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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability of claims 17-19, and 21 (claim 17 includes previously objected claim 20) is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to Carter et al (US 11,738,215). Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-16, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cotter et al (WO 2020157682 A1), as evidenced by Hood (US 5695510 A).
Regarding claim 1, Cotter discloses a flue (60; figures 26-29, 31, 32) for use with an ultrasonic horn 14 comprising:
a base 61(one or more base or base portions) having a first connector 61a and a second connector 61b interconnected by a base body 61 (figures 26-28), and
wherein the base body 61 includes a first end 60a and an opposing second end 61b, wherein the first end 60a of the base body includes constant diameter about a single axis
(see figure 27 where a portion of base body 61 and internal diameter with a constant diameter; furthermore, this base body including a constant diameter is old and well known in the art as evidenced by Hood (US 5695510 A) showing base body 28 with a constant diameter the base body can be modified to accommodate users hand as merely preferable; additionally Cotter shows the internal diameter of the base body having a constant diameter since the claim is not specific as to what portion of the body applicant is referring to),
and is defined by a first connector 61a and the second end 61b of the base body includes the second connector [00096-00097];
wherein the first connector 61a includes a first overmold portion 144 adapted to engage a nosecone; and
wherein the second connector 61b includes a second overmold portion (fig 28 at 62, 65a; [00097]).
Regarding claim 2, wherein at least one of the first connector 61a and the second connector 61b is secured to the base body by at least one of a plastic weld (the first connector 61a is overmolded to the nosecone 140 (gig 27); the second connector 61b is overmolded to overmold 62; [00083]),
Regarding claim 3, wherein the at least one of the first connector 61a and the second connector 61b is secured to the base body by the plastic weld [00083].
Regarding claim 4, wherein the at least one of the first connector and the second connector is secured to the base body by the adhesive seal ([00083] the bond creates an adhesive seal via heat).
Regarding claim 5, wherein at least one of the first connector 61a and the second connector 61b includes one or more ribs (protrusion at 63 and at 66 in fig 29), and wherein the one or more ribs are overmolded [00096] by the first overmold portion and the second overmold portion, respectively [000101].
Regarding claim 7, wherein the second overmold portion includes a through opening narrowing away from the second connector (fig 29).
Regarding claim 8, Cotter discloses an ultrasonic surgical apparatus (figs 1-38) for fragmenting tissue and removing fragmented tissue, comprising:
a surgical handpiece 110 comprising a housing, a nosecone 140 attached to the housing, a flue 60 attached to the nosecone, and a transducer (not shown) mounted within the housing;
a surgical tip 14 connected to the transducer via an internal horn 14 [00065-00066];
an irrigation system [00067] connected to the handpiece for supplying irrigation fluid adjacent the surgical site for suspending fragmented tissue;
an aspirating system 24 connected to the handpiece for aspirating fluid and tissue fragmented at the surgical site; and
wherein the flue 60 having a first end 60a and an opposing second end 60b, the flue 60 includes a base 61, a first overmold portion at 63 defining the first end, and a second overmold portion defining the second end [00083], and wherein the base includes a base body having a constant diameter about a single axis and is defined by first end and an opposing second end (see figure 27 where a portion of base body 61 and internal diameter with a constant diameter; furthermore, this base body including a constant diameter is old and well known in the art as evidenced by Hood (US 5695510 A) showing base body 28 with a constant diameter can be modified to accommodate users hand as merely preferable), .
Regarding claim 9, wherein the base 61 includes a base body having a first end 61b and an opposing second end 61a, a first connector at 61b, and a second connector at 61a, wherein the first connector 61b is connected to the first end of the base body and the second connector 61a is connected to the second end of the base body.
Regarding claim 10, wherein the first connector 61b includes the first overmold portion 65a and the second connector 61a includes the second overmold portion at 66.
Regarding claim 11, at least one of the first connector and the second connector includes one or more ribs engaging the first overmold portion and the second overmold portion, respectively (protrusion at 63 and at 66 in fig 29; with the nosecone and overmolding 62 respectively).
Regarding claim 12, wherein at least one of the first connector and the second connector is secured to the first end and the second end of the base body, respectively, by at least one of a plastic weld, an adhesive bond, and an adhesive seal [00083].
Regarding claim 13, wherein the at least one of the first connector and the second connector is secured to the first end and the second end of the base body, respectively, by the plastic weld and the adhesive bond [00083].
Regarding claim 14, wherein the at least one of the first connector and the second connector is secured to the first end and the second end of the base body, respectively, by the adhesive seal ([00083] the bond creates an adhesive seal via heat).
Regarding claim 15, wherein the first connector and the second connector are made of a material different from the first overmold portion and the second overmold portion [00074, 00083, 00091, 000103].
Regarding claim 16, wherein the base body is made of a material different from the first and second overmold portions [00074, 00083, 00091, 000103].
Regarding claim 24, wherein the first overmold portion and the second overmold portion comprise silicone [00099, 000107].
Claims 17, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weng et al (US 5269297 A), as evidence by Hood (US 5695510 A).
Regarding claim 17, Weng discloses an ultrasonic horn 14 (fig 4) comprising:
a first horn member 16b;
a second horn member 16b; and
one or more third horn 16a members connecting the first horn member to the second horn member for a predetermined overall length of the horn (col. 8 lines 20-32).
PNG
media_image1.png
299
637
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, the ultrasonic horn further comprising a threaded coupling between the third horn member and each one of the first horn member and the second horn member (col. 8 lines 20-32). This threaded connection is also old and well known in the art as evidenced by Hood in figures 10-11 reference numerals 56 and 58 (col 8 line 66- col 9 line 16).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weng et al (US 5269297 A).
Regarding claims 18-19, Weng discloses that at least one of the third horn members is a half-wavelength of a length, but fails to disclose a half-wavelength of between about 90 mm and about 120 mm, and a half-wavelength of about 107 mm. Weng teaches that this parameter (the length) can be modified based on the specific purpose. (See abstract; col. 2 lines 46-68; Summary of Invention; col. 7 line 51- col. 8 line 19; and also, column 9). In Weng, the length has been modified to the length and diameter for vascular purposes. Therefore, this parameter is deemed matters of design choice, well within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cotter et al (WO 2020/157682 A1) in view of Davison et al (WO 9816157 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Cotter discloses the base portion 61 made out of e a rigid plastic polyphenylsulfone (e.g. RADEL brand) or polypropylene in some embodiments [00099]. But fails to disclose polycarbonate.
Davison teaches (page 9 lines 10-15) a housing 21 (fig 2) that can be made of another rigid plastic such as polycarbonate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cotter’s base body material with Davison’s base body material since such modification would have been a mere substitution of plastic materials taught old and well known in the art.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cotter et al (WO 2020/157682 A1) in view of Scheller et al (US 20190336161 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Coller discloses an ultrasonic horn substantially as claimed. However, it fails to disclose the ultrasonic horn comprises one or more preaspiration holes, at least one preaspiration hole including a diameter of 0.015 inches.
Scheller teaches (in figures 36a-36b) and ultrasonic tip including a pre-aspiration hole 3615 to increase may be configured to increase an amplitude of the second half of the standing wave and help with irrigation [0158,0166,0186]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cotter’s horn by including a preaspiration hole as taught by Scheller since such modification enhances the amplitude of the second half of the standing wave and help with irrigation. Regarding the diameter of the hole 3615, this parameter (diameter) is deemed matters of design choice, well within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 is 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cris L Rodriguez whose telephone number is (571)272-4964. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 8am- 2pm..
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.
/Cris L. Rodriguez/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights