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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/26/2026 has been entered.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedrichs (US 2014/0228833) in view of Sussman (US 2017/0336390).
Regarding claim 4, Friedrichs discloses a system for performing non-thermal plasma treatment on a patient: an electrosurgical generator (200) for supplying radio frequency energy; a return electrode (6) connected to said electrosurgical generator, wherein said electrode comprises a patient pad (view figure 1, elements 6; 6A/6B); a gas control module (16) for controlling a supply of an inert gas; and a hand piece (10) having a proximal end and a distal end, wherein said hand piece comprises: a housing having an inner cavity; tubing within said cavity; a fluid connector connecting said tubing to said gas control module; an active electrode within said cavity; an electrical connector connecting said active electrode to said electrosurgical generator; and a printed circuit board within said cavity and connected to said conductor [Para 0056-0057 discuss the handpiece components]; wherein said electrosurgical generator comprises: a power module; a memory [Para 0046-0047 discusses the generator 200 with controller 224 and power supply 227]; a first current sensor configured to sense an electrical current on said active electrode; a second current sensor configured to sense a current on said return electrode; a voltage sensor configured to sense a voltage difference between said active electrode and said return electrode and a feedback control module [Para 0046-0047 discuss the plurality of sensors associated with the system including current sensors 280a, voltage sensors 280b]; wherein said control module is configured to automatically adjust a power output of said electrosurgical generator based on outputs of said first current sensor, said second current sensor and said voltage sensor to maintain an electrical current on said active electrode within a range to provide non-thermal plasma [Para 0039 mentions adjustments; Para 0043 allows for user adjustments; Para 0047 discusses power supply and feedback adjustments]. Friedrichs discloses a feedback control system with multiple sensors present, it fails to explicitly disclose two separate current sensors. However, Newton discloses an electrosurgical system with separate current sensors 82 and return current sensor 96. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use multiple current sensors as taught by Newton. Doing so would allow for precise measurement of current flowing within the system. While Friedrichs and Newton disclose feedback control [Para 0047 and 0067-0069] it fails to explicitly disclose the use of a flyback transformer and maintaining a non-thermal plasma at less than 37°C. However, Sussman discloses an electrosurgical system which can have a plasma temperature at a variety of ranges including maintaining a temperature less than 28.5 and 23.5 as well as utilizing a flyback transformer [Para 0052-0053 and 0110-0111]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have the electrical components of the generator/controller system include the best components for adaptive power and plasma control and application as taught by Sussman in using a flyback transformer. Doing so allows for better feedback control of tissue energy application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 4 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding the applicant’s arguments of the system of Friedrichs failing to disclose multiple current sensors, Newton discloses an electrosurgical system with multiple sensors including multiple current sensors.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA L ZINK whose telephone number is (571)270-7103. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-12 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, Joanne Hoffman can be reached at (303)297-4276. 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.
/A.L.Z/Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/MICHAEL F PEFFLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights