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 Amendment
The amendment filed January 6, 2026 in response to the Office Action of July 7, 2025 has been acknowledged and entered.
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.
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bruce (WO 03065890) (cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 18, Bruce teaches a tool (Fig. 18a) and a method of conducting a dental test on a tooth of a patient, the method comprising a handpiece means (probe 33) for generating by an electronic circuit a sensory stimulus (Page 21, lines 27-30) at a probe tip of a probe attached to a first handpiece (33) when the probe tip is in contact with the tooth (Page 71, lines 10-15); and receiving by the electronic circuit an actuation by the patient of a switch (Page 51 line 2-Page 52, line 18 programmable keys 18, OK button 12; Page 73 line 6-Page 74, line 11), of a second handpiece (handheld device 10) held by the patient.
Regarding claim 20, Bruce teaches a dental tool (Fig. 18) for conducting a dental test on a tooth of a human patient, the dental tool comprising: means for generating a sensory stimulus at the tooth (Page 21, lines 27-30); and means (10) for receiving an actuation by the patient of a switch. (Page 51 line 2-Page 52, line 18 programmable keys 18, OK button 12)
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, 2, 12-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lussi (DE 19709500) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Lussi teaches a dental tool having an electronic circuit (Fig. 1), the dental tool comprising: (a) a first handpiece (1) including a first switch (9); a probe (2) attachable to the first handpiece (1), (Page 4, lines 5-8), the electronic circuit being operable to generate a sensory stimulus at the probe in response to actuation of the first switch ((Page 4, lines 2-4 of Machine Translation, ring switch 9 is used to adjust the light probe); and (c) a second handpiece (housing 12) including a second switch (6), the second handpiece (12) being operable to transmit to the first handpiece (1) a signal for controlling the sensory stimulus in response to actuation of the second switch (6), (Page 5, lines 24-36 of Machine Translation, the button 6 is used to communicate the type of light probe plugged into handpiece 1; each light probe 2 is first compared to the intrinsic fluorescence of the tooth to be examined before it is put into operation. Since each tooth has a different autofluorescence, the autofluorescence can interfere with the measurement. For comparison, a healthy tooth is therefore measured with the selected light probe 2 before the actual caries detection is started. The adjustment process is initiated by long pressing (for example one second) of the ring switch 9 on the dental handpiece 1), wherein the dental tool comprises a plurality of said probes, (Page 5, lines 3-8 of Machine Translation, choose between three different light probes, depending on the type of tooth area to be examined), each said probe being removably attachable to the first handpiece, (Page 4, lines 5-8 of Machine Translation), the first handpiece comprising a detector for identifying a type of said each probe, (Page 4, lines 28-30 of Machine Translation, detection fibers provided in the light probe 2), the sensory stimulus being selected by the electronic circuit in response to the type identified by the detector. (Page 4, lines 28-30 of Machine Translation, detection fibers provided in the light probe 2 detect the fluorescence radiation in the irradiated tooth region 19, which is detected by detection fibers provided in the light probe 2, the output signal of which is received by the central unit 22; Page 3, lines 29-36 the buttons 4-7 are used to select predetermined operating modes and to select the light probe 2 which is plugged onto the dental handpiece 1.)
Hence, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select between the three different light probes (i.e., sensory stimulus) in response to the type of tooth surface identified by the detector.
Regarding claim 2, Lussi teaches wherein the first handpiece (1) is operable to generate the sensory stimulus selected from the group consisting of a visual stimulus. (Page 3, lines 18-38 light probe).
Regarding claim 12, Lussi teaches wherein the detector (Page 4, lines 29-30 detection fibers in light probe 2) is operable to sense a pre-determined optical parameter (instantaneous fluorescence spectrum) exhibited by said each probe when said each probe (light probe 2) is attached to the first handpiece (1). (Page 3, lines 23-24, 31-34).
Regarding claim 13, Lussi teaches wherein the detector comprises an optical source (Page 4, lines 19-30, light source 10 generates excitation radiation which causes fluorescence radiation 20) and an optical receiver. (Page 4, lines 29-30 detection fibers in light probe 2).
Regarding claim 14, Lussi wherein at least one said removably attachable probe (Page 3, lines 6-7), is operable to produce visible light for dental transillumination. (Page 4, lines 19-30).
Regarding claim 16, Lussi teaches wherein the electronic circuit is operable to produce an audio (acoustic) signal in response to the actuation of a second switch (7). (Page 6, lines 24-27).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lussi in view of Davis (US 4350488) (previously cited) (cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 3, Lussi teaches wherein the probe defines a probe tip (distal end of probe 2), but does not teach wherein the first handpiece comprises “a thermoelectric device for generating the sensory stimulus as a thermal stimulus, the dental tool being operable to maintain the probe tip at a specifiable temperature in response to the actuation of the first switch”.
Davis, in a related field of endeavor, teaches a handpiece (30) comprising a thermoelectric device (20) for generating the sensory stimulus as a thermal stimulus, the dental tool being operable to maintain the probe tip at a specifiable temperature in response to the actuation of the first switch (34). (Fig. 2; Col. 5, lines 52-66).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Lussi to provide “a thermoelectric device for generating the sensory stimulus as a thermal stimulus, the dental tool being operable to maintain the probe tip at a specifiable temperature in response to the actuation of the first switch” as taught by Davis. Doing so enables probe to be heated or cooled and ready to be applied to a patient’s tooth. (Col. 5, lines 62-63).
Regarding claim 4, Lussi does not teach “wherein the electronic circuit is operable to control electrical power supplied to the thermoelectric device, the second handpiece being operable to transmit the signal such that the electronic circuit stops supplying the electrical power to the thermoelectric device”.
Davis teaches wherein the electronic circuit is operable to control electrical power supplied to the thermoelectric device (20), the second handpiece (12) being operable to transmit the signal such that the electronic circuit stops supplying the electrical power to the thermoelectric device (via control switch 34). (Col. 5, lines 52-55).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Lussi to teach “wherein the electronic circuit is operable to control electrical power supplied to the thermoelectric device, the second handpiece being operable to transmit the signal such that the electronic circuit stops supplying the electrical power to the thermoelectric device” as taught by Davis. Doing so enables greater control of the power flow which generates heat and cold. (Col. 5, lines 54-55).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lussi in view of Davis, further in view of Suski (U.S. 5419780) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 5, Lussi as modified does not teach “wherein the first handpiece further comprises a heatsink in thermal communication with the thermoelectric device, and a fan operably coupled to the electronic circuit to generate airflow at the heatsink”.
Davis teaches wherein the first handpiece (30) further comprises a heatsink (31) in thermal communication with the thermoelectric device (20), but does not teach “a fan operably coupled to the electronic circuit to generate airflow at the heatsink”.
Suski, in a related field of endeavor, teaches a thermoelectric device (Fig. 5) comprising a fan (70) operably coupled to the electronic circuit to generate airflow at the heatsink (60).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Lussi as modified to include “a fan operably coupled to the electronic circuit to generate airflow at the heatsink” as taught by Suski. Doing so allows heated air to be moved away from the integrated circuit and cooler air to be drawn to the integrated circuit to absorb further heat from the integrated circuit. (Abstract).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lussi in view of Davis and Suski, further in view of Stepovich (WO 2010144847) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 6, Lussi as modified does not teach “wherein the first handpiece further comprises a heat pipe for conveying thermal energy between the thermoelectric device and the heatsink”.
Stepovich, in a related field of endeavor, teaches a dental thermal sensitivity tester (Fig. 10) wherein the first handpiece (Fig. 8, element 816) further comprises a heat pipe for conveying thermal energy between the thermoelectric device and the heatsink. (Paragraph [0039]; Figure 10, at 1002 is a dental probe having an interior gas or fluid communicating tube 1006. Tube 1006 is capable of conveying fluids, liquids or gases, or a combination of liquid and gas from a distal end (not shown in Figure 10) through the path noted at 1008 and then transfers heat or cold to the heatsink fins 1012 which then transfer the heat or cold to the end of probe surface 1004 before returning via path as indicated at 1010. Between the fins 1012 and surface 1004 may be a thermal conductor (e.g., heat pipe).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Lussi as modified to teach “wherein the first handpiece further comprises a heat pipe for conveying thermal energy between the thermoelectric device and the heatsink” as taught by Stepovich. Doing so enables heat energy to be transferred between the thermoelectric device and the heatsink.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lussi in view of Davis and Suski, further in view of Kim (US 20190167330) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 7, Lussi as modified does not teach “wherein the first handpiece further comprises an air duct for conveying the airflow between the fan and the heatsink”.
Kim, in a related field of endeavor, teaches a thermoelectric device (Paragraph [0001]), wherein the first handpiece (Paragraph [0048] portable device usable by hand, comprising grip 230) further comprises an air duct for conveying the airflow between the fan and the heatsink. (Fig. 2D, Paragraph [0106] the outer surface of the fan 250 may conform to the inner surface of the body 20, and therefore may guide airflow in the cooling device to flow through the fan 250.)
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Lussi as modified to teach “wherein the first handpiece further comprises an air duct for conveying the airflow between the fan and the heatsink” as taught by Kim. Doing so guides airflow in the cooling device to flow through the fan. (Paragraph [0106]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lussi in view of Davis, further in view of Tamler (US 4308012) (previously cited) (cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 8, Lussi as modified does not teach “wherein the thermoelectric device is a multi- stage thermoelectric device.”
Tamler, in a related field of endeavor, teaches a dental vitality tester (Fig. 2) wherein the thermoelectric device (65) is a multi- stage thermoelectric device (parallel metallized faces 67, 68).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Lussi as modified to teach “wherein the thermoelectric device is a multi-stage thermoelectric device” as taught by Tamler. Doing so facilitates a greater range of temperature detection.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lussi in view of Davis, further in view of Takeuchi (CA 2239397) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 9, Lussi as modified does not teach “wherein the dental tool comprises a probe sensor operable to sense a temperature of the probe at the probe tip.”
Takeuchi, in a related field of endeavor, teaches wherein the dental tool (1) comprises a probe sensor (4b) operable to sense a temperature of the probe at the probe tip. (See Fig. 1).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Lussi as modified to teach “wherein the dental tool comprises a probe sensor operable to sense a temperature of the probe at the probe tip” as taught by Takeuchi. Doing so enables measurement of the temperature of a diseased part of a gum to assist in effective diagnosis and treatment. (Page 2, lines 5-7).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lussi in view of Tamler and Karazivian (WO 03094771).
Regarding claim 10, Lussi does not specifically teach “wherein the electronic circuit is operable to selectably generate each of a thermal stimulus, an electrical stimulus, and a visual stimulus, and wherein the electronic circuit is further operable to generate the sensory stimulus selected from the group consisting of the thermal stimulus, the electrical stimulus, and the visual stimulus.”
Tamler, in a related field of endeavor, teaches dental pulp vitality tester (Fig. 1) comprising a handle (12) having a thermally and electrically conductive probe tip, wherein the electronic circuit is operable to selectably generate each of a thermal stimulus, an electrical stimulus, and wherein the electronic circuit is further operable to generate the sensory stimulus selected from the group consisting of the thermal stimulus, the electrical stimulus. (Col. 4, lines 26-30).
Karazivian, in a related field of endeavor, teaches a system for detecting dental caries on teeth by generating a visual stimulus, and wherein the electronic circuit is further operable to generate the visual stimulus. (Page 6, lines 16-36).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Lussi as modified to teach wherein “wherein the electronic circuit is operable to selectably generate each of a thermal stimulus, an electrical stimulus, and a visual stimulus, and wherein the electronic circuit is further operable to generate the sensory stimulus selected from the group consisting of the thermal stimulus, the electrical stimulus, and the visual stimulus” as taught by the combination of Tamler and Karazivian. Doing so enables a comprehensive multi-stimulus evaluation of the caries present on the teeth from the healthy areas. (Page 7, lines 6-11).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lussi in view of Tamler.
Regarding claim 11, Lussi does not teach “wherein the detector is operable to sense a pre-determined electrical parameter exhibited by said each probe when said each probe is attached to the first handpiece.”
Tamler teaches wherein the detector (80) is operable to sense a pre-determined electrical parameter (i.e., current) exhibited by said each probe when said each probe is attached to the first handpiece. (Abstract).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Lussi to teach “wherein the detector is operable to sense a pre-determined electrical parameter exhibited by said each probe when said each probe is attached to the first handpiece” as taught by Tamler. Doing so enables a patient's tooth sensitivity to be determined. (Abstract).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lussi, further in view of Nash (U.S. 4171572) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 15, Lussi does not teach wherein the second handpiece is operable to transmit the signal “to cause a timer to be stopped in response to the actuation of the second switch.”
Nash, in a related field of endeavor, teaches a second dental handpiece (Fig. 1, Col. 8, lines 23-25, dentist selects which handpiece he desires to use, e.g. handpiece 6) that is operable to transmit a signal to cause a timer (delay means 34) to be stopped in response to the actuation of the second switch (Fig. 2, switch 32 opens to override the delay means 34). (Col. 7, lines 44-45).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Lussi to teach “the first handpiece comprising a detector for identifying a type of said each probe, the sensory stimulus being selected by the electronic circuit in response to the type identified by the detector” as taught by Nash. Doing so provides greater control over the operation of the dental handpiece.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Lussi in view of Okawa (CN 1889894) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 17, Lussi does not teach “wherein the first handpiece has a gun-shaped housing”.
Okawa, in a related field of endeavor, teaches a dental treating device wherein the first handpiece has a gun-shaped housing. (See Fig. 41).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Lussi to teach “wherein the first handpiece has a gun-shaped housing” as taught by Okawa. Doing so provides an ergonomically designed handle that and that minimize hand strain during prolonged procedures and improving comfort for the user.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruce in view of Davis.
Regarding claim 19, Bruce teaches step (a) comprises generating the sensory stimulus as an electrical stimulus, (Page 21, lines 27-30), but does not teach the method further comprising: “ceasing to generate the electrical stimulus in response to receiving the actuation”.
Davis teaches ceasing to generate the electrical stimulus in response to receiving the actuation (via control switch 34). (See Fig. 1; Col. 5, lines 52-54).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Bruce to teach “ceasing to generate the electrical stimulus in response to receiving the actuation” as taught by Davis. Doing so enables greater control of the power flow which generates heat and cold. (Col. 5, lines 54-55).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 1/6/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under U.S.C. 102 has been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made under 103 in view of Lussi.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 18 under U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Bruce fails to disclose “receiving by the electronic circuit an actuation by the patient of a switch” because a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand from the limited disclosures of Bruce that it is not the patient, but rather the dentist or the dentist's assistant or other clinician, who presses the OK button 12 or the CANCEL button. This is not persuasive. While the clinician may be considered the ‘user’ during a tooth surface measurement, it is not obvious that use of the diagnostic device 10 is strictly limited to the clinician. It is plausible that the patient may also engage and use device 10 when selecting, inputting, or updating the patient information/patient record. (Page 73 line 6-Page 74, line 11).
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 Om A. Patel whose telephone number is (571)272-6331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 a.m. - 5 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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/OM PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JENNIFER ROBERTSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791