DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-14 are pending in this application.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-12) in the reply filed on 12/11/25 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/11/25.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Costin (U.S. Patent No. 5,520,633) in view of Banko (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0133822).
Regarding claim 1, Costin discloses a phacoemulsification system, comprising:
a phacoemulsification probe having a needle 302 (Figure 3; col. 4, lines 45-47) at its distal end, the needle configured to be inserted into an eye of a patient, the probe comprising an ultrasonic transducer 300 (Id.);
an impedance detection circuitry (col. 5, lines 3-25) for determining an impedance between a tip of the needle and an electrode (see abstract; detecting impedance via a sensor having electrode, e.g. piezoelectric element) attached to the patient; and
a processor 312, configured to repeatedly (Figure 4, col. 5, lines 3-54; via tracking impedance):
obtain the impedance from the impedance detection circuitry (Id.);
subject to the impedance complying with a condition (such as a change in impedance being greater than a value N) toggling the ultrasonic transducer to transmit ultrasonic waves (such as by increasing power), and
subject to the impedance not complying with a condition (such as a change in impedance not being greater than a value N) toggling the ultrasonic transducer to decrease transmitting ultrasonic waves (such as by decreasing power).
However, Costin does not disclose that the processor, subject to the ultrasonic transducer being inactive, toggles the ultrasonic transducer to transmit ultrasonic waves, and subject to the ultrasonic transducer being active, toggles the ultrasonic transducer to stop transmitting ultrasonic waves.
In the same field of art, namely a phacoemulsification system, Banko teaches (see abstract) toggling an ultrasonic transducer between transmitting ultrasonic waves and stopping transmitting ultrasonic waves automatically to avoid unsafe conditions ([0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify Costin such that the processor toggles the ultrasonic transducer to transmit ultrasonic waves subject to the ultrasonic transducer being inactive and toggles the ultrasonic transducer to stop transmitting ultrasonic waves subject to the ultrasonic transducer being active, as taught by Banko, in order to facilitate control of the ultrasound vibrations depending on the tissue being encountered (Costin; abstract) and to prevent unsafe conditions (Banko; [0014]).
Regarding claim 3, Costin as modified teaches the condition is that the impedance exceeds a threshold (Costin, Figure 4, col. 5, lines 3-54; change in impedance being greater than a threshold value N).
Regarding claim 4, Costin as modified teaches the condition is that the impedance is higher in at least a predetermined quantity (Id.) or percent than a previous impedance.
Regarding claims 7 and 9, Costin as modified teaches the impedance is detected by applying current/voltage (Costin, col. 6, line 48-67) to a circuit comprising the tip of the needle and the electrode, measuring current/voltage in the circuit, and dividing the voltage by the current (col. 5, lines 3-54).
Regarding claim 8, Costin as modified teaches the claimed invention, as discussed above, except for the current is between about 5uamp and 100 µamp at a frequency of about 50KHz. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the current to be about 5uamp and 100 µamp at a frequency of about 50KHz for the purpose of setting electrical conditions to facilitate identification of changes in impedance (Costin; col. 7, line 64 to col. 8, line 6) and since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 10, Costin as modified teaches the claimed invention, as discussed above, except for the impedance threshold is between about 20 Ohm and 150 Ohm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made modify the impedance threshold such that it is between about 20 Ohm and 150 Ohm for the purpose of accurately identifying the tissue based on the impedance obtained for treatment (Costin, col. 2, lines 35-61), and since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Costin (U.S. Patent No. 5,520,633) in view of Banko (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0133822), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Costin ‘256 (U.S. Patent No. 5,733,256).
Regarding claim 2, Costin as modified discloses the claimed invention, as discussed above, except for the processor is implemented as a microcontroller (312 in Costin is a microprocessor; col. 4, lines 53-54).
In the same field of art, namely a phacoemulsification system, Costin ‘256 teaches in col. 6, lines 1-10 that a microcontroller can be used to process all information relating to ultrasonic power.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the microprocessor to be a microcontroller, as taught by Costin ‘256, in order to optimize processing information regarding ultrasonic power in the phacoemulsification system (Id.).
Regarding claim 6, Costin as modified discloses the claimed invention, as discussed above, except for whether the condition holds is determined by a trained artificial intelligence engine.
Costin ‘256 further teaches in col. 7, lines 21-25 that trained artificial intelligence may be implemented to determine conditions in the system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the processor with a trained artificial intelligence engine, as taught by Costin ‘256 in order to provide optimum system response (Id.).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Costin (U.S. Patent No. 5,520,633) in view of Banko (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0133822), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boukhny et al., hereinafter “Boukhny” (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0015563).
Regarding claim 5, Costin as modified discloses the claimed invention, as discussed above, except for the condition is that a derivative of the impedance exceeds a threshold.
In the same field of art, namely a phacoemulsification system, in [0002], [0064] and [0075], Boukhny teaches an ultrasonic device wherein a derivative of a value is compared with a threshold value, in order to more accurately detect the value and adjust the power in the system accordingly ([0013]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify Costin as modified such that the condition is that a derivative, as taught by Boukny, in which the impedance exceeds a threshold, in order to more accurately monitor the impedance in the system (Id.).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Costin (U.S. Patent No. 5,520,633) in view of Banko (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0133822), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gordon (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0114237).
Regarding claims 11-12, Costin as modified teaches the claimed invention, as discussed above except for an irrigation channel for irrigating the eye with irrigation fluid; an irrigation sensor, which is coupled with the irrigation channel and is configured
to measure a parameter indicative of a pressure of the irrigation fluid; and
an irrigation pump configured to flow the irrigation fluid to the irrigation channel. Furthermore, although Costin as modified teaches an aspiration system that controls an aspirator (Costin, col. 7, lines 5-32), Costin as modified does not expressly teach an aspiration channel for evacuating material from the eye; an aspiration sensor, coupled with the aspiration channel and configured to measure a value indicative of a pressure in the aspiration channel; and an aspiration pump configured to evacuate the material from the aspiration channel.
In the same field of art, namely a phacoemulsification system, Gordon teaches an irrigation channel 1140 (Figure 1; [0029]) for irrigating the eye with irrigation fluid; an irrigation sensor 1130, which is coupled with the irrigation channel and is configured to measure a parameter indicative of a pressure of the irrigation fluid (Id.); and an irrigation pump ([0031]) configured to flow the irrigation fluid to the irrigation channel. Furthermore, Gordon teaches an aspiration channel 1155 (Figure 1; [0029]) for evacuating material from the eye; an aspiration sensor 1160, coupled with the aspiration channel and configured to measure a value indicative of a pressure in the aspiration channel (Id.); and an aspiration pump 1170 configured to evacuate the material from the aspiration channel ([0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify Costin as modified with the irrigation and aspiration elements as claimed, as taught by Gordon, in order to address complications such as unstable intraocular pressure or tearing of eye tissue (Gordon; [0007]-[0010])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIANE D YABUT whose telephone number is (571)272-6831. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Darwin Erezo can be reached at 571-272-4695. 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.
/DIANE D YABUT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights