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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/13/25 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Way et al. (WO 2013154737, hereinafter, Way) as evidenced by Ariff (US 20060270935), in view of Rizoiu et al. (US 20100151407, hereinafter Rizoiu).
Regarding Claim 1 and Claim 15, Way discloses a method for enhancing recovery of one or more periodontal pockets (Figures 1A-3D; abstract; Paragraphs [0044]-[0045], [0075]) in the gingiva of the patient (Ariff discloses periodontal soft tissue includes the gingiva and periodontal ligament detach from the tooth and form the periodontal pocket; paragraph [0006]), comprising:
obtaining a vibrational dental device (100 has a motor 106 which when in contact with the teeth moves mouthpiece 102; Figures 1A-1C; 1Paragraph [0044]-[0045])) a patient having undergone a periodontal pocket procedure (Paragraph [0075]; periodontal cleaning and procedures serve a periodontal pocket procedure since they would necessarily affect, directly or indirectly, the periodontal pocket of the patient);
wherein the vibrational dental device (Figures 1A-1C; 1Paragraph [0044]-[0045]) has a mouthpiece (102; Figures 1A-3D) for contacting the dentition of the patient (Paragraph [0075]); and
placing the mouthpiece over the dentition (Figures 3A and 3D; Paragraph [0050]-[0051]); and applying a vibratory force during a predetermined number of sessions throughout a predetermined treatment period (paragraphs [0044]-[0045] and [0075] disclose treatment can be a year); and wherein the periodontal pocket is recovered faster than without vibratory treatment (paragraphs [0044]-[0045] and [0075]).
Way does not disclose wherein propensity toward bacterial accumulation is reduced and quality of a process of periodontal pocket recovery is increased recovered faster than without vibratory treatment.
Rizoiu discloses a device for oral hygiene (abstract; paragraph [0047]) with a dental device (Paragraph [0047]-[0049]; Figure 1) which applies a vibratory force (Paragraph [0047] discloses the movement mechanism) and wherein propensity toward bacterial accumulation is reduced (paragraph [0047]) and quality of a process of periodontal pocket recovery is increased recovered faster than without vibratory treatment (paragraphs [0047] and [0049], the Examiner notes that this is an inherent outcome of the method and no additional method steps are being recited, see MPEP 2145).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the dental device of Way to have propensity toward bacterial accumulation is reduced and quality of a process of periodontal pocket recovery is increased recovered faster than without vibratory treatment in order to ensure the periodontal pocket does not become infected.
Regarding Claim 2, Way as modified by Rizoiu disclose the method of Claim 1. Way discloses the frequency is ranging from 45 Hz to 150 Hz (paragraphs [0044] and [0049]).
Regarding Claim 3, Way as modified by Rizoiu disclose the method of Claim 1. Way discloses the duration is ranging from 30 seconds to 20 minutes (Paragraph [0075] discloses the device can be used for less than six minutes to 10 minutes a day).
Regarding Claim 4, Way as modified by Rizoiu disclose the method of Claim 1. Way discloses the acceleration of the mouthpiece ranged from 0.010 G to 0.15 G (paragraphs [0044] and [0049]).
Regarding Claim 5, Way as modified by Rizoiu disclose the method of Claim 2. Way discloses the frequency is about 113 Hz (paragraphs [0044] and [0049]).
Regarding Claim 6, Way as modified by Rizoiu disclose the method of Claim 1. Way discloses a dimension of a periodontal pocket is reduced faster compared to than without vibratory treatment (Paragraph [0046] discloses that “smacking” created by the vibrations aid in bone growth).
Regarding Claim 7, Way as modified by Rizoiu disclose the method of Claim 1. Way discloses the method of Claim 1. Way does not disclose the microbial load is decreased compared to without vibratory treatment.
Rizoiu discloses a device for oral hygiene (abstract; paragraph [0047]) with a dental device (Paragraph [0047]-[0049]; Figure 1) which applies a vibratory force (Paragraph [0047] discloses the movement mechanism) and the microbial load is decreased compared to without vibratory treatment (Paragraph [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the vibratory treatment of Way by specifying the decrease in microbial load on the dentition as taught by Rizoiu in order to promote cleaning and surface agitation (paragraph [0047]).
Regarding Claim 8, Way as modified by Rizoiu disclose the method of Claim 1. Way discloses the method of Claim 1. Way does not disclose the biofilm formation is reduced compared to without vibratory treatment.
Rizoiu discloses a device for oral hygiene (abstract; paragraph [0047]) with a dental device (Paragraph [0047]-[0049]; Figure 1) which applies a vibratory force (Paragraph [0047] discloses the movement mechanism) and the biofilm formation is reduced compared to without vibratory treatment (Paragraph [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the vibratory treatment of Way by specifying the decrease in biofilm formation as compared to no vibratory treatment as taught by Rizoiu in order to promote cleaning and surface agitation (paragraph [0047]).
Regarding Claim 9, Way as modified by Rizoiu disclose the method of Claim 1. Way discloses the periodontal pocket procedure is non-surgical (Paragraphs [0044] and [0046]).
Regarding Claim 10, Way as modified by Rizoiu disclose the method of Claim 1. Way discloses the periodontal pocket procedure is surgical (Paragraphs [0044]-[0045] and [0075]).
Regarding Claim 11, Way as modified by Rizoiu disclose the method of Claim 1. Way discloses the session time is from 30 seconds to 20 minutes (Paragraph [0075] discloses the device can be used for less than six minute to 10 minutes a day).
Regarding Claim 12, Way as modified by Rizoiu disclose the method of Claim 1. Way discloses sessions are repeated daily (paragraph [0075]).
Regarding Claim 13, Way as modified by Rizoiu disclose the method of Claim 1. Way discloses the treatment period is from 1 day to 1 year (paragraph [0075]).
Regarding Claim 14, Way as modified by Rizoiu disclose the method of Claim 1. Way discloses determining if the actual frequency or acceleration is above or below the set frequency or the set acceleration while the mouthpiece is vibrated against the occlusal surfaces of the patient's teeth (based on the feedback loop in communication with the sensor 118 which the motor 106 may accelerate while 102 vibrates when in contact with the teeth; Paragraph [0044]-[0045] and [0075]); and adjusting the actual frequency or actual acceleration based upon the determination (the feedback adjust the motor based on sensor 118; paragraph [0049]-[0051]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/13/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to Applicant’s Declaration, the Examiner notes that the claims previously objected/rejected are no longer objected or rejected in the above office action. In regards to Applicant’s arguments within the declaration that Way does not disclose a method for enhancing recovery of one or more periodontal pockets in the gingiva of a patient and that Way teaches the tightening of the ligaments after orthodontic treatment, the Examiner notes that tightening the ligaments is also recovering the periodontal pocket. While the Applicant disagrees, the Examiner notes that Ariff is only used to further explain that the periodontal ligament is within the periodontal pocket in the gingiva. In regards to the newly added claim limitation, Rizoiu is used to teach the reduction in the bacterial accumulation.
In regards to the previous 112 rejections and objections to the claims, the Examiner notes that they are no longer rejected or objected to.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that Way does not disclose a method for enhancing recovery of one or more periodontal pockets in the gingiva of a patient and that Way teaches the tightening of the ligaments after orthodontic treatment, the Examiner notes that tightening the ligaments is also recovering the periodontal pocket and Ariff is only being used to teach that the location of the periodontal ligament is within the pocket.
The Examiner notes that Lowe is no longer being used in the rejection.
In regards to Applicant’s argument that Rizoiu fails to tach that the propensity toward bacterial accumulation is reduced, the Examiner notes that paragraphs [0047] and [0049] teach a reduction/removal of bacteria.
In regards to the Applicant’s arguments that Rizoiu does not disclose quality of a process of periodontal pocket is increased than without vibratory treatment, the Examiner notes that no method steps or process is being recited and this is an inherent outcome of the reduction in bacteria. See MPEP 2145.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sydney J Pulvidente whose telephone number is (571)272-8066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:30 a.m. - 3:30 p.m..
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.
/SYDNEY J PULVIDENTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772