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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/9/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites, “The tool of claim 1, comprising…” which should be corrected to recite, “The tool of claim 1, further comprising…” to more clearly designate the limitations of claim 3 as a continuation of the limitations of claim 1.
Claim 8 recites, “having a pullstring free attachable” which appears to be missing a structural word between “free” and “attachable”. Similar limitations can be found in claim 3 which recite, “pullstring free end attachable…”.
Claim 18 recites, “Providing the tool as a discrete excise device and a discrete flexible or a single monolithic constructure” which appears to be missing a structural limitation between “flexible” and “or”. From similar claims, the missing limitation appears to be the “flexible pullstring” recited in at least claim 3.
Claim 19 recites the word “assembleable” which does not appear to be a grammatically-correct word. As not mention of this word can be found within the specification, the examiner suggests choosing a different word to describe the combinable nature of the claimed components within the claim to ensure the scope of the claimed invention remains clear.
Claims 13-17 and 20 contain an errant recitation of [AR1], [AR2], [AR3], [AR4], [AR5], [AR6], [AR7], [AR8] and [AR9] at the end of their respective claim limitations which should be deleted.
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.
Claim 5 and 10-15 is/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 5 recites, “wherein the tool includes a discrete excise device and a discrete pullstring, wherein the discrete excise device is formed with a longitudinally directed throughgoing bore having a non-circular cross section transverse to the longitudinal centerline and has a trailing knife support face relative to the direction of travel”. It is unclear if the “discrete excise device” limitations seek to define and introduce a second “excise device”, separate from the one introduced in claim 1, or whether the limitations seek to further modify the “excise device” previously introduced in claim 1, from which claim 5 depends. The specification designates “excise device” and “discrete excise device” as the same element (101) and appears to use the two terms interchangeably. Therefore, for the purposes of examination, the “discrete excise device” recited in claim 5 is interpreted to refer back to and further modify the “excise device” introduced in claim 1.
Claim 10 recites, “inserting the ophthalmic tool’s pullstring free end through…” which lacks antecedent basis in the claims as no “pullstring” or “pullstring free end” has been defined within claim 1 or claim 10. It is therefore unclear and indefinite as to whether the recitation of “the ophthalmic tool’s pullstring free end” seeks to introduce and define a “pullstring” and accompanying “pullstring free end” or whether this limitation seeks to further modify the pullstring introduced in claim 3, in which case claim dependency will need to be changed. For the purposes of examination, any reference to “the pullstring” or “the pullstring free end” will be interpreted to recite “a pullstring” and “a pullstring free end” to properly introduce these elements.
Claims 11-15 are also rendered indefinite due to their dependency from and further modification of claim 10.
Claim 13 recites, “wherein the flexible pullstring has a pullstring free end” and it is unclear if this recitation seeks to introduce a “pullstring free end” that is separate and distinct from the “pullstring free end” recited in claim 10 (from which claim 13 depends), or if this recitation aims to further modify the “pullstring free end” previously defined in claim 10.
Claim 14 recites, “wherein the tool includes a discrete excise device and a discrete pullstring” and it is unclear if the “discrete excise device” limitations seek to define and introduce a second “excise device”, separate from the one introduced in claim 1, or whether the limitations seek to further modify the “excise device” previously introduced in claim 1, from which claim 14 depends. The specification designates “excise device” and “discrete excise device” as the same element (101) and appears to use the two terms interchangeably. A similar problem arises with regards to the “discrete pullstring” and whether this limitation seeks to define a pullstring separate and distinct from the pullstring introduced in claim 10, or whether this limitation seeks to further modify the pullstring of claim 10.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dai (CN 112353556 A).
Regarding claim 1, Dai discloses:
An ophthalmic tool for ab-interno removal of ophthalmic tissue from a human eye (see Fig. 1), the ophthalmic tissue including trabecular meshwork tissue (see Para. [0007] and [0013] and a Schlemm's canal (see Para. [0013]), the ophthalmic tool comprising:
an excise device (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 1 below illustrating the “excise device” distal portion of the device) having a longitudinal centerline (centerline passing through the longitudinal central axis of the “excise device” shown in Fig. 1), and shaped and dimensioned for snug insertion into the Schlemm's canal (see Para. [0003] and [0013]), the excise device having:
i) a leading nose (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 1 below illustrating a “leading nose”), and
ii) a trailing knife support (portion of the elongate body of cutter bar 1 upon which blades (5) are disposed shown in Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 1 below) with a pair of spaced apart longitudinally directed knife blades (see Para. [0008] and [0019] mentioning wherein the blade (5) comprises a double-blade configuration, see Fig. 3) mounted upright on the knife support (see Fig. 1);
the pair of spaced apart knife blades bounding an excise device channel therebetween transverse to the longitudinal centerline (see Para [0019] mentioning where a groove 6 (see Fig. 3) is provided between the blades of the double-blade assembly), each knife blade having a leading knife edge (edge of the blades as shown in Fig. 1 extending distally from the “leading nose”).
PNG
media_image1.png
218
382
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 1
Regarding claim 2, Dai discloses the invention of claim 1, Dai further discloses wherein the excise device is configured for being circumferentially pushed or pulled around the Schlemm's canal in a direction of travel (see Para. [0013] mentioning wherein the blades of the devices are pulled around the Schlemm’s canal by a control wire 4) such that when the ophthalmic tool is operably engaged with the human eye, the pair of spaced apart knife edges excises ophthalmic tissue including a strip of trabecular meshwork tissue (see Para. [0013]).
Regarding claim 3, Dai discloses the invention of claim 1, Dai further discloses a flexible pullstring (control wire 4, see Fig. 1 and Para. [0013]; see also Para. [0011] mentioning wherein the control wire is formed from 5-0 polypropylene) having a pullstring free end (proximal portion of the control wire 4, see Fig. 1 opposite to the “leading nose” as shown in Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 1 above) attachable to the excise device (see Fig. 1) for pulling the excise device circumferentially around the Schlemm's canal in a direction of travel (see Para. [0013]) such that when the ophthalmic tool is operably engaged with the human eye, the pair of spaced apart knife edges excises ophthalmic tissue including a strip of trabecular meshwork tissue (see Para. [0013]).
Regarding claim 4, Dai discloses the invention of claim 1, Dai further discloses wherein the leading nose has a truncated generally conical shape converging in the direction of travel of the excise device circumferentially around the Schlemm's canal (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 1 above showing the “leading nose” having a conical shape converging in the direction of travel (i.e., distally towards the blade ends)).
Regarding claim 9, Dai discloses the invention of claim 1, Dai further discloses:
A kit for ab-interno removal of ophthalmic tissue from a human eye (see Fig. 1), the tissue including trabecular meshwork tissue (see Para. [0003] and [0013]), the kit comprising:
The excise device of claim 1 (see Fig. 1) and a flexible pullstring (control wire 4, see Fig. 1 and Para. [0013]).
Regarding claim 16, Dai discloses the invention of claim 1, Dai further discloses wherein one or both leading knife edges are concave-shaped or convex-shaped, with respect to a pulling direction (see Fig. 1 showing wherein the distal portion(s) of the blades, nearest the tip (3) comprise a concave shape).
Regarding claim 17, Dai discloses the invention of claim 1, Dai further discloses wherein one or both leading knife edges are straight blades (see Fig. 1 showing wherein the proximal portions of the blade(s), proximal to the angular distal end thereof, comprise straight blades).
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.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai (CN 112353556 A) in view of Vazquez (US 5424630 A), further in view of Walzman (US 2022/0054119 A1).
Regarding claim 5 (see 112(b) rejection above), Dai discloses the invention of claim 1, Dai further discloses wherein the tool includes a discrete excise device (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 1 above illustrating the “excise device” portion of the device; the terms “excise device” and “discrete excise device” are used interchangeably within the specification and both represent the same structural element (101) as described in the specification) and a discrete pullstring (control wire 4, see Fig. 1 and Para. [0013]), wherein the discrete excise device has a trailing knife support face relative to the direction of travel (proximal face of the cutter shaft (1) to which control wire (4) attached as shown in Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 1 above), and the discrete pullstring includes a pullstring stop end opposite the pullstring free end (portion of the control wire that inserts into and abuts against the cutter shaft as shown in Fig. 1).
However, while Dai discloses wherein the control wire is “connected” to the blade device (see Para. [0021]), Dai does not provide an explicit description of the connection means and thus does not expressly disclose wherein the discrete excise device is formed with a longitudinally directed throughgoing bore having a non-circular cross section transverse to the longitudinal centerline; and
wherein the pullstring being shaped and dimensioned to snugly extend through the longitudinally directed throughgoing bore such that the pullstring stop end stops against the excise device's trailing knife support face.
In the field of endeavor of knife devices having a wire connected thereto, Vazquez teaches wherein a knife (see Fig. 1) comprising a proximal knife bode (handle 12, see Fig. 1) may further include a control wire (ground conductor 80, see Figs. 1-3) attached to the knife bode (see Figs. 1-3 and Col. 3, Lines 50-59) via a lumen defined within the proximal knife body (see Figs. 1-3 and Col. 3, Lines 50-59) configured to receive the control wire therein (see Figs. 1-3 and Col. 3, Lines 50-59).
Since Dai is silent as to a connection means for connecting the control wire to the body of the knife element, one of ordinary skill would have looked to the prior are for methods of joining wire/cable elements to knife bodies. It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Dai to include a lumen disposed within the proximal portion of the cutter bar (1) configured to receive the control wire (4) therein as taught and disclosed as a known means of connected wires to knife bodies by Vazquez to, in this case, provide a known securement means for connecting the control wire to the proximal end of the cutter bar of Dai.
Regarding the non-circular cross section of nested components disposed within one-another, Walzman teaches wherein a surgical device (balloon catheter 400) having a lumen (lumen 404) configured to receive a wire therethrough (see Para. [0187]) may be designed such that the lumen and corresponding guide wire are formed with non-circular (i.e., triangular) shapes to prevent relative rotation between the device and the wire (see Para. [0037] and [0186]-[0187]).
It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the throughbore and corresponding wire received therein of Dai, as modified by Vazquez, to comprise a non-circular (i.e., triangular) cross-section as taught and suggested by Walzman to, in this case, prevent and inhibit relative rotation between the two components (see Walzman Para. [0037] and [0186]-[0187]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Dai, Vazquez and Walzman disclose the invention of claim 5, Dai, as modified by Vazquez and Walzman, further discloses wherein the flexible pullstring has a non-circular cross-section corresponding to a non-circular cross-section of the throughgoing bore (the throughbore of the cutter bar and corresponding portion of the control wire of Dai, as modified by Vazquez, comprise corresponding mating non-circular (i.e., triangular) cross sections, as modified by Walzman (see Walzman Para. [0037] and [0186]-[0187])).
Regarding claim 8, Dai discloses:
A flexible pullstring (control wire 4, see Fig. 1, see also see also Para. [0011] mentioning wherein the control wire is formed from 5-0 polypropylene) having a pullstring free attachable to an excise device (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 1 below illustrating the “excise device” distal portion of the device; see also Para. [0021]) for pulling the excise device circumferentially around the Schlemm's canal in a direction of travel such that when the ophthalmic tool is operably engaged with the human eye (see Para. [0003] and [0013]);
a pair of spaced apart knife edges of the excise device (blades 5, see Para. [0008] and [0019] mentioning wherein the blade (5) comprises a double-blade configuration, see Fig. 3) excises ophthalmic tissue including a strip of trabecular meshwork tissue (see Para. [0007] and [0013]).
However, while Dai discloses wherein the control wire is “connected” to the blade device (see Para. [0021]), Dai does not provide an explicit description of the connection means and thus does not expressly disclose wherein the flexible pullstring has a non-circular cross-section that conforms with a non-circular cross-section of a longitudinally extending throughgoing bore of the excise device.
In the field of endeavor of knife devices having a wire connected thereto, Vazquez teaches wherein a knife (see Fig. 1) comprising a proximal knife bode (handle 12, see Fig. 1) may further include a control wire (ground conductor 80, see Figs. 1-3) attached to the knife bode (see Figs. 1-3 and Col. 3, Lines 50-59) via a lumen defined within the proximal knife body (see Figs. 1-3 and Col. 3, Lines 50-59) configured to receive the control wire therein (see Figs. 1-3 and Col. 3, Lines 50-59).
Since Dai is silent as to a connection means for connecting the control wire to the body of the knife element, one of ordinary skill would have looked to the prior are for methods of joining wire/cable elements to knife bodies. It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Dai to include a lumen disposed within the proximal portion of the cutter bar (1) configured to receive the control wire (4) therein as taught and disclosed as a known means of connected wires to knife bodies by Vazquez to, in this case, provide a known securement means for connecting the control wire to the proximal end of the cutter bar of Dai.
Regarding the non-circular cross section of nested components disposed within one-another, Walzman teaches wherein a surgical device (balloon catheter 400) having a lumen (lumen 404) configured to receive a wire therethrough (see Para. [0187]) may be designed such that the lumen and corresponding guide wire are formed with non-circular (i.e., triangular) shapes to prevent relative rotation between the device and the wire (see Para. [0037] and [0186]-[0187]).
It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the throughbore and corresponding wire received therein of Dai, as modified by Vazquez, to comprise a non-circular (i.e., triangular) cross-section as taught and suggested by Walzman to, in this case, prevent and inhibit relative rotation between the two components (see Walzman Para. [0037] and [0186]-[0187]).
PNG
media_image1.png
218
382
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 1
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai (CN 112353556 A).
Regarding claim 7, Dai discloses all of the limitations of the invention of claim 1.
However, while Dai discloses wherein the control wire is “connected” to the cutter bar (see Para. [0021]), Dai does not provide an express disclosure of the securement means and thus does not expressly disclose wherein the tool has a single monolithic construction.
Since Dai does not expressly disclose a means for or method of attaching the control wire to the cutter bar, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as a matter of being obvious to try (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)), to have chosen from a finite number of possible formation methods (i.e., to form the cutter bar and control wire as separate components later connected together or to have formed the cutter bar and control wire as a single, monolithic structure) to have formed the cutter bar and control wires as a single monolithic structure, with the connection between the cutter bar and control wire being one of an integral fusion during formation. Due to Dai’s lack of description as to how the cutter bar and control wire are connected, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood this connection to be non-critical and thus may be formed from any known means or methods. Since only two possible alternative arrangements are possible (i.e., having the device be monolithic or formed from two separate components), one of ordinary skill would have selected from these two possible connection types to have arrived at the device of Dai being formed as a monolithic component.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai (CN 112353556 A) in view of Vazquez (US 5424630 A).
Regarding claim 18, Dai discloses the invention of claim 1, Dai further discloses:
A method of manufacturing the ophthalmic tool of claim 1 (see Fig. 1).
However, while Dai discloses wherein the control wire is “connected” to the blade device (see Para. [0021]), Dai does not provide an explicit description of the connection means and thus does not expressly disclose “providing the tool as a discrete excise device and a discrete flexible or a single monolithic constructure”.
In the field of endeavor of knife devices having a wire connected thereto, Vazquez teaches wherein a knife (see Fig. 1) comprising a proximal knife bode (handle 12, see Fig. 1) may further include a control wire (ground conductor 80, see Figs. 1-3) attached to the knife bode (see Figs. 1-3 and Col. 3, Lines 50-59) via a lumen defined within the proximal knife body (see Figs. 1-3 and Col. 3, Lines 50-59) configured to receive the control wire therein (see Figs. 1-3 and Col. 3, Lines 50-59).
Since Dai is silent as to a connection means for connecting the control wire to the body of the knife element, one of ordinary skill would have looked to the prior are for methods of joining wire/cable elements to knife bodies. It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Dai to include a lumen disposed within the proximal portion of the cutter bar (1) configured to receive the control wire (4) therein as taught and disclosed as a known means of connected wires to knife bodies by Vazquez to, in this case, provide a known securement means for connecting the control wire to the proximal end of the cutter bar of Dai.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Dai and Vazquez disclose the method of claim 18, Dai, as modified by Vazquez, further discloses providing assembleable components for assembling the tool (see Dai Fig. 1 showing the control wire (4) and cutter bar (1) which are the two components of the device).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai (CN 112353556 A) in view of Vazquez (US 5424630 A), further in view of Yamaguchi (US 2010/0280535 A1).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Dai and Vazquez disclose the method of claim 18, Dai further discloses manufacturing the tool from suitable bio-compatible materials (see Para. [0011] and [0021] mentioning wherein the control wire is formed from 5-0 polypropylene).
However, Dai does not expressly disclose a material used to form the blade(s) and therefore does not expressly disclose wherein the blade(s) of the device are formed from a bio-compatible material.
In the same field of endeavor, namely surgical blades configured to be used within the Schlemm’s canal, Yamaguchi discloses wherein ophthalmic blades may be formed from stainless steel (see Para. [0046]), which is a bio-compatible material commonly used to construct ophthalmic blades.
Since Dai does not expressly disclose a material used to form the blade(s) of the disclosed device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have looked to the prior art for known materials for similar devices and have modified the blade(s) of Dai to be formed from stainless steel as disclosed by Yamaguchi (see Yamaguchi Para. [0046]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-15 would be conditionally allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action above.
Regarding claim 10, the Dai discloses:
A surgical method for ab-interno removal of ophthalmic tissue from a human eye, the human eye including trabecular meshwork tissue and a Schlemm's canal, the surgical method comprising the steps of:
a) providing the ophthalmic tool of claim 1 (see Fig. 1);
b) preparing at least one corneal aperture in the human eye (during use of the device within the Schlemm’s are (see Para. [0003] and [0013] an aperture would be created within the cornea to provide access to this region of the eye);
c) incising the trabecular meshwork tissue (see Para. [0003], [0013] and [0020]-[0021]);
g) inserting the excise device through a corneal aperture into the Schlemm’s canal through the incised trabecular meshwork tissue (see Para. [0003], [0013] and [0020]-[0021]);
h) pulling the pullstring free end to pull the excise device circumferentially around the Schlemm's canal to excise ophthalmic tissue including a strip of trabecular meshwork tissue (see Para. [0013]);
i) removing the excise device from the human eye through a corneal aperture (the device would be removed through an opening within the cornea to allow for removal of the device from the target Schlemm’s area); and
j) removing the excised ophthalmic tissue from the human eye through a corneal aperture (since the device is configured to excise tissue from the Schlemm’s area and trabecular network, said tissue would be removed with the device from the target site through an opening within the cornea).
However, Dai does not expressly disclose:
d) inserting the ophthalmic tool's pullstring free end through a corneal aperture into the Schlemm's canal through the incised trabecular meshwork tissue;
e) threading the pullstring free end circumferentially around the Schlemm's canal;
f) removing the pullstring free end from the human eye through a corneal aperture to leave a length of pullstring in the Schlemm's canal.
Dai provides little disclosure on particulars of the operation procedure aside from the device’s use within the trabecular meshwork and Schlemm’s tube structure(s) and provides no disclosure as to whether the control wire would be inserted through a corneal aperture and into the Schlemm’s canal. From the description, it appears that a user is required to grasp the free end of the control wire(s) to manipulate the cutter blades within the Schlemm’s tube(s) and trabecular network and thus would not be inserted into the eye of the patient. Along with this, Dai provides no disclosure to suggest that the free end of the control wire is threaded around the Schlemm’s canal since, as mentioned previously, a user would be gripping the free end of the control wire to manipulate and actuate the cutter blade(s) within the target site and would thus need to remain outside of the eye.
No other prior art of record expressly discloses, teaches or suggests, in combination with the additional structural elements required by claim 1, the above-cited limitations.
Claims 11-15 are also conditionally allowable pending resolution to the pending 112(b) rejection(s) cited above due to their dependency from claim 10.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s
disclosure. See the attached PTO-892 Notice of Reference Cited. Specifically, US 2020/0107961 A1 to Kahook, US 2007/0276420 A1 to Sorensen, US 2008/0045989 A1 to Welborn, US 2023/0255827 A1 to Clauson, US 2011/0112546 A1 to Juan Jr., US 2023/0346598 A1 to Horvath, US 2025/0010040 A1 to Mizuno and US 2025/0169989 A1 to Robson all disclose surgical cutting devices configured to be used within the Schlemm’s canal(s) and the trabecular network.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MITCHELL B HOAG whose telephone number is (571)272-0983. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 5:00 M-F.
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 5712724695. 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.
/M.B.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3771
/DARWIN P EREZO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3771