DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such a claim limitation is “source for generating a first pulse and a second pulse of electromagnetic radiation” in claims 1 and 13, and this claim limitation is considered to refer to at least one laser, as discussed in Par. [0111] and [0119]-[0125]. Such a claim limitation is “a user interface for receiving information” in claims 1 and 13, and this claim limitation is considered to refer to the user interface options discussed in Par. [0058] and [0126]. Such a claim limitation is “means for determining a cross-sectional area of the cavity” in claim 3, and this claim limitation is considered to refer to the means options discussed in Par. [0044] and [0045] of applicant’s specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is 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 8 recites the limitation "the predetermined parameter". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, it was presumed that applicant intended to write “a predetermined parameter” instead of “the predetermined parameter”.
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.
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.
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.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP3127502 by Lukac in view of U.S. 2016/0030136 by Hey in view of U.S. 2018/0028294 by Azernikov.
With regard to claim 1, Lukac teaches an apparatus for cleaning a tooth cavity for root canal treatment, wherein the cavity is filled with liquid, wherein a pulsed laser source provides laser light to an “exit component” (item 8 in Figure 2a) of a handpiece (item 7 in Figures 1 and 2a), and wherein the tip of the exit component is immersed in said liquid such that laser pulses can be supplied to the liquid for cleaning of the cavity (Abstract; Par. 0039-0041, 0046, and 0078). Lukac teaches having a control unit (item 22 in Figure 1) operatively connected to the laser source to control the laser source such that parameters of the pulsed laser emission can be adjusted and controlled (Par. 0039, 0046-0048, and 0073-0082). Lukac teaches that the control unit is configured such that pulse sets (illustrated as items 21 in Figure 9, and a single pulse set is illustrated in Figure 10) are emitted, wherein each pulse set comprises at least a first pulse of laser light and a subsequent second pulse of laser light (Par. 0069 and 0070). Lukac teaches that the pulse repetition rate is a variable that is optimized for the dimensions of a given cavity (Par. 0032, 0061, and 0073), with Lukac teaching that the pulse repetition time “depends critically” on various conditions, including the cavity size (Par. 0032). Lukac teaches varying the pulse rate across different pulse sets (as discussed in Par. 0081 and illustrated in Figure 11) in an attempt to match a pulse repetition rate to whatever the cavity dimensions happen to be, with an initial pulse repetition rate existing in the leftmost set 21 in Figure 11.
Although Lukac teaches that the pulse repetition time “depends critically” on cavity size (Par. 0032), Lukac does not teach having the control unit control the pulse repetition rate (and thus the time between an onset time of a first pulse and an onset time of a second pulse) based on dimensions – such as a diameter – of the cavity.
Hey teaches that when performing root canal treatment, the dimensions of a root-canal-treatment cavity machined with a tool (item 20 in Figure 2) can be determined by simply knowing the dimensions of the tool and the depth-of-penetration of said tool (Par. 0022-0026 and 0052).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Lukac such that the control unit determines the dimensions (including a diameter D) of the cavity such that these dimensions can be used by the control unit to select an optimum pulse repetition rate based on these cavity dimensions and by then having the range of scanned pulse rates (the scanning of pulse rates across different pulse sets is discussed in Par. 0081 and illustrated in Figure 11 of Lukac) include this selected optimum pulse repetition rate as one of the performed pulse rates. In this combination of Lukac in view of Hey, the dimensions of the cavity are determined by the control unit by having the control unit informed of the dimensions of a tool used to machine the cavity and the depth-of-penetration of said tool. Lukac teaches (as discussed in Par. 0081 and illustrated in Figure 11 of Lukac) scanning the pulse rate across different pulse sets in order to have at least one of those pulse rates be an optimized pulse rate, and in this combination of Lukac in view of Hey, the selected optimum pulse rate is selected (by the control unit, using the dimensions-and-depth data of the tool) such that the range of scanned pulse rates advantageously includes this optimum pulse rate. Hey teaches that when performing root canal treatment, the dimensions of a root-canal-treatment cavity machined with a tool can be determined by simply knowing the dimensions of the tool and the depth-of-penetration of said tool, and the motivation for having the control unit use the dimensions-and-depth data of the tool to select an optimum pulse repetition rate was provided by Lukac, who teaches that the pulse repetition time “depends critically” on cavity size (Par. 0032 of Lukac). In this combination of Lukac in view of Hey, the selected optimum pulse repetition rate can be thought of as an informed guess (about the best pulse repetition rate) by the control unit (based on the dimensions-and-depth data of the tool), and this initial informed guess – plus the act of scanning across different pule repetition rates (as discussed in Par. 0081 and illustrated in Figure 11 of Lukac) – helps ensure that the cavity is treated with an optimized pulse repetition rate. In this combination of Lukac in view of Hey, since the control unit selects an optimum pulse repetition rate based on these cavity dimensions, the control unit is considered to select a time between an onset time of a first pulse and an onset time of a second pulse of a pulse set because the selected optimum pulse repetition rate affects the time between the onsets of those first and second pulses. In the combination of Lukac in view of Hey, the first pulse is adapted to generate a first bubble within the liquid, and the second pulse is adapted to generate a second bubble within the liquid, such that a shock wave is generated within the liquid (Par. 0026 and 0067 of Lukac).
In the combination of Lukac in view of Hey, the control unit determines the dimensions (including a diameter D) of the cavity such that these dimensions can be used by the control unit to select an optimum pulse repetition rate based on these cavity dimensions and by then having the range of scanned pulse rates (the scanning of pulse rates across different pulse sets is discussed in Par. 0081 and illustrated in Figure 11 of Lukac) include this selected optimum pulse repetition rate. Applicant recites a mathematical product (KD × T0 × D-0.5) used to calculate an optimal pulse repetition rate. The developed combination of Lukac in view of Hey teaches that the dimensions (including a diameter D) of the cavity are used to select an optimum pulse repetition rate, but the combination of Lukac in view of Hey, as developed thus far, does not recite using T0 (which refers to “an unconstrained oscillation period of a bubble that would be generated by the first pulse in an infinitely large cavity filled with the liquid”) when selecting said optimum pulse repetition rate. The combination of Lukac in view of Hey does not teach the same KD × T0 × D-0.5 equation recited by applicant in claim 1. However, Lukac teaches that the pulse repetition time “depends critically” (Par. 0032 of Lukac) on the type of liquid, with a longer pulse repetition time needed when a more viscous liquid is used (Par. 0022, 0032, and 0066). Since Lukac teaches that the pulse repetition time “depends critically” (Par. 0032 of Lukac) on the cavity dimensions and viscosity, it would have been obvious (in accordance with MPEP 2144.05) to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Lukac in view of Hey such that the control unit is configured to optimize the pulse repetition time based on both the cavity dimensions (including said diameter of the cavity) and the liquid viscosity – the motivation being that both those factors (cavity dimensions and viscosity) affect what the optimal pulse repetition rate should be. Again, since Lukac teaches that a bubble’s oscillation period is directly affected by the viscosity of the liquid surrounding the bubble (Par. 0008 of Lukac), the predetermined parameter of viscosity is considered to correspond to an oscillation time of a bubble that would be generated in an infinitely large cavity filed with the liquid – as the viscosity of said liquid would directly affect said oscillation time. In this combination of Lukac in view of Hey, the control unit selects an optimum pulse repetition rate (based on cavity dimensions and viscosity) and then has the range of scanned pulse rates include this selected optimum pulse repetition rate as one of the performed pulse rates. In this combination of Lukac in view of Hey, two pulses that are directly separated by a time corresponding to the optimum pulse repetition rate (when the scanning over the range of scanned pulse rates is performed) are pulses that correspond to applicant’s first pulse and second pulse, wherein the pulse corresponding to applicant’s first pulse occurs chronologically before the pulse that corresponds to applicant’s second pulse. The onset time of the pulse that corresponds to applicant’s first pulse is separated by a fixed pulse repetition time (determined by the optimum pulse repetition rate) from the onset time of the pulse that corresponds to applicant’s second pulse. This fixed pulse repetition time (determined by the optimum pulse repetition rate) between the onset time of the pulse that corresponds to applicant’s first pulse and the onset time of the pulse that corresponds to applicant’s second pulse reads on applicant’s optimal pulse repetition time.
In the combination of Lukac in view of Hey, information about the dimensions of the root canal tool is supplied to the control unit, but the combination of Lukac in view of Hey does not explicitly recite that the control unit has a user interface.
Azernikov teaches that a computer used in dentistry can advantageously comprise a user interface with a keyboard such that the user interface can successfully be used to receive data input from a user (Par. 0051).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Lukac in view of Hey such that the control unit comprises a user interface with a keyboard that allows a user to supply the dimension data (including the diameter) of the root canal tool to the control unit. In the combination of Lukac in view of Hey, information about the dimensions of the root canal tool is supplied to the control unit, and the motivation for performing the modification was provided by Azernikov, who teaches that a computer used in dentistry can advantageously comprise a user interface with a keyboard such that the user interface can successfully be used to receive data input from a user.
With regard to claim 2, in the combination of Lukac in view of Hey in view of Azernikov, the apparatus comprises a user interface that allows a user to supply the dimension data (including a cross-sectional area) of the root canal tool to the control unit such that the control unit can use that dimension data in determining the dimensions of the cavity. The dimension data of the root canal tool can be considered information on the cross-sectional area of the cavity.
With regard to claim 3, in the combination of Lukac in view of Hey in view of Azernikov, the control unit is considered to read on applicant’s means for determining a cross-sectional area of the cavity because the control unit uses the dimensions of the tool to determine the dimensions (including a cross-sectional area) of the cavity.
With regard to claim 8, in the combination of Lukac in view of Hey in view of Azernikov, the control unit uses viscosity information about a particular liquid when determining the pulse repetition time. The combination of Lukac in view of Hey in view of Azernikov does not teach that a predetermined parameter is accessed from a data storage device. Azernikov teaches that a computer used in dentistry can advantageously comprise memory in which information is stored (Par. 0050, 0051, and 0082). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Lukac in view of Hey in view of Azernikov such that the control unit comprises a memory (reads on data storage device) in which viscosity information for different liquids is stored, which would thus allow the control unit to retrieve the viscosity of a given liquid. In the combination of Lukac in view of Hey in view of Azernikov, the control unit uses viscosity information about a particular liquid when determining the pulse repetition time. Azernikov teaches that a computer used in dentistry can advantageously comprise memory in which information is stored, and the motivation for performing the modification would be to allow the control unit access the viscosity data for a given liquid such that the pulse repetition time can be successfully determined.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP3127502 by Lukac in view of U.S. 2016/0030136 by Hey in view of U.S. 2018/0028294 by Azernikov.
With regard to claim 13, Lukac teaches an apparatus for cleaning a tooth cavity for root canal treatment, wherein the cavity is filled with liquid, wherein a pulsed laser source provides laser light to an “exit component” (item 8 in Figure 2a) of a handpiece (item 7 in Figures 1 and 2a), and wherein the tip of the exit component is immersed in said liquid such that laser pulses can be supplied to the liquid for cleaning of the cavity (Abstract; Par. 0039-0041, 0046, and 0078). Lukac teaches having a control unit (item 22 in Figure 1) operatively connected to the laser source to control the laser source such that parameters of the pulsed laser emission can be adjusted and controlled (Par. 0039, 0046-0048, and 0073-0082). Lukac teaches that the control unit is configured such that pulse sets (illustrated as items 21 in Figure 9, and a single pulse set is illustrated in Figure 10) are emitted, wherein each pulse set comprises at least a first pulse of laser light and a subsequent second pulse of laser light (Par. 0069 and 0070). Lukac teaches that the pulse repetition rate is a variable that is optimized for the dimensions of a given cavity (Par. 0032, 0061, and 0073), with Lukac teaching that the pulse repetition time “depends critically” on various conditions, including the cavity size (Par. 0032). Lukac teaches varying the pulse rate across different pulse sets (as discussed in Par. 0081 and illustrated in Figure 11) in an attempt to match a pulse repetition rate to whatever the cavity dimensions happen to be, with an initial pulse repetition rate existing in the leftmost set 21 in Figure 11.
Although Lukac teaches that the pulse repetition time “depends critically” on cavity size (Par. 0032), Lukac does not teach having the control unit control the pulse repetition rate (and thus the time between adjacent pulses in a pulse set) based on dimensions – such as a diameter – of the cavity.
Hey teaches that when performing root canal treatment, the dimensions of a root-canal-treatment cavity machined with a tool (item 20 in Figure 2) can be determined by simply knowing the dimensions of the tool and the depth-of-penetration of said tool (Par. 0022-0026 and 0052).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Lukac such that the control unit determines the dimensions (including a diameter D) of the cavity such that these dimensions can be used by the control unit to select an optimum pulse repetition rate based on these cavity dimensions and by then having the range of scanned pulse rates (the scanning of pulse rates across different pulse sets is discussed in Par. 0081 and illustrated in Figure 11 of Lukac) include this selected optimum pulse repetition rate as one of the performed pulse rates. In this combination of Lukac in view of Hey, the dimensions of the cavity are determined by the control unit by having the control unit informed of the dimensions of a tool used to machine the cavity and the depth-of-penetration of said tool. Lukac teaches (as discussed in Par. 0081 and illustrated in Figure 11 of Lukac) scanning the pulse rate across different pulse sets in order to have at least one of those pulse rates be an optimized pulse rate, and in this combination of Lukac in view of Hey, the selected optimum pulse rate is selected (by the control unit, using the dimensions-and-depth data of the tool) such that the range of scanned pulse rates advantageously includes this optimum pulse rate. Hey teaches that when performing root canal treatment, the dimensions of a root-canal-treatment cavity machined with a tool can be determined by simply knowing the dimensions of the tool and the depth-of-penetration of said tool, and the motivation for having the control unit use the dimensions-and-depth data of the tool to select an optimum pulse repetition rate was provided by Lukac, who teaches that the pulse repetition time “depends critically” on cavity size (Par. 0032 of Lukac). In this combination of Lukac in view of Hey, the selected optimum pulse repetition rate can be thought of as an informed guess (about the best pulse repetition rate) by the control unit (based on the dimensions-and-depth data of the tool), and this initial informed guess – plus the act of scanning across different pule repetition rates (as discussed in Par. 0081 and illustrated in Figure 11 of Lukac) – helps ensure that the cavity is treated with an optimized pulse repetition rate. In this combination of Lukac in view of Hey, since the control unit selects an optimum pulse repetition rate based on these cavity dimensions, the control unit is considered to select a time between an onset time of a first pulse and an onset time of a second pulse of a pulse set because the selected optimum pulse repetition rate affects the time between the onsets of those first and second pulses. In the combination of Lukac in view of Hey, the first pulse is adapted to generate a first bubble within the liquid, and the second pulse is adapted to generate a second bubble within the liquid, such that a shock wave is generated within the liquid (Par. 0026 and 0067 of Lukac).
In the combination of Lukac in view of Hey, the control unit determines the dimensions (including a diameter D) of the cavity such that these dimensions can be used by the control unit to select an optimum pulse repetition rate based on these cavity dimensions and by then having the range of scanned pulse rates (the scanning of pulse rates across different pulse sets is discussed in Par. 0081 and illustrated in Figure 11 of Lukac) include this selected optimum pulse repetition rate. Applicant recites a mathematical product (KD × T0 × D-0.5) used to calculate an optimal pulse repetition rate. The developed combination of Lukac in view of Hey teaches that the dimensions (including a diameter D) of the cavity are used to select an optimum pulse repetition rate, but the combination of Lukac in view of Hey, as developed thus far, does not recite using T0 (which refers to “an unconstrained oscillation period of a bubble that would be generated by the first pulse in an infinitely large cavity filled with the liquid”) when selecting said optimum pulse repetition rate. The combination of Lukac in view of Hey does not teach the same KD × T0 × D-0.5 equation recited by applicant in claim 13. However, Lukac teaches that the pulse repetition time “depends critically” (Par. 0032 of Lukac) on the type of liquid, with a longer pulse repetition time needed when a more viscous liquid is used (Par. 0022, 0032, and 0066). Since Lukac teaches that the pulse repetition time “depends critically” (Par. 0032 of Lukac) on the cavity dimensions and viscosity, it would have been obvious (in accordance with MPEP 2144.05) to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Lukac in view of Hey such that the control unit is configured to optimize the pulse repetition time based on both the cavity dimensions (including said diameter of the cavity) and the liquid viscosity – the motivation being that both those factors (cavity dimensions and viscosity) affect what the optimal pulse repetition rate should be. Again, since Lukac teaches that a bubble’s oscillation period is directly affected by the viscosity of the liquid surrounding the bubble (Par. 0008 of Lukac), the predetermined parameter of viscosity is considered to correspond to an oscillation time of a bubble that would be generated in an infinitely large cavity filed with the liquid – as the viscosity of said liquid would directly affect said oscillation time. In this combination of Lukac in view of Hey, the control unit selects an optimum pulse repetition rate (based on cavity dimensions and viscosity) and then has the range of scanned pulse rates include this selected optimum pulse repetition rate as one of the performed pulse rates. In this combination of Lukac in view of Hey, two pulses that are directly separated by a time corresponding to the optimum pulse repetition rate (when the scanning over the range of scanned pulse rates is performed) are pulses the correspond to applicant’s first pulse and second pulse, wherein the pulse corresponding to applicant’s first pulse occurs chronologically before the pulse that corresponds to applicant’s second pulse. The onset time of the pulse that corresponds to applicant’s first pulse is separated by a fixed pulse repetition time (determined by the optimum pulse repetition rate) from the onset time of the pulse that corresponds to applicant’s second pulse. This fixed pulse repetition time (determined by the optimum pulse repetition rate) between the onset time of the pulse that corresponds to applicant’s first pulse and the onset time of the pulse that corresponds to applicant’s second pulse reads on applicant’s optimal pulse repetition time.
In the combination of Lukac in view of Hey, information about the dimensions of the root canal tool is supplied to the control unit, but the combination of Lukac in view of Hey does not explicitly recite that the control unit has a user interface.
Azernikov teaches that a computer used in dentistry can advantageously comprise a user interface with a keyboard such that the user interface can successfully be used to receive data input from a user (Par. 0051).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Lukac in view of Hey such that the control unit comprises a user interface with a keyboard that allows a user to supply the dimension data (including the diameter) of the root canal tool to the control unit. In the combination of Lukac in view of Hey, information about the dimensions of the root canal tool is supplied to the control unit, and the motivation for performing the modification was provided by Azernikov, who teaches that a computer used in dentistry can advantageously comprise a user interface with a keyboard such that the user interface can successfully be used to receive data input from a user.
In the developed combination of Lukac in view of Hey in view of Azernikov, the range of scanned pulse rates includes the optimum pulse repetition rate as one of the performed pulse rates. Each performed pulse repetition rate (performed during the scanning of pulse rates) has a corresponding pulse repetition time between the onsets of adjacent pulses, and pulse repetition time is thus varied as the scanning of pulse rates is performed. In the developed combination of Lukac in view of Hey in view of Azernikov, the fixed pulse repetition time that reads on applicant’s optimal pulse repetition time can be represented by the symbol Tp-opt. The combination of Lukac in view of Hey in view of Azernikov does not recite that the range of pulse repetitions times is Tp-opt – ϐ1 to Tp-opt + ϐ2, wherein ϐ1 and ϐ2 are selected from the range of 10 µs to 75 µs. However, Lukac teaches that the point of scanning across different pulse rates is to ensure that an optimal pulse rate is applied to a given cavity, and Lukac teaches repeatedly performing the scanning across pulse rates in order to ensure effective cleaning of the cavity (Par. 0078 and 0079). In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Lukac in view of Hey in view of Azernikov by optimizing the size of the range of pulse rates (and thus the range of corresponding pulse repetition times for those rates) over which scanning of pulse rates occurs because that range size is a result-effective variable that affects how many non-optimal pulse rates are performed in the repeated scanning cycles and affects whether or not the range is big enough to include a sought-after optimal pulse rate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Firstly, it is noted that that applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections presented in the Non-Final Rejection of 12/18/2025 are moot because the examiner believes that applicant’s claims – as they have been amended – no longer should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Thus, no 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections are presented in this office action.
With regard to the obviousness rejections, applicant argues (on page 13 of applicant’s arguments) that “neither Lukac nor the additional references teach or fairly suggest determining the pulse repetition time according to the recited relationship and using that determination to control emission timing of the radiation source”. This line of argument is not persuasive. The technique of Lukas has to have some time between the onsets of the first and second pulses, and the examiner's combination of Lukac in view of Hey in view of Azernikov optimizes that time between the onsets of the first and second pulses. Even though the examiner’s combinations of Lukac in view of Hey in view of Azernikov does not formulate its optimization routine into the same equation as recited by applicant, the optimization is occurring with the same principles – namely, optimizing the pulse repetition rate (each pulse repetition rate would clearly have its own time between onsets of adjacent pulses) in terms of the dimensions of the cavity and the liquid viscosity. Since Lukac teaches that a bubbles oscillation period is directly affected by the viscosity of the liquid surrounding the bubble (Par. 0008 of Lukac), the predetermined parameter of viscosity is considered to correspond to an oscillation time of a bubble that would be generated in an infinitely large cavity filed with the liquid – as the viscosity of said liquid would directly affect said oscillation time. The examiner’s actual rejections very carefully articulate the examiner’s positions.
On page 13 of applicant’s arguments, applicant argues that “Lukac does not disclose determining an optimal pulse repetition time using the claimed scaling relationship or any comparable analytical relationship that depends on cavity diameter and the unconstrained oscillation period of a bubble”. On page 14 of applicant’s arguments, applicant restates this line of argument by saying that “the claimed relationship reflects a specific physical scaling law relating bubble oscillation behavior to cavity diameter. The cited references do not disclose this relationship or suggest using such a relationship to determine pulse timing”. This line of argument is not persuasive. Again, the examiner’s rejections very carefully articulate the examiner’s positions, and the best articulation of the examiner’s obviousness rejection is simply to copy-and-paste relevant chunks from the examiner’s rejections. The following excerpt articulates how the diameter and unconstrained oscillation limitations are addressed in the rejection of claim 1:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Lukac such that the control unit determines the dimensions (including a diameter D) of the cavity such that these dimensions can be used by the control unit to select an optimum pulse repetition rate based on these cavity dimensions and by then having the range of scanned pulse rates (the scanning of pulse rates across different pulse sets is discussed in Par. 0081 and illustrated in Figure 11 of Lukac) include this selected optimum pulse repetition rate as one of the performed pulse rates. In this combination of Lukac in view of Hey, the dimensions of the cavity are determined by the control unit by having the control unit informed of the dimensions of a tool used to machine the cavity and the depth-of-penetration of said tool. Lukac teaches (as discussed in Par. 0081 and illustrated in Figure 11 of Lukac) scanning the pulse rate across different pulse sets in order to have at least one of those pulse rates be an optimized pulse rate, and in this combination of Lukac in view of Hey, the selected optimum pulse rate is selected (by the control unit, using the dimensions-and-depth data of the tool) such that the range of scanned pulse rates advantageously includes this optimum pulse rate. Hey teaches that when performing root canal treatment, the dimensions of a root-canal-treatment cavity machined with a tool can be determined by simply knowing the dimensions of the tool and the depth-of-penetration of said tool, and the motivation for having the control unit use the dimensions-and-depth data of the tool to select an optimum pulse repetition rate was provided by Lukac, who teaches that the pulse repetition time “depends critically” on cavity size (Par. 0032 of Lukac). In this combination of Lukac in view of Hey, the selected optimum pulse repetition rate can be thought of as an informed guess (about the best pulse repetition rate) by the control unit (based on the dimensions-and-depth data of the tool), and this initial informed guess – plus the act of scanning across different pule repetition rates (as discussed in Par. 0081 and illustrated in Figure 11 of Lukac) – helps ensure that the cavity is treated with an optimized pulse repetition rate. In this combination of Lukac in view of Hey, since the control unit selects an optimum pulse repetition rate based on these cavity dimensions, the control unit is considered to select a time between an onset time of a first pulse and an onset time of a second pulse of a pulse set because the selected optimum pulse repetition rate affects the time between the onsets of those first and second pulses. In the combination of Lukac in view of Hey, the first pulse is adapted to generate a first bubble within the liquid, and the second pulse is adapted to generate a second bubble within the liquid, such that a shock wave is generated within the liquid (Par. 0026 and 0067 of Lukac).
In the combination of Lukac in view of Hey, the control unit determines the dimensions (including a diameter D) of the cavity such that these dimensions can be used by the control unit to select an optimum pulse repetition rate based on these cavity dimensions and by then having the range of scanned pulse rates (the scanning of pulse rates across different pulse sets is discussed in Par. 0081 and illustrated in Figure 11 of Lukac) include this selected optimum pulse repetition rate. Applicant recites a mathematical product (KD × T0 × D-0.5) used to calculate an optimal pulse repetition rate. The developed combination of Lukac in view of Hey teaches that the dimensions (including a diameter D) of the cavity are used to select an optimum pulse repetition rate, but the combination of Lukac in view of Hey, as developed thus far, does not recite using T0 (which refers to “an unconstrained oscillation period of a bubble that would be generated by the first pulse in an infinitely large cavity filled with the liquid”) when selecting said optimum pulse repetition rate. The combination of Lukac in view of Hey does not teach the same KD × T0 × D-0.5 equation recited by applicant in claim 1. However, Lukac teaches that the pulse repetition time “depends critically” (Par. 0032 of Lukac) on the type of liquid, with a longer pulse repetition time needed when a more viscous liquid is used (Par. 0022, 0032, and 0066). Since Lukac teaches that the pulse repetition time “depends critically” (Par. 0032 of Lukac) on the cavity dimensions and viscosity, it would have been obvious (in accordance with MPEP 2144.05) to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Lukac in view of Hey such that the control unit is configured to optimize the pulse repetition time based on both the cavity dimensions (including said diameter of the cavity) and the liquid viscosity – the motivation being that both those factors (cavity dimensions and viscosity) affect what the optimal pulse repetition rate should be. Again, since Lukac teaches that a bubble’s oscillation period is directly affected by the viscosity of the liquid surrounding the bubble (Par. 0008 of Lukac), the predetermined parameter of viscosity is considered to correspond to an oscillation time of a bubble that would be generated in an infinitely large cavity filed with the liquid – as the viscosity of said liquid would directly affect said oscillation time. In this combination of Lukac in view of Hey, the control unit selects an optimum pulse repetition rate (based on cavity dimensions and viscosity) and then has the range of scanned pulse rates include this selected optimum pulse repetition rate as one of the performed pulse rates. In this combination of Lukac in view of Hey, two pulses that are directly separated by a time corresponding to the optimum pulse repetition rate (when the scanning over the range of scanned pulse rates is performed) are pulses that correspond to applicant’s first pulse and second pulse, wherein the pulse corresponding to applicant’s first pulse occurs chronologically before the pulse that corresponds to applicant’s second pulse. The onset time of the pulse that corresponds to applicant’s first pulse is separated by a fixed pulse repetition time (determined by the optimum pulse repetition rate) from the onset time of the pulse that corresponds to applicant’s second pulse. This fixed pulse repetition time (determined by the optimum pulse repetition rate) between the onset time of the pulse that corresponds to applicant’s first pulse and the onset time of the pulse that corresponds to applicant’s second pulse reads on applicant’s optimal pulse repetition time.
Applicant argues (on page 13 of applicant’s arguments) that the scanning approach of Lukac is “fundamentally different from the claimed system, which uses a defined physical relationship to determine an optimal pulse repetition time and automatically control the radiation source accordingly”. Applicant argues that “the cited references do not disclose or suggest a control unit that determines such an optimal pulse repetition time and directly drives the radiation source so that pulses are emitted with that timing”. This line of argument is not persuasive for overcoming the obviousness rejections. In the following chunk of the examiner’s rejection of claim 1, the “initial informed guess” discussion is based on a defined physical relationship in that Lukac teaches that the pulse repetition time “depends critically” on cavity size (Par. 0032 of Lukac).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Lukac such that the control unit determines the dimensions (including a diameter D) of the cavity such that these dimensions can be used by the control unit to select an optimum pulse repetition rate based on these cavity dimensions and by then having the range of scanned pulse rates (the scanning of pulse rates across different pulse sets is discussed in Par. 0081 and illustrated in Figure 11 of Lukac) include this selected optimum pulse repetition rate as one of the performed pulse rates. In this combination of Lukac in view of Hey, the dimensions of the cavity are determined by the control unit by having the control unit informed of the dimensions of a tool used to machine the cavity and the depth-of-penetration of said tool. Lukac teaches (as discussed in Par. 0081 and illustrated in Figure 11 of Lukac) scanning the pulse rate across different pulse sets in order to have at least one of those pulse rates be an optimized pulse rate, and in this combination of Lukac in view of Hey, the selected optimum pulse rate is selected (by the control unit, using the dimensions-and-depth data of the tool) such that the range of scanned pulse rates advantageously includes this optimum pulse rate. Hey teaches that when performing root canal treatment, the dimensions of a root-canal-treatment cavity machined with a tool can be determined by simply knowing the dimensions of the tool and the depth-of-penetration of said tool, and the motivation for having the control unit use the dimensions-and-depth data of the tool to select an optimum pulse repetition rate was provided by Lukac, who teaches that the pulse repetition time “depends critically” on cavity size (Par. 0032 of Lukac). In this combination of Lukac in view of Hey, the selected optimum pulse repetition rate can be thought of as an informed guess (about the best pulse repetition rate) by the control unit (based on the dimensions-and-depth data of the tool), and this initial informed guess – plus the act of scanning across different pule repetition rates (as discussed in Par. 0081 and illustrated in Figure 11 of Lukac) – helps ensure that the cavity is treated with an optimized pulse repetition rate. In this combination of Lukac in view of Hey, since the control unit selects an optimum pulse repetition rate based on these cavity dimensions, the control unit is considered to select a time between an onset time of a first pulse and an onset time of a second pulse of a pulse set because the selected optimum pulse repetition rate affects the time between the onsets of those first and second pulses. In the combination of Lukac in view of Hey, the first pulse is adapted to generate a first bubble within the liquid, and the second pulse is adapted to generate a second bubble within the liquid, such that a shock wave is generated within the liquid (Par. 0026 and 0067 of Lukac).
In the examiner’s combination of Lukac in view of Hey in view of Azernikov, the selected optimum pulse repetition rate can be thought of as an informed guess (about the best pulse repetition rate) by the control unit (based on the dimensions-and-depth data of the tool), and this initial informed guess – plus the act of scanning across different pule repetition rates (as discussed in Par. 0081 and illustrated in Figure 11 of Lukac) – helps ensure that the cavity is treated with an optimized pulse repetition rate. In the examiner’s combination of Lukac in view of Hey in view of Azernikov, the range of scanned pulse rates (the scanning of pulse rates across different pulse sets is discussed in Par. 0081 and illustrated in Figure 11 of Lukac) include the selected optimum pulse repetition rate as one of the performed pulse rates.
Applicant argues (on page 14 of applicant’s arguments) that “the cited references do not disclose controlling pulse timing using the claimed functional relationship so as to reliably produce shock waves through the interaction of successive cavitation bubbles”. However, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, for example, in the combination of Lukac in view of Hey in view of Azernikov, the first pulse is adapted to generate a first bubble within the liquid, and the second pulse is adapted to generate a second bubble within the liquid, such that a shock wave is generated within the liquid (Par. 0026 and 0067 of Lukac).
Claims 1 and 13 recite similar subject matter, and applicant repeats their arguments of claim 1 for claim 13. Similarly, with regard to claim 13, the examiner’s responses to those repeated arguments are the same, mutatis mutandis.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RYAN L COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7376. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 Monday-Friday.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571)272-1344. 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.
/RLC/
Ryan L. Coleman
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights