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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 12, and 14-16 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability.
Claim 1, 4, 12, 14, and 15 are newly amended.
Claim 16 is newly added.
Claims 8-11 are withdrawn via restriction requirement without traverse.
Claim 6 is cancelled.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/24/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Boukhny so the multiple feedback circuitries are configured to estimate respective phase differences between the respective voltages and the respective electrical currents similar to that disclosed by Carter so that no matter how heavy the load, the phase will still be zero. This would meet the claim language as estimate respective phase differences between the respective voltages and the respective electrical currents, even though the phase difference would still be zero .
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boukhny (US 6028387 A) in view of Kaplan (US 20180234773 A1) in view of Egley (US 5285127 A) in view of Corl (US 20140180128 A1) in view of Carter (US 5431663 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Boukhny teaches a multi-channel drive system for a piezoelectric actuator having a multiple-frequency resonant mode (figure 2, “two channel FFT DSP”), the system comprising:
multiple signal generators (source, 44) configured to generate multiple respective drive signals (drive signals, 45 and 47) at multiple respective drive signal frequencies, and to drive a plurality of multiple-split electrodes disposed on the piezoelectric actuator (crystals 18 and 20) with the multiple respective drive signals (45 and 47) (“source 44 may generate drive signal 45 for torsional crystals 18 and source 46 may generate driving signal 47 for longitudinal crystals 20” column 3, lines 44-46);
multiple feedback circuitries (separator, 48) configured to measure multiple respective feedback signals (signals, 140) at the multiple respective drive signal frequencies (45 and 47) (“Handpiece feedback signal 140 is filtered through separator 48 to provide adjusting signals 50 and 52 to sources 44 and 46. Separator 48 may be any number of commercially available analog or digital devices such low pass or high pass filters or heterodyne receiver” column 3, lines 48-52); and
a processor (column 3, lines 1-20) configured to adaptively maintain the piezoelectric actuator (18 and 20) vibrating in the multiple-frequency resonant mode, by adjusting the respective drive signal frequencies in response to the respective measured feedback signals (140) (“Handpiece feedback signal 140 is filtered through separator 48 to provide adjusting signals 50 and 52 to sources 44 and 46. Separator 48 may be any number of commercially available analog or digital devices such low pass or high pass filters or heterodyne receiver” column 3, lines 9-13).
Boukhny fails to teach wherein one or more multiple-split electrodes are disposed on the piezoelectric actuator and each multiple- split electrode formed of multiple electrode segments and wherein the processor is configured to connect at least two of the drive signals to one of a plurality of different combinations of the electrode segments of each multiple-split electrode.
In a similar field of endeavor, namely a piezoelectric actuator system, Kaplan teaches a piezo-electric actuator comprising an assembly comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, and at least one piezoelectric layer located between said first electrode and said second electrode, wherein at least one of the first electrode and the second electrode is split into at least two different sub-electrodes (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the piezoelectric actuator of Boukhny so it is one or more multiple-split electrodes are disposed on the piezoelectric actuator and each multiple- split electrode formed of multiple electrode segments similar to that disclosed by Kaplan so that a sub-electrode of the first electrode is fed with a positive electrical potential, and another sub-electrode of the first electrode with a negative electrical potential, in order to make the assembly bend upwards or downwards (as motivated by paragraph [0022]). This combination would then allow for wherein the processor is configured to connect at least two of the drive signals to respective different combinations of the electrode segments.
Kaplan and Boukhny fails to teach wherein each of the plurality of different combinations of the electrode segments is associated with one of a respective plurality of lateral vibrational axes.
In a similar field of endeavor, Egley teaches a piezoelectric actuator system wherein each of the plurality of different combinations of the electrode segments is associated with one of a respective plurality of lateral vibrational axes (column 5, lines 12-19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify electrode of Boukhny in view of Kaplan so each of the plurality of different combinations of the electrode segments is associated with one of a respective plurality of lateral vibrational axes similar to Egley in order to produce the desired modes of vibration (column 5, lines 12-19).
Boukhny, Kaplan and Egley fails wherein the electrodes are plurality of multiple-split electrodes, the piezoelectric actuator vibrating in the multiple-frequency resonant mode in accordance with a complex vibrational profile and wherein each different combination[[s]] of the electrode segments of at least one of the plurality of multiple-split electrodes is associated with different lateral vibrational axes.
In a similar field of endeavor, namely a piezoelectric actuator system, Corl teaches an ultrasound transducer made of a piezoelectric crystal wherein the electrodes are plurality of multiple-split electrodes (paragraph [0057-0058]), the piezoelectric actuator vibrating in the multiple-frequency resonant mode in accordance with a complex vibrational profile (paragraph [0041]) and wherein each different combination[[s]] of the electrode segments of at least one of the plurality of multiple-split electrodes is associated with different lateral vibrational axes (paragraph [0056-0057]) (figure 7A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boukhny to have split- electrodes so that different capacitance may be set for the different parts of the electrode.
