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 Arguments
Applicant should submit an argument under the heading “Remarks” pointing out disagreements with the examiner’s contentions. Applicant must also discuss the references applied against the claims, explaining how the claims avoid the references or distinguish from them. There appear to be no remarks filed in response to the Non-Final Rejection dated 8/26/2024.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Claim Objections
Claim 45 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 7-8 of the claim recite “displayed on said operator” which appears to be a typographical error for “displayed to said operator” as the operator is a person operating the laser device. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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-llllff.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 30-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okawa et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0121786) hereinafter referred to as Okawa; in view of Altshuler et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0167226) hereinafter referred to as Altshuler.
Regarding claim 30, Okawa teaches a diode lasing device for dentistry and oral surgery (¶[0067] diode laser, dentistry and oral surgery are intended uses, and the device of Okawa is capable of said use), said diode lasing device comprising:
a first laser diode (¶[0040] laser diode, ¶[0069] semiconductor laser) with a wavelength of 800-1200 nanometers (nm) (¶[0176], near infrared and infrared regions of light encompass 800-1200nm wavelengths of light; ¶[0157] laser diodes formed into a device module), wherein said first laser diode is activated for incising and excising soft tissue, wherein said first laser diode provides preheating composite, wherein said first laser diode provides photobiomodulation, wherein said first laser provides disinfecting of periodontal pockets, wherein said first laser has an antibacterial application (the Examiner notes that there are no claim limitations directed to controlling the laser diode, and therefore the intended treatments are intended uses of the device. Furthermore, whether or not the procedure effects occur is, according to the claim, merely the result of the claimed wavelengths of light—the device of Okawa meets the required structure of this claim and the required wavelength ranges and therefore is capable of incising/excising soft tissue, preheating composite, photobiomodulation, disinfecting periodontal pockets, and having an antibacterial application and therefore teaches these claim limitations— from MPEP 2114: A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim);
a second laser diode with a wavelength of 400-510 nm (¶[0176], 405±50nm, 470±50nm encompass the range of 400-510nm and additionally in ¶[0176] a plurality of light-emitting devices that emit light…of different wavelengths, ¶[0177]; ¶[0157] laser diodes formed into a device module), wherein said second laser diode is configured for dental procedures including photopolymerization of dental composites, wherein said second laser has said antibacterial and virucidal application (the Examiner notes that there are no claim limitations directed to controlling the laser diode, and therefore the intended treatments are intended uses of the device. Furthermore, whether or not the procedure effects occur is, according to the claim, merely the result of the claimed wavelengths of light—the device of Okawa meets the required structure of this claim and the required wavelength ranges and therefore is capable of photopolymerization of dental composites, and having antibacterial and virucidal application, and therefore teaches these claim limitations— from MPEP 2114: A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim);
a third laser diode with a wavelength of 600-750 nm (¶[0176], 700±100nm encompasses the range of 600-750 nm, and additionally in ¶[0176] a plurality of light-emitting devices that emit light…of different wavelengths, ¶[0177]; ¶[0157] laser diodes formed into a device module), wherein said third laser diode is activated to provide an aiming beam (¶[0177] white illuminating light also encompasses the range of 600-750nm), wherein said third laser diode provides photobiomodulation (the Examiner notes that there are no claim limitations directed to controlling the laser diode, and therefore the intended treatments are intended uses of the device. Furthermore, whether or not the procedure effects occur is, according to the claim, merely the result of the claimed wavelengths of light—the device of Okawa meets the required structure of this claim and the required wavelength ranges and therefore is capable of providing a visible aiming beam and photobiomodulation, and therefore teaches these claim limitations— from MPEP 2114: A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim);
an optical element (light guide member G, ¶¶[0269-0270]), wherein said optical element is configured to combine said first laser diode, said second laser diode, said third laser diode into a single beam, wherein said single beam is used in patient treatment (¶[0270] the lights from the respective light-emitting device may be mixed together, ¶[0272] the work light for effecting treatment is mixed with the guide light for illuminating the work area);
a current control, wherein an electrical current passes through at least one laser diode in response to a control, wherein said current control is configured to control output power level of said single beam used in said patient treatment (¶[0362] current is supplied to light emitting devices for adjusting the light output level);
a cooling system (¶[0220] cooling air), wherein cooling system cools said at least one laser diode (¶[0220] cools light emitting device L).
Okawa does further teach a control for the switching circuit that appears to be a digital control (¶¶[0352-0353], Fig. 54, “light emission selection instruction device”). However, Okawa does not explicitly teach microprocessor control for configuring output power of the patient treatment beam, or a temperature sensor, wherein said temperature sensor provides feedback for controlling operation of a cooling module
Attention is drawn to the Altshuler reference, which teaches microprocessor control for configuring output power of a patient treatment beam (¶[0085] driver forming current whose operation is controlled with an embedded microprocessor for dental applications), and a temperature sensor (¶[0085] temperature sensor), wherein said temperature sensor provides feedback for controlling operation of a cooling module (¶[0081] cooling unit for cooling the light emitting diode and other components inside and outside the console housing, ¶[0090] diode lasers, and ¶[0085] the controller modifies or terminates system operation based on the input sensors, such as the temperature sensor and these sensors are used specifically as feedback control in ¶[0061] and ¶[0079]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a microprocessor for controlling laser output power and sensors for additional feedback control, as taught by Altshuler, because Althsuler teaches a system comprising handpieces and a controlling system allowing for “cost effective, expedient surgical, microsurgical, cosmetic, and diagnostics procedures,” (Altshuler, Abstract).
Regarding claim 31, Okawa as modified teaches the diode laser device of claim 30.
Okawa further teaches wherein a sequential emission of a plurality of laser wavelengths is configured in an overlapping manner during duty cycles to assist an operator in performing procedures (Fig. 55, times of different wavelengths emissions overlap, ¶[0267] duty cycle corresponds to on/off operational cycles).
Regarding claim 32, Okawa as modified teaches the performing procedures of claim 31.
Okawa further teaches wherein said performing procedures include heating and polymerizing a dental composite in situ upon exposure to emissions from said first laser diode and said second laser diode (Okawa teaches curing photo-polymerizable resin in situ in ¶[0068], and ¶[0270] Okawa teaches simultaneous light emission from the light emitting devices; the Examiner further notes that there are no claim limitations directed to controlling the laser diodes, and therefore the intended procedures are intended uses of the device. Furthermore, whether or not the procedure effects occur is, according to the claim, merely the result of the claimed wavelengths of light—the device of Okawa meets the required structure of this claim and the required wavelength ranges and therefore is capable of providing heating and polymerizing dental composites in situ, and therefore teaches these claim limitations— from MPEP 2114: A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim).
Regarding claim 33, Okawa as modified teaches the diode laser device of claim 30.
Okawa further teaches wherein photobiomodulation from a non-ionizing visible and an infrared light (¶[0038] combination of visible light, which is non-ionizing and wavelength ranges from 400-700nm, and infrared light) is configured to alleviate inflammation, enhance immunomodulation, promote wound healing, and tissue regeneration upon exposure to emissions from said first laser diode and said third laser diode (¶[0270] Okawa teaches simultaneous light emission from the light emitting devices; the Examiner further notes that there are no claim limitations directed to controlling the laser diodes, and therefore the intended procedures are intended uses of the device. Furthermore, whether or not the procedure effects occur is, according to the claim, merely the result of the claimed wavelengths of light—the device of Okawa meets the required structure of this claim and the required wavelength ranges and therefore is capable of alleviating inflammation, enhancing immunomodulation, and promoting wound healing and tissue regeneration, and therefore teaches these claim limitations— from MPEP 2114: A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim).
Regarding claim 34, Okawa as modified teaches the photobiomodulation of claim 33.
Okawa further teaches wherein said non-ionizing visible and said infrared light (¶[0038] combination of visible light, which is non-ionizing and wavelength ranges from 400-700nm, and infrared light) is configured to upregulate growth factors upon said exposure to emissions from said first laser diode and said third laser diode (¶[0270] Okawa teaches simultaneous light emission from the light emitting devices; the Examiner further notes that there are no claim limitations directed to controlling the laser diodes, and therefore the intended procedures are intended uses of the device. Furthermore, whether or not the procedure effects occur is, according to the claim, merely the result of the claimed wavelengths of light—the device of Okawa meets the required structure of this claim and the required wavelength ranges and therefore is capable of upregulating growth factors, and therefore teaches these claim limitations— from MPEP 2114: A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim).
Regarding claim 36, Okawa as modified teaches the diode lasing device of claim 30.
Okawa further teaches wherein: said dental composite is cured through a structure of a tooth enamel from outside into a tooth cavity preparation upon said exposure to emissions from said second laser diode (¶[0270] Okawa teaches simultaneous light emission from the light emitting devices; the Examiner further notes that there are no claim limitations directed to controlling the laser diodes, and therefore the intended procedures are intended uses of the device. Furthermore, whether or not the procedure effects occur is, according to the claim, merely the result of the claimed wavelengths of light—the device of Okawa meets the required structure of this claim and the required wavelength ranges and therefore is capable of curing dental composite through a structure of a tooth enamel from outside into a tooth cavity preparation, and therefore teaches these claim limitations— from MPEP 2114: A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Additionally, this claim has a relative location “outside” with no context, so any location of the device may be considered “outside”).
Regarding claim 37, Okawa as modified teaches the diode lasing device of claim 30.
Okawa further teaches wherein: placing the distal end of a delivery fiber out of contact with said dental composite, wherein placing said distal end of said delivery fiber near contact with a soft tissue thereby activating said emission from said second laser diode will enable the operator to cut soft tissue and cure composite simultaneously (¶[0270] Okawa teaches simultaneous light emission from the light emitting devices; the Examiner further notes that there are no claim limitations directed to controlling the laser diodes, and therefore the intended procedures are intended uses of the device. Furthermore, whether or not the procedure effects occur is, according to the claim, merely the result of the claimed wavelengths of light or position of the device—the device of Okawa meets the required structure of this claim and the required wavelength ranges and therefore is capable of being placed out of and into contact with soft tissue, and therefore teaches these claim limitations— from MPEP 2114: A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Additionally, no structure or functional recitation in this claim requires the emission from the recited laser diodes to ever be stopped, and therefore an “always on” configuration still meets the claimed function).
Regarding claim 39, Okawa as modified teaches the diode lasing device of claim 30.
Okawa further teaches wherein: said dental composites are cured through nonmetallic matrix bands including polyester, celluloid and acetate from the outside into a tooth cavity preparation upon said exposure to emissions from the second laser diode (¶[0270] Okawa teaches simultaneous light emission from the light emitting devices; the Examiner further notes that there are no claim limitations directed to controlling the laser diodes, and therefore the intended procedures are intended uses of the device. Furthermore, whether or not the procedure effects occur is, according to the claim, merely the result of the claimed wavelengths of light—the device of Okawa meets the required structure of this claim and the required wavelength ranges and therefore is capable of curing dental composite from outside into a tooth cavity preparation, and therefore teaches these claim limitations— from MPEP 2114: A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Additionally, this claim has a relative location “outside” with no context, so any location of the device may be considered “outside”, and the dental composite itself is not a positively claimed structural component of the diode lasing device).
Regarding claim 40, Okawa as modified teaches the diode lasing device of claim 30.
Okawa further teaches wherein a ceramic restoration is cured from one side of a veneer through a tooth structure to shrink said composite toward a tooth upon said exposure to emissions from said second laser diode (¶[0270] Okawa teaches simultaneous light emission from the light emitting devices; the Examiner further notes that there are no claim limitations directed to controlling the laser diodes, and therefore the intended procedures are intended uses of the device. Furthermore, whether or not the procedure effects occur is, according to the claim, merely the result of the claimed wavelengths of light—the device of Okawa meets the required structure of this claim and the required wavelength ranges and therefore is capable of a ceramic restoration curing from one side of a veneer through a tooth structure, and therefore teaches these claim limitations— from MPEP 2114: A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.).
Regarding claim 41, Okawa as modified teaches the diode lasing device of claim 30.
Okawa further teaches wherein: veneers and crowns, during initial photopolymerization upon said exposure to emissions from said second laser diode, are tack-cured in at least one area to anchor the restoration in place thereby facilitating removal of an interproximally uncured composite prior to final photopolymerization (¶[0270] Okawa teaches simultaneous light emission from the light emitting devices; the Examiner further notes that there are no claim limitations directed to controlling the laser diodes, and therefore the intended procedures are intended uses of the device. Furthermore, whether or not the procedure effects occur is, according to the claim, merely the result of the claimed wavelengths of light—the device of Okawa meets the required structure of this claim and the required wavelength ranges and therefore is capable of tack curing a restoration to anchor it in place facilitating the removal of uncured composite before final photopolymerization, and therefore teaches these claim limitations— from MPEP 2114: A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.).
Claim(s) 35, 43, and 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okawa and Altshuler as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of Krespi (U.S. Patent No. 7,544,204) hereinafter referred to as Krespi; and Bollinger et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0130622) hereinafter referred to as Bollinger.
Regarding claim 35, Okawa as modified teaches the diode lasing device of claim 30.
Okawa further teaches wherein:
for an in vivo dental composite heating and subsequent photopolymerization (this is an intended use and does not describe any additional structure, the device of Okawa is capable of this claimed use), said second laser diode emitting light with a wavelength of 800 to 1200 nanometers (¶[0176] infrared, NIR); and
after heating the composite (this is an intended use and does not describe any additional structure, the device of Okawa is capable of this claimed use), automatically deactivating the second laser and automatically activating the first laser (¶[0267] sequential emission) for photopolymerizing the composite (this is an intended use and does not describe any additional structure, the device of Okawa is capable of this claimed use).
Okawa does not teach the second laser operated at 0.4 to 2.0 Watts for 5 to 30 seconds, or the first laser at 0.2 to 0.4 Watts for 1 to 10 seconds using a 10 to 30 Hz pulsed emission.
Attention is drawn to the Krespi reference, which teaches 0.4 to 2.0 Watts (col. 20, lines 1-3) for 5 to 30 seconds (col. 19, lines 30-38) with a wavelength of 800-1200 nm (col. 35, lines 35-42); and 0.2 to 0.4 Watts (col. 20, lines 1-3) for 1 to 10 (col. 19, lines 30-38) seconds using a 10 to 30 Hz pulsed emission (col. 19, lines 39-45 and 50-59).
Krespi also teaches that the energy, or fluence, of radiation treatment should be configured by one of ordinary skill to effectively provide therapy without physiological damage or other adverse effects (col. 21, lines 4-9) thereby showing that the dosing is a results-effective variable.
Bollinger also teaches that a clinician using laser radiation for endodontic applications must precisely control laser parameters such as power, fluence, pulse width, total dose, among others (¶¶[0042-0044]) both to effect successful treatment (¶[0043]) and to avoid patient harm (¶[0044]), thereby showing that all laser parameters are considered results-effective in the art of laser treatment.
Therefore, if would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the light radiation treatments of Okawa to include the laser parameters taught by Krespi, because "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 43, Okawa teaches the diode lasing device of claim 30.
Okawa doesn’t discuss power delivery, pulse frequency, or percent duty cycle.
Attention is drawn to the Krespi reference, which teaches wherein: in a pulsed laser operating mode, said power delivered from a single optical fiber is varied by pulsing said second laser diode emissions at a frequency of 10 Hz to 50 Hz (col. 19, lines 50-59) using a 20 to 100 msec pulse width with a 50% duty cycle (col. 19, lines 50-59 pulse width and pulse delay overlap in range, thereby teaching an embodiment with a 50% duty cycle).
Krespi also teaches that the energy, or fluence, of radiation treatment should be configured by one of ordinary skill to effectively provide therapy without physiological damage or other adverse effects (col. 21, lines 4-9) thereby showing that the dosing is a results-effective variable.
Bollinger also teaches that a clinician using laser radiation for endodontic applications must precisely control laser parameters such as power, fluence, pulse width, total dose, among others (¶¶[0042-0044]) both to effect successful treatment (¶[0043]) and to avoid patient harm (¶[0044]), thereby showing that all laser parameters are considered results-effective in the art of laser treatment.
Therefore, if would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the light radiation treatments of Okawa to include the laser parameters taught by Krespi, because "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 47, Okawa teaches the laser diode lasing device of claim 31.
Okawa does not discuss power delivery.
Krespi further teaches for delivering from said single optical fiber a power of up to 5 Watts (W) at 400-510 nm and up to 25W at 800-1200 nm, and wherein said laser device delivers up to 1,000 mW at 600-750 nm (Krespi teaches overall power limits for laser irradiation of 1,000 mW/cm2 in col. 20, lines 1-3).
Krespi also teaches that the energy, or fluence, of radiation treatment should be configured by one of ordinary skill to effectively provide therapy without physiological damage or other adverse effects (col. 21, lines 4-9) thereby showing that the dosing is a results-effective variable.
Bollinger also teaches that a clinician using laser radiation for endodontic applications must precisely control laser parameters such as power, fluence, pulse width, total dose, among others (¶¶[0042-0044]) both to effect successful treatment (¶[0043]) and to avoid patient harm (¶[0044]), thereby showing that all laser parameters are considered results-effective in the art of laser treatment.
Therefore, if would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the light radiation treatments of Okawa to include the power dosages taught by Krespi, because "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 38 and 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okawa and Altshuler as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of Bollinger et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0130622) hereinafter referred to as Bollinger.
Regarding claim 38, Okawa teaches the diode lasing device claim 30.
Okawa does not teach timed warnings to prevent a) over-polymerization of a composite.
Bollinger teaches further comprising: timed warnings (¶[0105] for example, ¶[0111], ¶[0118], etc.) to prevent a) over-polymerization of a composite (“to prevent” is an intended use, and the device of Bollinger is capable of this use).
It would have been obvious to modify the laser device of Okawa to include timed warnings, as taught by Bollinger, because Bollinger teaches that it is imperative that the energy delivery to the tooth per selected treatment be accurate (Bollinger ¶[0140],) and essential to manage the light dose to tissue for avoiding damage (Bollinger ¶[0050]).
Regarding claim 45, Okawa teaches the diode lasing device of claim 30.
Okawa does not teach that the numerical sum of energy delivered from the single optical fiber (Joules) is displayed to an operator.
Bollinger further teaches wherein: for a particular time period energy from said first laser diode and second laser diode is intermittently delivered from said single optical fiber and a numerical sum of energy delivered from the single optical fiber (Joules) is displayed to an operator (¶[0105], ¶[0107] color coding that corresponds to 200 Joules).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the laser device of Okawa to include a display of energy dose, as taught by Bollinger, because Bollinger teaches that the control of the laser device of Bollinger facilitates control of all laser parameters by the clinician (Bollinger ¶[0047])
Claim(s) 42 and 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okawa and Altshuler as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of Krespi (U.S. Patent No. 7,544,204) hereinafter referred to as Krespi; Bollinger et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0130622) hereinafter referred to as Bollinger; and Hipsley (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0316388) hereinafter referred to as Hipsley.
Regarding claims 42 and 46, Okawa teaches the diode lasing device of claim 30/31.
Okawa does not discuss a setpoint controlled mode.
Attention is drawn to Krespi, which teaches a duty cycle of 20% to 65% (col. 19, lines 50-59 pulse width and pulse delay overlap in range, thereby teaching an embodiment with a 20-65% duty cycle).
Krespi also teaches that the energy, or fluence, of radiation treatment should be configured by one of ordinary skill to effectively provide therapy without physiological damage or other adverse effects (col. 21, lines 4-9) thereby showing that the dosing is a results-effective variable.
Bollinger also teaches that a clinician using laser radiation for endodontic applications must precisely control laser parameters such as power, fluence, pulse width, total dose, among others (¶¶[0042-0044]) both to effect successful treatment (¶[0043]) and to avoid patient harm (¶[0044]), thereby showing that all laser parameters are considered results-effective in the art of laser treatment.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the laser radiation of Okawa as modified to include a duty cycle of 20% to 65% because "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
However, Okawa, Krespi, and Bollinger do not teach a power set-point controlled mode, or a feedback loop for controlling the output power of laser radiation.
Attention is brought to the Hipsley reference, which teaches a set-point controlled operating mode (¶[0097]); and, an output power of the single beam is controlled to a particular set-point via a feedback loop with a power meter (¶[0100]), and a laser power instrument that measures actual power (Watts) to determine if the power of the single beam emitted from the single optical fiber equals the displayed power setting (¶[0100]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the power delivery of Okawa as modified to include a power meter and laser feedback system for controlling actual power delivery via power set-point control, as taught by Hipsley, because Hipsley teaches that it allows for compensation of variations in incoming voltage and degradation of laser diodes (Hipsley ¶[0097]) and Bollinger teaches that a clinician using laser radiation for endodontic applications must precisely control laser parameters such as power, fluence, pulse width, total dose, among others (¶¶[0042-0044]) both to effect successful treatment (¶[0043]) and to avoid patient harm (¶[0044]), thereby showing that all laser parameters are considered results-effective in the art of laser treatment.
Claim(s) 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okawa and Altshuler as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of Altshuler et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0065575) hereinafter referred to as Altshuler 2.
Regarding claim 44, Okawa teaches the diode lasing device of claim 30.
Okawa does not discuss continuous wave emission.
Attention is brought to the Altshuler 2 reference, which teaches laser diode emissions comprising continuous wave emission.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the laser light emission of Okawa to include continuous wave emission, as taught by Altshuler 2, because Altshuler 2 teaches that using continuous wave emission achieves “minimal size and price of the dental system,” (Altshuler 2 ¶[0070]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA L STEINBERG whose telephone number is (303)297-4783. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-4.
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, James Kish can be reached at (571) 272-5554. 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.
/AMANDA L STEINBERG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3792