DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/8/26 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 3565106 A to Baumbach.
Baumbach discloses:
Regarding claim 1:
An intraocular drainage device (figure 1-2), comprising:
a drainage tube (14) comprising an interior surface (see the interior of 14 as shown in figure 2) defining a fluid flow path (44); and
a self-clearing device (18) disposed within the drainage tube and across the fluid flow path, the self-clearing device comprising a membrane (22) having a flow path opening (opening within slits 32 as shown in figure 1) configured to provide a selected fluid flow pressure when the self-clearing device is in an unstressed state (creates a flow pressure when it is in the flaps/vanes 22 are closed),
wherein the membrane comprises:
a plurality of flaps (see flaps A in figure 1 below), each flap defined by two slits (see the slits 32) in the membrane that extend radially from the center of the membrane towards the interior surface of the drainage tube (as shown in figure 1); and
a flow path hole (38) disposed in an interior portion of each of the plurality of the flaps (see the holes 38 in flaps A in figure 1 below), wherein a combination of the flow path holes is configured as the flow path opening in the unstressed state (as shown in figure 2 where the holes 38 are open even though it is in a closed/unstressed state).
PNG
media_image1.png
502
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 - figure 1 of Baumbach, annotated by the examiner
Regarding claim 6:
The intraocular drainage device of claim 1, wherein the membrane (22) is configured such that at least a portion of one flap (A in figure 1 above) moves in a downstream direction of the fluid flow path in response to an increased fluid pressure on the membrane, thereby increasing the size of the flow path opening (the device of figure 1 is a check valve as indicated in column 2, lines 35-54 which indicates the vanes extend in the downward direction of figure 2 where the vanes A in figure 1 above open to a larger opening).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 1039136 A2 to Perevozchikov et al. (Perevozchikov).
Perevozchikov discloses:
Regarding claim 9:
An intraocular drainage device (figure 5), comprising:
a drainage tube (defined by 150, 160 and 138) comprising an interior surface (see the interior surface defined by 150, 160 and 138) defining a fluid flow path (fluid flows from 70 to 138 along the interior of 150/160/138); and
a self-clearing device (154/152) disposed within the drainage tube and across the fluid flow path (as show in figure 5), the self-clearing device comprising a flow path opening (see the flow path opening B in figure 2 below) configured to provide a selected fluid flow pressure when the self-clearing device is in a resting position (allows fluid under positive pressure to flow from 70 to 138 but prevents fluid under negative pressure to flow from 138 to 70); and
a membrane (154/152) comprising:
a coupling portion (152) coupled to the interior surface of the drainage tube (connected to 150 of the drainage tube); and
a flap (154) connected to the coupling portion (152), wherein an outer perimeter (see C in figure 2 below) of the flap and the interior surface (see the interior surface D in figure 2 below) of the drainage tube define the flow path opening as a crescent shaped area (see the crescent shaped area B in figure 2 below) when the self-clearing device is in the resting position (when there is no fluid pressure in the drainage tube the flap extends as shown in figure 5 which allows for the crescent shape as shown in figure 5).
PNG
media_image2.png
892
516
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 – figure 5 of Perevozchikov, annotated by the examiner
Regarding claim 10:
The intraocular drainage device of claim 9, wherein the membrane (154/152) is configured such that at least a portion of the flap (154) moves in a downstream direction of the fluid flow path in response to an increased fluid pressure on the membrane (154/152)(with increased pressure the flap 154 moves downstream against 164 and increased the size of the crescent B allowing for more fluid to flow through into 138), thereby increasing the size of the crescent shaped area and thus increasing the flow path opening (as 154 rests against 164 the area of B is increased).
Regarding claim 11:
The intraocular drainage device of claim 9, wherein the membrane (154/152) further comprises at least one structural member (164) disposed across portions of the coupling portion (152) and the flap (154), the at least one structural member (164) configured to provide an increased resistance of the flap (154) to movement (164 stops the movement of the flap 154 beyond a certain point therefore increasing its resistance to movement).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claims 12-15 is/are allowed primarily because the prior art of record cannot anticipate Applicant' s claimed invention by a single reference nor render Applicant' s claimed invention obvious by the combination of more than one reference.
Furthermore, the prior art of record does not teach “a flexible connecting portion having a narrower circumference than the two opposing funnel shaped end portions and disposed between the two opposing funnel shaped end portions and having a flow path hole disposed through the center of the flexible connecting portion” as within the context of the claimed invention as disclosed and within the context of the other limitations present in claim 12.
Therefore, the prior art of record cannot anticipate Applicant' s claimed invention by a single reference nor render Applicant' s claimed invention obvious by the combination of more than one reference.
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, see remarks, filed 9/8/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 9 and 11 under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Perevozchikov.
Regarding the allowability of claims 1 and 6:
The allowability of these claims has been withdrawn due to new references that read on the claims.
Regarding the previous claim objections:
The applicant’s amendments to the claims have addressed the previous claim objections and for this reason they have been withdrawn.
Regarding the previous 35 USC 112(b) claim rejections:
The applicant’s amendments to the claims have addressed the previous claim rejections and for this reason they have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following is pertinent prior art:
US-5261448-A
Furuya
See the flap 222 and crescent shape 231
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WESLEY HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-3665. The examiner can normally be reached M to 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, Michael Tsai can be reached on (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.
/WESLEY G HARRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights