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.
Claim Objections
Claims 16-20 and 22-35 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims variously use “HF” and “high-frequency” Applicant should pick one or the other. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 33 should recite “and/or.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 16-20 and 22-35 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 claims 16-20 and 22-35, claim 16 recites that the inverter controller receives working currents which are calculated but does not clarify how or by what element. The claim continues to recite that that the working currents are “obtained” by a “working currents calculation device.” It is not clear what the relationship is between the inverter controller, the working currents and the working currents calculation device. Further, claim 16 recites that the observer unit is configured to determine working currents “based on measured values” obtained by measuring the total currents. It is not clear if “measured values” are the total currents or some other parameter. Claims 17-20 and 22-35 depend on claim 16 and are therefore also indefinite.
Regarding claims 17-18, the phrase “for actual calculating” in claim 17 is non-idiomatic English with renders the claim indefinite. Further, claim 17 recites “a dual Fourier series approximation” of two values but then recites “the Fourier series approximation” and it is not clear which or both approximations are in view. Claim 18 depends on claim 17 and is therefore also indefinite.
Regarding claim 18, what the claim means by “respective currents, voltage and powers are to be measured and calculated” is wholly unclear. First, it is not clear which groupings of the numerous recited currents are in view. Second, there is no antecedent basis for voltage (singular) or power.
Regarding claim 19, the word “voltage” does not include an article and so it is not clear whether this is a new voltage or one of the voltages previously recited (in which case it is unclear which voltage is in view).
Regarding claims 20 and 32, as in claim 16, it is not clear how “measured values” are defined relative to total currents. Claim 32 depends on claim 20 and is therefore also indefinite.
Regarding claim 22, the claim recites a “unit” with no function or structure (any conceivable value could be a “denominator”) which renders the claim indefinite.
Regarding claim 28, it is not clear if “composite number” and “non-prime” are exactly equivalent or if there is intended to be a difference in scope.
Regarding claims 32 and 33, there is no antecedent basis for “sliding window.” The level of indefiniteness in this claim combined with the extreme breadth of the claim renders the claim essentially unsearchable. However, in the interest of compact prosecution, prior art that includes sliding windows have been including in the conclusion section below. Claim 33 depends from claim 32 and is therefore also indefinite.
Regarding claim 34, there is no antecedent basis for “the common denominator.”
Regarding claim 35, this claim recites a black box with functional limitations so broad it is not clear what structural elements are contemplated. This “decoupling controller” does nothing the system does not already do (i.e. allow independent control of the generation units), and “interacting” is so broad it is not clear what actually occurs between this particular controller and the observer unit.
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 16, 20, 25, 26, 28, 29 and 35 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rioux (US 2005/0107778) in view of Heckel (US 2021/0361340) and Heckel (US 2013/0197510), hereinafter Heckel2.
Regarding claims 16 and 29, Rioux discloses an electrosurgical generator with two outputs for connecting to electrosurgical instruments (fig. 2). Rioux further teaches that the two outputs can be operated in a monopolar or bipolar mode (including a common ground, [0029]) using the same or different kinds of energy ([0025], [0035]). Rioux is cited in part because the lack of a circuit diagram and the broad teachings about various energy pathways and the possible types and combinations of energy establishes that the level of ordinary skill in the art includes the ability to construct electrosurgical generator without explicit instructions on the exact components and connections. Rioux does not disclose that the outputs are connected to first and second HF generation units that produce different frequencies, or that various black boxes (“working currents calculation device” “observer unit”) are used to collect “total current” and calculate “working current” which is then used to control (“central control unit” “inverter controller”) operation of the generator. Regarding the production of different frequencies, Heckel discloses an electrosurgical generator with a plurality of HF generation units (figs. 1-2) and teaches that the units output different frequencies to avoid interference ([0055]-[0056]). Note that because “unit” is undefined by the claims, these generation units can be considered independent or integrated. Therefore, before the application was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Rioux to use HF generation unites that operate at different frequencies, as taught by Heckel, both to avoid interference and to produce the predictable result of treating tissue in a desired manner. Regarding the control of an inverter based on “working currents” calculated from “total currents,” the prior art recognizes that the current generated by generation units can experience variation by the time the current reaches tissue. Heckel2, for example, discloses an electrosurgical generator (fig. 2) and teaches that an inverter (206) is controlled by a processor (220 including 222, [0043]-[0045]) which calculates “working current” (i.e. current at the load) based on “total current” (i.e. current measured at the HF generation unit) as discussed in paragraphs [0007], [0047] and [0057] (see also [0049]-[0052]). Any value acquired by calculation is “indirect.” Therefore, before the application was filed, it would have been obvious to further modify the system of Rioux to include the circuitry to control an inverter based on more accurate calculation of current applied by each instrument, based on the total current of each instrument, such as taught by Heckel2, that would produce the predictable result of allowing the system to accurately apply desired energy to tissue. It is noted that whatever circuitry in Rioux as modified that performs the claimed steps can be considered, respectively, the “central control unit,” “inverter controller,” “working currents calculation device” and “observer unit.”
Regarding claim 20, between the indefiniteness issues and the poorly defined “sliding window device” (which does not inherently generate a sliding window) any part or subset of the parts that perform various “data processing” of the “measured values” as discussed above in Rioux as modified can be considered a “sliding window device.”
Regarding claims 25 and 26, the system of Rioux as modified does not disclose the use of independent first and second generation controllers. However, independent controllers are common in the art such as taught by Heckel (204, 304, fig. 3). Therefore, before the application was filed, it would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further provide the system of Rioux with independent generation controllers such as taught by Heckel to produce the predictable result of allowing independent control of the generators. The controllers are enabled to apply various control laws such as “on” and “off.”
Regarding claim 28, the system of Rioux as modified does not specifically disclose that the frequencies (and the difference between the frequencies) are non-prime. However, Heckel further teaches that the frequencies can be between 200-500 kHz ([0032]) which includes values, and a difference between the values, that are not prime numbers. Therefore, before the application was filed, it would have been obvious to operate the system of Rioux at any commonly known frequencies, including non-prime frequencies where the difference is also non-prime, such as taught by Heckel, that would produce the predictable result of allowing a user to treat tissue in a desired manner.
Regarding claim 35, this claim recites almost no structure. Since the generation units are independently controlled as discussed above, any circuitry or circuit elements that allow that function can be a black box called just about anything, including a “decoupling controller” on the grounds, for example, that such circuitry or circuit elements allow tissue to be decoupled from the body. Every part of an electrosurgical system “interacts” with every other part of the system to produce a functional electrosurgical system.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rioux, Heckel and Heckel2, further in view of Siazon (US 2020/0155219).
Regarding claim 19, the system of Rioux does not disclose the calculation of a phase angle between voltage and current. However, calculating phase angle from voltage and current is very common in the art such as taught by Siazon ([0021], [0026]). 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 Rioux to determine the phase angle as calculated from voltage and current, such as taught by Siazon, to produce the predictable result of allowing a user and/or controller to know the phase angle.
Claims 23 and 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rioux, Heckel and Heckel2, further in view of Govari (US 2019/0069943).
Regarding claims 23 and 24, the system of Rioux does not disclose a cross-current detector/regulator for adjusting at least the second HF generation unit. However, cross-current detectors/regulator for controlling HF generation units are common in the art such as taught by Govari (see discussion of cross-currents 57, fig. 2, in conjunction with controller 50 and HF generation units 52/54, [0037]). Therefore, before the application was filed, it would have been obvious to further modify the system of Rioux to include the cross-current detection and control circuitry (including controlling at least the second HF generation unit) as taught by Govari to produce the predictable result of limiting cross-currents.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rioux, Heckel and Heckel2, further in view of Tonn (US 2019/0090932)
Regarding claim 27, the system of Rioux as modified does not disclose the controllers operate based on the load of the instruments. However, this is a very common feature of electrosurgical systems such as taught by Tonn ([0028], [0036]). Therefore, before the application was filed, it would have been obvious to further modify the system of Rioux to include allowing the controllers to operate based on the load of the instruments, such as Tonn, that would produce the predictable result of treating tissue in a desired manner.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rioux, Heckel and Heckel2, further in view of Friedrichs (US 2017/0209202).
Regarding claim 30, the system of Rioux does not disclose the use of a multilevel inverter (which has a plurality of “cells” by definition). However, using a multilevel inverter is common in the art such as taught by Friedrichs which discloses a single inverter for outputting multiple frequencies (fig. 3) and generally teaches that a wide range of inverter types, including multilevel inverters, are known in the art ([0047]). 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 Rioux to include a single inverter of any commonly known type, including a multilevel inverter, both taught by Friedrichs, for generating the desired frequencies to produce the predictable result of allowing a user to treat tissue in a desired manner. Whatever part of the multilevel inverter that is responsible for the respective frequencies can be considered “cells.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17, 18, 22, 31, 33 and 34 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.
Claims 17, 18 and 31, while “Fourier series approximation device” is a known structure in the prior art in the context of different frequencies in dual output systems (see e.g. [0051] of Heckel), that prior art does not also suggest structure that would perform the function of the automatic coefficient determining device as best understood. Claims 18 and 31 depends on claim 17 and is therefore also would be allowable.
Regarding claims 22 and 34, if the common denominator calculation unit as in claim 22 calculates a common denominator to allow the sliding window device to generate a specific sliding window by using the denominators of the first frequency, second frequency and difference between the frequencies, as suggested by the specification, the prior art does not disclose that feature. Claim 34 depends on claim 22 and would therefore also be allowable.
Regarding claim 33, if the observer unit includes a sliding window device that generates a sliding window based on the total first and second current, and if that sliding window has a variable length dependent on one of the frequencies of the HF generation units (or a difference between the frequencies of the generation unit), the prior art does not disclose that feature.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Regarding the use of a sliding window to analyze data, including the use of a Fourier transform, see column 15 lines 3-20 of US 10,625,080 to Viswanathan. Regarding the use of a sliding window and FFT of voltage based on current in an electrosurgical system, see paragraph [0042] of US 2022/0395310 to Marion. Regarding the general teaching that FFTs are known in the art for analysis of electrical parameters, see paragraph [0162] of US 2003/0130711 to Pearson.
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
Prosecution Insights