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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 26, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 15 of the claim “to its pointed end” is believed to be in error for -to a pointed end-. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim1 objected to because of the following informalities: On the last two lines of the claim “comprises titanium and wherein the tip element comprises a titanium amount of less than 80 weight - %” is believed to be in error for - comprises titanium and wherein the tip element comprises the titanium in an amount of less than 80 weight - %”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warrin (EP 0,323,598) in view of Lin (CN 204909697) in view of Hoang (2017/0333169).
Warrin teaches tip element for a dental treatment device being a scaler, wherein the tip element performs an ultrasonic vibration during its utilization (pg. 5, ll. 25-33) comprising a first end section for attaching the tip element to a hand piece (see fig. 10 which shows embodiment with end 138, see figs. 14-15 such that the embodiment has an end similar to 138 to connected to handpiece) a second end section, forming a dental tool (being from bend 162 to tip 34), and a motion transformation section arranged between the first end section and the second end section (see annotated figures below), wherein, for transforming a ultrasonic vibration having a first vibration direction to an ultrasonic vibration direction having a second vibration direction (such that this limitation is functional, the vibration source is attached to the end and delivered to the tip, therefore, the tip functions are claimed), the motion transformation section has a first bended subsection (see annotated figure below, portion of shaft on either side of the first angle) and a second bended subsection (see annotated figure below, portion of shaft on either side of the second angle), wherein a course of the tip element is bended about a first angle (see annotated figure below) in the first bended subsection and about a second angle (see annotated figure below) in the second bended subsection, wherein and wherein the second end section tapered to its point end (see figs. 14-15), wherein the tip element only tapers to a front end without having a ball like front end (see figs. 14-15), wherein in the second end section of the tip element is shaped such that it is bended in a tilted direction about a third angle relative to a main plane including the first bended subsection and the second bended subsection (see figs 14-15, , pg. 6, ll. 42-43, such that the tip element is bend at 162) and wherein the third angle appears to be between -75 and 75 degrees (see fig. 5, annaoted figure, such that is appear to be approximately 45 degrees). It is noted that Warrin does not specifically teach the third angle as claimed, however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the third angle of Warrin to be within the claimed range since it has been held that were the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05, II, A). It is further noted that the prior art teaches the third angle for the same purposes as the applicant (see pg. 9, ll. 8-18 of applicant’s specification), such that depending on the desired use of the tip, the third angle is provided. See pg. 6, ll. 42-43 of Warrin which teaches the third angle of figs. 14-15 is provided for when the tool is being used for root planning molars on the left side of the mouth. Warrin teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the first angle and the second angle are between 85 and 125 degrees and the tip element comprises titanium and wherein he titanium amount is less than 80 weight %.
PNG
media_image1.png
382
872
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lin teaches a tip element for a dental treatment device, being a scaler (figs. 3-4) wherein the tip element performs an ultrasonic vibration during its utilization (par. 7), comprising a first end section (4) for reversibly attaching the tip element to a hand piece (par. 26), a second end section (1), forming a dental tool, and a motion transformation section (see figure below) arranged between the first end section and the second end section (see figure below), wherein, for transforming an ultrasonic vibration having a first vibration direction to an ultrasonic vibration having a second vibration direction, the motion transformation section has a first bended subsection 31 and a second bended subsection 32, wherein a course of the tip element (construed as an extension of the curved length of the tip) is bended about a first angle in the first bended subsection (par. 33, the curvature of 31 is 90 degrees to 180 degrees) and about a second angle in the second bended subsection (par. 34 the curvature of the second curved portion is 90 degrees to 180 degrees), wherein the first angle and/or the second angle is between 85 degrees and 125 degrees (par. 33-34, “90 degrees to 180 degrees”) and wherein in the second end section of the tip element is shaped such that it is bended in a tilted direction about a third angle relative to a main plane including the first bended subsection and the second bended subsection (see fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the angles taught by Warrin with the specific angles taught by Lin in order to deliver the desired forces to the teeth (see par. 26 of translation). Further it is noted, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the angles of Warrin with those of Lin since it has been held that were the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05, II, A). Warrin/Lin teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the tip element comprises titanium and wherein he titanium amount is less than 80 weight %.
Hoang teaches a tip element for a dental treatment device, being a scaler, wherein the tip element performs an ultrasonic vibration during its utilization (see par. 8, claim 1) comprising a first end 4 for reversibly attaching the tip element to a hand piece (see par. 31), a second end section 18a forming a dental tool, and a motion transformation section 16a arranged between the first end section and the second end section (see figs. 1, 3), the motion transformation section has a first bended subsection (such that the bend in hook shaped section 12a is the first bended subsection), wherein the tip element is shaped such that it is bended about a firs tangle in the first bended subsection (see figs. 1, 3), wherein the first angle is about 130 degrees (see claim 3) and the second end section tapers to its pointed end (see figs. 1, 3), wherein the tip element only tapers to its front end without having a ball like front end (see figs. 1, 3), wherein the second end section of the tip element is shaped such that it is bended in a tilted direction about an angle relative to the first bended subsection (see fig. 1, 3, such that section 18a is bend relative to portion 16a), wherein the tip element comprises titanium and wherein the titanium is in an amount of less than 80 weight % (see par. 34, specifically titanium-niobium alloy). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the tip made of stainless steel as taught by Warrin/Lin to be made of a material comprising titanium in an amount less then 80 weight % as taught by Hoang since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07). It is further noted that Hoang teaches the tip can be made from a variety of materials including steel (see par. 34), therefore it is noted that Hoang teaches the different materials are known equivalents for each other.
With respect to claim 2, Warrin/Lin/Hoang teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including Lin teaching wherein a difference between the first angle and the second angle is smaller than 15 degrees (see pars.33-34, such that they are both between 90-180 degrees).
With respect to claim 4, Warrin/Lin/Hoang teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including Lin teaches wherein the radius of the first bended subsection, wherein D1 is in the range between 1.2 and 4mm (par. 35, “the radius R1 of the first curved portion 31 is 1 to 50mm”) and thus is construed to satisfy the equation as recited. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the radius of curvature taught by Warrin to be within the claimed range taught by Lin in order to provide the tool to fit within the oral cavity (par. 39).
With respect to claim 5, Warrin/Lin/Hoang teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Warrin teaching the motion transformation section has a first length extending along the tip element and the motion transformation section forms a lateral shift having a second length, wherein the first length is longer than the second length, wherein the first length and the second length define dimensions of the motion transformation sector in different planes (see figs. 14-15, annaoted figure below).
PNG
media_image2.png
244
469
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 6, Warrin/Lin/Hoang teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Lin further teaches teaching a lateral offset length is between 3 and 8 mm (see pars. 37-38). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the lengths of the first and second section by Warrin to be within the claimed range taught by Lin in order to provide the tool to fit within the oral cavity (par. 39).
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warrin (EP 0,323,598) in view of Lin (CN 204909697) in view of Hoang (2017/0333169) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jacoby (20190307529).
Warrin/Lin/Hoang teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the tip element includes a core region and a cover region, wherein the cover region surrounds the core region, such that when the motion transformation section is bent so that it extends in a direction perpendicular relative to a different section of the motion transformation section, wherein along the tip element the cover region modifies its extension in a direction perpendicular to the extension of the tip element and in the motion transformation section the cover region has a first cross-section area in a first cross section measured at a section of the motion transformation section near the first section and a second cross section area in a second cross section in the motion transformation section at the respective position of the tip measured at a section of the motion transformation section near a second section forming the dental too, wherein the first cross section area is bigger than the second cross section area and wherein a cover region has a conical, stepped and/or exponential shape along the motion transformation section.
Jacoby teaches a tip element for a dental treatment device being a scaler, wherein the tip element performs an ultrasonic vibration during its utilization (see pars. 10, 32, 36-37) comprising a first end section for attaching the tip element to a hand piece (pars. 32, 37, such that the first end section is the end 154/254), a second end section, forming a dental tool (pars. 32, 37, fig. 1, such that the second end section is the tip 152/252), and a motion transformation section arranged between the first end section and the second end section (see annotated figure 1 below), wherein the second end section tapered to its point end, wherein the tip element only tapers to a front end without having a ball like front end (see fig. 1, fig. 2, such that tips 20b and 20d taper).
PNG
media_image3.png
230
410
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 7, Jacoby further teaches the tip element has a core region 150/250 and a cover region 100/200, wherein the cover region surrounds the core region (see fig. 1, 2, par. 32), wherein along the tip element the cover region modifies its extension measured in a direction perpendicular to the course of the tip element (see fig. 1 and tips 20b and 20d in fig. 2, such that it is tapered and therefore it modifies its extension).
With respect to claim 8, Jacoby further teaches wherein in the motion transformation section, the cover has a first cross section area in a first cross section perpendicular, measured at a section of the motion transformation section near the first end section, and a second cross section area in a second cross section in the motion transformation section at a respective position of the tip measured at a section of the motion transformation section near a second end section forming the dental tool, wherein the first cross section area is bigger than the second cross section area (see fig. 1, annaoted figure above, such that a cross section of the cover near end 154 is larger than a cross section near tip 152 since it is tapered, see figs. 1, 2, such that tips 20b and 20d also taper and would have the cross sections as claimed).
With respect to claim 9, Jacoby further teaches wherein a cover region has a conical shape along the course of the tip element in the motion transformation section (see fig. 1, annotated figure above, such that the cover is tapered).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the tip taught by Warrin/Lin/Hoang to include the cover on the core as taught by Jacoby to provide the desired removal effect (see pars. 10, 32, 32).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) June 26, 2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed May 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the core of the present invention is the achievement of a specific, complex oscillatory motion at the tip end that is uniquely effective for biofilm removal while simultaneously protecting the tooth surface from damage and it is not merely the result of a certain shape or a certain material, but rather the synergy between a triple bend geometry and a precisely tuned material elasticity provided by the controlled titanium content.
It is noted that Warrin teaches the claimed triple bend structure, however, does not teach the tip being made of a titanium. The applicant argues that Lin does not teach the titanium material as claimed, however, it is noted that Lin was never relied upon to teach the titanium material and therefore, the applicants’ arguments directed towards Lin are moot. It is noted that the newly cited reference of Hoang teaches the titanium material as claimed. It is noted that evidence has also been provided to show that the titanium alloy taught by Hoang has the claimed amount of titanium.
With respect to the applicant’s arguments that the claimed triple bend combined with the claimed material creates the complex oscillatory motion desired, they are not persuasive. It is noted that the applicant has not claimed any relation between the claimed shape, material, and oscillatory motion. It is further noted that the argued oscillatory motion is NOT claimed and therefore, the prior art is not required to teach the argued motion.
With respect to the claimed specific material, it is further noted that the applicant does not disclose that the material having the titanium content provides an advantage or provides an unexpected result. It is noted as discussed in pg. 4, lines 17-25, the applicant discussed that titanium contact of the tip such that it is “provided that the tip element is free of titanium or the tip element only comprises a titanium amount of less than 80 weight-%”. It is noted that the applicant does not disclose the argued relationship between the tip having titanium in an amount of less than 80 weight% and the triple bend as being related and therefore, the applicants’ arguments are not persuasive. It is noted that the applicant even discloses that a tip free of titanium and a tip having titanium in an amount of less than 80% weight would both achieve the desired oscillatory motion are both possibilities within the scope of the invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The prior art of Seoane has been cited to teach a dental tip for connection to an ultrasonic device having a triple bend and being made of metal for removing biofilms.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEIDI MARIE EIDE whose telephone number is (571)270-3081. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-4:00.
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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached on 571-270-5614. 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.
/HEIDI M EIDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772 9/24/2026
