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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1 June 2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: each claim recites “in a common second rate” instead of – at a common second rate –. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 5 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pre-Grant Publication 2018/0028359 to Gordon et al. (Gordon) in view of US Pre-Grant Publication 2021/0196515 to Urich (Urich hereinafter), US Pre-Grant Publication 2018/0207330 to Ovchinnikov et al. (Ovchinnikov) and US Pre-Grant Publication 2021/0178033 to Nazarifar et al. (Nazarifar).
Regarding claim 1, Gordon teaches a phacoemulsification system (Fig. 1), comprising: a phacoemulsification probe (1150) having an irrigation channel (1140) and an aspiration channel (1155), and a distal end (at 1145); an aspiration pump (1170) configured to pump aspiration fluid via the distal end and the aspiration channel from the eye; an irrigation pump (at 1105, see paragraph 25) configured to pump irrigation fluid via the irrigation channel and the distal end into the eye; a first pressure sensor (1130) coupled with the irrigation fluid and configured to provide a first signal indicative of intraocular pressure (IOP) in the eye; a second pressure sensor (1160) coupled with the aspiration fluid and configured to provide a second signal indicative of the IOP in the eye; and a system processor (1230) configured to: receive the first signal and the second signal (paragraph 30).
Gordon does not teach a needle and a sleeve configured to be inserted into an eye. Urich teaches another phacoemulsification system generally, and particularly teaches a needle (106) and a sleeve (104) configured to be inserted into an eye for irrigating and aspirating within the eye. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to provide a needle as taught by Urich in order to insert the probe into a target eye for irrigation and aspiration associated with Phacoemulsification.
Gordon also does not teach, responsively to at least one of the first signal and the second signal, identifying at least one frequency and an associated at least one phase of the IOP, and pumping at least one of the aspiration pump and the irrigation pump at the identified at least one frequency and in antiphase to the identified at least one phase. The examiner notes that Gordon is concerned with maintaining a constant IOP (see e.g. paragraph 46). Ovchinnikov teaches another phacoemulsification system generally, and particularly teaches that two pressure sensors may be monitored to determine their frequency and phase to allow for compensation. Nazarifar teaches that it is known to pump in antiphase in order to minimize pulsation (paragraph 72). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to obtain the frequency and phase as taught by Ovchinnikov and to pump in antiphase as taught by Nazarifar in the phacoemulsification system of Gordon in order to minimize pressure pulsation.
Regarding claim 2, Ovchinnikov teaches the use of FFTs with the pressure signals to determine frequency and phase (paragraph 40). In modifying Gordon to minimize pulsation, it would have been obvious to select at least the maximum amplitude frequency in order to damp its associated pulsation.
Regarding claim 5, Gordon teaches an operational phase (illustrated in Fig. 1) wherein the needle and sleeve of Urich would be inserted into an eye (1145 of Gordon). As modified in view of Nazarifar it would have been obvious to minimize pulsation during this phase in order to minimize pressure pulsation in the eye.
Regarding claims 8-9, Nazarifar teaches encoders for providing pump speed (see e.g. paragraph 67) in order to inform the controller of the pump speed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to provide encoders to the irrigation and aspiration pumps as taught by Nazarifar in order to inform the controller of the pump speed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 6-7 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the limitations of determining pulsation in a priming phase as in claims 3 and 6 is not shown in or fairly suggested by the prior art of record in combination with the remaining limitations of those claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP E STIMPERT whose telephone number is (571)270-1890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8a-4p.
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.
/PHILIP E STIMPERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783 11 June 2026
Prosecution Insights