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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) filed January 13, 2023 has/have been considered by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Claims 1, 16, 27, 32 and 36 are amended. Claims 2, 6, 9, 11, 13-15, 17, 19-21, 25-26, 29-31, 34, and 37-38 are canceled. Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 10, 12, 16, 18, 22-24, 27-28, 32-33, and 35-36 are pending in this action.
Claim Objections
Applicant’s arguments, filed 02/03/2026, with respect to claim objections 16 and 32 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections of 11/05/2025 have been withdrawn.
35 USC § 112
Applicant’s arguments, filed 02/03/2026, with respect to the 35 USC § 112 rejection of claim 16 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The term “high” is still considered to be a relative term. The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree for the term “high”, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, the term “high” in claim 16 remains rejected under 35 USC § 112(b) is being indefinite.
35 USC § 102/103
Applicant's arguments filed 02/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Potter Jr. failing to teach, “…a controller being configured and operable to excite vibrations in the acoustic transducer generating acoustic waves being capable to enter into the eye and produce an acoustic field in the eye having a directional acoustic energy in a certain pattern that operates to apply forces to the particles…”, Potter Jr. teaches in figures 2A-2C acoustic transducers which emit directional sound/acoustic energy waves in the eye shown below,
PNG
media_image1.png
524
756
media_image1.png
Greyscale
And further teaches the transducer controller which controls these vibrations, shown below and as stated in the rejection.
PNG
media_image2.png
228
508
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding “…wherein the controller is configured and operable for generating and configuring acoustic radiation for a certain period of time: and wherein the controller is configured for controlling movement and concentration of particles by controlling at least one acoustic parameter and the certain period of time, wherein the controlling of the movement and concentration of particles comprises causing the particles to drift to or cluster at particular regions of the eye, or to attract or repel one another”, Potter Jr. teaches generation of acoustic radiation in the form of sound waves delivered to the target eye region by the controller as stated in the rejection, and further teaches controlling at least one acoustic parameter (stated in paragraph 0147) and the certain period of time (paragraph 0013 which teaches selection of variable time periods desired). Since the acoustic transducer generator is shown teach control of these parameters, it is interpreted by the Examiner that Potter Jr. would therefore be capable of “controlling movement and concentration of particles”, subsequently “…wherein the controlling of the movement and concentration of particles comprises causing the particles to drift to or cluster at particular regions of the eye, or to attract or repel one another”. It is reminded that regarding apparatus claims, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim, see MPEP 2114. Therefore, it is maintained by the Examiner that the Potter Jr., which teaches the structures and its positively recited functional limitations, to read on claim 1 and its intended use. Ultimately, apparatus claims must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Regarding the method claim 27, the limitations of “…controlling movement and concentration of particles”, subsequently “…wherein the controlling of the movement and concentration of particles comprises causing the particles to drift to or cluster at particular regions of the eye, or to attract or repel one another”, are considered to comprise intended results of the acoustic wave delivery and not to comprise a positively recited step of the method (see MPEP 2111.04. I). Therefore, since Potter Jr. teaches the structural elements of the claim, as well as the positively recited steps of controlling at least one acoustic parameter and the certain period of time as stated in the rejection below, the wherein clause of “…wherein the controlling of the movement and concentration of particles comprises causing the particles to drift to or cluster at particular regions of the eye, or to attract or repel one another” is considered to be an intended result that should result from meeting all the claimed positively recited steps, which Potter Jr. meets. Therefore, Potter Jr. is maintained by the Examiner to read on the method claim of claim 27 as well.
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.
The term “…wherein the focused traveling acoustic wave comprises a high acoustic intensity focal waist region…” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, paragraph 0064 of the published US 20230263661 A1 recites, “…the acoustic hologram 128 is configured to generate an acoustic wave front that converges toward a desired high acoustic intensity focal waist”, and paragraph 0090 states, “Acoustic hologram 406 is optionally configured to convert acoustic energy in the incident planar wave to an acoustic traveling wave 440 that is focused to a narrow focal waist 442 of relatively intense acoustic energy”, however neither paragraph nor any support in the specification could be found which details what a “high acoustic intensity focal waist region” entails, and is therefore unclear/indefinite. As stated in the rejection below, Examiner relies on reference Shoham (US 20130079621 A1 – hereinafter Shoham), which teaches intense steerable acoustic focal regions, to read on the “high acoustic intensity focal waist region” for interpretation.
Claim Interpretation
The term(s) “operable to”, “capable of” and “configured to” in the claim(s) may be interpreted as intended use. Intended use/functional language does not require that references teach or disclose the intended use of an element. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP section 2114. II. MANNER OF OPERATING THE DEVICE DOES NOT DIFFERENTIATE APPARATUS CLAIM FROM THE PRIOR ART.
According to MPEP 2112.02, a prior art device anticipates a claimed process if the device carries out the process during normal operation. Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Furthermore, where a reference discloses the terms of the recited method steps, and such steps necessarily result in the desired and recited effect, that the reference does not describe the recited effect in haec verba is of no significance as the reference meets the claim under the doctrine of inherency. Ex parte Novitski, 26 USPQ2d 1389, 1390-91 (BdPatApp & Inter 1993). Furthermore, the employment of the claimed steps must inherently produce the same intended results else the claims are incomplete for failing to recite a critical aspect of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7-8, 10, 12, 22-24, 27-28, 33, 35-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Potter Jr. (US 20170087014 A1 – hereinafter Potter Jr., disclosed in Applicant IDS filed January 13, 2023).
Re. claim 1, Potter Jr. teaches an ocular acoustic device for controlling movement and position of particles present in an eye (paragraph 0069 – “…output of the charging laser (FIG. 23D) is made at a time when safe to the eye. If the feedback signal ends or indicates movement of the eye…”; figure 24 also shows a handheld acoustic device with transducer array),
PNG
media_image3.png
310
420
media_image3.png
Greyscale
the acoustic device comprising:
an acoustic transducer (figure 24 above shows the transducer array above) being configured and operable to generate acoustic waves upon excitation (paragraph 0009 – “Disclosed herein is an apparatus for delivering sound energy to an eye, comprising: (a) two or more transducers that emit sound energy and are operably linked to a power source, wherein each transducer is independently capable of emitting sound energy at more than one frequency and for a variable time period”; similar embodiment figures 2A-2C show the acoustic waves from transducers, and figure 24 shows the transducer array);
PNG
media_image1.png
524
756
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and a controller being configured and operable to excite vibrations in the acoustic transducer generating acoustic waves (paragraph 0054 – “The transducer controller can supply energy (for example 0.1 microwatts-10 watts) per transducer depending on frequency and method of delivery of the sound energy, for example energy can be applied to alternating pairs of transducers to create a phase controlled waveform ‘product’”)
PNG
media_image2.png
228
508
media_image2.png
Greyscale
being capable to enter into the eye and produce an acoustic field in the eye having a directional acoustic energy in a certain pattern that operates to apply forces to the particles (paragraph 0128 – “…sound energy is applied as radial topical stimulation, topical axial stimulation or a combination thereof. As used herein, “radial topical stimulation” means stimulation at the surface of the eye in the vicinity of Schlemm's canal or the TM with an array of multiple transducers for delivery of sound energy of variable frequency, phase and amplitude to a region of the corneal Embus (see, for example, FIGS. 2, 3, 4 and 5)… Topical axial stimulation takes advantage of the shape of the volume of fluid in the anterior chamber and utilizes a ‘tsunami wave’ (see FIGS. 4 and 5) to unleash sound energy that will ripple to the perimeter of the anterior chamber and the TM”; figure 2B and 5A-5B).
PNG
media_image4.png
528
806
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and wherein the controller is configured and operable for generating and configuring acoustic radiation for a certain period of time (paragraph 0011 – “Also disclosed herein is a contact lens for delivering sound energy to an eye, comprising: two or more sound transducers that emit sound energy and are operably linked to a power source, wherein each transducer is integrated into the contact lens and independently capable of emitting sound energy at more than one frequency and for a variable time period…”; paragraph 0047 – “The non-invasive methods and devices described herein are based on the use of ultrasonic or sonic vibrations to loosen the meshwork, destroy debris clogging the TM …”);
wherein the controller is capable of controlling movement and concentration of particles by controlling at least one acoustic parameter (Potter Jr. teaches the control of acoustic parameters, which would subsequently yield control of movement and concentration of particles, paragraph 0147 – “The driving frequencies for each transducer in both arrays, can be produced by a control unit that is controlled by a computer, with software that allows the physician to precisely determine which frequencies, what phase, what amplitudes, and what duration will be produced by each transducer in the array…”) and the certain period of time (paragraph 0013 – “…the variable time period is selected from the group consisting of: about 0.1 second, about 0.5 seconds, about 1 second, about 2 seconds, about 5 seconds, about 10 seconds, about 15 seconds, about 20 seconds, about 25 seconds, and about 30 seconds”),
wherein the controlling of the movement and concentration of particles comprises causing the particles to drift to and/or cluster at particular regions of the eye, or to attract or repel one another (Potter Jr. teaches higher sonic frequencies can be used to repel particles in the eye, paragraph 0080 – “Higher sonic and low ultrasonic frequencies encourage biological processes, by moving waste and breaking up debris”; paragraph 0166 – “The total wattage at the cornea can be around 1-40 watts with radial phased array frequencies of 20 kilohertz to 200 kilohertz/1 microwatt to 5 watts at each transducer”; paragraph 0128 – “ In some embodiments, such a wave can be a low frequency burst designed to clear the TM of particles broken up by much higher frequencies…”). Furthermore, it is reminded that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, see MPEP 2114. Since Potter Jr. teaches all of the structural and functional elements of the claim, including controlling at least one acoustic parameter as stated above, Potter Jr. is considered to anticipate the claims and yield any intended results.
Re. claim 3, Potter Jr. further teaches wherein the controller is operable to at least one of:
excite vibrations in the acoustic transducer at a frequency that generates an acoustic standing wave pattern (paragraph 0126 – “Sound energy can be delivered to the eye using one or more transducers. Non-limiting means for delivering sound energy include (i) direct application of a single frequency; (ii) amplified mixing of different frequencies, where different waveforms are mixed and applied though the same transducer; (iii) multiple transducer—standing wave nodal stimulation, which uses standing wave interference and targeted sonic stimulation utilizing nodes and anti-nodes”);
excite vibrations in the acoustic transducer generating at least one of acoustic waves exciting the cornea to create vibrations that in turn induces a standing corneal acoustic wave within the anterior chamber of the eye or a nonlinear focused traveling acoustic wave with a finite amplitude creating an acoustic streaming dislocating the particles;
OR
determine a starting position of the acoustic transducer, a scanning path, a scanning speed and at least one acoustic parameter of the acoustic field according to an image data.
Re. claim 4, Potter Jr. further teaches wherein the controller is operable to:
generate an acoustic standing wave pattern comprising generating at least one nodal region to which the particles in the eye are attracted and trapped (paragraph 0126 – “Sound energy can be delivered to the eye using one or more transducers. Non-limiting means for delivering sound energy include (i) direct application of a single frequency; (ii) amplified mixing of different frequencies, where different waveforms are mixed and applied though the same transducer; (iii) multiple transducer—standing wave nodal stimulation, which uses standing wave interference and targeted sonic stimulation utilizing nodes and anti-nodes”).
Re. claim 5, Potter Jr. further teaches wherein the controller is operable to modify the position of the nodes in the acoustic standing wave pattern (paragraph 0054 – “The transducer controller can supply energy…per transducer depending on frequency and method of delivery of the sound energy, for example energy can be applied to alternating pairs of transducers to create a phase controlled waveform ‘product.’”; paragraph 0108 – “The shifting of frequency and phase will further mix up exact loci of these nodes… “).
Re. claim 7, Potter Jr. further teaches wherein the acoustic transducer comprises at least one of
at least one acoustic resonator or
a plurality of acoustic transducers (similar embodiments of figures 1, 2B and 24 shows plurality of acoustic transducers).
PNG
media_image5.png
304
432
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
524
420
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
310
420
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re. claim 8, Potter Jr. further teaches wherein said acoustic transducer is configured as a probe-like device being configured and operable to control over the direction of particle movement by displacement (figure 24 shows a probe with the transducer elements with a handle for device displacement; paragraph 0070 – “The handle of the device contains power and control electronics. A mounting bracket and jack can be included for use with the gimbal-mounted in-clinic system (see Example 1). A suspension system and two spheroid surfaces can be used to adjust the phased transducer arrays”).
PNG
media_image7.png
310
420
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Re. claim 10, Potter Jr. further teaches wherein said controller is configured and operable to at least one of:
excite vibrations in each transducer of the plurality of acoustic transducers independently; OR
control at least one acoustic parameter comprising amplitudes, phases or frequencies of each transducer so that the acoustic transducers operate as a phased array to generate the acoustic field in the eye (paragraph 0009 – “Disclosed herein is an apparatus for delivering sound energy to an eye, comprising: (a) two or more transducers that emit sound energy and are operably linked to a power source, wherein each transducer is independently capable of emitting sound energy at more than one frequency and for a variable time period”).
Re. claim 12, Potter Jr. further teaches the device further comprising at least one of:
a coupling layer being configured and operable to physically couple between the acoustic transducer and the eye and provide acoustic impedance match thereof (paragraph 0138 – “In some embodiments, a material (such as a liquid) that facilitates the transmission of sound energy from the transducer into the eye (referred to as a couplant) is supplied to the interface of the face of the transducer or transducer array and the surface of the eye. In some embodiments the couplant is biocompatible”),
an acoustic hologram being configured to receive acoustic waves generated by the acoustic transducer and configure the received wave to form an acoustic field in the eye;
a collimating lens being capable of receiving the acoustic waves generated by the acoustic transducer and generating a collimated beam of traveling wave acoustic energy;
a motion stage being capable of holding the acoustic transducer; the motion stage being configured and operable to controllably position and manipulate the acoustic transducer on the eye;
a housing that houses at least one or any combination of more than one of the acoustic transducers, acoustic lens, and/or hologram (figure 24 shows the handheld acoustic device with a handle housing);
OR
an imaging module being configured and operable to collect image data being indicative of the displacement of the particles, wherein said controller is connected to said imaging module for receiving the image data.
Re. claim 22, Potter Jr. further teaches wherein the housing is configured to be manually manipulated on the eye (figure 24 shows the handheld acoustic device with transducer array and handle which can be manually manipulated).
PNG
media_image7.png
310
420
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Re. claim 23, Potter Jr. further teaches wherein the housing is stylus shaped (figure 24, housing handle and neck are long stylus shaped),
PNG
media_image7.png
310
420
media_image7.png
Greyscale
and wherein said coupling layer comprises a contact tip configured to be placed on at least one portion of the eye and to couple acoustic energy from the acoustic transducer into the eye (figure 24 shows the interchangeable transducer array tip).
PNG
media_image3.png
310
420
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re. claim 24, Potter Jr. further teaches wherein said coupling layer is configured and operable to seal said acoustic transducer to the eye (paragraph 0138 – “In some embodiments, a material (such as a liquid) that facilitates the transmission of sound energy from the transducer into the eye (referred to as a couplant) is supplied to the interface of the face of the transducer or transducer array and the surface of the eye”) so that the transducer is capable of being filled with a liquid (paragraph 0139 – “…a couplant mixture can be produced by mixing a non-Newtonian fluid with artificial tears. Such a mixture would behave much as tears do except when subjected to shear stress at a very high frequency, at which time the couplant viscosity would increase due to its dilatant properties. Such a fluid could be engineered to biodegrade in a safe and sanitary manner for the eye”).
Re. claim 27, Potter Jr. teaches a method for controlling movement and position of particles present in an eye (paragraph 0069 – “…output of the charging laser (FIG. 23D) is made at a time when safe to the eye. If the feedback signal ends or indicates movement of the eye…”),
the method comprising:
generating and configuring acoustic waves being capable to enter into the eye for a certain period of time (paragraph 0011 – “Also disclosed herein is a contact lens for delivering sound energy to an eye, comprising: two or more sound transducers that emit sound energy and are operably linked to a power source, wherein each transducer is integrated into the contact lens and independently capable of emitting sound energy at more than one frequency and for a variable time period…”);
producing an acoustic field in the eye having a directional acoustic energy in a certain pattern that operates to apply forces to the particles (paragraph 0128 – “…sound energy is applied as radial topical stimulation, topical axial stimulation or a combination thereof. As used herein, “radial topical stimulation” means stimulation at the surface of the eye in the vicinity of Schlemm's canal or the TM with an array of multiple transducers for delivery of sound energy of variable frequency, phase and amplitude to a region of the corneal Embus (see, for example, FIGS. 2, 3, 4 and 5)… Topical axial stimulation takes advantage of the shape of the volume of fluid in the anterior chamber and utilizes a ‘tsunami wave’ (see FIGS. 4 and 5) to unleash sound energy that will ripple to the perimeter of the anterior chamber and the TM”; figure 2B and 5A-5B).
PNG
media_image8.png
524
420
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
528
806
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and controlling movement of particles to at least one predetermined location to thereby enable treating various ocular conditions (paragraph 0128 – “Combined radial topical stimulation and axial corneal stimulation has the advantage of combining waveforms converging from different directions and uses multiple transducers located at different positions on the surface of the eye. In some embodiments, such a wave can be a low frequency burst designed to clear the TM of particles broken up by much higher frequencies…”),
wherein said controlling further comprises controlling movement and concentration of particles by controlling at least one acoustic parameter (Potter Jr. teaches the control of acoustic parameters, which would subsequently yield control of movement and concentration of particles, paragraph 0147 – “The driving frequencies for each transducer in both arrays, can be produced by a control unit that is controlled by a computer, with software that allows the physician to precisely determine which frequencies, what phase, what amplitudes, and what duration will be produced by each transducer in the array…”) and the certain period of time (paragraph 0013 – “…the variable time period is selected from the group consisting of: about 0.1 second, about 0.5 seconds, about 1 second, about 2 seconds, about 5 seconds, about 10 seconds, about 15 seconds, about 20 seconds, about 25 seconds, and about 30 seconds”),
wherein the controlling of the movement and concentration of particles comprises causing the particles to drift to or cluster at particular regions of the eye, or to attract or repel one another (Potter Jr. teaches higher sonic frequencies can be used to repel particles in the eye, paragraph 0080 – “Higher sonic and low ultrasonic frequencies encourage biological processes, by moving waste and breaking up debris”; paragraph 0166 – “The total wattage at the cornea can be around 1-40 watts with radial phased array frequencies of 20 kilohertz to 200 kilohertz/1 microwatt to 5 watts at each transducer”; paragraph 0128 – “ In some embodiments, such a wave can be a low frequency burst designed to clear the TM of particles broken up by much higher frequencies…”).
Furthermore, since Potter Jr. teaches producing an acoustic field in the eye and controlling at least one acoustic parameter as stated above, this would meet all the positively recited steps of the claimed invention and thus should inherently yield any intended results, unless the claims are incomplete for failing to include aspects that are essential to achieving the claimed intended results.
Re. claim 28, Potter Jr. further teaches wherein generating acoustic waves comprises generating at least one of:
an acoustic standing wave in the eye (paragraph 0126 – “Sound energy can be delivered to the eye using one or more transducers. Non-limiting means for delivering sound energy include (i) direct application of a single frequency; (ii) amplified mixing of different frequencies, where different waveforms are mixed and applied though the same transducer; (iii) multiple transducer—standing wave nodal stimulation, which uses standing wave interference and targeted sonic stimulation utilizing nodes and anti-nodes”);
corneal standing acoustic waves;
generating acoustic traveling waves
OR
generating a plurality of acoustic waves having different acoustic parameters.
Re. claim 33, Potter Jr. further teaches wherein producing an acoustic field in the eye comprises at least one of:
controlling at least one acoustic parameter of the acoustic waves to configure the acoustic radiation (paragraph 0147 – “The driving frequencies for each transducer in both arrays, can be produced by a control unit that is controlled by a computer, with software that allows the physician to precisely determine which frequencies, what phase, what amplitudes, and what duration will be produced by each transducer in the array…”);
generating a collimated beam of acoustic energy (Potter Jr. in a similar embodiment teaches a collimated target optics 6 to produce collimated acoustic energy, paragraph 0059 – “Collimated target optics 6 allow the operator/physician to accurately align the transducers to the desired area of the surface of the eye”; paragraph 0146 – “…collimated target optics to allow the patient to fixate the eye on a target…”).
PNG
media_image9.png
450
592
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Re. claim 35, Potter Jr. further teaches wherein controlling movement of particles to at least one predetermined location comprises:
manipulating an acoustic device on a surface of an eye to control movement and position of particles present in the eye (Potter Jr. teaches higher sonic frequencies can be used to repel particles in the eye, paragraph 0080 – “Higher sonic and low ultrasonic frequencies encourage biological processes, by moving waste and breaking up debris”; paragraph 0166 – “The total wattage at the cornea can be around 1-40 watts with radial phased array frequencies of 20 kilohertz to 200 kilohertz/1 microwatt to 5 watts at each transducer”; paragraph 0128 – “ In some embodiments, such a wave can be a low frequency burst designed to clear the TM of particles broken up by much higher frequencies…”).
Re. claim 36, Potter Jr. further teaches wherein controlling movement and position of particles present in the eye comprises at least one of:
displacing particles (paragraph 0128 – “In some embodiments, such a wave can be a low frequency burst designed to clear the TM of particles broken up by much higher frequencies…”),
OR
(ii) controlling concentration of particles at at least one particular region of the eye to thereby enable diagnosing various ocular conditions.
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.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potter Jr. (US 20170087014 A1 – hereinafter Potter Jr., disclosed in Applicant IDS filed January 13, 2023) in view of Shoham (US 20130079621 A1 – hereinafter Shoham).
Re. claim 16, Potter Jr. teaches the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the focused traveling acoustic wave comprises a high acoustic intensity focal waist region at to which the particles are attracted and trapped.
Shoham teaches a similar ocular acoustic device (Shoham paragraph 0007 – “According to some embodiments of the present invention there is provided a method of operating a multi focused acoustic wave source”; paragraph 0008 – “Optionally, the at least one cellular tissue is a retina of the eye”).
Shoham further teaches the neurostimulation system 100 (Shoham figure 1) comprising an acoustic wave probe which delivers a relatively high acoustic intensity focal waist region at to which the particles are attracted and trapped (Shoham teaches a relatively intense acoustic wave with a waist region, or focal region paragraph 0065 – “This probe may be referred to herein as an ultrasonic phased array probe 101. The multi focused multi focused acoustic wave source 101 generates a tight, intense and electronically steerable focal region from a distributed source, optionally in fields with multiple simultaneous foci or spatially extended focal regions”; paragraph 0066 – “The ROI may be a target organ or a part of a target organ, such as the brain, the eye and optionally the retina there within, and/or any other neural system or network”).
PNG
media_image10.png
312
362
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Potter Jr. and Shoham all teach within the field of ocular acoustic devices, as stated above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ocular device of Potter Jr., specifically the traveling wave, to incorporate the traveling wave with the relatively intense focal point, as taught by Shoham, since such modification would predictably result in, for example, targeted stimulation over a larger area.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potter Jr. (US 20170087014 A1 – hereinafter Potter Jr., disclosed in Applicant IDS filed January 13, 2023) in view of Melde (US 20180341221 A1 - Melde).
Re. claim 18, Potter Jr. teaches the claimed invention of claim 12 as stated above, but does not explicitly teach wherein said acoustic hologram is configured to receive traveling acoustic plane waves generated by a substantially planar acoustic transducer such that the desired acoustic field is created at a desired distance from the hologram.
Melde similarly teaches an acoustic device (Melde paragraph 0001 – “The present invention relates to an ultrasonic apparatus being configured for creating a holographic ultrasound field in an object”). Melde further teaches the ultrasonic apparatus 100 which produces an ultrasound wave 2 (Melde figure 2; paragraph 0057 – “…ultrasound source device 10 comprises a single ultrasound source element 11…”)),
PNG
media_image11.png
292
334
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Comprising a transmission hologram device 20 (Melde figure 2) with a transmission hologram 21 further comprising structured holographic surface 23, which receives traveling acoustic waves generated by an ultrasound source 10 (Melde figure 2; paragraph 0058 – “The transmission hologram device 20 comprises a transmission hologram 21, wherein a first continuous substrate side of the transmission hologram 21 is in sonic contact with the carrier plate 13 and a second, opposite side of the transmission hologram 21, having a structured holographic surface 23, faces away from the ultrasound source device 10”).
PNG
media_image12.png
292
334
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Potter Jr. and Melde all teach within the field of acoustic treatment devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the acoustic device of Potter Jr., to incorporate the acoustic hologram, or transmission hologram device as taught by Melde as stated above, since such modification would predictably result in, for example, to “form the holographic ultrasound field, e.g. in the object to be irradiated, with any specific field distribution to be applied in the ultrasound frequency range” (Melde paragraph 0020), as well as “offer wave-front manipulation over large areas (up to tens of centimeters) with high resolution” (Melde paragraph 0022).
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potter Jr. (US 20170087014 A1 – hereinafter Potter Jr., disclosed in Applicant IDS filed January 13, 2023) in view of Carpentier (US 20140257262 A1 – hereinafter Carpentier).
Re. claim 32, Potter Jr. teaches the claimed invention of claim 28 as stated above, but does not explicitly teach wherein generating a plurality of acoustic waves having different acoustic parameters comprises: generating a plurality of excitation voltages to increase a thickness of agglomerated particles.
Carpentier similarly teaches an acoustic device (Carpentier abstract – “An interstitial ultrasound thermal ablation applicator for conformal treatment of inhomogeneous tumor lesions...”) which further teaches generation of a plurality of excitation voltages to control acoustic output of the ultrasonic device (Carpentier paragraph 0024 – “…both the alternating and direct excitation voltages can be independently modulated to control both the magnitude and spatial characteristics of the acoustic output of the device”; paragraph 0093 – “In transmission mode, excitation voltage oscillations are converted into alternative electrostatic forces to vibrate the membrane 23 (emission of ultrasonic waves)”).
Potter Jr. and Carpentier all teach within the field of acoustic devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the acoustic device of Potter Jr., to incorporate the generation and modulation of excitation voltages as taught by Carpentier, since such modification would predictably result in, for example, controlling both the magnitude and spatial characteristics of the acoustic output of the device (Potter Jr. paragraph 0024).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ribak (US 20100149487 A1) teaches an optical system comprising an acoustic hologram 16 (figure 1; paragraph 0059).
Martinelli (US 4862893 A) teaches an ultrasonic transducer system which provides excitation voltage to a transmit transducer (column 9, lines 63-68).
Certon (US 20130116568 A1) teaches a device for generating ultrasounds with an ultrasound transducer generating excitation voltages (paragraphs 0053-0078).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anh-Khoa N. Dinh whose telephone number is (571)272-7041. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00am-4:00pm 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, CARL LAYNO can be reached at 571-272-4949. 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.
/ANH-KHOA N DINH/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/CARL H LAYNO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796