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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action in response to the above identified patent application filed on10/25/2023. Claims 1-10 are currently pending and being examined.
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zacharias (USPAP 2008/0319374).
In reference to independent claim 1, Zacharias discloses a phacoemulsification probe (12, fig 3; para 0014), comprising:
a distal end (right side of 12 having tip 14) configured for insertion into an eye of a patient (para 0089 discloses “Fluid and tissue fragments can be aspirated from inside the eye by a vacuum force produced by aspiration pump 26 which is in fluid communication with the eye chamber through an aspiration line 22, hand piece 12 and hollow lensectomy probe 14”);
an aspiration channel (22) coupled with the distal end for evacuating material from the eye (described in the cite directly above); and
an anti-vacuum surge (AVS) module (270, para 0093 discloses “valve 270 can be installed at the distal end of aspiration line 22, in proximity to hand piece 12 or inside hand piece 12”) comprising:
a disposable portion (276; para 0093 discloses “This embodiment is advantageous because it allows having a disposable low cost occlusion portion 276 operating in combination with a non-disposable actuator portion 274.”), which is detachably coupled with the aspiration channel (para 0093 discloses “occlusion valve 270 should be located at the distal end of aspiration path 23, as near as possible to the eye. For practical reasons, valve 270 can be installed at the distal end of aspiration line 22, in proximity to hand piece 12 or inside hand piece 12”), and
comprises a valve part (270, fig 7A) configured to be moved to regulate flow in the aspiration channel (22); and
a reusable portion (274, fig 7A), which is configured to move the valve part in response to one or more command signals (para 0093 discloses “Occlusion valve 270 receives commands from control module 50 through a cable 272.”).
In reference to independent claim 6, Zacharias discloses a phacoemulsification method, comprising:
inserting a distal end of a phacoemulsification probe (12) into an eye of a patient (para 0088 discloses “Hollow probe 14 and infusion probe 16 typically operate inserted into an eye chamber”);
evacuating material from the eye using an aspiration channel (22) coupled with the distal end (para 0089 discloses “Fluid and tissue fragments can be aspirated from inside the eye by a vacuum force produced by aspiration pump 26 which is in fluid communication with the eye chamber through an aspiration line 22, hand piece 12 and hollow lensectomy probe 14”); and regulating flow in the aspiration channel using an anti-vacuum surge (AVS) module (270, para 0093 discloses “valve 270 can be installed at the distal end of aspiration line 22, in proximity to hand piece 12 or inside hand piece 12”) inside the phacoemulsification probe (270, para 0093 discloses “valve 270 can be installed at the distal end of aspiration line 22, in proximity to hand piece 12 or inside hand piece 12”), the AVS comprising:
a disposable portion (276; para 0093 discloses “This embodiment is advantageous because it allows having a disposable low cost occlusion portion 276 operating in combination with a non-disposable actuator portion 274.”), which is detachably coupled with the aspiration channel (22), and
comprises a valve part (270, fig 7A) configured to be moved to regulate the flow in the aspiration channel (22); and
a reusable portion (274, fig 7A), which is configured to move the valve part in response to one or more command signals (para 0093 discloses “Occlusion valve 270 receives commands from control module 50 through a cable 272.”).
In reference to dependent claim 2, Zacharias discloses the probe according to claim 1, wherein the valve part (288) is configured to be rotated between an open state (shown in fig 7A) and a closed state (shown in fig 7B).
In reference to dependent claim 3, Zacharias discloses the probe according to claim 1, wherein the one or more command signals (thru 272) are generated by a processor (para 0093 discloses “Occlusion valve 270 receives commands from control module 50 through a cable 272.”) of a phacoemulsification system (fig 3).
In reference to dependent claim 7, Zacharias discloses the method according to claim 6, wherein the valve part is configured to be rotated between an open state (shown in fig 7A) and a closed state (shown in fig 7B.
In reference to dependent claim 8, Zacharias discloses the method according to claim 6, wherein the one or more command signals (thru 272) are generated by a processor (para 0093 discloses “Occlusion valve 270 receives commands from control module 50 through a cable 272.”) of a phacoemulsification system (fig 3).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zacharias (USPAP 2008/0319374) in view of Layser (USPAP 2016/0166742).
In reference to dependent claim 4, Zacharias discloses the probe according to claim 1, however
Zacharias is silent to the disposable portion is made of plastic materials.
Layser, a similar phacoemulsification device, teaches the disposable portion (disposable cassette 410, fig 4) is made of plastic materials (para 0036 discloses “housings 410 [the cassette] and 420 may be formed with rigid thermoplastic material”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use plastic to construct the disposable cassette as taught in Layser in the device of Zacharias “to provide rigidity and structure” para 0036; Layser.
In reference to dependent claim 9, Zacharias discloses the method according to claim 6, however
Zacharias is silent to the disposable portion is made of plastic materials.
Layser, a similar phacoemulsification device, teaches the disposable portion (disposable cassette 410, fig 4) is made of plastic materials (para 0036 discloses “housings 410 [the cassette] and 420 may be formed with rigid thermoplastic material”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use plastic to construct the disposable cassette as taught in Layser in the device of Zacharias “to provide rigidity and structure” para 0036; Layser.
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zacharias (USPAP 2008/0319374) in view of Carter (USPAP 2022/0233353).
In reference to dependent claim 5, Zacharias discloses the probe according to claim 1, wherein the disposable portion (276) is inside a housing portion (12) of the reusable portion (para 0093 discloses “valve 270 can be installed at the distal end of aspiration line 22, in proximity to hand piece 12 or inside hand piece 12”), however
Zacharias is silent the disposable portion is locked inside a housing by a spring-loaded mechanism.
Carter, a similar phacoemulsification system, teaches a disposable portion (1031, fig 5B) is locked by a spring-loaded mechanism (para 0203 discloses “The locking mechanism between the portions can be mechanical such as a spring-loaded pin that must be retracted prior to detaching.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the locking mechanism of Carter in the probe of Zacharias to “lock the two portions together” para 0203, Carter; thereby creating a secure mechanism.
In reference to dependent claim 10, Zacharias discloses the method according to claim 6, wherein the disposable portion (276) is inside a housing portion (12) of the reusable portion (para 0093 discloses “valve 270 can be installed at the distal end of aspiration line 22, in proximity to hand piece 12 or inside hand piece 12”), however
Zacharias is silent the disposable portion is locked inside a housing by a spring-loaded mechanism.
Carter, a similar phacoemulsification system, teaches a disposable portion (1031, fig 5B) is locked by a spring-loaded mechanism (para 0203 discloses “The locking mechanism between the portions can be mechanical such as a spring-loaded pin that must be retracted prior to detaching.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the locking mechanism of Carter in the probe of Zacharias to “lock the two portions together” para 0203, Carter; thereby creating a secure mechanism.
Conclusion
Examiner has cited particular columns and line and/or paragraph numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gao (USPAP20200353133) discloses an ophthalmic system.
Leukanech (USPN 7070578) discloses a latching system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES W NICHOLS whose telephone number is (571)272-6492. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm EST.
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, Michael Tsai can be reached at (571) 270-5246. 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.
/CHARLES W NICHOLS/Examiner, Art Unit 3783