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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 5/4/2026. In the amendment, claims 1 & 7 have been amended.
Election/Restrictions
The election/restriction requirement mailed on 3/3/2026 is withdrawn in view of the amendments made to claim 7. Therefore, claims 1-12 are being examined as a whole in the current action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the figures have faint lines throughout that are not clear to properly read all elements of the drawings (in particular the words/lettering). Further, all non-English labeling should be removed to avoid confusion. 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
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 & 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bosonic AG (WO 2020/182775 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bosonic AG disclose an ultrasonic system (Figs. 1 & 2) for ultrasonic surgery comprising: an ultrasonic instrument including a sonotrode 1 (Figs. 1 & 2) and a piezoelectric converter (page 28, lines 18-23), an ultrasonic generator (page 30, lines 6-9) driving the converter, and a device, communicating with the ultrasonic instrument, arranged to supply an irrigation fluid (page 46, lines 22-26) to the ultrasonic instrument at a predetermined irrigation rate and/or to effect a predetermined negative pressure applied to the ultrasonic instrument, which negative pressure is configured for aspiration of tissue fragmented by the ultrasonic instrument (pagre 32, lines 1-3), wherein depending on a predetermined tissue type, a controller (page 30, lines 6-13) configured to set a current ablation rate between a predetermined minimum ablation rate and a predetermined maximum ablation rate is provided (page 30, lines 6-13), wherein the ablation rates are respectively determined by a value pair including sonotrode amplitude, and irrigation rate or negative pressure, or a value triplet comprised of sonotrode amplitude, irrigation rate, and negative pressure (NOTE: the ablation rates are not claimed to be determined by the controller via a sensor or other controller feedback element that values the sonotrode amplitude and irrigation rate and/or negative pressure, therefore, it is considered that the predetermined ablation rate threshold can be determined by a user outside of the device elements based upon the desired rates/tissue to be treated, the value pair/triplet claimed is being treated as intended calculation by user for the ablation rate values).
Regarding claim 3, the limitation ‘wherein the predetermined tissue type is determined by its modulus of elasticity’, as indicated by examiner above, is not determined by an element of the ultrasonic system, this limitation is being treated as an intended form of determination of tissue type by the user, not an element of the device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 & 4-6 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to further disclose, teach, or suggest an input device for selection of a predetermined tissue type from a group of predetermined tissue types [claim 2]; and wherein a regulating variable of the controller is respectively monotonically linked to control variables including sonotrode amplitude, irrigation rate and/or negative pressure [claim 4].
Claims 7-12 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the closest prior art is found to be Bosonic AG (WO 2020/182775 A1) - see application of the prior art in the rejection of claim 1, which is mostly recited in the preamble of the method claim 7 with regards to reciting features of the ultrasonic system. The prior art fails to further disclose, teach, or suggest wherein the sonotrode amplitude and the irrigation rate and/or negative pressure are interlinked by a single actuator depending on a predetermined tissue type.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY LAUREN FISHBACK whose telephone number is (571)270-7899. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30a-3:30p.
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, Darwin Erezo can be reached at (571) 272-4695. 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.
ASHLEY LAUREN FISHBACK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3771
/ASHLEY L FISHBACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771 June 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights