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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/29/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 01/29/26 has been entered. Claim 1 has been amended, and claims 13-20 remain withdrawn. Claims 1-12 are addressed in the following office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3, “the body” should read “a body”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2 and 5-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heeren (US 2015/0173948) in view of Mark et al. (US 2010/0081964).
Regarding claim 1, an invention relating to vitrectomy devices, Heeren discloses (Figs. 1-3) a method for controlling a vitrector (110) of a vitrectomy system (100; Par. 0022), the method comprising: an opening (302) in a tip (216) of the vitrector (Par. 0031), the opening providing access to a cutting member (214) within a body (212; Par. 0030); using an optical sensor (150) provided on the vitrector to capture optical feedback produced when the optical signal interacts with a medium [i.e. non-target tissue/ retinal tissue] within which the tip of the vitrector is located (Par. 0037-0038); classifying the medium in a vicinity of the cutting member of the vitrector by analyzing the optical feedback, wherein the classifying of the medium includes determining that a material to be avoided by the cutting member of the vitrector is present in the medium (Par. 0038); and issuing a control signal to alter operation of the vitrector responsive to determining that the material to be avoided is present in the medium in the vicinity of the cutting member of the vitrector (Par. 0054). However, Heeren fails to disclose the method step of: emitting an optical signal over an opening in a tip of the vitrector.
In the analogous art of sensing or detecting at the treatment site, Mark teaches (Figs. 4A-G) the method step of: emitting an optical signal [i.e. emissive component] over an opening (410) in a tip of the resection device (470; Par. 0039-0040 & 0057).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Heeren to have the method step of: emitting an optical signal over an opening in a tip of the vitrector. Doing so would allow determination of tissue issues (Par. 0040 & 0057), as taught by Mark.
Regarding claim 2, Heeren, as modified by Mark, discloses the method of claim 1. Heeren discloses further comprising processing the optical feedback and issuing a detection result (Par. 0054).
Regarding claims 5-6, Heeren, as modified by Mark, further discloses wherein the optical signal comprises a laser beam propagating in a first direction and the optical feedback comprises a back-reflection of the laser beam; and wherein processing the optical feedback comprises detecting a variation of a power of the laser beam and the back-reflection of the laser beam, and wherein issuing a detection result comprises providing the variation of power to a detection algorithm [i.e. an emissive component such as a laser source, see Mark paragraphs 0039-0040].
Regarding claim 7, Heeren, as modified by Mark, discloses the method of claim 1. Heeren further discloses wherein the optical sensor is disposed on an outer surface of the body of the vitrector (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 8, Heeren, as modified by Mark, discloses the method of claim 1. Heeren further discloses wherein the optical sensor comprises a fiber-based optical sensor positioned inside a groove [i.e. space occupied by element 150] formed in an outer surface of the body of the vitrector and extending longitudinally therealong (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 9, Heeren, as modified by Mark, discloses the method of claim 1. Heeren further discloses wherein determining the presence of the material in the vicinity of the cutting member of the vitrector comprises determining whether a retina is approaching the opening of the vitrector (Par. 0054).
Regarding claim 10, Heeren, as modified by Mark, discloses the method of claim 1. Heeren further discloses wherein the material is a retina, and further wherein determining the presence of the material in the vicinity of the cutting member of the vitrector further comprises determining a presence of an aqueous/vitreous humour of the patient in the vicinity of the opening of the vitrector (Par. 0054).
Regarding claim 11, Heeren, as modified by Mark, discloses the method of claim 1. Heeren further discloses wherein issuing the control signal to alter the operation of the vitrector comprises commanding a stopping of movement of the cutting member of the vitrector (Par. 0054).
Regarding claim 12, Heeren, as modified by Mark, discloses the method of claim 1. Heeren further discloses wherein issuing the control signal to alter the operation of the vitrector comprises commanding a reduction in a suction force provided to the vitrector (Par. 0022, 0030, 0032-0033, 0047).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heeren (US 2015/0173948) in view of Mark et al. (US 2010/0081964) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Berlin (US 2008/0082078).
Regarding claims 3-4, Heeren, as modified by Mark, discloses the method of claim 2. However, the combination fails to disclose wherein the optical feedback comprises light scattering information, and wherein processing the light scattering information comprises generating imaging data by performing optical coherence tomography, and further wherein issuing the detection result comprises providing the imaging data to a detection algorithm; and wherein generating the imaging data by performing optical coherence tomography comprises generating at least one amplitude scan based on the light scattering information.
In the analogous art of device for eye surgery, Berlin teaches wherein the optical feedback comprises light scattering information, and wherein processing the light scattering information comprises generating imaging data by performing optical coherence tomography, and further wherein issuing the detection result comprises providing the imaging data to a detection algorithm; and wherein generating the imaging data by performing optical coherence tomography comprises generating at least one amplitude scan based on the light scattering information (Par. 0090-0091 & 0096).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Heeren, in view of Mark, to have wherein the optical feedback comprises light scattering information, and wherein processing the light scattering information comprises generating imaging data by performing optical coherence tomography, and further wherein issuing the detection result comprises providing the imaging data to a detection algorithm; and wherein generating the imaging data by performing optical coherence tomography comprises generating at least one amplitude scan based on the light scattering information. Doing so would provide information for diagnosis at the structural and pathophysiologic level with intact tissues, as is known in the art (Par. 0090), as taught by Berlin.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 01/29/26, with respect to the rejections of claims under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of newly cited prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Chima Igboko whose telephone number is (571)272-8422. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00am-6:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Jackie Ho, at (571) 272-4696. 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.
/C.U.I/ Examiner, Art Unit 3771
/ASHLEY L FISHBACK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771 April 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights