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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/26/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks (pages 8-11, filed 09/26/2025) have been fully considered. The amended limitations do not overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103 in view of the prior art of record; said amendments do not place the case in condition for allowance.
Upon careful consideration the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assessment that Blain (US 20050272001 A1) fails to disclose “the apparatus comprising: a treatment fluid supply configured to supply a treatment fluid to a treatment region of the tooth through a fluid supply line; an evacuation line positioned upstream of the treatment region configured to receive the treatment fluid.
Blain discloses an apparatus for treating a tooth (oral care device Figure 1; [0061]), the apparatus comprising: a treatment fluid supply (60) configured to supply a treatment fluid to a treatment region of the tooth through a fluid supply line (Figure 4A, member 40; [0064]-[0065]); an evacuation line positioned upstream of the treatment region configured to receive the treatment fluid (Blain’s Annotated Figures 4A & 12).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 1, 2, 12 and 183 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Claim 1 recites “an evacuation line positioned upstream of the treatment region”, wherein the treatment region is claimed as region of a tooth and wherein the tooth is understood to encompass part of a human organism. Therefore, the human organism would be required in order to meet the limitations of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 12 and 183 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 1 recites “an evacuation line positioned upstream of the treatment region”, wherein the treatment region is claimed as region of a tooth. It is unclear if this is intended to recite a functional recitation or if the tooth is being positively claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2 and 12, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being as being anticipated by Blain (US 20050272001 A1); as evidenced by Butterfield (US 5803917 A), further evidenced by All the Science (NPL previously presented); further evidenced by Merriam-Webster Dictionary (NPL previously presented).
Regarding claim 1, Blain discloses an apparatus for treating a tooth (oral care device Figure 1; [0061]), the apparatus comprising: a treatment fluid supply (60) configured to supply a treatment fluid to a treatment region of the tooth through a fluid supply line (Figure 4A, member 40; [0064]-[0065]); an evacuation line positioned upstream of the treatment region configured to receive the treatment fluid (Blain’s Annotated Figures 4A & 12); and a pressure wave generator configured to generate pressure waves in the treatment fluid (since the fluid is moved through the treatment fluid supply by implementing compression means; such as annular constrictions with ferrofluids). The Examiner notes that compressions/constrictions means applied to a tube which contains a fluid would create pressure waves, since inducing a bolus of fluid in an infusion system causes a pressure wave, as evidenced by Butterfield (col 2, lines 35-50). Therefore, Blain discloses a pressure wave generator conformed by a ferrofluid material which reacts to an electromagnetic energy generated by motor (34), in order to apply a constriction action on a treatment fluid supply line ([0075]).
The pressure wave generator comprising: a volume (57) housing an electromagnetically responsive material (ferrofluid) (since element 57 could be a compression element, such as an annular constriction with ferrofluids, Figure 9, member 57, [0075]). A diaphragm (membrane 83) comprising a first outer side and a second outer side, the first outer side exposed to the volume, the second outer side exposed to the treatment fluid (Blain’s Annotated Figures 8-9A). The Examiner further notes that when the embodiment regarding volume 57 is implemented, the bottom part (second outer side) of the diaphragm (membrane 80) would be exposed to the treatment fluid inside treatment fluid supply (40). Also, the top part (first outer side) of the diaphragm (membrane 80) would be exposed to the electromagnetic responsive material inside volume 57.
The diaphragm (80) being movable such that movement of the electromagnetically responsive material within the volume (57) causes vibration of the diaphragm (since a constriction action of the ferrofluid contained in volume 57 would cause movement/vibration of the diaphragm (80) to create pressure waves in the treatment fluid supply (40), along with delivering the fluid through the treatment fluid supply (40); see Blain’s Annotated Figures 8-9A; [0075]). And an electromagnetic generator (34) coupled to the volume (57) (since the electric motor (34), shown coupled to the pumping system in Figure 4B, would be coupled to the volume (57) instead when the embodiment regarding volume 57 is implemented, to induce an annular constriction movement in the ferrofluid using electromagnetic energy [0075]).
The electromagnetic generator (34) configured to generate electromagnetic energy; wherein the electromagnetically responsive material (ferrofluid) is responsive to the electromagnetic energy generated by the electromagnetic generator so as to cause vibration and oscillation of the diaphragm back and forth in a wave-like pattern at one or more frequencies (since the electromagnetic generator is an electric motor 34 ([0066]), which is capable of generating an electromagnetic energy; also, a ferrofluid material contained in volume 57 would respond and move due to the electromagnetic field created by motor 34; causing movement of diaphragm (80), which is in contact with the volume (57), as explained above). Said movement of the diaphragm could be a vibration, since the electromagnetic waves generated by motor 34 could generate vibration of the ferromagnetic fluid, the nature of said vibrations would depend on the frequency of the electromagnetic waves generated. Additionally, the Examiner gave the broadest reasonable interpretation to the term “vibration” and noted that according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary vibrations is “a periodic motion of the particles of an elastic body or medium in alternately opposite directions from the position of equilibrium when that equilibrium has been disturbed”; therefore, the electromagnetic generator (motor 34) can cause vibration of the elastic body (ferrofluid).
Wherein the vibration and the oscillation of the diaphragm generates acoustic waves with the treatment fluid during operation of the apparatus (since the electromagnetic responsive material (ferrofluid) could be used to apply a constriction action over the treatment supply (40); therefore, inducing a pressure wave in the treatment fluid). The ferrofluid would be responsive to the electromagnetic field created by motor (34) and that said pressure wave could create an acoustic wave in the treatment fluid, since an acoustic wave is an oscillation of pressure that travels through a solid, liquid, or gas in a wave pattern as evidenced by All the Science. Additionally, any treatment fluid used to treat the teeth would have a predetermined acoustic signature.
And a controller configured to control operation of the electromagnetic generator, wherein the controller generates a current in the electromagnetic generator to produce the acoustic waves in the treatment fluid having a predetermined acoustic signature (since controller 400 is electrically connected to the motors 34, and that generally governs operation of the motors [0099] and the ferrofluid would be responsive to the electromagnetic field created by motor (34) and that said pressure wave could create an acoustic wave in the treatment fluid, any treatment fluid used to treat the teeth would have a predetermined acoustic signature, as explained above).
PNG
media_image1.png
678
1217
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 1. Blain’s Annotated Figures 8-9A.)]
PNG
media_image2.png
577
859
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 2. Blain’s Annotated Figures 4A & 12.)]
Regarding claim 2, Blain teaches wherein the electromagnetically responsive material comprises a ferrofluid ([0075]).
Regarding claim 12, Blain discloses wherein the controller (400) is configured to send control signals to the electromagnetic generator (34), the control signals selected to cause the electromagnetic generator (34) to generate electromagnetic energy ([0099]) which causes a response in the electromagnetically responsive material (ferrofluid) to produce the acoustic waves in the treatment fluid having the predetermined acoustic signature (since the ferrofluid could be used to apply a constriction action over the treatment supply (40); therefore, inducing a pressure wave in the treatment fluid). The ferrofluid would be responsive to the electromagnetic field created by motor (34) and that said pressure wave could create an acoustic wave in the treatment fluid, since an acoustic wave is an oscillation of pressure that travels through a solid, liquid, or gas in a wave pattern as evidenced by All the Science. Additionally, any treatment fluid used to treat the teeth would have a predetermined acoustic signature.
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 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.
Claim 19, 23, 35-37 and 183 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blain in view of Khakpour (US 20160095679 A1), as evidenced by Butterfield, further evidenced by All the Science (NPL previously presented); further evidenced by ScienceDirect (NPL previously presented).
Regarding claim 19, Blain discloses an apparatus for treating a tooth (Figure 1; [0061]), the apparatus comprising: a pressure wave generator (motor 34) comprising an electromagnetic element configured to convert electromagnetic energy to acoustic waves in a fluid by causing an electromagnetically responsive medium to vibrate back and forth at one or more frequencies to generate acoustic waves in the fluid. Since the fluid is moved through the treatment fluid supply (40) by implementing compression means; such as annular constrictions with ferrofluids ([0075]). The Examiner notes that compressions/constrictions means applied to a tube which contains a fluid would create pressure waves, since inducing a bolus of fluid in an infusion system causes a pressure wave, as evidenced by Butterfield (col 2, lines 35-50). Therefore, there is a pressure wave generator conformed by a ferrofluid material which reacts to an electromagnetic energy generated by motor (34), in order to apply a constriction action on a treatment fluid supply line ([0075]).
The fluid is configured to flow through a fluid supply (40) and flow out of an evacuation line (Blain’s Annotated Figures 4A & 12, above). And a controller (400) configured to send control signals to the electromagnetic element (motor 34), the control signals selected to cause the electromagnetic element to generate electromagnetic energy ([0099]) that produces the acoustic waves in the fluid having a predetermined acoustic signature. Since the ferrofluid could be used to apply a constriction action over the treatment supply (40); therefore, inducing a pressure wave in the treatment fluid ([0075]). Also, said pressure wave could create an acoustic wave in the treatment fluid, since an acoustic wave is an oscillation of pressure that travels through a solid, liquid, or gas in a wave pattern as evidenced by All the Science. Additionally, electromagnetic element (motor 34) can cause the ferromagnetic fluid to vibrate; the nature of said vibrations would depend on the frequency of the electromagnetic waves generated. Additionally, the examiner notes that any treatment fluid used to treat the teeth would have a predetermined acoustic signature. Blain fails to disclose the acoustic waves comprise oscillations of the fluid that cause cavitation during operation of the apparatus. However, the Examiner notes that it is well known in the art that cavitation does not occur during sonic activated irrigation, since it is only possible when employing ultrasonic irrigators, as evidenced by ScienceDirect.
On the other hand, Khakpour discloses an apparatus for treating a tooth (Abstract). Also, Khakpour discloses a pressure wave generator which generates an acoustic, ultrasonic power ([0090]) wherein the acoustic waves comprise oscillations of the fluid that cause cavitation during operation of the apparatus ([0075]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Blain’s pressure wave generator to make it an ultrasonic generator, as taught by Khakpour, since such modification would create a device that has sufficient power to thoroughly clean surfaces either inside or outside the tooth ([0075]).
Regarding claim 23, Blain/Khakpour discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Blain discloses wherein the electromagnetically responsive medium comprises a plurality of ferrous particles, since a ferrofluid is used as a compression mean to move the treatment fluid through the treatment supply (40) ([0075]).
Regarding claim 35, Blain/Khakpour, as modified above, fails to disclose a sensor configured to measure an acoustic signature of acoustic waves. However, Khakpour further discloses a sensor (48) which can be used to sense the pressure of the liquid and communicate pressure information to the system controller 51, where the system controller 51 can use the pressure information to adjust the output of the motor 40 ([0124]). A sensor configured to measure an acoustic signature of acoustic waves produced during a treatment procedure, since a hydrophone is used to detect the acoustic waves created by the pressure wave generator ([0170]). This device is configured to receive information from the acoustic sensor (hydrophone) and use that information to control the output of motor 40. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Blain’s apparatus with the teachings of Khakpour regarding a hydrophone to detect the acoustic waves created by the pressure wave generator and a controller configured to receive information from the hydrophone and using these signals to control the motor, since such modification would allow the tooth cleaning apparatus to control the output of the motor based on the acoustic energy signal from the treatment fluid; making the apparatus more efficient at creating the correct acoustic wavelength necessary to clean/treat the teeth and create cavitation.
Regarding claim 36 Blain/Khakpour, as modified directly above, teaches the limitations as claimed. Khakpour teaches that a sensor (48) which can be used to sense the pressure of the liquid and communicate pressure information to the system controller 51, where the system controller 51 can use the pressure information to adjust the output of motor 40 ([0124]). Also, Khakpour teaches the use of a hydrophone sensor to detect the acoustic waves created by the pressure wave generator ([0170]). The Examiner notes that the device made by the disclosure of Blain/Khakpour, as combined above, is configured to receive information from the acoustic sensor (hydrophone disclosed by Khakpour) and use that information to control the output of motor (Blain: 34) via controller (Khakpour: 51). Therefore, by taking the combined teachings of Blain and Khakpour, as a whole, Blain/Khakpour discloses wherein the controller (Khakpour: 51) is configured to adjust the control signals based on the measured acoustic signature of the acoustic waves produced during the treatment procedure, since Khakpour discloses that the system controller 51 can use the pressure information to adjust the motor to provide a target pressure for the fluid delivered ([0124]); therefore being configured to perform the same controlling operations using the measured acoustic signature of the acoustic waves produced during the treatment procedure.
Regarding claim 37, Blain/Khakpour teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Khakpour discloses wherein the controller (51) is configured to compare the measured acoustic signature to the predetermined acoustic signature and adjust the control signals based on a comparison between the measured acoustic signature and the predetermined acoustic signature (since Khakpour discloses the use of an acoustic sensor, [0170]). The Examiner notes that Khakpour’s controller is configured to receive an acoustic signal from the acoustic sensor and comparing the measured acoustic signature to the predetermined acoustic signature and adjust the control signals based on the comparison between the measured acoustic signature and the predetermined acoustic signature, since Khakpour discloses that its controller performs similar operations based of pressure signal to provide a target pressure for the treatment fluid ([0124]).
Regarding claim 183, Blain fails to disclose wherein the acoustic waves comprise oscillations of the treatment fluid configured to cause cavitation. However, it is well known in the art that cavitation does not occur during sonic activated irrigation, since it is only possible when employing ultrasonic irrigators, as evidenced by ScienceDirect.
Khakpour discloses a pressure wave generator which generates an acoustic, ultrasonic power ([0090]) wherein the acoustic waves comprise oscillations of the treatment fluid configured to cause cavitation ([0075]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Blain’s pressure wave generator to make it an ultrasonic generator, as taught by Khakpour, since such modification would create a device that has sufficient power to thoroughly clean surfaces either inside or outside the tooth ([0075]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS MIGUEL RUIZ MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)270-0839. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 Am - 5 PM (EST).
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, Eric Rosen can be reached on (571) 270-7855. 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.
/LUIS RUIZ MARTIN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772