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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/24/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 20,22,23,32,33,35,66,69,70,79,82,95,100,116,281,282,283,285 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lifshitz 20170319292.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Non parallel stream axis)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Access port)][AltContent: textbox (Second liquid supply port distal the first liquid supply port along a fluid path between the first port and the access port.)][AltContent: textbox (First liquid fluid supply port)]
PNG
media_image1.png
331
703
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Suction port)]
With regard to claims 20,23,33,35,39,52,66,70,79,82,100, Lifshitz discloses a treatment instrument and method of treating a tooth (fig. 24A) comprising: a fluid platform 2427 comprising a chamber 2425 and an access port to provide fluid communication between a treatment region of a tooth and the chamber 2425, the chamber 2425 having a central axis; a pressure wave generator 2401 comprising a first liquid supply port (see annotation above) disposed to direct a liquid-stream (see paragraph 400 which discloses that pipes 2407,2411,2413 may provide a liquid) along a fluid path between the first port and the access port, of a first material into the chamber along a stream axis non- parallel to the central axis to generate pressure waves (see fig. 42a and 42b) which show pressure waves acting on a treatment region) having sufficient energy to treat the treatment region; and a second supply port (see above annotation) distal the first liquid supply port, the second supply port disposed to direct a second material to be entrained with the liquid stream into the chamber.
With further regard to claims 20,66,95, note how the first liquid supply port comprises a nozzle (see annotated figure above); note how the nozzle has a smaller diameter than the portion immediate downstream).
With regard to claims 22,69,95, note first supply line 2409 to deliver the first material to the first supply port, and second supply line (see above annotation) to deliver the second material to the second supply port.
With regard to claims 32,79,281 note suction port (see above annotation) which is exposed to the chamber 2425 when the device is inserted into a tooth. This occurs by virtue of the fact that the suction port is in communication with the chamber.
With regard to claim 116, the device inherently has a filling mode (when the first/second materials are introduced into the tooth, and a cleaning mode (when the first/second materials act on the tooth, as shown in figures 42a/42b).
With regard to claims 282,283,285, note that Lifshitz discloses that the second material may be a salt, which is a curable material. See paragraph 36.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4,16,38,39,52,86,87,89,284 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lifshitz 20170319292 in view of Kasten 5145367.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (nozzle)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Non parallel stream axis)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second liquid supply port distal the first liquid supply port along a fluid path between the first port and the access port.)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First liquid fluid supply port)]
PNG
media_image1.png
331
703
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Access port)]
[AltContent: textbox (Suction port)]
With regard to claims 1,2,4,16,38,39,52,86,87,89, Lifshitz discloses a treatment instrument and method of treating a tooth (fig. 24A) comprising: a fluid platform 2427 comprising a chamber 2425 and an access port to provide fluid communication between a treatment region of a tooth and the chamber 2425, the chamber 2425 having a central axis; a pressure wave generator 2401 comprising a first liquid supply port (see annotation below) comprising (including) a nozzle (note how the nozzle has a smaller diameter than the portion immediate downstream) disposed to direct a liquid- stream (see paragraph 400 which discloses that pipes 2407,2411,2413 may provide a liquid) along a fluid path between the first port and the access port, of a first material into the chamber along a stream axis non- parallel to the central axis to generate pressure waves (see fig. 42a and 42b) which show pressure waves acting on a treatment region) having sufficient energy to treat the treatment region; and a second supply port (see below annotation) distal the first liquid supply port, the second supply port disposed to direct a second material to be entrained with the liquid stream into the chamber.
With further regard to claims 1,38,86,281, Lifshitz does not disclose the suction port being exposed to the chamber in order to draw waste fluid through the chamber.
Kasten discloses a similar device in which a suction port 3 is exposed to a chamber 1, in order to draw waste fluid through the chamber. See fig. 1. Note that Kasten also discloses that the suction port 3 allows for a sealed vacuum.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to form the device of Lifshitz so that the suction port is exposed to the chamber, if one wished for a larger suction area to remove waste fluid and debris, and also to provide for a sealed vacuum.
With regard to claim 3, note first supply line 2409 to deliver the first material to the first supply port, and second supply line (see above annotation) to deliver the second material to the second supply port.
With regard to claim 284, note that Lifshitz discloses that the second material may be a salt, which is a curable material. See paragraph 36.
Claims 34 and 81 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lifshitz 20170319292 in view of in view of Khakpour et al 20160095679.
With regard to claims 34,81, Lifshitz does not disclose a vent exposed to ambient air, the vent in fluid communication with an outlet line connected to the suction port, the vent positioned alone the outlet line at a location downstream of the suction port.
Khakpour et al disclose a similar device (fig. 9A), in which a suction line includes a vent 63 exposed to ambient air, the vent in fluid communication with an outlet line 62 connected to a suction port, the vent positioned along the outlet line 62 at a location downstream of the suction port.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to include a vent exposed to ambient air, in fluid communication with the suction outlet line and downstream of the suction port, with the device of Lifshitz, in view of the teaching of Khakpour et al that a vent regulates pressure inside of the device chamber. See paragraph 185 of Khakpour et al.
Claims 15,51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lifshitz 20170319292 in view of Kasten 5145367, and further in view of Khakpour et al 20160095679.
With regard to claims 15,51, Lifshitz/Kasten does not disclose a vent exposed to ambient air, the vent in fluid communication with an outlet line connected to the suction port, the vent positioned alone the outlet line at a location downstream of the suction port.
Khakpour et al disclose a similar device (fig. 9A), in which a suction line includes a vent 63 exposed to ambient air, the vent in fluid communication with an outlet line 62 connected to a suction port, the vent positioned along the outlet line 62 at a location downstream of the suction port.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to include a vent exposed to ambient air, in fluid communication with the suction outlet line and downstream of the suction port, with the device of Lifshitz/Kasten, in view of the teaching of Khakpour et al that a vent regulates pressure inside of the device chamber. See paragraph 185 of Khakpour et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/24/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to applicant’s arguments directed toward claims 20,66,95, the arguments addressing the newly presented limitation of the “second supply port distal the first liquid supply port along a fluid path between the first liquid supply port and the access port” are considered moot in view of the newly presented interpretation of the Lifshitz reference. See modified rejection of these claims, along with the newly cited disclosure of paragraph 400 of Lifshitz. With regard to applicant’s arguments addressing the limitation of “the first liquid supply port comprising a nozzle…”, these arguments are not found persuasive. As shown in the annotated figures above, there is clearly a constriction in the lower portion of the identified first liquid supply port, which therefore constitutes a “nozzle”.
With regard to applicant’s arguments directed toward claims 1,38,86, the arguments addressing the newly presented limitation of the “second supply port distal the first liquid supply port along a fluid path between the first liquid supply port and the access port” are considered moot in view of the newly presented interpretation of the Lifshitz reference. See above. With regard to applicant’s arguments addressing the combination of the Kasten reference with the Lifshitz reference, these arguments are not found persuasive. Applicant states that (page 13 of response) that “The suction pipe 3 of Kasten is not exposed to the rinsing cannula, to draw waste fluid through the rinsing cannula.” It is unclear as to how this disclosure is relevant, since applicant’s claims only require that the suction draw waste fluid through the chamber. This is clearly what Kasten accomplishes, drawing waste fluid through the same chamber (the cone/cap) that liquid is dispensed from. It is also noted, as stated in the modified rejection above, that Kasten discloses that the configuration shown allows for a sealed vacuum of a dental working area.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS D LUCCHESI whose telephone number is (571)272-4977. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 800-430.
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 at 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.
/NICHOLAS D LUCCHESI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights