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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 6-17 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.
Claim 1 recites “the plunger will remain in the first position or the second position upon application of a current to the solenoid coil.” [emphasis added] The limitation is unclear because it can have multiple meanings. For example, does the limitation mean that the plunger initially has no current being applied and then current may be applied. This implies that there is a situation where the plunger remains in the first position or the second position without a current being applied, which appears to contradict the specification. The limitation could also mean that the plunger remains in the first or second position, the status of the current being unknown, until a current is applied, at which point it is unclear whether the plunger will continue to remain or perhaps be moved. For examination purposes, the latter will be assumed. Examiner notes that both the Collins and Cambridge online dictionaries indicate that the word “upon” implies something that is about to happen or will happen soon. This adds ambiguity because it is now unclear whether the application of current actually happens. In any case, the present language does not clearly indicate the plunger is actively being held in the first or second position by the constant application of current. If such an interpretation is desired, the language should clearly and succinctly reflect such an understanding.
Regarding claim 11, it is still unclear how the bypass channel can be connected to the irrigation channel while “comprising the second channel” which is the irrigation channel. It is noted that the bypass channel has distinct portions that are separate from both the first and second channel, therefore the bypass channel cannot be wholly a part of either. For the purpose of examination, regarding the bypass channel, a connection to the second channel will be assumed.
Claim 2, 3, 6-10, and 12-17 are rejected by virtue of being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,734,310 to Ankney et al. (“Ankney”).
Regarding claim 1, Ankney teaches a fluid dynamics system comprising a solenoid valve (10, Fig. 1) comprising a valve body comprising a valve cavity (40) having a direction of elongation (Fig. 1, left to right), a first channel (34), and a second channel (30), a solenoid coil (24/26) disposed in the valve body around the valve cavity, and a plunger (38) comprising a magnetic element (column 3, line 36) and configured to move back-and-forth along the direction of elongation between a first position (left position) and a second position (right position) in the valve cavity, selectively: opening the first channel and closing the second channel when the plunger is in the first position; and closing the first channel and opening the second channel when the plunger is in the second position (column 3, line 66 to column 4, line 16), and a controller (54) configured to control the solenoid coil to selectively move the plunger between the first position and the second position (column 3, lines 62-64), and to selectively maintain the plunger in the first position and the second position (controller 54 is capable of maintaining the plunger in either position by removing voltage, column 3, lines 60-62), the plunger will remain in the first position or the second position upon application of a current to the solenoid coil (column 4, lines 6-7, the plunger of Ankney remains magnetically latched until, column 4, lines 9-16, the solenoid is energized and the valve body is moved, see 112 rejection above for interpretation).
Regarding claim 2, Ankney teaches the system according to claim 1 as shown above, Ankney further teaching the plunger does not have a fixed rest position in the valve cavity (there is no “rest” or default position since there is no restoring element and the shuttle can remain in either position).
Regarding claim 3, Ankney teaches the system according to claim 1 as shown above, Ankney further teaching the plunger does not include a restoring element configured to restore the plunger to a fixed rest position (Ankney has no spring, given the claim interpretation above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0000573 to Millman et al. (“Millman”) in view of Ankney.
Regarding claim 1, Millman teaches a fluid dynamics system (Fig. 4A-5C) comprising a solenoid valve body (506, Fig. 5A which can be a solenoid-type as shown for example in the embodiments of Figs. 7A-7C) comprising, a first channel (Fig. 5A, between 508 and 509B) and a second channel (Fig. 5A, between 508 and 509A), but does not teach the details of the valve.
Ankney teaches a solenoid valve (10, Fig. 1) comprising a valve body comprising a valve cavity (40) having a direction of elongation (Fig. 1, left to right), a first channel (34), and a second channel (30), a solenoid coil (24/26) disposed in the valve body around the valve cavity, and a plunger (38) comprising a magnetic element (column 3, line 36) and configured to move back-and-forth along the direction of elongation between a first position (left position) and a second position (right position) in the valve cavity, selectively: opening the first channel and closing the second channel when the plunger is in the first position; and closing the first channel and opening the second channel when the plunger is in the second position (column 3, line 66 to column 4, line 16), and a controller (54) configured to control the solenoid coil to selectively move the plunger between the first position and the second position (column 3, lines 62-64), and to selectively maintain the plunger in the first position and the second position (controller 54 is capable of maintaining the plunger in either position by removing voltage, column 3, lines 60-62), the plunger will remain in the first position or the second position upon application of a current to the solenoid coil (column 4, lines 6-7, the plunger of Ankney remains magnetically latched until, column 4, lines 9-16, the solenoid is energized and the valve body is moved, see 112 rejection above for interpretation). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the solenoid valve of Millman with the solenoid valve of Ankney since both valves would be considered art-recognized alternatives to provide the expected result of selective fluid control from multiple sources of fluid.
Claims 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Millman and Ankney as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0048607 to Rockley and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0163455 to Wilson et al. (“Wilson”).
Regarding claim 11, Millman and Ankney teach the system according to claim 1 as shown above, Millman further teaching a phacoemulsification probe (4A) including an irrigation channel (509A) configured to convey irrigation fluid to the distal end, an aspiration channel (509B) capable of conveying eye fluid and waste matter away from the distal end, the aspiration channel comprising the first channel (as shown above), but do not teach the needle and the bypass channel, although Millman contemplates the use of various tools including needle holders ([0060]).
Rockley teaches a distal end comprising a needle. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a needle on the probe of Millman as taught by Rockley because Millman is designed to be used with various type of tools and devices ([0060]) to suit a wide variety of needs and treatments, and the provision of a needle is a known technique to improve a device to yield the predictable result of performing, for example, eye surgeries.
Wilson teaches a bypass channel (Fig. 3, shown in dashes) connected to an irrigation channel (345) and the aspiration channel (345), the bypass channel connected to (see 112 rejection for interpretation) the second channel (Fig. 3). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the bypass channel in the device of Millman and Ankney as taught by Wilson in order to permit fluid flow through irrigation line when the aspiration valve in closed to prevent an intra-ocular pressure spike ([0040]).
Once combined, when the controller of the device of Millman, Ankney, and Wilson controls the solenoid coil to (a) move the plunger to the first position to open the first channel of the aspiration channel and close the second channel of the bypass channel, aspiration of the eye fluid and waste matter away from the distal end would occur, and (b) when the plunger is moved to the second position to close the first channel of the aspiration channel and open the second channel of the bypass channel, a portion of the irrigation fluid in the irrigation channel would enter the aspiration channel reducing a vacuum in part of the aspiration channel.
Regarding claim 12, Millman, Ankney, Rockley, and Wilson teach the system according to claim 11 as shown above, Millman further teaching an aspiration tubing line (106B, Fig. 5A & Fig. 1), and a pumping sub-system (105, Fig. 1) configured to be coupled to the aspiration tubing line and pump the eye fluid and waste matter away from the distal end via the aspiration tubing line and the aspiration channel, and wherein the first channel of the aspiration channel includes a first section (508, Fig. 5A, left side of 510B) connected to the distal end, and a second section (right side of 510B) configured to be coupled to the pumping sub-system via the aspiration tubing line, once combined with Wilson, the bypass channel being configured to allow the portion of the irrigation fluid in the irrigation channel to enter the second section of the aspiration channel when the plunger is in the second position (Wilson, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 13, Millman, Ankney, Rockley, and Wilson teach the system according to claim 12 as shown above, but do not previously mention a sensor related to aspiration. However, Rockley teaches a sensor configured to provide a signal indicative of a fluid metric in the second section of the aspiration channel ([0028]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the sensor in the device of Millman, Ankney, and Wilson as taught by Rockley, in order to deal with potential occlusions in the aspiration line ([0028]). Once combined, the controller of Millman, Ankney, Rockley, and Wilson would control the solenoid coil to selectively move the plunger between the first position and the second position responsively to the signal in order deal with the occlusion.
Regarding claim 14, Millman, Ankney, Rockley, and Wilson teach the system according to claim 13 as shown above, Rockley further teaching the fluid metric is a pressure level ([0028]).
Regarding claim 15, Millman, Ankney, Rockley, and Wilson teach the system according to claim 13 as shown above, Rockley further teaching the controller being configured to detect a rate of change of the fluid metric ([0028], pressure) in the second section of the aspiration channel, and control the valve responsively to the detected rate of change passing a given rate of change allowing the portion of the irrigation fluid in the irrigation channel to enter the second section of the aspiration channel via the bypass channel increasing the fluid metric in the second section of the aspiration channel ([0028], venting the aspiration line with the irrigation line). Once combined, the controller of Millman, Ankney, Rockley, and Wilson would control the solenoid coil to move the plunger to the second position.
Regarding claim 16, Millman, Ankney, Rockley, and Wilson teach the system according to claim 15 as shown above, Rockley further teaching the controller is configured to control valve responsively to the fluid metric in the second section of the aspiration channel passing a given value ([0028], continued operation once the occlusion flag is set to zero). Once combined, the controller of Millman, Ankney, Rockley, and Wilson would control the solenoid coil to move the plunger to the first position.
Regarding claim 17, Millman, Ankney, Rockley, and Wilson teach the system according to claim 13 as shown above, Millman further teaching the phacoemulsification probe further comprises a probe body (404, Fig. 11A) and a fluid dynamics cartridge (1101) configured to be reversibly connected to the probe body ([0180]) and the fluid dynamics cartridge comprising the solenoid valve, the sensor, and the bypass channel.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art, Ankney or Millman in view of Ankney fail to show or suggest a controller configured to change a polarity of a solenoid from a first polarity to a second polarity and then back to the first polarity to move a plunger from a first position to a second position where the first position and second position are on either side of a center of a solenoid coil with respect to a direction of elongation, and changing the polarity of the solenoid coil from the first polarity to the second polarity and then back to the first polarity to move the plunger from the second position to the first position, in combination with all the other limitations as substantially claimed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to 112 rejections have been fully considered and they are persuasive in-part. Regarding claim 4, the rejection has been withdrawn. Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 11 does not appear to have been addressed, therefore, the rejection of claim 11 stands. Moreover, new 112 rejections have been issued as shown above.
Applicant's arguments and amendments with respect to art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Ankney teaches away from using current to keep the plunger in the first or second position. Examiner submits that the current language does not clearly reflect such a limitation, please refer to the 112 rejection of claim 1. Until the language is clarified, the claim has been interpreted as best understood by the Examiner given the broadest reasonable interpretation. Examiner submits that Ankney teaches the new limitation as shown above, therefore the rejection by Ankney or Millman in view of Ankney is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. It is noted that U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0179169 to Agahi et al. teaches using current to hold a plunger at a position in paragraph [0012].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN KOO whose telephone number is (703)756-1749. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm 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, Michael Tsai can be reached at (571) 270-5246. 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.
/B.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3783 /THEODORE J STIGELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783