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. Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters " 174 " (in Fig. 2) and " 172” (in Fig. 11) have both been used to designate the phaco tip of the simulated phacoemulsification tool . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 158 in Fig. 11 (see line 13, page 10) . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “defining” in line 24 of page 2 should be “defines”; “taper” in line 12 of page 3 should be “the taper”; “variation” in line 18 of page 3 should be “another variation”; “skill” in line 12 of page 7 should be “skilled”; “180” in line 10 of page 10 should be “158”. Additionally, there is an issue regarding the reference numeral 172 and 174 related to the issue with Fig. 11 described above. Reference numerals 172 and 174 are used to refer to the irrigation sleeve and the phaco tip, respectively, of the simulated phacoemulsification tool in line 14 of page 9, lines 26-31 on page 10, lines 12-13 on page 13, and Fig. 2. However, this is contradicted by lines 1 and 5 on page 11 and in Fig. 11. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claim FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT 15 objected to because of the following informalities: “first fluid pressure” in line 9 of page 17 should be “first fluid pressure level” . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Interpretation Claims 3 and 4 recite a “complex curve”. In light of the specification and drawings, this is construed to refer to a 1-dimensional shape comprising multiple curved sections, wherein the curved sections may differ in both their radius and the sign of their curvature, and at least one change in the sign of the curvature of the shape’s curved sections changes along its length, such that the direction of the curve changes. The ends of the tunnel seen in Fig. 12 are seen as exemplary of such a shape. Claim 6 seeks to further limit claim 1 by specifying that the eyeball layer of the eye model recited in claim 1 is formed of a “resilient material”. As the specification does not explicitly provide a definition for what constitutes a “resilient material”, “resilient material” is construed to refer to the resilient eye surface described in the inventor’s patents incorporated by reference on line 26 of page 7 in the specification, including U.S. Patent 10360815 , which is henceforth referred to as Bernal. Bernal describes materials used in the fabrication of the anterior segment of a model eye as “ ultimately selected to have a hardness and resiliency which mimics structures of the natural organ. More particularly, materials are selected whereby the resultant tissue simulation behaves in a manner similar to a live or donor eye, with respect to resistance to pressure, piercing and cutting, burning/ablation, manipulation, and other applications of force, as well as physical appearance ” (column 4, lines 40-47). Thus, for the purposes of compact prosecution, a “resilient material” is construed to include any material which mimics the mechanical properties of the cornea or any other section of the anterior segment of the human eye. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT s 1-16 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. Regarding claim 1, it is not clear whether or not the surgical instrument is being positively recited in lines 3 and 6. As there are currently multiple interpretations of the claim with contradictory scopes, the scope of claim 1 and all claims which depend from it (claims 2-16) is indefinite. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the interpretation that the surgical instrument is not positively recited will henceforth be assumed. This interpretation is substantiated by the usage of the indefinite article “a” in lines 6-7 when referring to a surgical instrument in claim 13, which depends on claim 1. Accordingly, if claim 1 is amended to positively recite a surgical instrument, claim 13 should also be amended to reflect this. Claim 2 recites the limitation "the tool" in line 3 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As this appears to be a typo, references to “the tool” in the claim will henceforth be assumed to refer to the tunnel recited in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 7 recites the limitation "the tool" in line s 2-3 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. References to “the tool” in the claim will henceforth be assumed to refer to the surgical instrument recited in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required. Regarding claims 8-1 1 , claim 8 recites the device of claim 1, with the additional limitation “wherein the tunnel diameter narrows at a point along a depth of the tunnel between an outer surface of the eye and an inner surface of the eye”. The phrase “narrows at a point” implies that, as one moves along the depth of the tunnel, the diameter is initially constant, then suddenly becomes narrower upon reaching a certain point. In an apparent contradiction, claim 1 recites “the tunnel forming a taper along a depth defined as extending from a surface facing an exterior of the eye to a surface facing an interior of the eye”. The term “along” implies instead that the tunnel diameter gradually and continuously becomes narrower as one moves along the depth of the tunnel. These cannot simultaneously be true, yet there is no term such as “instead” which would make it clear that the manner in which the tunnel narrows in claim 8 is an alternate embodiment to the manner in which it narrows in claim 1. As such, the scope of the claim is indefinite, as is the scope of its dependent claims 9-11 . Appropriate correction is required. Claim FILLIN "Enter claim identification information" \* MERGEFORMAT 12 recites the limitation "the tool" in FILLIN "Enter appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT lines 5-6 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. References to “the tool” in the claim will henceforth be assumed to refer to the surgical instrument recited in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim s FILLIN "Pluralize \“Claim\” if necessary, insert \“is\” or \“are\” as appropriate, and insert the claim number(s) which are under rejection." 11 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Regarding claim 11, claim 8 recites the device of claim 1, wherein the tunnel diameter narrows at a point along a depth of the tunnel “between an outer surface of the eye and an inner surface of the eye”, whereas claim 11 recites the device of claim 8, wherein the taper narrows at a point along the depth of the tunnel “between the interior and exterior of the eye ”. By definition, the exterior of the eye should begin at the same point that the outer surface begins, and the interior of the eye should begin at the same point that the inner surface begins, meaning there is essentially no difference in the scope of these claims. Thus, it is unclear how claim 11 serves to further limit claim 8. Regarding claim 14, claim 13 does not positively recite a surgical instrument: as such, any limitations to the surgical instrument, such as the limitation set forth by claim 14 that the surgical instrument is a deformable tube, would fail to further limit claim 13 . Regarding claim s 15 and 16 , claim 13 recites the taper folding inward and forming a seal with a surgical instrument when a surgical instrument is inserted through the tunnel : the formation of a seal implies that the tunnel and the surgical instrument are in direct frictional contact with each other, thereby form ing an interference fit as recited in claim s 15 and 16 . Furthermore, the taper folding inward implies that the surgical instrument applies enough force to the sides of the tunnel to induce elastic deformation, which would cause the sides of the tunnel to exert pressure on the surgical instrument in return. If the surgical instrument is a deformable tube, as recited in claim 14, this would naturally cause the deformable tube to be compressed, as recited in claim 15. Finally, it would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that the taper fold ing inwards towards the interior of the eye would inherently result in the formation of a one-way valve in which the pressure required to overcome the seal is lower on the exterior side of the eye than on the interior side, as recited in claim 15. Of course, this also means that there is some pressure level inside the tube at which point the seal formed by the taper would be overcome, allowing fluid flow past the interference fit. Thus, it is unclear how claim 15 or claim 16 serve to further limit claim 14. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. 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 FILLIN "Pluralize \“Claim\” if necessary, insert \“is\” or \“are\” as appropriate, and insert the claim number(s) which are under rejection." s 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) based upon a public use or sale or other public availability of the invention. The company SimulEYE offers a variety of ophthalmic eye models for use in surgical training and simulation. One model, known as the SimulEYE Zepto , serves to allow surgeons-in-training to practice using a surgical instrument known as a Zepto device to perform a capsulotomy of the eye in cataract surgery. The SimulEYE Zepto was publicly available for sale as of March 24, 2023, and could be purchased through SimulEYE’s product page, as evidenced through a screen capture of the latter using the Wayback Machine, henceforth referred to as “ SimulEYE Opthalmic Eye Training Simulators”. A description and image of the SimulEYE Zepto model is provided in a screen capture of the product information for the SimulEYE Zepto , henceforth referred to as “ SimulEYE Zepto ”. Regarding claim 1, SimulEYE Opthalmic Eye Training Simulators, as evidenced by SimulEYE Zepto , discloses a device for simulating surgery upon a natural eyeball, comprising at least a portion of an eyeball corresponding to the natural eyeball simulated (see Fig . 1) , including an eyeball layer (Fig . 1) through which a surgical instrument is to be passed during the simulated surgery (“T he eye provides an anatomically correct platform including a pre-made incision through which the Zepto device can be placed onto a consumable and replaceable anterior capsule ”; the “ Zepto device” mentioned here is, as would be known in the art, a surgical instrument used in cataract surgery, including phacoemulsification, to incise and/or perform capsulorhexis of the anterior capsule of the patient’s eye) , and a tunnel formed through the eyeball layer (the “ pre-made incision ” circled in Fig. 1) , the tunnel defining a cross-sectional profile substantially along the plane of the surface through which the surgical instrument is to be passed (seen in Fig. 1) , the tunnel forming a taper along a depth defined as extending from a surface facing an exterior of the eye to a surface facing an interior of the eye ( although SimulEYE Opthalmic Eye Training Simulators is silent on whether the pre-made incision forms a taper , the geometry of a spherical or rounded shell, such as the cornea of the SimulEYE Zepto model, is such that the surface area of the interior surface is less than that of the exterior surface: as such, a tunnel from the exterior surface to the interior surface with a cross-sectional profile “substantially along the plane of the surface” would inherently have a smaller diameter on the interior side of the tunnel than on the exterior side, forming a taper) . Regarding claim 2, SimulEYE Opthalmic Eye Training Simulators, as evidenced by SimulEYE Zepto , discloses the device of claim 1, the cross section defining direction changes of only curved shapes (see the pre-made incision in Fig. 1), whereby the tunnel does not form stress risers of sharp directional changes along the cross-section which can split when the surgical instrument is passed through the tool and moved during the surgical simulation (the pre-made incision, as seen in Fig.1, is circular and thus does not any stress risers of sharp directional changes). Regarding claim 3, SimulEYE Opthalmic Eye Training Simulators, as evidenced by SimulEYE Zepto , discloses the device of claim 2, wherein the curved shapes define one or more of a circular, oval, elliptical, parabolic, and/or a complex curve, the tunnel not defining substantially non-curved directional changes along the cross-section (the pre-made incision seen in Fig. 1 is circular, and thus does not define any substantially non-curved directional changes along its perimeter). Regarding claim 5, SimulEYE Opthalmic Eye Training Simulators, as evidenced by SimulEYE Zepto , discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the tunnel is formed in the cornea (see Fig. 1) and the surgery simulated by the model is phacoemulsification (the Zepto device is used to perform capsulotomy, indicating that the model is designed to sim ulate cataract surgery and phacoemulsification by extension, being the most common type of cataract surgery). Fig. 1: The SimulEYE Zepto model, showing a pre-made incision in the cornea of the model eye ( indicated by the arrow ), obtained from the product listing for the model on the SimulEYE website. 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. Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SimulEYE Opthalmic Eye Training Simulators in view of Bose et al and Spagnoli et al . Regarding claim 3, SimulEYE Opthalmic Eye Training Simulators, as evidenced by SimulEYE Zepto , discloses the device of claim 2. However, while SimulEYE Opthalmic Eye Training Simulators, as evidenced by SimulEYE Zepto , discloses a tunnel having a circular cross-section, it does not disclose any alternative embodiments where the tunnel cross-section is oval, elliptical, parabolic, or a complex curve. Bose et al describes the fracture behavior of collagen, a primary component of the protein matrix which constitutes the fibrous tunic of the eyeball and thusly plays a key role in determining the mechanical properties of the eye. It would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that understanding the mechanics of crack propagation in collagen would be crucial for understanding the mechanics of crack propagation in the eyeball layer, including the behavior of surgical incisions. Indeed, Bose et al itself states that investigating “ the effects of in-air and in-water loading environments on the fracture behaviour of pure collagen films : is useful “ for understanding of mechanical behavior of collagen-rich tissues in vitro and in vivo . ” Bose et al reveals that hydrated collagenous tissue exhibits a crack-blunting mechanism when subjected to Mode-I loading (“ Th is shift in deformation behaviour is prominent at the initial stage of the loading whereby the gradual opening of the crack-tip (insets i – iii, Fig. 3), accompanied by crack blunting were observed (insets iii – iv, Fig. 3 ). “ It should be noted that Mode-I loading is the same type of load ing that an incision in the eyeball would be subjected to when an instrument with a cross-section larger than that of the incision is forced through the incision , with the amount of strain experienced at the crack tip depending on the degree of deformation around the incision. Notably, cracks in in-aqua collagen samples were observed to have “ underwent extensive local deformation accompanied with debonding of collagen fibrils and their local re-alignment around the crack tip prior to the onset of unstable crack propagation (insets v – vi, Fig. 3 ” . Reading Bose et al would make it clear to one of ordinary skill in the art that incisions in a collagenous tissue, when subjected to strain , would exhibit crack blunting and undergo extensive deformation before the tip of the incision would begin to propagate through the tissue (“ A distinct two-stage crack-propagation process was observed: Stage I – up to external deformation of 35%: a crack-blunting stage, characterised by a negligible crack extension with a continuing increase in loading. At this stage, higher stresses around the crack tip caused irreversible localised deformations thanks to plasticization action of water molecules but they were insufficient to drive the crack growth. Stage II – up to failure: a stable crack-propagation stage, characterised by the continuing increase in a crack length with raising stretching and an accelerated crack extension rate ”). It should be noted that Bose et al describes the crack-blunting behavior as an “intrinsic toughening process”, indicating that blunting of the crack tip increases the resistance of the material to further propagation of the crack. Spagnoli et al, which investigates the implications of crack-tip blunting on fracture of soft materials and its relevance to the surgical field (“ Taking advantage of the similarity in the elastic behavior between biological tissues and soft polymers, we aim to explore concepts and applications of actual relevance in the biomedical field, such as cutting and puncturing of soft tissues during surgery ”), confirms the role of crack blunting in increasing the crack propagation resistance of biopolymers such as collagen (“ Another distinctive aspect of the fracture process of soft materials is the transition from a sharp crack to a blunted notch before propagation, a phenomenon that goes under the name of elastic crack blunting. Blunting mitigates the effect of stress concentrations caused by cracks and can be correlated to the remarkable property of flaw tolerance. This is defined as the insensitivity of a material to cracks and defects .”). Accordingly , one of ordinary skill in the art, wanting to understand the behavior of an incision in collagenous biological tissues such as the eyeball, would understand, after having read Bose et al and Spagnoli et al , that collagenous tissues exhibit remarkable crack propagation resistance, that crack-tip blunting is the mechanism responsible for this resistance, that blunting the crack tip is inherently responsible for reducing the concentration of stress at the crack tip, and would therefore understand that blunting the tip of a crack in a medium with analogous mechanical properties would arrest further propagation of the crack, even if that blunting was imposed by extrinsic instead of intrinsic means . Of additional note is that Spagnoli et al uses an ellipse to model the crack blunting phenomenon. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the simulated eye of SimulEYE Opthalmic Eye Training Simulators so that the pre-made incision in the cornea has a shape characterized by a “blunted” or “rounded” geometry at the tips/ends of the incision wherein the geometry of the crack tip defines no substantially non-curved directional changes, including any of a circular, oval, elliptical, or parabolic curve, and they would have been motivated to do so as to improve the fidelity of the simulation, as incisions in a real eyeball would exhibit a similar crack tip geometry and, provided that the simulated eyeball was constructed from materials with analogous mechanical properties to collagen, a similar crack propagation resistance, due to the phenomenon of intrinsic crack-tip blunting of collagenous tissues taught by Bose et al, with reasonable expectation of success. It should be noted that even if the material used to construct the simulated eyeball layer did not exhibit identical mechanical properties to collagen, this modification would nonetheless improve the crack propagation resistance of the simulated eyeball layer regardless of the material used to construct it , as taught by Spagnoli et al , improving the reusability of the model. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SimulEYE Opthalmic Eye Training Simulators i n view of Bose et al, Spagnoli et al, and further in view of Kolinski . Regarding claim 4, SimulEYE Opthalmic Eye Training Simulators, as evidenced by SimulEYE Zepto , (in view of Bose et al and Spagnoli et al ) discloses the device of claim 3. However, the pre-made incision of SimulEYE Opthalmic Eye Training Simulators is a circle, which is not a complex curve that defines a curvy direction change formed by multiple radii. Furthermore, nothing in Bose et al or Spagnoli et al would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to believe that a complex curve formed by multiple radii , such as that seen in Fig. 12, would exhibit the same crack propagation resistance as simpler curves such as an elliptical curve. Kolinski discusses means of increasing the toughness of materials, suggesting that “ any means by which the crack front can be made more complex may enhance effective fracture toughness ”. Kolinski goes on to say that “as a consequence of the geometric complexity of the crack tip, more fracture surface is generated when the crack advances, requiring additional strain energy for the crack to progress ”, and concludes that “ the effective fracture energy increases with the length of the 3D space-curve traced out by the crack tip. This result directly demonstrates an effective toughness enhancement of neat, brittle solids based entirely on crack tip complexity. ” Thus, it would have been known in the art at the time of the claimed invention that increasing the complexity and surface area of the tip of a crack in a material would increase the amount of energy required for the crack front to propagate through the material, increasing the effective crack propagation resistance of the material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the pre-made incision of SimulEYE Opthalmic Eye Training Simulators, which has been modified to have “blunted” or “rounded” crack tips as taught by Bose et al and Spagnoli et al , to increase the complexity and surface area of the crack front by introducing multiple direction changes in the cross-section of the incision, as taught by Kolinski , and they would have been motivated to do so to increase the crack propagation resistance of the pre-made incision even further , with reasonable expectation of success. Claim(s) 6-7 , 1 2 - 13 , and FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 17- 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" SimulEYE Opthalmic Eye Training Simulators in view of Bernal (U.S. Patent No 10360815 ). Regarding claim 6, SimulEYE Opthalmic Eye Training Simulators, as evidenced by SimulEYE Zepto , discloses the device of claim 1 . However, SimulEYE Opthalmic Eye Training Simulators is silent on whether the eyeball layer of the simulated eye is formed of a “resilient material”. Bernal teaches that, in lieu of natural tissues such as collagen and elastin, which determine the mechanical properties of a human eyeball , artificial and/or 3D-printed materials may be employed instead, provided that these materials are “ ultimately selected to have a hardness and resiliency which mimics structures of the natural organ. More particularly, materials are selected whereby the resultant tissue simulation behaves in a manner similar to a live or donor eye, with respect to resistance to pressure, piercing and cutting, burning/ablation, manipulation, and other applications of force, as well as physical appearance ” (column 4, lines 40-47). Bernal also teaches that a n anatomical model which “ mimics or is similar in appearance and mechanical properties to the eye ” (column 4, lines 1-2) would be useful for, among other things, “surgical training, demonstration, teaching aids, [and] surgical instrument calibration” (column 4, lines 4-5) . Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the simulated eye of SimulEYE Opthalmic Eye Training Simulators so that the eyeball layer is fabricated from a material which mimics the resiliency of a real human eye, as taught by Bernal, and they would have been motivated to do so to provide a more realistic surgical simulation for surgeons learning to operate on the eye , with reasonable expectation of success. Regarding claim 7, SimulEYE Opthalmic Eye Training Simulators, as evidenced by SimulEYE Zepto , (in view of Bernal) discloses the device of claim 6 . However, SimulEYE Opthalmic Eye Training Simulators and Bernal are silent on the size of the cross-section of the tunnel relative to the size of the surgical instrument inserted through the tunnel , or whether an interference fit is formed between the surgical instrument and the tunnel. That being said, there are only a finite number of options regarding the relative size of the tunnel’s cross-section to the surgical instrument’s . Considering that the simulated eye of SimulEYE Opthalmic Eye Training Simulators is designed for use in simulat ing cataract surgery, there is a finite number of surgical instruments that would need to be accommodated by the pre-made incision , namely those used in cataract surgery . The pre-made incision would necessarily be required to be large enough to accommodate the largest surgical instrument used in the procedure, or at minimum capable of being deformed elastically to the point that insertion of this instrument is possible. In a phacoemulsification procedure, the most common type of cataract surgery, this instrument would be the phaco probe. From there, one would be left with the decision of whether to make the tunnel and phaco probe cross-section s the same size , to make the tunnel cross-section larger than that of the phaco probe, or to make the tunnel cross-section smaller and rely on elastic deformation of the tunnel and/or the irrigation sleeve of the phaco probe to allow passage of the probe through the incision. Faced with this decision , one of ordinary skill in the art would opt for the latter, as this provides the highest fidelity simulation of a phacoemulsification procedure: a cursory review of recordings of phacoemulsification procedures found online reveal that the phaco probe, upon insertion through the incision in the cornea, commonly forms an interference fit with the incision made in the patient’s cornea, to such an extent that the patient’s eye is often seen being pushed around and rotated inside the socket as the surgeon manipulates the probe. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have sized the tunnel so that its cross-section is smaller than that of a phaco probe, a surgical instrument used in the surgery simulated by the device , causing the tunnel to form an interference fit with the probe, and they would have been motivated to do so as the probe commonly forms an interference fit with the incision during the real surgical procedure simulated by the device, and as such this would improve the fidelity of the simulation, with a reasonable expectation of success. Regarding claim 12, SimulEYE Opthalmic Eye Training Simulators, as evidenced by SimulEYE Zepto , (in view of Bernal) discloses the device of claim 6, wherein the tunnel forms a taper along a depth defined as extending from a surface facing an exterior of the eye to a surface facing an interior of the eye (although SimulEYE Opthalmic Eye Training Simulators is silent on whether the pre-made incision forms a taper, the geometry of a spherical or rounded shell, such as the cornea of the SimulEYE Zepto model, is such that the surface area of the interior surface is less than that of the exterior surface: as such, a tunnel from the exterior surface to the interior surface with a cross-sectional profile “substantially along the plane of the surface” would inherently have a smaller diameter on the interior side of the tunnel than on the exterior side, forming a taper). Regarding claim 13, SimulEYE Opthalmic Eye Training Simulators, as evidenced by SimulEYE Zepto , (In view of Bernal) discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the layer through which the tunnel is formed is of a resilient material, the tunnel forms a taper along a depth defined as extending from a surface facing an exterior of the eye to a surface facing an interior of the eye , and the taper narrows toward the interior of the eye (although SimulEYE Opthalmic Eye Training Simulators is silent on whether the pre-made incision forms a taper, the geometry of a spherical or rounded shell, such as the cornea of the SimulEYE Zepto model, is such that the surface area of the interior surface is less than that of the exterior surface: as such, a tunnel from the exterior surface to the interior surface with a cross-sectional profile “substantially along the plane of the surface” would inherently have a smaller diameter on the interior side of the tunnel than on the exterior side, forming a taper). However, SimulEYE Opthalmic Eye Training Simulators, as evidenced by SimulEYE Zepto , (in view of Bernal) is silent on whether the taper is folded inwards towards the interior of the eye and forms a seal with a surgical instrument when a surgical instrument is inserted through the tunnel. That being said, the eyeball layer of SimulEYE Opthalmic Eye Training Simulators, in view of Bernal, being constructed from materials which “ behaves in a manner similar to a live or donor eye, with respect to resistance to […] manipulation, and other applications of force ”, would be expected to exhibit a similar degree of elastic deformation and flexibility observed in a live eye. Accordingly , insertion of a surgical instrument with a cross-section larger than the cross-section of the pre-made incision of the simulated eye through the tunnel would cause the eyeball layer to deform and fold inward, as well as form a seal due to the sides of the tunnel being in direct frictional contact with the surgical instrument. Therefore, SimulEYE Opthalmic Eye Training Simulators, in view of Bernal , would inherently possess all the features of the device recited by claim 13. Regarding claim 17, SimulEYE Opthalmic Eye Training Simulators, as evidenced by SimulEYE Zepto , discloses a synthetic eye model (the SimulEYE Zepto model) for simulating phacoemulsification procedures, comprising a cornea having a pre-made tunnel (“T he eye provides an anatomically correct platform including a pre-made incision “; Fig. 1 shows that the tunnel is formed in the cornea) with a continuous and smooth cross-sectional profile (see Fig. 1). However, SimulEYE Opthalmic Eye Training Simulators is silent on whether the cornea of the synthetic eye model is flexible. As discussed above, Bernal teaches that, in lieu of natural tissues such as collagen and elastin, which determine the mechanical properties of a human eyeball, artificial and/or 3D-printed materials may be employed instead, provided that these materials are “ ultimately selected to have a hardness and resiliency which mimics structures of the natural organ. More particularly, materials are selected whereby the resultant tissue simulation behaves in a manner similar to a live or donor eye, with respect to resistance to pressure, piercing and cutting, burning/ablation, manipulation, and other applications of force, as well as physical appearance ” (column 4, lines 40-47). Bernal also teaches that an anatomical model which “ mimics or is similar in appearance and mechanical properties to the eye ” (column 4, lines 1-2) would be useful for, among other things, “surgical training, demonstration, teaching aids, [and] surgical instrument calibration” (column 4, lines 4-5). It should be noted that t he human eyeball , being composed of a matrix of collagen and elastin as mentioned by Bernal, is naturally quite flexible, to the point of undergoing elastic deformation to accommodate surgical instruments inserted into the eye through incisions in the eyeball layer, as it commonly performed in many eye surgeries, most relevantly cataract surgery. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the simulated eye of SimulEYE Opthalmic Eye Training Simulators so that the eyeball layer is fabricated from a material which mimics the flexibility of a real human eye, as taught by Bernal, and they would have been motivated to do so to provide a more realistic surgical simulation for surgeons learning to operate on the eye, with reasonable expectation of success. Regarding claim 18, SimulEYE Opthalmic Eye Training Simulators, as evidenced by SimulEYE Zepto , (in view of Bernal) discloses the synthetic eye model of claim 17, wherein the pre-made tunnel has a cross-sectional profile characterized by one or more curved or rounded geometries (see Fig. 1). Regarding claim 19, SimulEYE Opthalmic Eye Training Simulators, as evidenced by SimulEYE Zepto , (in view of Bernal) discloses the synthetic eye model of claim 17, wherein the pre-made tunnel has a cross-sectional profile selected from the group consisting of circular, elliptical, parabolic, and spline-based curves (specifically a circle; see Fig. 1). Regarding claim 20, SimulEYE Opthalmic Eye Training Simulators, as evidenced by SimulEYE Zepto , (in view of Bernal) discloses the synthetic eye model of claim 17, wherein the pre-made tunnel has a cross-sectional profile that has a larger diameter nearest an exterior of the eye and a smaller diameter nearest an interior of the eye, and which forms a taper between the larger diameter to the smaller diameter (although SimulEYE Opthalmic Eye Training Simulators is silent on this, the simulated eye model of SimulEYE Opthalmic Eye Training Simulators is construed as inherently possessing this feature by the same rationale as for claim 1). However, both SimulEYE Opthalmic Eye Training Simulators and Bernal are silent on whether a tool tip is guided along the taper to engage the smaller diameter in an interference fit. That being said, using the same rationale as for claim 7, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have sized the tunnel so that its cross-section is smaller than that of the tip of a phaco probe, causing the tunnel to engage the probe in an interference fit, and they would have been motivated to do so as the probe commonly forms an interference fit with the incision during the real surgical procedure simulated by the device, and as such this would improve the fidelity of the simulation, with a reasonable expectation of success. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH HAROLD JOHANSSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5755. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 8:30 to 6:30. 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, Peter Vasat can be reached at (571)270-7625. 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. /K.H.J./ Examiner, Art Unit 3715 /PETER S VASAT/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715