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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 04, 2023 was considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the pivot connection comprising a pin and a torsion spring in claim 3; and the slightly curved trajectory in claim 9. must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
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: cylinder 26. 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claims 2-18, “micromachined” should be inserted before “mechanism”; and
in claim 3, line 2: “a pin, and” should be “a pin and”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9 and 15-17 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.
Claim 9 recites the term “slightly” in line 2, which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “slightly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear to what degree a “slight” curve the trajectory must follow. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 recites “a sensing tool” in line 2, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from the recitation “a sensing tool” in claim 1, line 1. The similar phraseology suggests that they are the same, but the indefinite article “a” suggests that they are different. If the recitations are the same, the present recitation should be “the sensing tool”. If the recitations are different, the relationship between these recitations should be made clear and they should be clearly distinguished from each other (e.g., when multiple elements have similar or the same labels, distinct identifiers such as “first” and “second” should be used to clearly differentiate the elements). For the purposes of examination, the recitations are being interpreted as the same. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 recites “a sensing tool” in line 2, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from the recitation “a sensing tool” in claim 1, line 1. The similar phraseology suggests that they are the same, but the indefinite article “a” suggests that they are different. If the recitations are the same, the present recitation should be “the sensing tool”. If the recitations are different, the relationship between these recitations should be made clear and they should be clearly distinguished from each other (e.g., when multiple elements have similar or the same labels, distinct identifiers such as “first” and “second” should be used to clearly differentiate the elements). For the purposes of examination, the recitations are being interpreted as the same. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 recites “[a] sensing tool” in line 1, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from the recitation “a sensing tool” in claim 1, line 1. The similar phraseology suggests that they are the same, but the indefinite article “a” suggests that they are different. If the recitations are the same, the present recitation should be “the sensing tool”. If the recitations are different, the relationship between these recitations should be made clear and they should be clearly distinguished from each other (e.g., when multiple elements have similar or the same labels, distinct identifiers such as “first” and “second” should be used to clearly differentiate the elements). For the purposes of examination, the recitations are being interpreted as the same. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 recites “a mechanism” in line 4, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from the recitation “[a] micromachined mechanism” in claim 1, line 1. The similar phraseology suggests that they are the same, but the indefinite article “a” suggests that they are different. If the recitations are the same, the present recitation should be “the micromachined mechanism”. If the recitations are different, the relationship between these recitations should be made clear and they should be clearly distinguished from each other (e.g., when multiple elements have similar or the same labels, distinct identifiers such as “first” and “second” should be used to clearly differentiate the elements). For the purposes of examination, the recitations are being interpreted as the same. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2, 4-5, 8-11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Kara (“Design of a Stylus with Variable Tip Compliance”, Master of Science Thesis, Sabanci University, August 2018 – cited by Applicant), hereinafter Kara.
Regarding Claim 1, Kara teaches about handheld stylus/probes for various applications, including medical palpation (see § Introduction ¶1-3 and § 2.1.2 Palpation Probes ¶1-2), and a novel passive stylus with manually variable tip stiffness (see § 3.2 Proposed Design ¶1-5 and § 6.1 Implementation of the Variable Stiffness Mechanism ¶1-8; Figs. 3.1 and 6.1-6.2). Lara teaches a micromachined mechanism (§ 3.2 Proposed Design ¶1-5 and § 6.1 Implementation of the Variable Stiffness Mechanism ¶1-8, the passive stylus with manually variable tip stiffness, the design is scalable to micro scales, and capable of being manufactured as a monolithic structure at micro scales; Figs. 3.1 and 6.1-6.2) for a sensing tool for a medical or surgical use (see § Introduction ¶1-3 and § 2.1.2 Palpation Probes ¶1-2), the micromachined mechanism comprising:
a support (§ 3.2 Proposed Design ¶1-5 and § 6.1 Implementation of the Variable Stiffness Mechanism ¶1-8, the pretension mechanism; Figs. 3.1 and 6.1-6.2);
a probe pivotally mounted with respect to the support (§ 3.2 Proposed Design ¶1-5 and § 6.1 Implementation of the Variable Stiffness Mechanism ¶1-8, the tip portion; Figs. 3.1 and 6.1-6.2); and
a beam connected to the support and the probe (§ 3.2 Proposed Design ¶1-5 and § 6.1 Implementation of the Variable Stiffness Mechanism ¶1-8, the buckling beam Figs. 3.1 and 6.1-6.2),
wherein the probe is configured to apply a load on a body (see § Introduction ¶1-3, § 2.1.2 Palpation Probes ¶1-2, § 3.2 Proposed Design ¶1-5 and § 6.1 Implementation of the Variable Stiffness Mechanism ¶1-8, the various applications, including medical palpation, the biological tissues would be the body, of the passive stylus; Figs. 3.1 and 6.1-6.2) and to be subjected to a counter-reaction contact force exerted by the body in reaction to the load (it is inherent that there would be a counter-reaction contact force exerted by the body if the probe applied a load), and
wherein the beam is configured to shift from an undeformed position to a deformed position when the contact force of the body is greater than a predetermined threshold force for which the beam buckles (§ 3.2 Proposed Design ¶1-5 and § 6.1 Implementation of the Variable Stiffness Mechanism ¶1-8, the buckling beam, which buckles based on the critical buckling load applied, there are a range of loads that may be applied for each implementation of the beam; Figs. 3.1 and 6.1-6.2).
Regarding Claim 2, Kara teaches the device of claim 1 as stated above. Kara further teaches the probe is pivotally mounted with respect to the support via a flexure pivot (§ 3.2 Proposed Design ¶1-5 and § 6.1 Implementation of the Variable Stiffness Mechanism ¶1-8, the cross flexure joint; Figs. 3.1 and 6.1-6.2, see specifically Fig. 6.2(c)).
Regarding Claim 4, Kara teaches the device of claim 1 as stated above. Kara further teaches the mechanism is monolithic (§ 3.2 Proposed Design ¶1-5, the passive stylus with manually variable tip stiffness, the design is scalable to micro scales, and capable of being manufactured as a monolithic structure at micro scales; Figs. 3.1 and 6.1-6.2).
Regarding Claim 5, Kara teaches the device of claim 1 as stated above. Kara further teaches the mechanism is made of metal (§ 6.1 Implementation of the Variable Stiffness Mechanism ¶7-8, the beam is metal; Figs. 3.1 and 6.1-6.2). Here, the claim limitation only requires that “the mechanism is made of metal”, not that the mechanism is, for example, monolithic, such that multiple materials may comprise the mechanism. As Kara teaches that the beam is metal, Kara teaches the recitation as required by the present claim.
Regarding Claim 8, Kara teaches the device of claim 1 as stated above. Kara further teaches the mechanism is made of plastic (§ 6.1 Implementation of the Variable Stiffness Mechanism ¶7-8, the connection parts are plastic; Figs. 3.1 and 6.1-6.2). Here, the claim limitation only requires that “the mechanism is made of plastic”, not that the mechanism is, for example, monolithic, such that multiple materials may comprise the mechanism. As Kara teaches that the connection parts are plastic, Kara teaches the recitation as required by the present claim.
Regarding Claim 9, Kara teaches the device of claim 1 as stated above. Kara further teaches in the undeformed position, the beam extends along a slightly curved trajectory, the curved trajectory being convex relative to the probe (§ 3.2 Proposed Design ¶1 and § 4.2.3 § Buckling Beam ¶1-5, the adjustment of the pre-tensioning mechanism, to apply either tensile axial loading or compressive axile loading, in which, depending on the load applied for the specific application would cause the beam to extend along various curved trajectories, including convex relative to the probe, especially in a compressive load application; Figs. 3.1, 4.4, and 6.1-6.2).
Regarding Claim 10, Kara teaches the device of claim 1 as stated above. Kara further teaches an extreme portion comprising a tip configured to be in contact with the body (§ 3.2 Proposed Design ¶1-5 and § 6.1 Implementation of the Variable Stiffness Mechanism ¶1-8, the contact portion of the tip portion that actually contacts the body/tissue; Figs. 3.1 and 6.1-6.2).
Regarding Claim 11, Kara teaches the device of claim 1 as stated above. Kara further teaches the probe comprises a connection part (§ 3.2 Proposed Design ¶1-5 and § 6.1 Implementation of the Variable Stiffness Mechanism ¶1-8, the portion of the tip portion that connects the contact portion (i.e., the portion that actually contacts the body/tissue) to the flexure joint and the beam; Figs. 3.1 and 6.1-6.2) and an extreme portion, the extreme portion protruding from the connection part (§ 3.2 Proposed Design ¶1-5 and § 6.1 Implementation of the Variable Stiffness Mechanism ¶1-8, the contact portion of the tip portion that actually contacts the body/tissue; Figs. 3.1 and 6.1-6.2)).
Regarding Claim 18, Kara teaches the device of claim 1 as stated above. Kara further teaches a method of manufacturing the mechanism of Claim 1 (see above claim 1 mapping), the method comprising a step of formation, the step of formation being carried out by femto-laser printing, three dimensional printing, molding, electrical discharge machining, deep reactive ion etching, or a combination thereof (§ 6.1 Implementation of the Variable Stiffness Mechanism ¶7-8, the connection parts are plastic, printed from PLC using a 3D printer; Figs. 3.1 and 6.1-6.2).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kara as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Bouton et al. (WIPO Publication WO 2019/028000 A1), hereinafter Bouton.
Regarding Claim 3, Kara teaches the device of claim 1 as stated above. Kara is silent regarding the probe is pivotally mounted with respect to the support via a pivot connection comprising a pin, and a torsion spring.
Bouton teaches an auricular stimulation device (see abstract and Figs. 1A-3), in which inner and outer probes 20/30 may be pivotally mounted to one another via pivot 40, implemented via a suitable method, such as with a pivot pin 40 and a biasing member 42, such as a torsion spring (see ¶[0046] and Figs. 1A-3).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the torsion spring and pin pivot of Bouton as the pivot in Kara because (1) it is the simple substitution for one known element for another to yield predictable results; and/or (2) Kara teaches one such known pivot and Bouton teaches another such known pivot; and/or (3) the torsion spring and pin modality would have actuation cycles before failure, compared to the material bending in the flexure pivot modality.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kara as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Baur et al. (WIPO Publication WO 2019/106407 A1), hereinafter Baur, and as evidenced by Ainsile et al. (“Microfabricated Implants for Applications in Therapeutic Delivery, Tissue Engineering, and Biosensing”, Lab Chip, 8(11): 1864-1878, November 2008), hereinafter Ainsile.
Regarding Claim 6, Kara teaches the device of claim 1 as stated above. Kara contemplates the usage of alternate materials and manufacture, such as on the micro scale, as opposed to the prototyping techniques utilized (see § 6.1 Implementation of the Variable Stiffness Mechanism ¶7-8 and § 8 Conclusion ¶5), but not specifically that the mechanism is made of silicon.
Baur teaches the microfabrication of monolithic devices out of a substrate (see abstract and ¶[0001]-[0008]; Figs. 4-11), in which various parts and shapes are contemplated, including mechanical oscillators and flexible beams (see ¶[0015]), in which the substrate may include glass, metals, fused silica, silicon, or ceramics (see ¶[0004], ¶[0019], and ¶[0036]-[0037]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the microfabricated silicon for the device of Kara because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and/or (2) Kara contemplates the device on the micro scale and Baur teaches one such implementation of fabricating the device on the micro scale; and/or (3) silicon works well in microelectromechanical systems and is relatively biocompatible (see Ainsile pg. 3-4, § Substrates, §§ Silicon).
Regarding Claim 7, Kara teaches the device of claim 1 as stated above. Kara contemplates the usage of alternate materials and manufacture, such as on the micro scale, as opposed to the prototyping techniques utilized (see § 6.1 Implementation of the Variable Stiffness Mechanism ¶7-8 and § 8 Conclusion ¶5), but not specifically that the mechanism is made of glass.
Baur teaches the microfabrication of monolithic devices out of a substrate (see abstract and ¶[0001]-[0008]; Figs. 4-11), in which various parts and shapes are contemplated, including mechanical oscillators and flexible beams (see ¶[0015]), in which the substrate may include glass, metals, fused silica, silicon, or ceramics (see ¶[0004], ¶[0019], and ¶[0036]-[0037]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the microfabricated glass for the device of Kara because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and/or (2) Kara contemplates the device on the micro scale and Baur teaches one such implementation of fabricating the device on the micro scale; and/or (3) glass works well in microscopic imaging and is relatively biocompatible (see Ainsile pg. 3-4, § Substrates, §§ Glass).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kara as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Colvin et al. (US Patent 5,010,892), hereinafter Colvin.
Regarding Claim 12, Kara teaches the device of claim 1 as stated above. Kara further teaches an end part (§ 3.2 Proposed Design ¶1-5 and § 6.1 Implementation of the Variable Stiffness Mechanism ¶1-8, the end portion of the tip portion; Figs. 3.1 and 6.1-6.2).
Kara is silent regarding the graduation element protruding from the end part.
Colvin teaches a body lumen measuring instrument for insertion into a body passageway, such as a bronchial tube or the like, via a probe (see abstract and Fig. 1), in which spherical tips may provided at the end of each probe so as to facilitate visibility in the body (see col. 4 ln. 1-30 and Figs. 1-5).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the spherical tip of Colvin protruding from the end part of the tip of Kara because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results and/or (2) Kara contemplates the probe for medical applications, and the spherical tip of Colvin would facilitate visibility within the body (see Colvin col. 4 ln. 1-30).
Regarding Claim 13, Kara in view of Colvin teaches the device of claim 12 as stated above. The modified Kara further teaches the graduation element comprises a three-dimensional solid arranged along a surface of the end part (see Colvin col. 4 ln. 1-30, the spherical tips to facilitate visibility; Figs. 1-5).
Regarding Claim 14, Kara in view of Colvin teaches the device of claim 13 as stated above. The modified Kara further teaches the three-dimensional solid is a cylinder (see Colvin col. 4 ln. 1-30, the spherical tips to facilitate visibility; Figs. 1-5). Here, the claimed cylindrical shape is being read upon by the spherical shape of the modified Kara.
Alternatively and/or additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a more cylindrical shape tip than spherical shape tip because the change in shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)).
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kara as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Casey (US Patent Application Publication 2017/0202487 – cited by Applicant), hereinafter Casey.
Regarding Claim 15, Kara teaches the device of claim 1 as stated above. Kara teaches that the probe/tip may be utilized for various medical applications (see § Introduction ¶1-3 and § 2.1.2 Palpation Probes ¶1-2) via a micro scale device (see § 3.2 Proposed Design ¶1-5 and Figs. 3.1 and 6.1-6.2), but not specifically that the mechanism is adapted for a sensing tool configured to palpate an ossicle, and wherein the body is the ossicle.
Casey teaches systems and methods of use pertaining to measurements of middle ear mechanics stiffness of the ossicular chain (see abstract and Fig. 1), in which known middle ear assessment involves palpating the ossicles via a probe (see ¶[0004]-[0005]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the probe of Kara, sized and implemented for the known process of ossicle palpation as taught by Casey because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results and/or (2) Kara teaches that the probe may be utilized for various medical applications, including palpations, and Casey teaches one such known medical application, ossicle palpation.
Regarding Claim 17, Kara teaches the device of claim 1 as stated above. Kara teaches that the probe/tip may be utilized for various medical applications (see § Introduction ¶1-3 and § 2.1.2 Palpation Probes ¶1-2) via a micro scale device (see § 3.2 Proposed Design ¶1-5 and Figs. 3.1 and 6.1-6.2), but not the specifics of such application, including specifically that a sensing tool comprising: a handle element; a holding element, placed at one end of the handle element; and a mechanism according to Claim 1, the mechanism being rigidly connected with the holding element.
Casey teaches systems and methods of use pertaining to measurements of middle ear mechanics stiffness of the ossicular chain via the handheld diagnostic tool 20 (i.e., a sensing tool) (see abstract and ¶[0028]; Fig. 1), comprising:
a handle element (¶[0033]-[0034] the handheld chassis 34; Fig. 1);
a holding element, placed at one end of the handle element (¶[0028]-[0029] the sensitive load cell 30; Fig. 1); and
a probe (¶[0028] the probe 24; Fig. 1), the mechanism being rigidly connected with the holding element (¶[0028]-[0033] the proximal end 26 of the probe 24 is operatively connected to the sensitive load cell 30, such as via a threaded or snap fit connection; Fig. 1).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the probe of Kara with the sensing tool of Casey because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results and/or (2) Kara teaches that the probe may be utilized for various medical applications, including palpations, and Casey teaches one such known implementation for the probe, as implemented with the sensing tool of Casey.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kara as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of He et al. (US Patent Application 2017/0156928 – cited by Applicant), hereinafter He.
Regarding Claim 16, Kara teaches the device of claim 1 as stated above. Kara teaches that the probe/tip may be utilized for various medical applications (see § Introduction ¶1-3 and § 2.1.2 Palpation Probes ¶1-2) via a micro scale device (see § 3.2 Proposed Design ¶1-5 and Figs. 3.1 and 6.1-6.2), but not specifically that the mechanism is adapted for a sensing tool configured to remove a membrane from a retina, the body being the membrane.
He teaches a force-sensing tool with a tool shaft and tool tip, with the tool tip connected to a flexure section (see abstract and ¶[0008]-[0009]; Figs. 1A-1C), in which the tool tip may be utilized for operating on the retina in retinal microsurgery, including epiretinal membrane, in which to treat, pealing the membrane may be needed (see ¶[0006]-[0007], ¶[0023], and ¶[0036]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the probe of Kara, sized and implemented for the known process of retinal microsurgery as taught by He because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results and/or (2) Kara teaches that the probe may be utilized for various medical applications, and He teaches one such known medical application, retinal microsurgery.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN D. MORONESO whose telephone number is (571)272-8055. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30AM - 6:00 PM, MST.
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, JENNIFER M. ROBERTSON can be reached at (571)272-5001. 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.
/J.D.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JENNIFER ROBERTSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791