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 Amendments
Applicant amends claims 1-2, 9-12, cancels claim 3, and adds claims 18-21. The amendments overcome the previous claim objections and 112(d) rejection.
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) 1-2,4-6, 9-13, 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zacharias [US 2010/0185150 A1] in view of Soar [US 2016/0094051 A1].
Re. claim 1, Zacharias discloses a system for transferring energy between a console [11, Fig. 4] and a medical tool [12], the system comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
747
908
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a first connector [Annotated Fig. 4]
a second connector [Annotated Fig. 4] comprising:
a vacuum surge protection system [Annotated Fig. 4] comprising a valve [270], the valve configured to be activated
wherein the first connector is configured to couple with the console and the second connector and the second connector is configured to couple with the medical tool [Fig. 4],
Zacharias fails to teach the above struck-through portions relating the inductive coupling. However, Soar teaches, in a system for transferring energy [“The system may however be viewed simply as a power transfer system or as a data transfer system, or combination of these,” Par. 0044], a first connector [51, Fig. 4A] comprising at least one first coil [45, Fig. 5]and a second connector [56] comprising at least one second coil [47], wherein the at least one first coil and the at least one second coil are configured to transfer the energy between the first connector and the second connector by magnetic induction [Pars. 0044, 0096]; and
a separator [the housing of 56], on either the first connector or the second connector [here, the second connector. Note that the first connector also has a housing which may be defined as a separator], such that when the first connector is coupled with the second connector, the separator is positioned between the at least one first coil and the at least one second coil [Fig. 5]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Zacharias by configuring the connectors to include coils for inductive coupling, and a separator, as set forth above, because this type of coupling protects the devices from exposure to “harsh environmental elements” [Soar Par. 0004] while providing efficient energy/data transfer [Soar Par. 0044].
Re. claim 2, Soar further teaches wherein the first connector is configured to couple with the second connector such that the at least one first coil and the at least one second coil are substantially aligned [Fig. 5]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Zacharias by configuring the connectors to include coils for inductive coupling as set forth above, because this type of coupling protects the devices from exposure to “harsh environmental elements” [Soar Par. 0004] while providing efficient energy transfer [Soar Par. 0044].
Re. claim 4, Soar further teaches the separator comprises an electrically insulating material [plastic, Par. 0077]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the separator to comprise an electrically insulating material as taught by Soar because this material provides an environmental proof housing [Soar Par. 0077].
Re. claim 5, the modified Zacharias-Soar teaches the second connector includes the separator [as set forth with respect to claim 1 above].
Re. claim 6, Zacharias discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the medical tool comprises a phacoemulsification handpiece [Par. 0023].
Re. claim 9, the modified Zacharias-Soar teaches the system of claim 1 above, and inherently discloses a method of providing said system. The motivation to modify the method is the same as that to modify the apparatus set forth with respect to claim 1 above.
Re. claim 10, the modified Zacharias-Soar teaches the system of claim 1 above, including the inductive coupling as set forth above, and Soar teaches the transfer of energy between the coils by magnetic induction in the citations above. The motivation to modify the method is the same as that to modify the apparatus set forth with respect to claim 1 above.
Re. claim 11, the modified Zacharias-Soar teaches the system of claim 1 above, wherein the coupling the first connector with the second connector comprises orienting the first connector with the second connector such that the at least one first coil is substantially aligned with the at least one second coil [Soar Fig. 5] to facilitate energy transfer between the at least one first coil and the at least one second coil [Soar Par. 0044]. The motivation to modify the method is the same as that to modify the apparatus set forth with respect to claim 1 above.
Re. claim 12, the modified Zacharias-Soar teaches the system of claim 1 above, and Soar further teaches the transfer of energy between the at least one first coil and the at least one second coil, is from the at least one first coil to the at least one second coil [Par. 0091]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Zacharias-Soar such that the transfer of energy between the at least one first coil and the at least one second coil, is from the at least one first coil to the at least one second coil, because this allows the console or main apparatus to provide power and control signals to the tool of Zacharias.
Re. claim 13, Zacharias discloses the medical tool includes a phacoemulsification handpiece [as set forth with respect to claim 6 above] for communication with the second connector [as set forth with respect to claim 1 above], and subsequent to the coupling of the first connector with the second connector, performing a phacoemulsification procedure in an eye of a subject [Par. 0004; note that the “subsequent to the coupling” is inherent, as power must be provided to the probe].
Re. claim 18, Zacharias teaches the transfer of data [controller communicates signals to valve, Par. 0197]. Soar further teaches the at least one first coil and the at least one second coil are further configured to transfer data between the first connector and the second connector [“The system may however be viewed simply as a power transfer system or as a data transfer system, or combination of these,” Par. 0044 [emphasis added]]. Thus, given the above modifications of claim 1, one of ordinary skill would reasonably be apprised that Zacharias-Soar teaches the invention as claimed.
Re. claim 19 Soar further teaches the an electrically insulating material [plastic, Par. 0077] on both the first and second connectors such that when the first connector is coupled with the second connector, the electrically insulating layer is positioned between the at least one first coil and the at least one second coil. [Fig. 5]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the separator to comprise an electrically insulating material as taught by Soar because this material provides an environmental proof housing [Soar Par. 0077] as well as ensuring the induction coil energy/data transfer works properly.
Re. claim 20 Soar further teaches the first connector includes the electrically insulating layer [Fig. 5 shows both the first and second connectors including an electrically insulating layer]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Zacharias to have the insulating layer on the first connector for the reasons set forth with respect to claim 19 above.
Re. claim 21, Zacharias teaches the transfer of data [controller communicates signals to valve, Par. 0197]. Soar further teaches the coupling between the first connector with the second connector transfers data between the at least one first coil and the at least one second coil [Par. 0044]. Thus, given the above modifications of claim 9, one of ordinary skill would reasonably be apprised that Zacharias-Soar teaches the invention as claimed.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zacharias in view of Soar, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rockley [US 20090048607 A1.]
Re. claim 7, Zacharias discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising:
an irrigation channel [18] a medical tool [Fig. 4]; and the aspiration channel extending through the first connector [as defined in claim 1 above].
Zacharias fails to teach the irrigation channel extending through the first and second connector and in communication with the above medical tool However, Rockley teaches, in a vacuum surge protection system, an irrigation channel [F, Par 0020, Fig. 4] and an aspiration channel [A] which both extend through the same medical tool. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Zacharias to have one handpiece instead of two because this amounts to a simple substitution of one irrigation/aspiration tool arrangement known in the art for another [Rockley teaches that either one or two handpieces are known to be suitable in this case, see Par. 0020]. Furthermore, upon modifying the modified Zacharias such that the irrigation channel extends through the medical tool, one of ordinary skill would reasonably be apprised of the benefits of the irrigation channel also extending through the first and second connector as claimed.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zacharias in view of Soar, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sorensen et al. [US 20140323953 A1, hereinafter “Sorensen”].
Re. claim 8, Zacharias discloses the vacuum surge protection system further comprises: a pressure sensor [300] in communication with the aspiration channel [Fig. 4]; and a controller [50] in communication with the pressure sensor, wherein the controller is configured to activate the valve to close the portion of the aspiration channel [Pars. 0203-0204]
Zacharias teaches measuring a rate of change of pressure and not the pressure reaching a threshold. However, Sorensen teaches, in a vacuum surge protection system, a controller, in communication with a pressure sensor, activates a valve to close a portion of the aspiration channel when the pressure in the aspiration channel, as detected by the pressure sensor reaches a threshold pressure [“once the system detects that the aspiration pressure is greater than the second pressure threshold, the vacuum relief valve starts closing,” Par. 0035]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of the modified Zacharias by configuring the controller, sensor, and valve as set forth above as taught by Sorensen, in order to control the rate of increase of pressure and allow the system to continue with normal operations after a period of time passes [Sorensen Par. 0035]
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/2/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, Applicant argues that Soar is from non-analogous art and fails to suggest a passageway or activating a valve. However, the examiner finds that Soar provides general teachings related to inductive coupling which are relevant to the claimed invention. The fact that Soar fails to disclose the energy being used to activate a valve is irrelevant as that is taught by the primary reference. Using inductively transferred energy as the actuation energy for the valve of Zacharias is a natural consequence of the above modification of Zacharias by Soar, and the reason to combine, to provide protection from harsh environmental conditions, is widely known as one of the desirable reasons for using magnetic coupling for energy transfer. Zacharias discloses the use of a solenoid valve [Par. 0198] so this does not require significant redesign beyond the ability of one of ordinary skill.
Regarding the lack of reason to combine, the examiner respectfully disagrees and finds the reasons are those set forth above, which are applicable to Zacharias’s invention.
Applicant argues that Soar fails to disclose a separator. Here, the housing acts as a separator. Applicant argues that Soar may not teach an electrically insulating housing. Respectfully, not only does Soar teach a plastic housing as set forth above, but one of ordinary skill would readily understand the necessity of an electrically insulating material being placed between the two coils in order to avoid direct electrical contact between the two. The rational does not equate environmental proof housing with electrical insulation, but provides the desire to provide an environmental proof housing as (one of the) reasons to use the separator in Soar, which applicant notes is part of the housing, which is plastic as set forth above.
Conclusion
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 ERIN MCGRATH whose telephone number is (571)270-0674. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5 pm ET.
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, JACKIE HO can be reached 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 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.
/ERIN MCGRATH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771