frequency AC voltage to an electrosurgical instrument [¶[0001]].
Dijkstra further teaches that a signal can be output by means of [a] measuring device [a combined voltage and current sensor (18) - e.g., ¶[0058]], the high-frequency generator comprising a processing device [processing unit (19) - ¶[0058]] which is designed to receive the signal, to use the signal to conclude an operating state and to generate a signal describing the operating state for feedback control purposes [¶[0058]].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Assmus such that a signal can be output by means of the measuring device, the high-frequency generator comprising a processing device which is designed to receive the signal, to use the signal to conclude an operating state and to generate a signal describing the operating state for feedback control purposes, as taught by Dijkstra.
61. Regarding claim 14, the combination of Assmus and Dijkstra teaches all of the limitations of claim 13 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Dijkstra further teaches wherein the signal describing the operating state can be output by means of the processing device [¶[0058]], the AC voltage generator being set up to receive the signal describing the operating state and, if the operating state is correct, to initiate the generation of the AC voltage [¶[0058]] and/or to maintain the generation of the AC voltage and/or, if the operating state is incorrect, not to initiate the generation of the AC voltage and/or to abort the generation of the AC voltage.
62. Regarding claim 15, the combination of Assmus and Dijkstra teaches all of the limitations of claim 13 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Dijkstra further teaches wherein the processing device [processing unit (19) - ¶[0058]] has an AND gate [implicit, as AND gates are fundamental building blocks constructed from transistors that allow processors to perform logical operations and binary arithmetic].
Conclusion
63. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bradford C. Blaise whose telephone number is (571)272-5617. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8 AM-5 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Linda Dvorak can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRADFORD C. BLAISE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