Boukhny further teaches wherein the feedback signals comprise respective voltages of the drive signals across the piezoelectric actuator (column 1, lines 21-24), and respective electrical currents flowing through the piezoelectric actuator in response to the multiple respective drive signals (column 3, lines 21-24). However, the cited prior art fails to explicitly teaches wherein the multiple feedback circuitries are configured to estimate respective phase differences between the respective voltages and the respective electrical currents.
In a similar field of endeavor, namely ultrasonic energy for the ablation of atheroma and dissolution of blood clots in vessels, Carter teaches the addition of a tuning in tuning inductor in series with the transducer to produce a zero phase angle condition no matter how heavy the load (column 3, lines 1-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Boukhny so the multiple feedback circuitries are configured to estimate respective phase differences between the respective voltages and the respective electrical currents similar to that disclosed by Carter so that no matter how heavy the load, the phase will still be zero (as motivated by Carter, column 3, lines 1-20).
Regarding Claim 2, Boukhny in view of Kaplan, Egley, and Corl teaches the multi-channel drive system according to claim 1. Boukhny further teaches wherein the processor (column 3, lines 1-20) is configured to adjust each of the multiple respective drive signal frequencies independently of any other of the multiple respective drive signal frequencies (“Handpiece feedback signal 140 is filtered through separator 48 to provide adjusting signals 50 and 52 to sources 44 and 46. Separator 48 may be any number of commercially available analog or digital devices such low pass or high pass filters or heterodyne receiver” (column 3, lines 48-53).
Regarding Claim 4, Boukhny in view of Kaplan, Egley, and Corl teaches the multi-channel drive system according to claim 1. The cited prior art fails to explicitly teach wherein the processor is configured to adaptively adjust the multiple respective drive signal frequencies so as to reduce the phase differences.
Carter teaches the addition of a tuning in tuning inductor in series with the transducer to produce a zero phase angle condition no matter how heavy the load (column 3, lines 1-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Boukhny so the multiple feedback circuitries are configured to estimate respective phase differences between the respective voltages and the respective electrical currents similar to that disclosed by Carter so that no matter how heavy the load, the phase will still be zero (as motivated by Carter, column 3, lines 1-20).
Regarding Claim 7, Boukhny in view of Kaplan, Egley, and Corl teaches the multi-channel drive system according to claim 1. Boukhny further teaches wherein the piezoelectric actuator (18 and 20) is comprised in a phacoemulsification probe to drive a needle (tip, 12) of the probe (column 1, lines 4-6).
Regarding Claim 12, Boukhny teaches a phacoemulsification apparatus, comprising:
a phacoemulsification probe comprising a needle (12) configured for insertion into a lens capsule of an eye (column 1, lines 14-19);
a piezoelectric actuator (18 and 20) configured to vibrate the needle (12) and having a multiple-frequency resonant mode (column 1, lines 19-23); and
a multi-channel drive system (figure 2, “two channel FFT DSP”), comprising:
multiple signal generators (44) configured to generate multiple respective drive signals at multiple respective drive signal frequencies (drive signals, 45 and 47), and to drive the piezoelectric actuator (18 and 20) with the multiple respective drive signals (“source 44 may generate drive signal 45 for torsional crystals 18 and source 46 may generate driving signal 47 for longitudinal crystals 20” column 3, lines 44-46);
multiple feedback circuitries (48) configured to measure multiple respective feedback signals (140) at the multiple respective drive signal frequencies (“Handpiece feedback signal 140 is filtered through separator 48 to provide adjusting signals 50 and 52 to sources 44 and 46. Separator 48 may be any number of commercially available analog or digital devices such low pass or high pass filters or heterodyne receiver” column 3, lines 48-52); and
a processor (column 3, lines 1-20) configured to adaptively maintain the piezoelectric actuator (18 and 20) vibrating in the multiple-frequency resonant, by adjusting the multiple respective drive signal frequencies in response to the respective measured feedback signals (140) (“Handpiece feedback signal 140 is filtered through separator 48 to provide adjusting signals 50 and 52 to sources 44 and 46. Separator 48 may be any number of commercially available analog or digital devices such low pass or high pass filters or heterodyne receiver” column 3, lines 9-13) wherein the processor is configured to connect at least two of the drive signals to respective different combinations of the electrode segments.
Boukhny fails to teach wherein one or more multiple-split electrodes are disposed on the piezoelectric actuator and each multiple- split electrode formed of multiple electrode segments and wherein the processor is configured to connect at least two of the drive signals to one of a plurality of different combinations of the electrode segments of each multiple-split electrode.
In a similar field of endeavor, namely a piezoelectric actuator system, Kaplan teaches a piezo-electric actuator comprising an assembly comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, and at least one piezoelectric layer located between said first electrode and said second electrode, wherein at least one of the first electrode and the second electrode is split into at least two different sub-electrodes (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the piezoelectric actuator of Boukhny so it is one or more multiple-split electrodes are disposed on the piezoelectric actuator and each multiple- split electrode formed of multiple electrode segments similar to that disclosed by Kaplan so that a sub-electrode of the first electrode is fed with a positive electrical potential, and another sub-electrode of the first electrode with a negative electrical potential, in order to make the assembly bend upwards or downwards (as motivated by paragraph [0022]). This combination would then allow for wherein the processor is configured to connect at least two of the drive signals to respective different combinations of the electrode segments.
Kaplan fails to teach wherein each of different combinations of the electrode segments of at least one of the plurality of multiple-split electrodes is associated with different lateral vibrational axes. In a similar field of endeavor, namely a piezoelectric actuator system, Egley teaches wherein each of different combinations of the electrode segments is associated with one of a respective plurality of lateral vibrational axes (column 5, lines 12-19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify electrode of Boukhny in view of Kaplan so each of different combinations of the electrode segments is associated with one of a respective plurality of lateral vibrational axes similar to Egley in order to produce the desired modes of vibration (column 5, lines 12-19).
Boukhny fails wherein the electrodes are plurality of multiple-split electrodes, the piezoelectric actuator vibrating in the multiple-frequency resonant mode in accordance with a complex vibrational profile and wherein each different combination[[s]] of the electrode segments of at least one of the plurality of multiple-split electrodes is associated with different lateral vibrational axes.
In a similar field of endeavor, namely a piezoelectric actuator system, Corl teaches an ultrasound transducer made of a piezoelectric crystal wherein the electrodes are plurality of multiple-split electrodes (paragraph [0057-0058]), the piezoelectric actuator vibrating in the multiple-frequency resonant mode in accordance with a complex vibrational profile (paragraph [0041]) and wherein each different combination[[s]] of the electrode segments of at least one of the plurality of multiple-split electrodes is associated with different lateral vibrational axes (paragraph [0056-0057]) (figure 7A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boukhny to have split- electrodes so that different capacitance may be set for the different parts of the electrode. Boukhny further teaches wherein the respective measured feedback signals comprise respective voltages of the drive signals across the piezoelectric actuator (column 1, lines 21-24), and respective electrical currents flowing through the piezoelectric actuator in response to the drive signals (column 3, lines 21-24).
Boukhny fails to explicitly teach wherein the multiple feedback circuitries are configured to estimate respective phase differences between the respective voltages and the respective electrical currents.
Carter teaches the addition of a tuning in tuning inductor in series with the transducer to produce a zero phase angle condition no matter how heavy the load (column 3, lines 1-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Boukhny so the multiple feedback circuitries are configured to estimate respective phase differences between the respective voltages and the respective electrical currents similar to that disclosed by Carter so that no matter how heavy the load, the phase will still be zero (as motivated by Carter, column 3, lines 1-20).
Regarding Claim 14, Boukhny in view of Kaplan, Egley, and Corl teaches the multi-channel drive system according to claim 1. Boukyny further teaches wherein the complex vibration profile provides a combination of different vibrational modes (column 2, lines 57-67).
Regarding Claim 15, Boukhny in view of Kaplan, Egley, and Corl teaches the multi-channel drive system according to claim 12. wherein the complex vibration profile provides a combination of different vibrational modes. Boukyny further teaches wherein the complex vibration profile provides a combination of different vibrational modes (column 2, lines 57-67).
Regarding Claim 16, Boukhny in view of Kaplan, Egley, and Corl teaches the phacoemulsification apparatus according to claim 12. wherein the processor is configured to adaptively adjust the multiple respective drive signal frequencies so as to reduce the phase differences The cited prior art fails to explicitly teach wherein the processor is configured to adaptively adjust the multiple respective drive signal frequencies so as to reduce the phase differences.
Carter teaches the addition of a tuning in tuning inductor in series with the transducer to produce a zero phase angle condition no matter how heavy the load (column 3, lines 1-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Boukhny so the multiple feedback circuitries are configured to estimate respective phase differences between the respective voltages and the respective electrical currents similar to that disclosed by Carter so that no matter how heavy the load, the phase will still be zero (as motivated by Carter, column 3, lines 1-20).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boukhny (US 6028387 A) in view of Kaplan (US 20180234773 A1) in view of Egley (US 5285127 A) in view of Corl (US 20140180128 A1) in view of Downey (US 20180056328 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Boukhny in view of Kaplan, Egley, and Corl teaches the multi-channel drive system according to claim 1. Boukhny fails to explicitly teach wherein the processor is configured to run a multiple- frequency proportional-integral-derivative (PID) control architecture to adjust the multiple respective drive signal frequencies.
In the same field of endeavor, namely a surgical tool, Downey teaches wherein the processor is configured to run a multiple- frequency proportional-integral-derivative (PID) control architecture to adjust the multiple respective drive signal frequencies (paragraph 0129).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of the cited prior art to include a multiple- frequency proportional-integral-derivative (PID) control architecture similar to that disclosed by Downey so that the minimum and maximum limits of the drive frequency are based on data (as motivated by Downey, paragraph 0129)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATE ELIZABETH STRACHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7291. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00.
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/interviewprtice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rebecca Eisenberg can be reached on (571)-270-5879. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)-270-5879.
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.
/KATE ELIZABETH STRACHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/CATHARINE L ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights