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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges the reply filed 01/21/2026. Claims 9 and 11 were amended. The amendment was accompanied by Remarks, the contents of which are addressed in the Response to Arguments section of this Office action.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zacharias et al (U.S. Pub 2015/0359666 A1, hereinafter “Zacharias”).
Regarding claim 9, Zacharias discloses a phacoemulsification system (see Fig.1E), comprising:
a phacoemulsification handpiece 70 (see Fig. 1E);
an irrigation line 102 (see Fig. 1E) and an aspiration line 112 (see Fig. 1E) connected to the phacoemulsification handpiece (see Fig. 1E)
an Anti-Vacuum Surge (AVS) module comprising a valve 118 (see Fig. 1E) configured to cut off flow on the aspiration line;
an extension tubing 111 (Fig. 1E), which is inserted at least in the aspiration line between the phacoemulsification handpiece and the AVS module.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zacharias in view of Hurricane Medical Catalog – Cortex Removal, archived 2019 (see attached, hereinafter “Hurricane Medical”).
Regarding claim 10, it is noted that Zacharias does not appear to disclose the length of the extension tubing, in particular, between 23 and 28 cm.
Hurricane Medical discloses a product catalog, with a publication date no later than May 2019, advertising various phacoemulsification tools, including aspiration tips, and teaches that these aspiration tips are provided through a 10-inch (25 cm) flexible tubing attached to the tip.
A skilled artisan would have found it obvious at the time the invention was filed, to modify the extension tubing in Zacharias to be between 23 and 28 cm, in particular, 25 cm, based on the suggestion in Hurricane Medical that such tubing lengths were conventional in the art of phacoemulsification devices at the time of the invention; and in doing so, a skilled artisan would have expected success in providing an extension tubing of 25 cm for sufficient “slack” for the phacoemulsification handpiece relative to the pumping console.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 and 11-16 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/21/2026 have been considered. The previous rejections of claims 9 and 10 have been withdrawn, and a new ground of rejection has been made (necessitated by the amendment to claim 9).
Claims 1-8 and 11-16 are allowed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SCOTT J MEDWAY whose telephone number is (571)270-3656. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM.
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, Chelsea Stinson can be reached at (571) 270-1744. 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.
/SCOTT J MEDWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783 03/26/2026