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
Note: The Examiner presented to the Applicant proposed amendments for claims 1, 23 and the cancelation of claim 41, via telephone, on 09/18/2024. The proposed claims would result in an amendment, which would result in allowance of the application. Please see the proposed claims below.
Claim 1: An apparatus for treating a tooth, the apparatus comprising:
a fluid platform comprising a wall and a chamber at least partially defined by the wall, the fluid platform to be disposed against a tooth to retain fluid in the chamber and provide fluid communication between a treatment region of the tooth and the chamber by way of an access port, the chamber having a central axis;
a liquid supply port disposed to direct a liquid stream across the chamber along a stream axis non-parallel to the central axis to impinge on a portion of the wall opposite the liquid supply port; and
a suction port exposed to the chamber,
wherein the chamber has a maximum lateral dimension in a plane extending substantially transverse to the central axis, the plane delimited by the wall along a boundary; wherein a projection of the suction port onto the plane, comprising the same shape and dimensions as the opening of the suction port, is closer to the boundary than to the central axis of the chamber, a direction of the projection of the suction port being perpendicular to the plane.
Claim 23: An apparatus for treating a tooth, the apparatus comprising:
a fluid platform comprising an upper wall, a sidewall extending from the upper wall and a chamber at least partially defined by the upper wall and the sidewall, the fluid platform to be disposed against a tooth to retain fluid in the chamber and provide fluid communication between a treatment region of the tooth and the chamber by way of an access port, the chamber having a chamber axis extending substantially transversely through a center of the access port;
a nozzle disposed to direct a liquid jet across the chamber along a stream axis to impinge upon a portion of the sidewall opposite the nozzle, the stream axis non-parallel to the chamber axis, wherein the chamber axis lies on a first plane substantially transverse to the stream axis and the stream axis intersects the first plane at a location closer to the chamber axis than to the sidewall; and
a suction port exposed to the chamber, wherein the chamber has a maximum lateral dimension in a second plane extending substantially transverse to the chamber axis, the second plane delimited by the sidewall along a boundary; wherein a projection of the suction port onto the second plane, comprising the same shape and dimensions as the opening of the suction port, is closer to the boundary than to the chamber axis, a direction of the projection of the suction port being perpendicular to the second plane.
Claim 41: [Cancel].
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Remarks (pages 7-12, filed 12/05/2025), with respect to claims 1 and 3-41 have been fully considered. Applicant’s arguments against the rejections of claims 1, and 3-41 view of the prior art of record have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assessments. Khakpour does disclose a connector that removably connects the tip device to a handpiece body to form a hand-held treatment instrument. Since a connector removably connects the tip device (coupling member 3) to a hand-held device (device comprised by the console 2 and the conduits 4); since the tip device (coupling member 3) can be mechanically connected to conduits 4 and the console 2. The Examiner notes that said assembly has to be hand-held in order to place the tip device 3 over a patient’s teeth. Please see Figure 1A and [0054]; therefore, a connector must be present. Additionally, Figure 3B clearly shows the handpiece 20 which connect to coupling member 3.
Khakpour discloses a liquid supply port (61) disposed to direct a liquid stream across the chamber (6) along a stream axis (X) non-parallel to the central axis (Z) to impinge on a portion of the wall opposite the liquid supply port. Since the fluid 22 into the chamber 6 introduces fluid motion 24 in the chamber. As shown in FIG. 10A, for example, the fluid motion 24 comprises a rotational flow of fluid in the chamber 6. The fluid motion 24 can define a rotational flow path or field substantially about an axis transverse to the central axis Z of the root canal 13 (e.g. the fluid flows in a direction ω about axes transverse to the central axis Z) ([0200]-[0202]). The Examiner notes that in order for the fluid to create rotational flow, it has to impinge on a portion of the wall opposite the liquid supply port. Additionally, as clearly shown in Figure 10A, the direction of the fluid delivered by the fluid supply port 61 is toward the wall opposite the liquid supply port (fluid directed in an X direction transverse to the central axis Z); therefore, said liquid would impinge on a portion of said wall, since the this is how the vortices would be formed in the chamber ([0201]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 3-4, 21, 23 and 41 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 54, 57 and 63 of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/412,774, hereafter, co-pending application.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons:
It is clear that all the elements of claim 1 in the immediate application are found in claim 1 of the co-pending application, as analyzed below. The claims are not identical; however an apparatus for treating a tooth, the apparatus comprising: a fluid platform comprising a wall and a chamber at least partially defined by the wall, the fluid platform to be disposed against a tooth to retain fluid in the chamber and provide fluid communication between a treatment region of the tooth and the chamber by way of an access port, the chamber having a central axis; a liquid supply port comprising a nozzle positioned within the wall of the fluid platform and disposed to direct a liquid stream across the chamber along a stream axis non- parallel to the central axis to impinge on a portion of the wall opposite the nozzle; and a suction port exposed to the chamber, wherein the chamber has a maximum lateral dimension in a plane extending substantially transverse to the central axis, the plane delimited by the wall along a boundary, a projection of the suction port onto the plane being closer to the boundary than to the central axis of the chamber, a direction of the projection of the suction port being perpendicular to the plane; would have been obvious over the apparatus cited in the co-pending application.
The difference between the claims of the immediate application and the claims of the co-application lies in the fact that the co-application’s claims include many more elements and steps, thus is much more specific. Thus, the invention of the co-application is in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of the immediate application. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since the claims in the immediate application are anticipated by the claims of the co-pending application, therefore, the immediate application is not patentably distinct from the claims of the co-pending application. Claims 1, 3-4, 21, 23 and 41 in the immediate application have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claims 54, 57 and 63 in the co-pending application. Please see the double patenting analysis below.
Claim 1 is rejected with respect to claim 54 of co-pending application.
Claim 3 is rejected with respect to claim 54 of co-pending application.
Claim 4 is rejected with respect to claim 54 of co-pending application.
Claim 21 is rejected with respect to claim 57 of co-pending application.
Claim 23 is rejected with respect to claim 54 of co-pending application.
Claim 41 is rejected with respect to claim 63 of co-pending application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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(s) 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Khakpour (US 20140220505 A1); or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Khakpour.
Regarding claim 41, Khakpour’s embodiment according to figure 1A discloses an apparatus for treating a tooth (Figure 1A, Abstract), the apparatus comprising:
a tip device (coupling member 3) comprising: a fluid platform to be positioned against a region of a tooth (10), the fluid platform at least partially defining a chamber (6) to be in fluid communication with a treatment region of the tooth (since the chamber defines a fluid platform where fluid motion 24 is contained [0054]);
a pressure wave generator (5) coupled to the platform, the pressure wave generator configured to generate pressure waves in fluid provided at the treatment region;
a fluid outlet to convey fluid from the chamber (6) (Figure 1A, [0054]) (since an outlet must be present to supply fluid 24 into the chamber). The Examiner notes that said outlet is shown to member 61 in the additional embodiments of Khakpour’s device; and
a connector that removably connects the tip device (coupling member 3) to a hand-held body to form a hand-held treatment instrument (hand-held body comprised by the console 2 and the conduits 4 (since the tip device (coupling member 3) can be mechanically connected to conduits 4 and the console 2. The Examiner notes that said assembly has to be hand-held in order to place the tip device 3 over a patient’s teeth. Please see Figure 1A and [0054]; therefore, a connector must be present); also see paragraph 0139 disclosing ability to connect to a positioning device; if a device has a connector that would allow it to be connected to a positioning arm it would also be capable of connecting to a handpiece body to form a hand-held treatment instrument; also note that the “hand-held treatment instrument” is not positively claimed and only the connector that is able to removably connect to a handpiece body is required.
Alternatively even though Khakpour’s embodiment according to Figure 1A does not specifically disclose a handpiece body, Khakpour’s additional embodiment according to Figure 3B clearly shows the handpiece 20 which connect to coupling member 3. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Khakpour’s embodiment according to Figure 1A to create a connector that removably connects the tip device to a handpiece body, since such modification would be a simple substitution of one known element (i.e. hand-held body comprised by the console 2 and the conduits 4) for another (i.e. handpiece as shown in Figure 3B) to obtain predictable results (e.g. a conventional dental assembly comprised by a handpiece including a tip that is used for working on a tooth’s surface).
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-15, 18, 20-31, 34 and 36-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khakpour.
Regarding claim 1, Khakpour’s embodiment according to figures 10A discloses an apparatus for treating a tooth (Figure 10A, Abstract), the apparatus comprising:
a fluid platform (3) comprising a wall (21) and a chamber (6) at least partially defined by the wall (21), the fluid platform (3) to be disposed against a tooth (10) to retain fluid (22) in the chamber (6) and provide fluid communication between a treatment region of the tooth and the chamber by way of an access port (18) (Figures 10A, [0201]).
The chamber (6) having a central axis (since the root canal has a central axis (Z) [0196]). The Examiner notes that said central axis (Z) can be projected as the central axis of chamber (6) as well, shown in Figure 10A. A liquid supply port (61) comprising a nozzle (25) positioned within the wall of the fluid platform (the entire nozzle 25 is positioned within the wall of the fluid platform, the nozzle begins at the walls and it is within the enclosure of the chamber created by the wall; see Khakpour’s Annotated Figure 10A below) and disposed to direct a liquid stream across the chamber (6) along a stream axis (X) non-parallel to the central axis (Z) to impinge on a portion of the wall opposite the nozzle (25) (since the fluid 22 into the chamber 6 introduces fluid motion 24 in the chamber). As shown in FIG. 10A, for example, the fluid motion 24 comprises a rotational flow of fluid in the chamber 6. The fluid motion 24 can define a rotational flow path or field substantially about an axis transverse to the central axis Z of the root canal 13 (e.g. the fluid flows in a direction ω about axes transverse to the central axis Z) ([0200]-[0202]). The Examiner notes that in order for the fluid to create rotational flow, it has to impinge on a portion of the wall opposite the liquid supply port.
And a suction port (62) exposed to the chamber (Figure 10A; [0205]), wherein the chamber (6) has a maximum lateral dimension in a plane (defined by axis X in Figure 10A) extending substantially transverse to the central axis (Z), the plane delimited by the wall along a boundary (since as shown in Figure 10A, the chamber has a maximum lateral dimension in a plane extending and defined by axis (X), which is substantially transverse to the central axis Z).
Khakpour’s embodiment according to Figure 10A discloses a suction port (62) being close to the boundaries (walls 21) of the chamber (6) (Figure 10A), but fails to disclose a projection of the suction port onto the plane being closer to the boundary than to the central axis of the chamber. However, the Examiner notes that the position of a projection of the suction port onto the plane lacks criticality in the specifications of the immediate application and would not have modified the operation of the device. The Examiner further notes that Khakpour’s embodiment according to Figures 9A-9D discloses “a projection of the suction port onto the plane being closer to the boundary than to the central axis of the chamber, the projection of the suction port being perpendicular to the plane” (please see below Khakpour’s Annotated Figure 9D). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the position of the suction port making it even closer to the boundary and therefore creating a projection of the suction port onto the plane that is closer to the boundary than to the central axis of the chamber, as taught by Khakpour’s embodiment according to Figures 9A-9D, since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of parts is within the skill of the ordinary artisan (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)). Additionally, the Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to rearrange the suction port 62 to place it at any point inside the chamber 6, as long as a projection of the suction port onto the plane is closer to the boundary than to the central axis of the chamber (as disclosed by Annotated Figure 9D, below). For instance, it would have been obvious to rearrange the suction port to be parallel with the fluid inlet, 61 shown in Fig. 10A; when the suction port is rearranged to be in the same/mutual plane as the fluid inlet 61, said mutual plane being e.g. parallel to a second plane where the central axis Z lies (please see said rearrangement in Khakpour’s Annotated Figure 10A #1, below).
The Examiner notes that the combined teachings of Khakpour’s embodiments discloses a direction of the projection of the suction port being perpendicular to the plane (Khakpour’s Annotated Figure 9D). The Examiner notes that a projection of a structure is a geometric abstract idea that could have different directions and angulations which could be shifted as desired.
PNG
media_image1.png
724
972
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 1. Khakpour’s Annotated Figure 9D.)]
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 2. Khakpour’s Annotated Figure 10A #1.)]
PNG
media_image2.png
673
890
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 3. Khakpour’s Annotated Figure 9D)]
PNG
media_image3.png
626
434
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Khakpour discloses further comprising a pressure wave generator (5) configured to generate pressure waves and fluid motion in the chamber and the treatment region ([0201]).
Regarding claim 4, Khakpour discloses wherein the pressure wave generator (5) comprises a liquid jet (orifice or tip of the nozzle, note that set jet creates fluid flow 24, see Figure 10A and [0201]) device including the nozzle (25) configured to form a liquid jet, the liquid stream comprising the liquid jet (Figure 10A, [0201]-[0210]).
Regarding claim 5, Khakpour’s embodiment according to figure 10A discloses the pressure wave generator disposed inside the chamber (Figures 10A; [0197]), but fails to disclose wherein the pressure wave generator is disposed outside the chamber, as claimed. However, the Examiner notes that the position of the pressure wave generator lacks criticality in the specifications and would have not modified the operation of the device. Additionally, the Examiner notes that Khakpour’s embodiment according to figures 10F-10G discloses a pressure wave generator being partially outside of the chamber (Figures 10F-10G; [0213]) and Khakpour’s embodiment according to figure 10C discloses a pressure wave generator being contained in reservoir (78), which is against a wall of the platform, outside the chamber ([0208]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to rearrange the position of the pressure wave generator placing it outside the chamber, as taught by, Khakpour’s embodiment according to figures 10F-10G or according to figure 10C, since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of parts is within the skill of the ordinary artisan (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)).
Regarding claim 6, Khakpour discloses wherein the central axis (Z) passes substantially transversely through a center of the access port (18) (shown in Figure 10A).
Regarding claim 7, Khakpour discloses wherein the central axis (Z) lies on a second plane substantially transverse to the stream axis (X), and the stream axis intersects the second plane at a location closer to the central axis than to the boundary (since, as shown in Figure 10A, the interception of the stream axis (X) with the second plane, plane where central axis Z lies, is closer to the central axis (Z) than to the lateral walls 21).
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings of Khakpour’s embodiments discloses wherein the suction port (62) is closer to the boundary than to the location at which the stream axis intersects the second plane (since the suction port 62, as modified above in the rejection of claim 1 could be located closer to the sidewall than to the central axis of the chamber).
Regarding claim 9, the combined teachings of Khakpour’s embodiments discloses wherein the location at which the stream axis (X) intersects the second plane (plane where central axis Z lies) is closer to the central axis (Z) than to the suction port (62) (since the location at which the stream axis (X) intersects the second plane is at the lower central part of the chamber (Figure 10A) and the central axis (Z) passes through the center of the chamber; therefore said interception is located closer to the central axis than to any wall of the chamber where the suction port could be located).
Regarding claim 10, Khakpour discloses “wherein the stream axis (X) intersects the central axis (Z)” (Fig. 10A).
Regarding claim 11, Khakpour discloses wherein the stream axis is substantially perpendicular to the central axis ([0207]).
Regarding claim 12, Khakpour discloses wherein the nozzle (25) is disposed to direct the liquid stream through a laterally-central region of the chamber (since the liquid supply port (61) is disposed in the center of the chamber and the stream of liquid is directed towards the opposite lateral wall (21) of the chamber, as shown in Figure 10A).
Regarding claim 13, Khakpour discloses wherein the wall comprises an upper wall and a sidewall extending from the upper wall (Khakpour’s Annotated Figure 10A #2, below), the suction port (62) disposed closer to the sidewall than to the central axis of the chamber (since the suction port 62, as modified above in the rejection of claim 1 could be located closer to the sidewall than to the central axis of the chamber; please see Khakpour’s Annotated Figure 10A #1, above).
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 4. Khakpour’s Annotated Figure 10A #2. )]
PNG
media_image4.png
749
769
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Khakpour discloses wherein the suction port abuts or is at least partially defined by the sidewall (since the suction port 62, as modified above in the rejection of claim 1 could be located closer to the sidewall; therefore abutting towards the side wall, when the suction port is rearranged to be in the same/mutual plane as the fluid inlet 61, the suction port would be behind the fluid inlet 61; see Khakpour’s Annotated Figure 10A #1).
Regarding claim 15, Khakpour discloses wherein the suction port comprises an elongated suction port having a width and a length longer than the width (since, as shown in Figure 10A the suction port (62) has a length longer than its width).
Regarding claim 18, Khakpour discloses wherein the suction port (32) is circumferentially offset relative to the nozzle (25) (since the suction port as modified in the above rejection of claim 1 would be located in the same/mutual plane as the nozzle (25), being behind the fluid inlet 61; see the entire structure and location of the nozzle in Annotated Figure 10A, above). The Examiner notes that the structure of the chamber 6 is a circumferential/curved (having curved walls 21 [0145]) both ports/structures would be circumferentially offset to each other.
Regarding claim 20, Khakpour discloses wherein the suction port is curved (since it is a circular port (a hole), as shown in Figure 10A, is curved along its edges).
Regarding claim 21, Khakpour discloses “further comprising a vent (63) exposed to ambient air (Fig. 10A, [0205]), but fails to disclose the vent in fluid communication with an outlet line connected to the suction port (62), the vent positioned along the outlet line at a location downstream of the suction port.
On the other hand, Khakpour’s embodiment according to Figure 9A discloses vent (63) exposed to ambient air, the vent in fluid communication with an outlet line connected to the suction port (62), the vent positioned along the outlet line at a location downstream of the suction port (Figure 9A; [0192]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the position of vent 63 making it in fluid communication with an outlet line connected to the suction port 62, the vent positioned along the outlet line at a location downstream of the suction port, as taught by Khakpour’s embodiment according to Figures 9A, since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of parts is within the skill of the ordinary artisan (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)).
Regarding claim 22, Khakpour discloses wherein the apparatus comprises a tip device (coupling member 3) having a connector configured to removably connect to a handpiece (since coupling member 3 can be mechanically connected to conduits 4 and the console 2 of the handpiece. Please see Figure 1A and [0054]). The tip device comprising the fluid platform (24), the liquid supply port (61), and the suction port (62) (Figure 10A, [0201]).
Regarding claim 23, Khakpour discloses an apparatus for treating a tooth (Figure 10A, Abstract), the apparatus comprising: a fluid platform (3) comprising an upper wall, a sidewall (21) extending from the upper wall (Khakpour’s Annotated Figure 10A #3) and a chamber (6) at least partially defined by the upper wall and the sidewall, the fluid platform to be disposed against a tooth (10) to retain fluid (22) in the chamber and provide fluid communication between a treatment region of the tooth and the chamber by way of an access port (18) (Figure 10; [0196]).
The chamber having a chamber axis extending substantially transversely through a center of the access port (since the root canal has a central axis (Z); Figure 10A, [0196]). The Examiner notes that said central axis (Z) can be projected as the central axis of chamber (6) as well, shown below in Khakpour’s Annotated Figure 10A.
A nozzle (25) positioned within the sidewalls (the entire nozzle 25 is positioned within the wall of the fluid platform, the nozzle begins at the walls and it is within the enclosure of the chamber created by the wall) and disposed to direct a liquid jet across the chamber along a stream axis to impinge upon a portion of the sidewall opposite the nozzle ([0201]) (since the fluid 22 into the chamber 6 introduces fluid motion 24 in the chamber [0200]-[0202]). The Examiner notes that in order for the fluid to create rotational flow, it has to impinge on a portion of the wall opposite the liquid supply port.
The stream axis non-parallel to the chamber axis, wherein the chamber axis lies on a first plane substantially transverse to the stream axis (since a stream of fluid passing across an access aperture 70 of the coupling member 3, e.g., along a direction X transverse to, e.g., substantially perpendicular to, the central axis Z of the root canal 13 and/or a central axis of the chamber [0207]).
And the stream axis intersects the first plane at a location closer to the chamber axis than to the sidewall (since as shown in Figure 10A the stream axis intersects the first plane, which is defined by the chamber axis Z, at a location closer to the chamber axis, close to the center of the chamber, than the side walls). The Examiner notes that in order for the stream axis to intersect the first plane at a location closer to the central axis than to the boundary, the stream axis must be projected horizontally through the center of the chamber. The Examiner further notes that Khakpour discloses that the fluid flow across the access port can be varied to control a desired apical pressure near the apex of the tooth 10. For example, the momentum of the fluid motion 24 can be controllably adjusted by way of the system controller. Further, the angle relative to the central axis Z can also be adjusted to control apical pressure ([0201]).
And a suction port exposed to the chamber (Figure 10A, [0205]), wherein the chamber has a maximum lateral dimension (defined by axis X in Figure 10A) in a second plane extending substantially transverse to the chamber axis, the second plane delimited by the sidewall along a boundary (since as shown in Figures 10A, the chamber has a maximum lateral dimension in a plane extending and defined by axis (X), which is substantially transverse to the central axis Z). Khakpour’s embodiment according to Figures 10A discloses a suction port (62) being close to the boundaries (walls 21) of the chamber (6) (Figure 10A), but fails to disclose a projection of the suction port onto the second plane being closer to the boundary than to the chamber axis. However, the Examiner notes that the position of a projection of the suction port onto the second plane lacks criticality in the specifications of the immediate application and would not have modified the operation of the device. The Examiner further notes that Khakpour’s embodiment according to Figures 9A-9D discloses a projection of the suction port onto the plane being closer to the boundary than to the central axis of the chamber (please see Khakpour’s Annotated Figure 9D, above). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the position of the suction port making it even closer to the boundary and therefore creating a projection of the suction port onto the second plane that is closer to the boundary than to the chamber axis, as taught by Khakpour’s embodiment according to Figures 9A-9D, since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of parts is within the skill of the ordinary artisan (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)). Additionally, the Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to rearrange the suction port 62 to place it at any point inside the chamber 6, as long as a projection of the suction port onto the plane is closer to the boundary than to the central axis of the chamber (as disclosed by Annotated Figure 9D, above). For instance, it would have been obvious to rearrange the suction port to be parallel with the fluid inlet, 61 shown in Fig. 10A; when the suction port is rearranged to be in the same/mutual plane as the fluid inlet 61, said mutual plane being e.g. parallel to a second plane where the central axis Z lies (please see said rearrangement in Khakpour’s Annotated Figure 10A #1, below).
The Examiner notes that the combined teachings of Khakpour’s embodiments discloses a direction of the projection of the suction port being perpendicular to the plane (Khakpour’s Annotated Figure 9D). The Examiner notes that a projection of a structure is a geometric abstract idea that could have different directions and angulations which could be shifted as desired.
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 5. Khakpour’s Annotated Figure 10A #3.)]
PNG
media_image5.png
641
846
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 24, Khakpour discloses further comprising a pressure wave generator (5) configured to generate pressure waves and fluid motion in the chamber and the treatment region ([0201]).
Regarding claim 25, Khakpour discloses “wherein the pressure wave generator (5) comprises the nozzle” (25) (Figure 10A; [0206]).
Regarding claim 26, Khakpour discloses wherein the suction port (62) is closer to the sidewall (21) than to the location at which the stream axis (X) intersects the plane (plane where axis Z passes through) (since the suction port 62, as modified above in the rejection of claim 23 could be located closer to the sidewall than to the central axis of the chamber; please see Khakpour’s Annotated Figure 10A #1, above).
Regarding claim 27, Khakpour discloses wherein the location at which the stream axis (X) intersects the first plane (plane where axis Z passes through) is closer to the chamber axis (Z) than to the suction port (since as shown in Figure 10A, location at which the stream axis (X) intersects the first plane is closer to the central axis (Z) than to the suction port 62). Please note that the chamber axis (Z) lies on the first plane, as explained in the above rejection of claim 23.
Regarding claims 28 and 29, Khakpour discloses “wherein the stream axis intersects the chamber axis” and “wherein the stream axis is substantially perpendicular to the chamber axis” ([0207]).
Regarding claim 30 Khakpour discloses wherein the suction port abuts or is at least partially defined by the sidewall (since the suction port 62, as modified above in the rejection of claim 23 could be located closer to the sidewall; therefore abutting towards the side wall, when the suction port is rearranged to be in the same/mutual plane as the fluid inlet 61, the suction port would be behind the fluid inlet 61; see Khakpour’s Annotated Figure 10A #1).
Regarding claim 31, Khakpour discloses wherein the suction port (62) comprises an elongated suction port having a width and a length longer than the width (since as shown in Figure 10A the suction port (62) has a length longer than its width).
Regarding claim 34, Khakpour discloses wherein the suction port (62) is circumferentially offset relative to the nozzle (25) (since the suction port as modified in the above rejection of claim 1 would be located in the same/mutual plane as the liquid supply port 61, behind the fluid inlet 61). The Examiner notes that since the structure of the chamber 6 is a circumferential/curved, having curved walls 21 [0145], both ports would be circumferentially offset to each other; then, suction port (62) is circumferentially offset relative to the nozzle 25).
Regarding claim 36, Khakpour discloses wherein the suction port is curved (since a circular port, a hole, as shown in Figure 10A, is curved along its edges).
Regarding claim 37, Khakpour discloses “further comprising a vent (63) exposed to ambient air (Fig. 10A, [0205]), but fails to disclose the vent in fluid communication with an outlet line connected to the suction port (62), the vent positioned along the outlet line at a location downstream of the suction port.
On the other hand, Khakpour’s embodiment according to Figure 9A discloses vent (63) exposed to ambient air, the vent in fluid communication with an outlet line connected to the suction port (62), the vent positioned along the outlet line at a location downstream of the suction port (Figure 9A; [0192]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the position of vent 63 making it in fluid communication with an outlet line connected to the suction port 62, the vent positioned along the outlet line at a location downstream of the suction port, as taught by Khakpour’s embodiment according to Figures 9A, since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of parts is within the skill of the ordinary artisan (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)).
Regarding claim 38, Khakpour discloses wherein the apparatus comprises a tip device (coupling member 3) having a connector configured to removably connect to a handpiece (since coupling member 3 can be mechanically connected to conduits 4 and the console 2 of the handpiece. Please see Figure 1A and [0054]). The tip device comprising the fluid platform (24), the nozzle (25), and the suction port (62) (Figure 10A, [0201]).
Regarding claim 39, Khakpour discloses wherein the sidewall (21) extends from the upper wall at an angle, with a corner between the sidewall and the upper wall (Khakpour’s Figure 10A #3 above).
Regarding claim 40, Khakpour discloses wherein the sidewall (21) extends from the upper wall with a curved surface between the sidewall and the upper wall (Khakpour’s Figure 10A #3 above).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khakpour in view of Lifshitz (WO 2015059707 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Khakpour’s embodiment according to Figure 10A discloses a suction (62) port exposed to the chamber (6). Khakpour fails to disclose further comprising a second suction port exposed to the chamber, the second suction port disposed laterally opposite the suction por. On the other hand, Lifshitz discloses a dental handpiece having two suction ports, disposed laterally on opposite sides of a chamber (Figure 39A, page 87, lines 13-21). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to add a second suction port, as taught by Lifshitz, to Khakpour’s device, since such modification would reduce the pressure at the extraction pipe (page 87, lines 19-21) and would only require a mere duplication of parts, which has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (Please see MPEP 2145).
Regarding claim 17, Khakpour/Lifshitz discloses wherein the suction port and the second suction port are disposed symmetrically about the central axis (since Khakpour/Lifshitz’s handpiece, as modified above, teaches suction ports on opposite sides of the chamber, as taught by Lifshitz Figure 39A). Therefore, they would be disposed symmetrically about the central axis.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khakpour’s embodiment according to Figure 10A in view of Khakpour (WO 2015168329 A1), hereafter Khakpour 2015.
Regarding claim 19, Khakpour fails wherein the suction port is circumferentially offset from the nozzle by 90°.
On the other hand, Khakpour 2015 discloses an apparatus for treating a tooth according to figures 16-24C, wherein the suction port and the nozzle are circumferentially offset from the liquid supply port by 90° (since there is an outlet 62 comprising a suction port 233 and there is a fluid supply port 61 and a nozzle 210 ([0271], [0284]) being circumferentially offset by 90°, as shown in Figures 16-17). Additionally, the liquid supply port 61 is offset relative to the outlet 62 (which contains the suction port 233) and the central axis Z as shown in the top cross-section of Figure 16 ([0284]). The Examiner notes that they are offset by 90°; as shown in Figure 16 and Khakpour 2015’s Annotated Figure 17. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the position of the suction port with respect to the liquid supply port and the nozzle, making it circumferentially offset from the nozzle by 90°, as taught by Khakpour 2015, since such modification would regulate apical pressure which can harm the patient ([0262]) and it has been held that a mere rearrangement of parts is within the skill of the ordinary artisan (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)).
PNG
media_image6.png
871
832
media_image6.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 6. Khakpour 2015’s Annotated Figure 17.)]
Claims 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khakpour in view of Lifshitz.
Regarding claim 32, Khakpour’s embodiment according to Figure 10A discloses a suction (62) port exposed to the chamber (6). Khakpour fails to disclose further comprising a second suction port exposed to the chamber, the second suction port disposed laterally opposite the suction port. On the other hand, Lifshitz discloses a dental handpiece having two suction ports, disposed laterally on opposite sides of a chamber (Figure 39A, page 87, lines 13-21). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to add a second suction port, as taught by Lifshitz, to Khakpour’s device, since such modification would reduce the pressure at the extraction pipe (page 87, lines 19-21) and would only require a mere duplication of parts, which has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (Please see MPEP 2145).
Regarding claim 33, Khakpour discloses wherein the suction port and the second suction port are disposed symmetrically about the chamber axis (since Khakpour/Lifshitz’s handpiece, as modified above, teaches suction ports on opposite sides of the chamber; as taught by Lifshitz Figure 39A). Therefore, they would be disposed symmetrically about the central axis.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khakpour in view of Khakpour 2015.
Regarding claim 35, Khakpour fails to disclose wherein the suction port is circumferentially offset from the nozzle by 90°.
On the other hand, Khakpour 2015 discloses an apparatus for treating a tooth according to figures 16-24C, wherein the suction port is circumferentially offset from the liquid supply port by 90° (since Khakpour 2015 discloses an outlet 62 comprising a suction port 233 and a fluid supply port 61 ([0284]) being circumferentially offset by 90°, as shown in Figures 16-17). Additionally, Khakpour 2015 discloses that the liquid supply port 61 is offset relative to the outlet 62 (which contains the suction port 233) and the central axis Z as shown in the top cross-section of Figure 16 ([0284]). The Examiner notes that they are offset by 90°; as shown in Figure 16 and Khakpour 2015 Annotated Figure 17. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the position of the suction port with respect to the liquid supply port, making it circumferentially offset from the liquid supply port by 90°, as taught by Khakpour 2015, since such modification would regulate apical pressure which can harm the patient ([0262]) and it has been held that a mere rearrangement of parts is within the skill of the ordinary artisan (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)).
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
Prosecution Insights