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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for domestic benefit based on an provisional application 63/334,840 filed on April 26, 2022.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 8, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Williams et al. (US Patent No. 5,406,503), herein “Williams.”
Regarding claim 1,
Williams teaches an apparatus, comprising: a phacoemulsification probe, (Abstract: “An electronic control system for determining the resonant frequency of and driving ultrasonic transducers in a phacoemulsification probe used for ophthalmic surgery.”)
comprising a piezoelectric actuator (transducer) coupled with a needle configured to be inserted into an eye of a patient; (Col. 1, lines 50 – 64: “Phacoemulsification refers to the process of ultrasonic disintegration of the lens of a human or animal eye using a vibrating probe which operates at a frequency above the audio range. It is a well-known and widely used surgical procedure for disintegrating cataracts. The probe includes a hollow needle vibrating at ultrasonic frequencies to shatter the cataract; the shattered debris are withdrawn through the hollow part of the needle. The needle is mounted in an instrument which sometimes is referred to as a phacoemulsification handpiece, phaco handpiece or phaco probe. A number of designs for such handpieces or probes are known, the most common of which utilize piezoelectric transducers to produce the vibrations of the needle at ultrasonic frequencies.”)
and a processor configured: (processor, item 124)
to sequentially drive the actuator electrically in a range of frequencies, to measure a respective electrical power input to the actuator at each of the frequencies in the range, (Abstract: “This resonant frequency is determined via a calibration procedure performed when the probe is first attached to the control system. During this procedure a constant voltage drive signal is swept through a range of frequencies and the electrical power consumed by the transducer is measured and stored at selected intervals such as 100 Hertz increments.” See Col. 5, lines 3 – 26.)
to identify a frequency in the range of frequencies wherein a metric of the electrical power input is a maximum, (Abstract: “The resonant frequency is also determined in part by looking for the frequency at which maximum power is consumed by the probe. The stored data is also subjected to other tests to check that the peak is indeed a resonant frequency and that the probe has selected output power characteristics about this resonant frequency, thus helping to ensure that the probe is capable of operating satisfactorily when driven by the control system.” Col. 5, lines 39 – 43: “(d) finding an apparent resonant frequency within the range of frequencies by locating at least one frequency at which a maximum amount of electrical power from the driving signal is consumed by the probe;…” See also Williams claim 11.)
and to estimate from the identified frequency a mechanical resonant frequency of the actuator, and to drive the actuator electrically at the mechanical resonant frequency. (Col. 17, lines 15 – 35: “The electrical power consumed by the transducer/probe combination to be tested is determined by monitoring the voltage applied to and current passing through the primary 270 of the RLC transformer section 142 (FIG. 3). The frequency at which peak power is consumed may be considered to be the dominant resonant frequency F.sub.DR for the transducer/probe under test. The calibration procedure tests the transducer/probe by operating the power amplifier at half power (i.e., about 17.5 watts), and while so doing, sweeping the command frequency C.sub.F from 26.5 kilohertz to 32.5 kilohertz at 100 Hz increments and recording the monitored power signal P.sub.M obtained. Then, the stored data is analyzed to see whether the resulting curve conforms to certain criteria set as minimum "pass" conditions for grading the transducer/probe performance as satisfactory. Four or five criteria maybe used, if desired, and each one used must be met. First, the maximum power consumed by the probe at the apparent resonant frequency F.sub.AR must be greater than or equal to a predetermined power level, such as 12 watts.” See also Col. 5. Iines 43 – 59 and Col. 8, lines 11 – 30.)
Regarding claim 6,
The previously cited reference(s) teach the limitations of claim 1 which claim 6 depends. Williams also teaches that the actuator is configured to be energized in a single channel. (Col. 5, lines 31 – 43: “(a) providing an alternating current electric driving signal to the transducer in order to drive the transducer at any desired one of a number of frequencies within a given range of frequencies; (b) changing the frequency of the driving signal such that the driving signal operates at plurality of different frequencies spanning the range of frequencies; (c) monitoring the electrical power consumed by the probe at different frequencies within the range of frequencies; (d) finding an apparent resonant frequency within the range of frequencies by locating at least one frequency at which a maximum amount of electrical power from the driving signal is consumed by the probe;”)
Regarding claims 8 and 13, they are directed to a method of steps to implement the system or apparatuses set forth in claims 1 and 6, respectively. Williams teaches the claimed system or apparatuses in claims 1 and 6. Therefore, Williams teaches the method of steps in claims 8 and 13.
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.
Claims 15 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams in view of European patent application Horsky et al. (EP 2381271 A1), herein “Horsky.”
Regarding claim 15,
Williams teaches a phacoemulsification probe, comprising a piezoelectric actuator coupled with a needle configured to be inserted into an eye of a patient; (Col. 1, lines 50 – 64: “Phacoemulsification refers to the process of ultrasonic disintegration of the lens of a human or animal eye using a vibrating probe which operates at a frequency above the audio range. It is a well-known and widely used surgical procedure for disintegrating cataracts. The probe includes a hollow needle vibrating at ultrasonic frequencies to shatter the cataract; the shattered debris are withdrawn through the hollow part of the needle. The needle is mounted in an instrument which sometimes is referred to as a phacoemulsification handpiece, phaco handpiece or phaco probe. A number of designs for such handpieces or probes are known, the most common of which utilize piezoelectric transducers to produce the vibrations of the needle at ultrasonic frequencies.”)
and a processor configured: (processor, item 124)
to activate the actuator electrically, (Col. 5, lines 3 – 10: “In light of the foregoing objects, there is provided, according to a first aspect of the present invention, a method for automatically determining the resonant frequency of a surgical instrument powered by an ultrasonic transducer. This method comprises the steps of: (a) providing an alternating current electric driving signal during a substantially constant voltage level to drive the ultrasonic transducer…”)
Williams does not teach halting the drive signal and them sense the resonant frequency. However, Horsky does teach subsequently halt activation of the actuator, to acquire electrical signals generated by the actuator after halting the activation; to analyze the acquired signals so as identify therefrom a mechanical resonant frequency of the actuator, and to drive the actuator electrically at the identified mechanical resonant frequency. (Page 5, last paragraph: “A self-tuning acoustic measurement system can adjust the measurement frequency used to drive an acoustic transducer to generate acoustic measurement signals to track changes in the resonant frequency of the acoustic transducer. Adjusting the measurement frequency ensures that the resonant frequency of the transducer will not shift farther away from the measurement frequency, which could otherwise reduce the effectiveness of the measurement system. Generally, embodiments of the invention determine the resonant frequency of the acoustic transducer subsequent to ceasing a driving signal applied to the transducer. Upon determining the resonant frequency, the measurement signal frequency can then be adjusted to ensure proper operation in conducting distance measurement operations.”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the apparatus and method of a determining a resonant frequency of a phacoemulsification probe used for ophthalmic surgery wherein a range of frequency is used to determine a resonant frequency as in Williams with a method and device of stopping or ceasing the drive signal applied to the transducer and then measure the resonant frequency as in Horsky in order to ensure that the operating frequency of a transducer remains within an operating bandwidth under changing operating conditions. (Page 1, Last paragraph)
Regarding claim 16,
The previously cited reference(s) teach the limitations of claim 15 which claim 16 depends. Williams also teaches that the activation comprises activation with an oscillating signal. (Col. 3, lines 34 – 37: “That initial signal is disengaged from the loop of the feedback portion 84 by circuitry 96 once the driving circuit 80 provides a signal strong enough to maintain transducer oscillation.”)
Regarding claim 17,
The previously cited reference(s) teach the limitations of claim 15 which claim 17 depends. Williams also teaches that the activation comprises activation with an electric pulse. (Col. 14, lines 34 – 37: “The microcomputer 122 also can be readily programmed to drive the phaco probe in a pulsating mode rather than continuous mode if desired. In the pulsating mode, a pulse rate control value can be adjusted…”)
Regarding claims 18 – 20, they are directed to a method of steps to implement the system or apparatuses set forth in claims 15 - 17, respectively. Williams and Horsky teach the claimed system or apparatuses in claims 15 - 17. Therefore, Williams and Horsky teach the method of steps in claims 18 - 20.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 – 5, 7, 9 – 12, and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims pending resolving any intervening issues such as the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejections. Reasons for allowance will be held in abeyance pending final recitation of the claims. For claim 2, the prior art does not disclose the elements of claim 1 and sequentially driving the actuator in the range of frequencies comprises inputting respective signals to the actuator at each of the frequencies, and wherein the processor is configured to calculate the measured electrical power input of a given signal as a product V ·I· cos oc wherein V is a voltage, I is a current, and ex is a phase between the voltage and the current of the given signal. Claim 3 depends from claim 2 and therefore is also objected to.
For claim 4, the prior art does not disclose the elements of claim 1 and identifying the frequency comprises measuring a gradient comprising a change of
the metric divided by a change of the frequency, and determining the frequency at which the gradient is zero. Claim 5 depends from claim 4 and therefore is also objected to and allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
For claim 7, the prior art does not disclose the elements of claim 1 and the actuator is configured to be energized in a plurality of channels, and wherein the processor is configured to identify the frequency wherein a sum of the metrics of the electrical power input for each channel is a maximum.
Regarding claims 9 – 12 and 14, they are directed to a method of steps to implement the system or apparatuses set forth in allowable dependent claims 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7, respectively. Thus claims 9 – 12 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bromfield (US PG Pub. No. 20070035203) is on point with the instant application and teaches an impedance analyzer was used to measure the impedance and phase of both the dumbbell and phaco transducers over a relatively wide frequency range. (Par. 0072) Paragraph 0092 also teaches that the motional resonance frequency (Fr) the conductance, power, and end effector velocity will reach a maximum value. See also Par. 0093.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAD G ERDMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0177. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7am - 3pm or 4pm 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, Kenneth Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
/CHAD G ERDMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116