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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/22/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the amendment filed 10/03/25. Claim(s) 1-15 have been amended, no new claims have been added, and no claims have been cancelled. Thus, claims 1-15 are presently pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 11-12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Adriaensen (WO2015/173699).
PNG
media_image1.png
304
402
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig 6 of Adriaensen.
With respect to claim 1, Adriaensen discloses a nozzle unit (12, fig 1) comprising a nozzle orifice (36, fig 1 and iterations of 36x) and a sufficiently narrow tip (see annotated fig 6 of Adriaensen) which fits naturally into an interdental space (note the tip would fit into the space dependent on where the nozzle is placed), wherein the nozzle unit is designed to be used as part of an oral irrigator (10, fig 1 and [0033]), for emitting a flow of irrigation fluid (see abstract and [0033]) to be directed towards periodontal pockets in a subject's mouth (see Abstract and although the device of Adriaensen is described as use in the interproximal space between two teeth, the direction and placement of the nozzle would also be directed toward the periodontal pockets), and which nozzle unit has at least one constructional feature (guidance tip; 34, fig 6) configured to contribute to realizing a predetermined orientation of a flow of irrigation fluid with respect to a subject's respective teeth (54/55, fig 6) and periodontal pockets in an operational situation involving functional placement of the nozzle unit with the sufficiently narrow tip in the interdental space in the vicinity of the subject’s respective teeth at a position of interdental interfaces, and wherein the flow of irrigation fluid is directed both up and down (dependent on the user’s positioning and needs where the flow is directed in various directions as the user moves and orients the device; see [0040]), namely an orientation from the at least one nozzle orifice towards the periodontal pockets at a pocket inflow angle (prescribed angle; see [0040]) in a range of 10° to 50° (see fig 6 where the orifices are directed from a central axis within the range 10° to 50°) and from the at least one nozzle orifice towards the surface of the subject's respective teeth at a surface impact angle (impact angle; [0042]) in a range of 0° to 50° (greater than 15°; see [0042]), the pocket inflow angle being defined in a first plane extending parallel to a central vertical axis of the subject's respective teeth and having an interdental orientation (see annotated fig 6 of Adriaensen), and the surface impact angle being defined in a second plane extending both parallel to the central vertical axis of the subject's respective teeth and perpendicular to the first plane (see annotated fig 6 of Adriaensen), wherein the pocket inflow angle is an angle between a direction of the flow of irrigation fluid as projected on the first plane and a direction of the central vertical axis of the subject's respective teeth (see annotated fig 6 of Adriaensen), and wherein the surface impact angle is an angle between a direction of the flow of irrigation fluid as projected on the second plane and the direction of the central vertical axis of the subject's respective teeth (see annotated fig 6 of Adriaensen).
With respect to claim 2, Adriaensen discloses a second nozzle orifice (361 / 362, fig 6), the nozzle orifices are configured and arranged to emit irrigation fluid in different directions from the nozzle unit (see the direction of flow (62/64) in fig 6 crossing paths in opposite directions).
With respect to claim 11, Adriaensen discloses at least one projecting element (58, fig 6) which is configured and arranged to realize the predetermined orientation of the flow of irrigation fluid through supporting the nozzle unit on at least one of the teeth and the gums in a predetermined way defined by its shape and dimensions of the projecting element (see [0038], nozzle spacer assembly 58 allows for the proper impact angle by specific size and shape).
With respect to claim 12, Adriaensen discloses an oral irrigator (10, fig 1), comprising the nozzle unit according to claim 1 (see fig 1 and claim 1 above) and a fluid supply system (reservoir 22, pump 24, electronics 26; fig 1) which is configured and arranged to supply irrigation fluid to the nozzle unit so as to enable the nozzle unit to emit the irrigation fluid (see [0033 and 51]).
With respect to claim 15, Adriaensen discloses a method of performing an oral cleaning action (see [0053]), wherein a flow of irrigation fluid (62/64, fig 6) is directed towards periodontal pockets in a subject's mouth (see Abstract and although the device of Adriaensen is described as use in the interproximal space between two teeth, the direction and placement of the nozzle would also be directed toward the periodontal pockets) from a nozzle unit (12, fig 1) comprising a nozzle orifice (36, fig 1 and iterations of 36x) and a sufficiently narrow tip (see annotated fig 6 of Adriaensen) which fits naturally into an interdental space (note the tip would fit into the space dependent on where the nozzle is placed), in a predetermined orientation with respect to a subject's respective teeth and periodontal pockets, and wherein the flow of irrigation fluid is directed both up and down (dependent on the user’s positioning and needs where the flow is directed in various directions as the user moves and orients the device; see [0040]), namely an orientation from the at least one nozzle orifice towards the periodontal pockets at a pocket inflow angle (prescribed angle; see [0040]) in a range of 10° to 50° (see fig 6 where the orifices are directed from a central axis within the range 10° to 50°) and from the at least one nozzle orifice towards the surface of the subject's respective teeth at a surface impact angle (impact angle; [0042]) in a range of 0° to 50° (greater than 15°; see [0042]), the pocket inflow angle being defined in a first plane (see annotated fig 6 of Adriaensen) extending parallel to a central vertical axis of the subject's respective teeth and having an interdental orientation (see annotated fig 6 of Adriaensen), and the surface impact angle being defined in a second plane extending both parallel to the central vertical axis of the subject's respective teeth and perpendicular to the first plane (see annotated fig 6 of Adriaensen), wherein the pocket inflow angle is an angle between a direction of the flow of irrigation fluid as projected on the first plane and a direction of the central vertical axis of the subject's respective teeth (see annotated fig 6 of Adriaensen), and wherein the surface impact angle is an angle between a direction of the flow of irrigation fluid as projected on the second plane and the direction of the central vertical axis of the subject's respective teeth (see annotated fig 6 of Adriaensen).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adriaensen in view of Jager (2017/0086954).
With respect to claim 3, Adriaensen discloses all the elements as claimed above but lacks a valve arrangement at a position between two nozzle orifices.
However, Jager teaches a nozzle unit (12, fig 1) comprising a valve arrangement (74, fig 17) at a position between two nozzle orifices (see [0059] and figs 16A-16B), for realizing a first operational condition (closes 362 and 363 as seen in fig 16A, only one orifice is open to spray 561) in which one of the nozzle orifices is opened (fig 16A, 361 is the only open orifice) and the other of the nozzle orifices is blocked, and a second operational condition (closes 361 and 363 as seen in fig 16B, only one orifice is open to spray 562) in which the one of the nozzle orifices is blocked and the other of the nozzle orifices is opened (fig 16B, 362 is the only open orifice) (figs 16A-16C in combination with [0059] show opening and closing orifices with valve 74).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the nozzle unit of Adriaensen to include a valve arrangement as taught by Jager so as to provide iterative consecutive bursts of fluid at different angles for providing greater microburst spray coverage during treatment (see [0059-60] of Jager).
Claim(s) 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adriaensen in view of Mullin (2017/0367799).
With respect to claim 4, Adriaensen shows all the elements as claimed above but lacks a portion of the nozzle unit accommodating the at least one nozzle orifice has an adjustable positioning in the nozzle unit.
PNG
media_image2.png
286
448
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig 3A of Mullins.
However, Mullins teaches an oral irrigation device (11, fig 3A) with a nozzle unit (5, see annotated fig 3A of Mullins) and a portion of the nozzle unit (see annotated fig 3A of Mullins) accommodating at least one nozzle orifice (1, fig 3A) has an adjustable positioning (via flexible section 9, fig 3A and [0036]) in the nozzle unit.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a portion of the nozzle unit of Adriaensen to include a flexible section as taught by Mullins so as to allow the nozzle to bend to clean hard to reach areas of the mouth and also avoid injuring the user.
With respect to claim 5, the modified Adriaensen shows at least one flexible portion (after modification by Mullins; 9, fig 3A of Mullins in on the nozzle unit of Adriaensen).
With respect to claim 6, the modified Adriaensen shows a tubular flexible portion (after modification by Mullins; 9, fig 3A of Mullins in on the nozzle unit of Adriaensen) and a distal end portion extending from the flexible portion (35, fig 6 of Adriaensen; extends from tube 28 of nozzle unit 12 in fig 1 of Adriaensen), the distal end portion including at least two radial arms (see 361 and 362 orifices extending outward from 35 in fig 6 of Adriaensen; see also extension of 36 off of 34 in fig 1 of Adriaensen) having a nozzle orifice (36, fig 1 and 6) arranged at an end thereof.
With respect to claim 7, the modified Adriaensen shows a rotatably arranged (bendable, flexible) distal end portion (after modification by Mullins; 9, fig 3A of Mullins in on the nozzle unit of Adriaensen) including at least one nozzle orifice (includes the end with the nozzle 36, fig 6 of Adriaensen).
With respect to claim 8, the modified Adriaensen shows a distal end portion(after modification by Mullins; 9, fig 3A of Mullins in on the nozzle unit of Adriaensen) including at least one nozzle orifice (includes the end with the nozzle 36, fig 6 of Adriaensen) which is movably arranged in the distal end portion (flexible, bendable).
Claim(s) 9-10 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adriaensen in view of Richter (10,064,711).
With respect to claim 9, Adriaensen discloses all the elements as claimed above but lacks a sensor comprising a tactile sensor configured and arranged to sense oral configuration features, and which is configured and arranged to generate input suitable to be received and processed by a controller which is configured and arranged to control positioning of the at least one nozzle orifice on the basis of the input from the sensor arrangement.
However, Richter teaches a smart tooth cleaning device (110, fig 2) with a sensor comprising a tactile sensor (pressure sensor; 145, fig 4) which is configured and arranged to sense oral configuration features (see step 104, fig 1 and col. 4, lines 41-52), and which is configured and arranged to generate input suitable to be received and processed (see col. 5, lines 56-67 and col. 6) by a controller (local or remote computer system; col. 5, lines 4-14) which is configured and arranged to control positioning of the at least one nozzle orifice on the basis of the input from the sensor arrangement (user can analyze and improve their oral health routine; see col. 8, lines 41-44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the nozzle unit of the Adriaensen to include a sensor unit as taught by Richter so as to provide the user with personalized feedback to ensure proper cleaning and improvement to oral irrigation.
With respect to claim 10, Adriaensen discloses all the elements as claimed above but lacks a sensor which is configured and arranged to sense the orientation of the flow of irrigation fluid with respect to a subject's respective teeth and periodontal pockets in the operational situation, and to generate input suitable to be received and processed by a controller which is configured and arranged to control a user interface configured to convey information to a user.
However, Richter teaches a smart tooth cleaning device (110, fig 2) with a sensor arrangement (135, 137, 139, 145; fig 4) which is configured and arranged to sense orientation with respect to a subject’s respective teeth (see step 104, fig 1 and col. 4, lines 41-52), and which is configured and arranged to generate input suitable to be received and processed (see col. 5, lines 56-67 and col. 6) by a controller (local or remote computer system; col. 5, lines 4-14) which is configured and arranged to control a user interface configured to convey information to a user (see col. 8, lines 9-16 and 41-44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the nozzle unit of the Adriaensen to include a sensor unit as taught by Richter so as to provide the user with personalized feedback to ensure proper cleaning and improvement to oral irrigation.
With respect to claim 14, Adriaensen discloses an oral irrigator (10, fig 1 of Adriaensen), comprising the nozzle unit according to claim 11 (see claim 11 rejection above), a fluid supply system (reservoir and pump; 22/24, fig 1 of Adriaensen) which is configured and arranged to supply irrigation fluid to the nozzle unit (see [0033] of Adriaensen) so as to enable the nozzle unit to emit the irrigation fluid (see [0033] of Adriaensen), and a control electronics (26, fig 1 of Adriaensen) but lacks a sensor comprising a tactile sensor which is configured and arranged to sense oral configuration features, and which is configured and arranged to generate input suitable to be received and processed by a controller which is configured and arranged to receive and process the input from the sensor arrangement of the nozzle unit, and to control positioning of the at least one nozzle orifice.
However, Richter teaches a smart tooth cleaning device (110, fig 2) with a tactile sensor (pressure sensor; 145, fig 4) which is configured and arranged to sense oral configuration features (see step 104, fig 1 and col. 4, lines 41-52), and which is configured and arranged to generate input suitable to be received and processed (see col. 5, lines 56-67 and col. 6) by a controller (local or remote computer system; col. 5, lines 4-14) and a processor (143, fig 4) which is configured and arranged to receive and process input from the sensor and to control positioning of the cleaning device on the basis on the input from the sensor (“For example, the system can emit a signal indicating that more brushing or flossing is needed, the system can emit a first audio signal such as a first tone indicating that the brush is not at the proper location. As the user moves the brush close to the proper location, the audio signal can change indicate that the user is getting closer to the missed area of the teeth" see col. 12, lines 47-62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the nozzle device of Adriaensen to include a sensor arrangement and controller for positioning as taught by Richter so as to guide the user to properly clean his/her teeth.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adriaensen in view of Hilscher (2014/0127641).
With respect to claim 13, Adriaensen discloses the fluid supply system is configured and arranged to supply irrigation fluid to the nozzle unit in microburst (see [0032-33] of Adriaensen) but lacks a pulsed flow.
However, Hilscher teaches an oral irrigator (100, fig 1) configured to supply irrigation fluid (from fluid reservoir by pump (see [0039])) to a nozzle (110/111, fig 1) as a pulsed flow (see [0039-40]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the flow of Adriaensen to be a pulsed flow as taught by Hilscher so as to provide pulses of fluid one after another to effectively treat the periodontal pockets and remove debris.
Response to Arguments
The arguments to the newly added claim limitations in claims 1 and 15 have been addressed in the above rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELSEY E BALLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8153. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 4 PM.
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, Timothy Stanis can be reached at 571-272-5139. 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.
/KELSEY E BALLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/TU A VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights