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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 11, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boukhny (US Pat: 6, 402, 769)
Regarding claim 1, Boukhny discloses a surgical handpiece for ocular surgery [see abstract],
comprising:
a phacocmulsification tip (cutting tip 12) attached to a shaft (shell) [see figs 4, column 2 lines 48-68];
Boukhny discloses a fluid management system configured to manage inflow and outflow of fluid from an ocular surgical site by disclosing flexible tubings supply irrigation fluid to and draw aspiration fluid from the eye through the handpiece assembly [see column 1 lines 15-20].
an ultrasonic drive system configured to generate torsional and longitudinal vibrations in
the phacoemulsification tip [see abstract, column 2 lines 10-24, column 3 lines 1-60];
a controller configured to:
analyze applied voltage and current to the ultrasonic drive system using Fast
Fourier Transforms (FFTs), tune applied frequencies of the torsional and longitudinal vibrations according to at least one resonant frequency [see column 3 lines 20-65, column 4 lines 1-4] by disclosing FFT DSP 38 determines the electrical response of handpiece 10 on broad spectrum signal 4 and provides signal 42 to DSP 39 which generates adjusting signals 60 and 61 to adjust the frequencies and/or output voltage of sources 32 and 30, respectively so as to adjust drive signals 5 and 6 [see column 4 lines 1-4].
Regarding claim 5, Boukhny discloses a user interface for adjusting a ratio of torsional to longitudinal vibrations applied to the phacoemulsification tip [see column 4 lines 1-4] by disclosing FFT DSP 38 determines the electrical response of handpiece 10 on broad spectrum signal 4 and provides signal 42 to DSP 39 which generates adjusting signals 60 and 61 to adjust the frequencies and/or output voltage of sources 32 and 30, respectively so as to adjust drive signals 5 and 6 [see column 4 lines 1-4].
Regarding claim 11, Boukhny discloses wherein the controller is configured to actively tune the
applied frequencies of the torsional and longitudinal vibrations according to respective resonant
frequencies [see column 3 lines 20-65, column 4 lines 1-4]
Regarding claim 13, Boukhny discloses a method of operating an ultrasonic handpiece, the method comprising:
applying control signals to drive a piezoelectric element assembly of the ultrasonic
handpiece simultaneously in a first mode of oscillation and a second mode of oscillation [see column 3 lines 20-65, column 4 lines 1-4] by disclosing FFT DSP 38 determines the electrical response of handpiece 10 on broad spectrum signal 4 and provides signal 42 to DSP 39 which generates adjusting signals 60 and 61 to adjust the frequencies and/or output voltage of sources 32 and 30, respectively so as to adjust drive signals 5 and 6 [see column 4 lines 1-4].
generating feedback of a resulting oscillation of the piezoelectric element assembly in the
first mode and the second mode [see column 3 lines 20-65, column 4 lines 1-4] by disclosing FFT DSP 38 determines the electrical response of handpiece 10 on broad spectrum signal 4 and provides signal 42 to DSP 39 which generates adjusting signals 60 and 61 to adjust the frequencies and/or output voltage of sources 32 and 30, respectively so as to adjust drive signals 5 and 6 [see column 4 lines 1-4].
adjusting, based on the feedback, the control signals so that the resulting oscillation in the
first mode and the resulting oscillation in the second mode are each approximately at a respective
resonant frequency [see column 3 lines 20-65, column 4 lines 1-4] by disclosing FFT DSP 38 determines the electrical response of handpiece 10 on broad spectrum signal 4 and provides signal 42 to DSP 39 which generates adjusting signals 60 and 61 to adjust the frequencies and/or output voltage of sources 32 and 30, respectively so as to adjust drive signals 5 and 6 [see column 4 lines 1-4].
Regarding claim 14, Boukhny discloses wherein the first mode of oscillation comprises a longitudinal motion and the second mode of oscillation comprises a torsional motion [see column 3 lines 20-65, column 4 lines 1-4].
Regarding claim 15, Boukhny discloses wherein the ultrasonic handpiece comprises a phacoemulsifier [see column 1 lines 6-7].
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boukhny (US Pat: 6, 402, 769) in view of Akahoshi (Pub. No.: US 2009/0131885).
Regarding claim 2, Boukhny don’t disclose wherein the phacoemulsification tip comprises a cutting-edge portion having at least a first bend and a second bend.
Nonetheless, Akahoshi discloses a cutting-edge portion having at least a first bend and a second bend [see 0017]
Therefore, it is obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed and would have been motivated to combine Boukhny and Akahoshi by using a cutting-edge portion having at least a first bend and a second bend; it allows the tip to be maneuvered to follow the floor and periphery of the capsular bag and to efficiently remove cortical tissue [see 0017].
Claim(s) 6-7, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boukhny (US Pat: 6, 402, 769) in view of Shekhani (Pub. No.: US 2022/0323253)
Regarding claim 6, Boukhny doesn’t apply additional frequencies, including harmonics of resonant frequencies, for driving the phacoemulsification tip.
Nonetheless, Shekhani discloses apply additional frequencies, including harmonics of resonant frequencies, for driving the phacoemulsification tip [see 0008, 0028]
Therefore, it is obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed and would have been motivated to combine Boukhny and Shekhani by applying additional frequencies, including harmonics of resonant frequencies, for driving the phacoemulsification tip; to generate non-sinusoidal ultrasonic motion of a tip and to alter the needle tip displacement waveform to achieve advantages over sinusoidal driving signals [see 0028].
Regarding claims 7, 12, Boukhny doesn’t modulate a percentage of each mode or resonant frequency applied based on surgical conditions.
Nonetheless, Shekhani discloses modulate a percentage of each mode or resonant frequency applied based on surgical conditions [see 0032] By varying the duty ratio above or below fifty percent, the direction of the asymmetry of the needle tip displacement may change.
Therefore, it is obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed and would have been motivated to combine Boukhny and Shekhani by modulating a percentage of each mode or resonant frequency applied based on surgical conditions; By varying the duty ratio above or below fifty percent, the direction of the asymmetry of the needle tip displacement may change.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boukhny (US Pat: 6, 402, 769) in view of Kadzlauskas et al (Pub. No.: US 2012/0010560).
Regarding claim 8, Boukhny doesn’t disclose adapt to changes in an aspiration rate, an irrigation rate, or a temperature at a surgical site.
Nonetheless, Kadzlauskas et al disclose adapt to changes in an aspiration rate, an irrigation rate, or a temperature at a surgical site [see 0050] by disclosing computer 18 provides signals to pump speed controller 20 to change the speed of the peristaltic pump 14 which, in turn, changes the aspiration rate [see 0050]
Therefore, it is obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed and would have been motivated to combine Boukhny and Kadzlauskas et al by adapting to changes in an aspiration rate, an irrigation rate, or a temperature at a surgical site; for compensation purposes.
Claim(s) 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boukhny (US Pat: 6, 402, 769) in view of Abbott et al (Pub. No.: US 2010/0280434).
Regarding claim 9, Boukhny doesn’t disclose control the fluid management system during a surgical procedure.
Nonetheless, Abbott et al disclose control the fluid management system during a surgical procedure [see 0014-0015, 0038-0039].
Therefore, it is obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed and would have been motivated to combine Boukhny and Abbott et al by controlling the fluid management system during a surgical procedure; to maintain the pressure balance within the eye and prevent collapse of the anterior chamber during the removal of the emulsified lens.
Regarding claim 10, Boukhny doesn’t disclose apply additional modes of tip motion beyond torsional and longitudinal vibrations.
Nonetheless, Abbott et al disclose apply additional modes (transversal) of tip motion beyond torsional and longitudinal vibrations [see 0038] by disclosing combine longitudinal cutting modes with a certain pump and non-longitudinal cutting modes (i.e., transversal, torsion, etc.) [see 0038].
Therefore, it is obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed and would have been motivated to combine Boukhny and Abbott et al by applying additional modes (transversal) of tip motion beyond torsional and longitudinal vibrations; to have the ability to reach desired areas.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: No prior arts of record alone or in combination discloses the following:
“wherein a geometry of the shaft, the first bend, and the second bend is configured to produce a lateral displacement, perpendicular to the shaft, during ultrasonic torsional vibration of the phacoemulsification tip, of less than approximately 5% to 25% of the lateral displacement at a distal end point of the phacoemulsification tip throughout a portion of the shaft that extends from a proximal end of the shaft to the first bend of the cutting edge portion”
Claim 4,
“wherein the phacoemulsification tip comprises a first over mold located on an exterior surface and a distal edge of the shaft, the first over mold covering at least a portion of a periphery of the exterior surface of the shaft, the first over mold covering the distal edge and terminating at a central bore of the shaft”
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 JOEL F BRUTUS whose telephone number is (571)270-3847. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Sat, 11:00 AM to 7:00 PM.
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, Anne Kozak can be reached at 571-270-0552. 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.
/JOEL F BRUTUS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights