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 .
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) 1-8, 16, 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ostler et al. (2013/0323685) in view of Ruppert et al. (2019/0090995).
Ostler discloses a system (fig. 2) consisting essentially of a laser (e.g. 470; [0051])) and a dental adhesive (e.g. 440), wherein the laser emits laser radiation with a wavelength of 1300 nm or more ([0016]), wherein the dental adhesive is capable of being activated to penetrate the pre-treated adhesive base by applying laser application, and wherein the dental restoration part is secured on the treated dental adhesive and a shear strength of a bond between the dental restoration part and the dental adhesive is capable of having at least 17 MPa. With regard the statement of intended use and other functional statements (e.g. “is suitable for…restorative material,” “is activated…radiation,” “a dental restorative part is secured…17 MPa”), they do not impose any structural limitations on the claims distinguishable over the prior art which is capable of being used as claimed if one so desires to do so. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
For the purposes of searching for and applying prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, “consisting essentially of” will be construed as equivalent to “comprising.” See, e.g., PPG, 156 F.3d at 1355, 48 USPQ2d at 1355 (“PPG could have defined the scope of the phrase ‘consisting essentially of’ for purposes of its patent by making clear in its specification what it regarded as constituting a material change in the basic and novel characteristics of the invention.”).
Ostler fails to teach the adhesive comprising a mixture of a methacrylate in a solvent and the methacrylate including methacrylate group and functional group and the adhesive comprising additive (e.g. processing aids, stabilizers or photo initiators); however,
Ruppert teaches a dental adhesive including hardening liquid resin including suitable solvent and liquid containing methyl methacrylate including further functional groups (e.g. liquid with desired viscosity) for securing dental restoration/prosthetic teeth ([0093]). The palabond from Heraeus Kulzer including other additives including stabilizers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the adhesive of Ostler by including hardening liquid resin including suitable solvent and liquid containing methyl methacrylate for ensuring the adhesive is applied all around and properly securing dental restoration/prosthetic teeth.
Regarding claim 2, the wavelength is in the range of 2750 nm and 3200 nm (e.g 2940 nm [0016]), wherein the pre-treated adhesive base can be cleaned, wherein the dental adhesive is adapted/capable for treatment by activation without blowing or agitation, wherein the laser radiation is capable of being applied while the dental adhesive is free of a dental restoration part, and wherein the dental restoration part is capable of being secured on the activated dental adhesive. Regarding claim 3 the laser is designed as a solid-state laser (e.g. diode) with at least one emission maximum at a wavelength between 2750 nm and 3200 nm (e.g. 2940 nm), and is designed as a pulsed laser comprising an Er:YAG laser ([0015]-[0016]). Regarding claim 4 during the application of laser radiation (e.g. intended use) to provide a laser treatment, the laser treatment capable of taking place for a time in a range of 0.5 sec to 15 sec or in a range of 2 sec to 8 sec, and emits pulsed laser radiation (20) with a pulse/pause ratio in a range of 1:1 to 1:1000 or in a range of 1:5 to 1:200 or 1:25 or provides a continuously emitting laser radiation. Regarding claim 5 the laser is can be used as unpulsed laser comprising a diode laser ([0011], [0047]). Regarding claim 6, the laser is configured/capable with at least one emission maximum at a wavelength between about 1400 and 1600 nm ([0016]). Regarding claim 7, the adhesive is capable of being applied in a layer thickness of 0.08 or less mm, or 0.03 mm or less and or between 0.01 to 0.02 mm as intended by a user. Regarding claim 8, the laser is capable of being used as a bacteria removal laser (fig. 2). Regarding claim 16, during the application process step of laser radiation to provide a laser treatment, the laser treatment can take place for a time in the range of 2 sec to 8 sec as determined by a user, and emits pulsed laser radiation with a pulse/pause ratio in a range of 1:5 to 1:200 or at about 1:25.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ostler in view of Ruppert et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cao (2003/0133298).
Ostler/Ruppert discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for the specifics of the laser including the laser emits radiation into a light guide, the distal end of which is bent and/or flexible, and wherein the radiation of the laser can be directed through the light guide to the dental adhesive and the adhesive base; however, .Cao teaches light curing laser including the laser emits radiation into a light guide (e.g. 1302), the distal end of which is bent and/or flexible, and wherein the radiation of the laser can be directed through the light guide to the dental adhesive and the adhesive base (fig. 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the laser of Ostler/Ruppert by providing the laser with the light guide as taught by Cao in order to direct the laser to a desired site for efficiently curing the adhesive.
Claim(s) 10-12, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ostler et al. in view of Ruppert et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Strassl et al. (2005/0245917).
Ostler/ Ruppert discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for a sensor is provided which responds to radiation in the wavelength range between 1000 nm and 15000 nm and has a sensitivity maximum above or below the emission maximum of the laser and the sensor is configured as a reflection detection sensor which is attached to a handpiece and detects radiation emitted by the laser as claimed, and a deflection tip as claimed.
Strassl teaches dental laser (figs. 1-5) including a sensor (e.g. 11) is provided which responds to radiation in the wavelength range and has a sensitivity maximum above or below the emission maximum of the laser and the sensor is configured as a reflection detection sensor which is attached to a handpiece and detects radiation emitted by the laser ([0042-0043]). Strassl further teaches deflection tip (e.g. 5) that outgoing radiation is defected with respect to an axis of laser.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the laser of Ostler/Ruppert by providing a sensor and deflection tip as taught by Strassl in order to increase safety and effectiveness of the treatment device and to avoid damage to healthy tissues and the deflection tip to guide the laser to the targeted area.
Claim(s) 13, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ostler et al. in view of Strassl as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Kasenbacher (2011/0300504).
Ostler/Strassl discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for light source as claimed; however, Kasenbacher teaches light source 73 as claimed (fig. 4.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the laser of Ostler/Strassl by providing the light source as taught by Kasenbacher in order to illuminate the working site for better viewing/examining the site.
Claim(s) 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ostler et al. in view of Ruppert et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dede et al. (6,765,036).
Ostler/Ruppert discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for the dental adhesive comprises a solvent (ethanol, acetone or a mixture thereof); however, Dede teaches using solvent such as acetone (col. 16, lines 60-65) to a dental adhesive. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ostler/Ruppert by providing the solvent to the adhesive as taught by Dede in order to control the viscosity of the adhesive, making them easier to apply.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 12/09/2025 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Patel Yogesh whose telephone number is (571) 270-3646. The examiner can normally be reached between 9 AM – 5:30 PM on Monday, Thursday and Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, SPE Bosques Edelmira, at (571) 270-5614.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YOGESH P PATEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772