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. Claim Objections Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, “a focusing ultrasound transducer focusing” should be “an ultrasound transducer focusing ”. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 7 is 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. In claim 7, the fluid management module is claimed to comprise “a fluid management module” which is indefinite because it is unclear how an element can comprise itself. For examination purposes, the fluid management module will be interpreted as comprising all of the other elements of the claim and will further be interpreted as still being able to perform its function of fluid management. 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 1-6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Grubbs et al (US 2020/0214890) . Regarding claim 1 , Grubbs discloses: An ultrasonic emulsifier (1100; Fig. 11A) , comprising an emulsifier body (1106) , the emulsifier body (1106) is provided with: an irrigation module (1110) configured to dispense a liquid into an eye (1118) (¶0094) , the liquid containing targeted microbubbles (1102) for acting on a lens (1156) of the eye (1118) (¶0094) ; an ultrasound module (1154; Fig. 11B) configured to generate ultrasound waves for acting on the eye (1118) and enabling the targeted microbubbles (1152) to act on the lens (1156) of the eye (1118) (¶0097) ; and a suction module (1114) configured to aspirate the dispensed liquid and/or the broken-down lens (1156) from the eye (1118) (¶0095) . Regarding claim 2 , Grubbs discloses: The ultrasonic emulsifier according to claim 1, wherein the irrigation module (1110) comprises a gravitational irrigation module (1104; ¶0094 – uses “gravity fluidics” ) , the gravitational irrigation module (1104) comprising a support rod (1108) and an irrigation container (1104) , the support rod (1108) disposed on the emulsifier body (1106) and extending outwardly from the emulsifier body (1106) , the irrigation container (1104) disposed at a top end of the support rod (1108) away from the emulsifier body (1106) . Regarding claim 3 , Grubbs discloses: The ultrasonic emulsifier according to claim 2, wherein the irrigation module (1110) further comprises an irrigation handle (1116) , the irrigation handle (1116) in communication with the gravitational irrigation module (1104) , wherein the gravitational irrigation module (1104) is configured to supply a balanced salt solution (¶0094) to the irrigation handle (1116) , and the irrigation handle (1116) is configured to suck the targeted microbubbles (1102) therein and dispense the targeted microbubbles into the eye (1118) (¶0095) . Regarding claim 4 , Grubbs discloses: The ultrasonic emulsifier according to claim 3, wherein the suction module (1114) comprises a suction handle (1116) , the suction handle (1116) configured to aspirate the dispensed liquid and/or the broken-down lens from the eye (1118) (¶0094) . Regarding claim 5 , Grubbs discloses: The ultrasonic emulsifier according to claim 4, wherein the irrigation handle and the suction handle (1116) are implemented as a single handpiece (¶0094) , the handpiece (1116) defining an irrigation passage and a suction passage ( passages connected to inflow 1110 and outflow 1114) , wherein the gravitational irrigation module (1104) is configured to supply the balanced salt solution (¶0094) to the irrigation passage of the handpiece (1116) ; the irrigation passage of the handpiece (1116) is configured for suction of the targeted microbubbles (1152) that target and bind to the lens (1156) of the eye (1118) and for dispensing the targeted microbubbles (1152) into the eye (1118) (Fig. 11B) ; and the suction passage is configured for suction of the dispensed liquid and/or the broken-down lens (1156) from the eye (1118) (¶0094) . Regarding claim 6 , Grubbs discloses: The ultrasonic emulsifier according to claim 1, further comprising a fluid management module (1106) , wherein the fluid management module (1106) is connected to both the irrigation module (1110) and the suction module (1114) , and wherein the fluid management module (1106) is configured for flow rate control of the irrigation module (1110) and the suction module (1114) (¶0095) . Regarding claim 14 , Grubbs discloses: The ultrasonic emulsifier according to claim 2, wherein the support rod (1108) has an adjustable length (¶0094 – “bottle 1104 may be of adjustable height in order to regulate the fluid pressure by gravity fluidics” ) . 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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grubbs in view of Muri et al (US 2008/0114312) . Regarding claim 7 , Grubbs discloses: The ultrasonic emulsifier according to claim 6, wherein the fluid management module (1106) comprises a fluid management module (1106) , a control pump (1112) , an irrigation valve (1108) , and a fluid collection cassette (1120) , the irrigation module (1110) communicating with the fluid collection cassette (1120) through the irrigation valve (1108) ( the fluid has to flow through valve 1108 before reaching the eye 1118 and then is suctioned into the cassette 1120) ; the suction module (1114) communicating with the fluid collection cassette (1120) through the control pump (1112) ; the control pump (1112) configured to produce a negative pressure for adjusting a suction flow rate and the suction pressure of the suction module (1114) (¶0095) , the irrigation valve (1108) configured to adjust an irrigation flow rate and the irrigation pressure of the irrigation module (1110) (¶0095 – “height of irrigation bottle 1104 may be set to match the inflow 1110 of irrigation fluid to the outflow 1114 of aspirated fluid” ) . Grubbs is silent regarding “a sensing module… configured to collect pressure signals from the fluid collection cassette, the irrigation module and the suction module and provide the pressure signals to the fluid management module” or that “the fluid management module configured to determine an irrigation pressure of the irrigation module and/or a suction pressure of the suction module according to the pressure signals of the sensing module and regulate operation of the control pump and the irrigation valve based on the irrigation pressure and/or the suction pressure.” However, Muri teaches an eye treatment system (Fig. 1) with an irrigation/aspiration system, thus being in the same field of endeavor, that uses a pressure sensing device or vacuum sensor to determine the pressure in the system in order to allow a controller to adjust the vacuum or fluid pressure during the operation in order to maintain a predetermined pressure level at the sensor (¶0032) . It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Grubbs to incorporate a sensing module with a pressure sensor at the irrigation and suction portions and regulation of the pump in the system as taught by Muri in order to provide sufficient structure to maintain a desired pressure within the system to reduce the chance of injuring the patient, as recognized by Muri. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grubbs in view of Schwartz (US 2013/0211395) . Regarding claim 8 , Grubbs discloses the ultrasonic emulsifier according to claim 1 but is silent regarding “the ultrasound module comprises a focusing ultrasound transducer focusing, the ultrasound transducer configured to provide focused ultrasound energy for acting on the eye.” However, Schwartz teaches an eye treatment system (Figs. 3, 4) using ultrasonic energy, thus being in the same field of endeavor, which uses and applies focused ultrasound for treating a specific region of the eye (¶0057) in order to induce a specific biological response and increase the temperature or decrease in pressure during the operation (¶0065) . It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Grubbs to incorporate a focusing ultrasound system as taught by Schwartz in order to increase the temperature or decrease in pressure during the operation, as recognized by Schwartz. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 9-13 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT TASNIM M AHMED whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9536 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9am-5pm Pacific time . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Bhisma Mehta can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-3383 . 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. /TASNIM MEHJABIN AHMED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783