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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In the amendment filed 02/23/2026, the following has occurred: claims 46-48 has been amended. Now, claims 46-48 remain pending.
The previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph are withdrawn based on the amendments to the claims.
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) 46-48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeBoer, US Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0281301 in view of Malinouskas, US Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0121049.
As per claim 46, DeBoer teaches a computer-based cataract surgery support method, comprising: receiving information from a network attached a user terminal for use in software-controlled network attached equipment in a cataract operating room (see paragraph 0027; a control system accessible by a surgeon for controlling operational parameters of one or more medical instrument. Operational parameters are received by program instructions for controlling the one or more medical instruments; Figure 1 shows the control system (10 and 14) is network attached via Network 20 and wired/wireless connections (18 and 26); paragraph 0005 embodiments are for cataract surgeries); transferring the information to the network attached equipment in the cataract operating room operating room via the network (see paragraph 0027; receives the operating parameters from the control system; the same parameters are both stored and transferred; paragraph 0079 provides a further example of the wireless, such as a wireless local area network, data communication link (part of the overall network) may be used to transmit configuration parameters for one or more of the instruments 12); and modifying operating parameters of the network attached equipment in the cataract operating room in accordance with the transferred information (see paragraph 0027; the received operational parameters are changes to the operational parameters of the medical instruments paragraph 0079 provides a further example of the data communication link (part of the overall network) may be used to transmit configuration parameters for one or more of the instruments 12).
DeBoer does not explicitly teach storing received information, installing a software feature on the network attached equipment in accordance with transferred information, and remotely tracking operation of the software feature. Malinouskas teaches storing received information (see paragraph 0060; storage of received data at the consol and surgical instruments)) and installing a software feature on network attached equipment in an operating room (see paragraph 0078; software and data are uploaded to a console and surgical instrument to be installed; The received data and software may be transferred to the console via the network); and remotely tracking operation of the software feature (see paragraph 0104; operation and state of the surgical devices are transmitted to a remote location, reflecting tracking of the uploaded software responsible for the operation of the surgical device). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the networked environment of DeBoer to that described by Malinouskas for communication of settings information and software installation with the motivation of providing mobility and flexibility in what types of procedures may be performed (see paragraph 0006 of Malinouskas)
As per claim 47, DeBoer and Malinouskas teaches the method of claim 46 as described above. DeBoer further teaches the transferred information includes program settings of a computer-based phacoemulsification system (see paragraph 0065; instruments may include phacoemulsification device).
As per claim 48, DeBoer and Malinouskas teaches the method of claim 47 as described above. DeBoer further teaches program settings are modified at the user terminal prior to transferring the stored information to the network attached equipment in the cataract operating room (see paragraph 0027; a control system accessible by a surgeon for controlling operational parameters of one or more medical instrument).
Response to Arguments
In the remarks filed 02/23/2026, Applicant argues that Malinouskas does not teach remotely tracking operation of a software feature installed on network attached equipment.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the examiner respectfully notes the updated portion of Malinouskas. Paragraph 0104 describes operation data of a medical device being transmitted to a remote location. The transmission of operation data, based on currently installed software, is encompassed by remotely tracking operation of the software feature (installed on the network attached equipment). Therefore, the examiner respectfully maintains the combination DeBoer teaches the limitations recited in claim 46.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
MacKool, US Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0092800, discloses a software routine for monitoring operations of a phaco device.
Urich, US Patent No. 6,155,975, discloses a remote for remotely viewing the operations of a phaco instrument.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to C. Luke Gilligan whose telephone number is (571)272-6770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00 - 5:00.
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, Robert Morgan can be reached on 571-272-6773. 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.
C. Luke Gilligan
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3683
/CHRISTOPHER L GILLIGAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Prosecution Insights