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Claims 9-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 May 11, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the phacoemulsification procedure" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “a predefined pulsed manner” in line 2 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the “predefined pulsed manner” introduced in claim 2 is the same “predefined pulsed manner” as introduced in claim 1, line 10, or if the processor is configured to activate the AVS mechanism in two different predefined pulsed manners. For examination purposes, the “predefined pulsed manner” of claim 2 has been interpreted to be the same as claim 1. It is suggested to amend claim 2, line 2 to “…the AVS mechanism in the
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the selected level of followability" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation “the selected level of followability" has been interpreted as “the user-selected level of followability”.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “a predefined pulsed manner” in line 2 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the “predefined pulsed manner” introduced in claim 4 is the same “predefined pulsed manner” as introduced in claim 1, line 10, or if the processor is configured to activate the AVS mechanism in two different predefined pulsed manners. For examination purposes, the “predefined pulsed manner” of claim 4 has been interpreted to be the same as claim 1. It is suggested to amend claim 4, line 2 to “…the AVS mechanism in the
Additionally, Claim 4 recites the limitation “selected level of followability” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation “selected level of followability” has been interpreted as “user-selected level of followability”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the user-selected followability” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation “the user-selected followability” has been interpreted as “the user-selected level of followability”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the user-selected followability” in lines 2 and 4 (two instances). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation “the user-selected followability” has been interpreted as “the user-selected level of followability”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the selected followability” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation “the selected followability” has been interpreted as “the user-selected level of followability”.
Additionally, Claim 8 recites the limitation “the same user” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 is rejected for being dependent upon claims 1 and 3.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sorensen et al. (US 20130150782).
Regarding claim 1, Sorensen discloses a system (phaco fluidics system 11), comprising:
an anti-vacuum surge (AVS) mechanism (vent valve 62, motor 71) comprising a processor-controlled valve (vent valve 62) coupled with an aspiration channel (aspiration vent line 60; Figure 3) of the system, the AVS mechanism configured to suppress a vacuum surge during the phacoemulsification procedure by closing the processor-controlled valve (“the controller may automatically operate motor 71 to rotate vent valve 62 to a predetermined angular position, thereby quickly changing aspiration pressure within aspiration line 52…vent valve 62 may be automatically rotated by motor 71 to reduced aspiration pressure within aspiration line 52. This function would operate to lessen an effect of a post occlusion break surge.” [0050]); and
a processor (“a control system in console 40” [0043]), which is configured to:
during the phacoemulsification procedure, receive pressure readings from one or more sensors (pressure sensor 63; “Pressure sensor 63 detects and communicates pressure changes in aspiration line 52 during operation of the phacoemulsification machine.” [0048]);
using the pressure readings, estimate an occurrence of a vacuum surge (“pressure sensor 63 detects that aspiration pressure has exceed a predetermined threshold” [0050]); and
upon estimating the occurrence of the vacuum surge, activate the AVS mechanism in a predefined pulsed manner to respectively activate the valve to suppress the vacuum surge (“Vent valve 62 is operably connected to an actuator, such as a motor 71, having an angular position encoder (such as encoder 36). One such exemplary motor 71 includes a stepper motor. When pressure sensor 63 detects that aspiration pressure has exceed a predetermined threshold, the controller may automatically operate motor 71 to rotate vent valve 62 to a predetermined angular position, thereby quickly changing aspiration pressure within aspiration line 52. Further, the controller, in cooperation with a pressure sensor positioned in irrigation line 50, may be configured to detect and minimize an occlusion break onset. More specifically, vent valve 62 may be automatically rotated by motor 71 to reduced aspiration pressure within aspiration line 52. This function would operate to lessen an effect of a post occlusion break surge.” [0050]).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorensen et al. (US 20130150782) in view of Grey et al. (WO 2014151209).
Regarding claim 2, Sorensen discloses the system according to claim 1.
Sorensen fails to explicitly discloses the processor is configured to activate the AVS mechanism in a predefined pulsed manner by monotonically increasing intervals between pulses that activate the AVS mechanism.
Grey teaches a system (aspiration system 200) comprising configured to activate an AVS mechanism (aspiration source 208) in a predefined pulsed manner (“A variety of different profiles and waveforms may be achieved for the dynamic pressure provided by an aspiration system 200” [Page 9, line 13-14) by monotonically increasing intervals between pulses that activate the AVS mechanism (aspiration profile 310; “Down-cycling (DC) involves a brief pressure-relieving impulse in each cycle. A majority of time may be spent at maximum treatment pressure.” [Page 9, line 18-20]; Figure 3A showing monotonically increasing intervals between the maximum treatment pressure pulses).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Sorensen to include the processor is configured to activate the AVS mechanism in a predefined pulsed manner by monotonically increasing intervals between pulses that activate the AVS mechanism based on the teachings of Grey to improve the overall clearance rate and time (Grey [Page 9, line 26-30]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious a system comprising: a user interface configured to receive a user-selected level of followability wherein activation of the AVS mechanism in the predefined pulsed manner to suppress the vacuum surge comprises maintaining the selected level of followability as required by claim 3 in combination with the limitations of claims 1 from which claim 3 depends, wherein “followability” has been interpreted as “the ability to attract cataract pieces to the phacoemulsification”, as defined in the present disclosure in paragraph [0010].
The closest prior art of record is Sorensen et al. (US 20130150782) and Ovchinnikov et al. (US 20170087283). Sorensen, as detailed in the rejection of claim 1, discloses a system comprising an AVS mechanism controlled by a processor based on pressure readings from a sensor. Sorensen additionally discloses user-selected aspiration pressure thresholds ([0048]). Ovchinnikov discloses a system (100) comprising an AVS mechanism comprising a valve (350) controlled by a processor (360) based on pressure readings from a sensor (Figure 4; method 410). Ovchinnikov also discloses activating the AVS mechanism in a predefined pulsed manner to activate the valve to suppress a vacuum surge ([0039]), and that the AVS mechanism is activated to maintain a level of followability (“the controller 360 vents the system by opening the vacuum relief valve 350 such that the vacuum level returns to ±50% of the normal operating condition vacuum level without complete loss of followability” [0036]; “if the pressure deviation is minimal, the vacuum relief valve 350 is only partially opened to a minimally open setting, and if the pressure deviation is larger, the vacuum relief valve is opened a larger amount. Because of this, the system does not degrade the followability or the holding power.” [0038]). However, neither Sorensen nor Ovchinnikov explicitly disclose or suggest the system is configured to receive a user-selected level of followability as required by dependent claim 3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEAH J SWANSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0394. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM- 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, Kevin Sirmons can be reached at (571) 272-4965. 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.
/LEAH J SWANSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/KEVIN C SIRMONS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights