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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue that the combination of Collard in view of Lei does not suggest all the features recited in the amended claims 21 and 41. Examiner disagrees with this assessment since Figures 4, 6A, 6B and Paragraphs [0052]-[0053] of Collard et al. discloses springs 144 may be mounted to the lower portion of the chamber of the appliance and can accommodate varying sized appliances and create a gap between the one or more dental appliances and the bottom surface and that a reflective interior surface may be provided on or in the sanitizing chamber to increase internal reflection.
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.
Claim(s) 20-22, 26, 29-30, 41-42, 46-48, and 50-54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collard et al. (US 2011/0020175 A1) in view of Lei et al. (CN-111120977 A).
Regarding Claim 20, Collard et al. reference discloses the method of cleaning one or more dental appliances, the method comprising:
inserting one or more dental appliances into a chamber of a cleaning case having a controller (Abstract and Figure 1A, numeral 12 – appliances and Figure 2A, numeral 24 and Paragraph [0041]) wherein the chamber includes an appliance support positioned on a bottom surface of the chamber, wherein the appliance support extends upward from the bottom surface and elevates the appliance from the bottom surface to create a gap between the one or more dental appliances and the bottom surface (Figures 4, 6A and 6B, numeral 144);
closing a lid of the cleaning case (Figure 1A, numeral 14 – upper portion (same as claimed lid) and Paragraph [0064]); and
activating a cleaning cycle (Paragraph [0064]), wherein activating the cleaning cycle comprises:
emitting ultraviolet light from one or more visible light emitting light sources within the closed chamber (Paragraph [0042]);
reflecting light from one or more surfaces of the closed chamber to illuminate the one or more dental appliances within the chamber (Paragraph [0052]-[0053]).
However, Collard et al. does not disclose that the light source is a visible light between 400-470 nm. Lei et al. reference discloses a lighting decontamination system wherein the killing light source comprising an ultraviolet light source, comprising a vacuum UV, UVC, UVB, UVA, preferably wavelength light source in the range of 280 nanometer to 380 nanometer, or purple light and blue light such as a visible light source wherein the wavelength of red light is about 400 to about 450nm and the wavelength of the blue light is about 450 to about 490nm (“Background” section – Paragraph [0001] and “Description” section – Paragraph [0012]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the visible light such as blue light, purple light and/or red light as taught by Lei et al., since Lei et al. states at Background section, Paragraph [0001] that such a modification would sterilize, such as inactivation of pathogens in the object surface, air or water, wherein pathogen refers to any microscopic organism capable of causing disease or in human infections, including bacterial, viruses, spores, and fungi, inactivating including killing pathogens, to make it cannot or cannot be copied, or make it incapable of infecting human.
Regarding Claim 21, Collard et al. and Lei et al. references disclose the method of claim 20, further comprising continuing the cleaning cycle until one or more of: a timer has counted to a predetermined cycle time, or a stop command has been received by the controller (Collard et al. - Paragraphs [0010] and [0046]).
Regarding Claim 22, Collard et al. and Lei et al. references disclose the method of claim 21, wherein continuing the cleaning cycle until the timer has counted to a predetermined cycle time comprises continuing (Collard et al. - Paragraphs [0055] and [0056]). However, neither Collard et al. nor Lei et al. reference disclose the timer has counted to a time that is 3 hours or longer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Collard et al. and Lei et al. with the claimed timer of 3 hours or longer since the timer is determined based on the size/shape of the appliance to be cleaning and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 26, Collard et al. and Lei et al. references disclose method of claim 20 except for emitting visible light between 400-470 nm comprises emitting light at emitting light at 10 J/cm2 or greater. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Collard et al. and Lei et al. with the emitting light at 10 J/cm2 or greater since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claims 29 and 30, Collard et al. and Lei et al. references disclose the claimed method, further comprising sensing a pathogen or a pathogen byproduct on a dental appliance within the chamber and modifying the cleaning cycle based on the sensed pathogen or pathogen byproduct (Collard et al. – Paragraphs [0055]-[0056]).
Regarding Claim 41, Collard et al. reference discloses method of cleaning one or more dental appliances, the method comprising:
detecting that a lid of a cleaning case has been closed, wherein a chamber of the cleaning case includes one or more dental appliances (Abstract and Figure 1A, numeral 12 – appliances and Figure 2A, numeral 24 and Paragraphs [0041] and [0055]);
activating a cleaning cycle (Paragraph [0064]), wherein activating the cleaning cycle comprises:
emitting ultraviolet light from one or more visible light emitting light sources within the closed chamber (Paragraph [0042]);
reflecting light from one or more surfaces of the closed chamber to illuminate the one or more dental appliances within the chamber (Paragraph [0052]-[0053]); and
deactivating the clean cycle when an event occurs (Paragraph [0055]).
However, Collard et al. does not disclose that the light source is a visible light between 400-470 nm. Lei et al. reference discloses a lighting decontamination system wherein the killing light source comprising an ultraviolet light source, comprising a vacuum UV, UVC, UVB, UVA, preferably wavelength light source in the range of 280 nanometer to 380 nanometer, or purple light and blue light such as a visible light source wherein the wavelength of red light is about 400 to about 450nm and the wavelength of the blue light is about 450 to about 490nm (“Background” section – Paragraph [0001] and “Description” section – Paragraph [0012]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the visible light such as blue light, purple light and/or red light as taught by Lei et al., since Lei et al. states at Background section, Paragraph [0001] that such a modification would sterilize, such as inactivation of pathogens in the object surface, air or water, wherein pathogen refers to any microscopic organism capable of causing disease or in human infections, including bacterial, viruses, spores, and fungi, inactivating including killing pathogens, to make it cannot or cannot be copied, or make it incapable of infecting human.
Regarding Claim 42, Collard et al. and Lei et al. references disclose method of claim 41, wherein the event comprises: detecting that the lid has been opened, a timer has counted to a predetermined cycle time, or a stop command has been received (Collard et al. – Paragraphs [0055] and [0056]).
Regarding Claims 46-47, Collard et al. and Lei et al. references disclose the claimed method except for comprising detecting one or more biomarkers for one or more pathogens within the chamber or modifying the cleaning cycle based on a level of the detected one or more biomarkers. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cleaning cycle based on the amounts of pathogens within the chamber, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 48, Collard et al. and Lei et al. references disclose the method of claim 41, except for steps of emitting the visible light comprises emitting light at 10 J/cm2 or greater. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Collard et al. and Lei et al. with the emitting light at 10 J/cm2 or greater since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 50, Collard et al. and Lei et al. references disclose the method of claim 20, wherein the bottom surface is reflective (Collard et al. - Figure 4, numeral 28).
Regarding Claim 51, Collard et al. and Lei et al. references disclose the method of claim 20, wherein the appliance support is a mesh structure (Collard et al. - Figure 6A, numeral 142a).
Regarding Claim 52, Collard et al. and Lei et al. references disclose the method of claim 20, wherein the appliance support comprises a reflective surface (Collard et al. - Figure 4, numeral 28)..
Regarding Claim 53, Collard et al. and Lei et al. references disclose the method of claim 20, wherein the appliance support is removably positioned on the bottom surface (Collard et al. - Figure 4, 6A and 6B).
Regarding Claim 54, Collard et al. and Lei et al. references disclose the method of claim 20, wherein a height of the gap is defined by a height of the appliance support (Collard et al. - Figure 6A, numeral 142a/144)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 31-33 and 35-38 are allowed.
Claims 23-28, and 43-45 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claims 23-25 and 28, Collard et al. and Lei et al. references disclose the claimed method except for steps of filling the chamber with liquid prior to starting the cleaning cycle, activating the cleaning cycle comprises emitting ultrasound from one or more ultrasound transducers into the chamber, emitting ultrasound further comprises causing cavitation of a fluid within the chamber or heating the chamber during the cleaning cycle. There is no motivation/suggestion to modify the process of Collard et al. and Lei et al. with the claimed steps of emitting ultrasound, heating the chamber during the cleaning cycle and filling the chamber with liquid prior to starting the cleaning cycle.
Regarding Claim 31, Collard et al. reference discloses a method of cleaning one or more dental appliances, the method comprising:
activating a cleaning cycle of a cleaning case, wherein the cleaning case includes a chamber with one or more dental appliances therein activating a cleaning cycle (Paragraph [0064]), wherein activating the cleaning cycle comprises:
emitting ultraviolet light from one or more visible light emitting light sources within the closed chamber (Paragraph [0042]);
reflecting light from one or more surfaces of the closed chamber to illuminate the one or more dental appliances within the chamber (Paragraph [0052]-[0053]).
However, Collard et al. does not disclose that the light source is a visible light between 400-470 nm and step of delivering ultrasound energy to the chamber from one or more ultrasound transducers. Lei et al. reference discloses a lighting decontamination system wherein the killing light source comprising an ultraviolet light source, comprising a vacuum UV, UVC, UVB, UVA, preferably wavelength light source in the range of 280 nanometer to 380 nanometer, or purple light and blue light such as a visible light source wherein the wavelength of red light is about 400 to about 450nm and the wavelength of the blue light is about 450 to about 490nm (“Background” section – Paragraph [0001] and “Description” section – Paragraph [0012]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the visible light such as blue light, purple light and/or red light as taught by Lei et al., since Lei et al. states at Background section, Paragraph [0001] that such a modification would sterilize, such as inactivation of pathogens in the object surface, air or water, wherein pathogen refers to any microscopic organism capable of causing disease or in human infections, including bacterial, viruses, spores, and fungi, inactivating including killing pathogens, to make it can not or can not be copied, or make it incapable of infecting human. However, there is no motivation/suggestion to modify the process of Collard et al. and Lei et al. with the claimed step of emitting ultrasound.
Claims 32-33, and 35-38 directly or indirectly depend on Claim 31.
Regarding Claims 43 and 45, Collard et al. and Lei et al. references disclose the claimed method except for steps of activating the cleaning cycle further comprises delivering ultrasound energy to the chamber from one or more ultrasound transducers or activating the cleaning cycle further comprises heating a fluid within the chamber. There is no motivation/suggestion to modify the process of Collard et al. and Lei et al. with the claimed step of emitting ultrasound.
Claim 44 directly depend on Claim 43.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUY-TRAM NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3167. The examiner can normally be reached M-W, 7:00am - 3pm, EST.
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, Claire X Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/HUY TRAM NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1774