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 § 102
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 1-3, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eenboom (DE 4029369).
Eeenboom shows an apparatus for dental irrigation (Fig. 1-5), the apparatus comprising: a first manifold (1) comprising: a first base (top of 1 in Fig. 4), a first substantially planar wall (left side of Fig. 4), a second substantially planar wall extending approximately parallel to the first wall (right side of Fig. 4), and a first set of one or more outlet holes laid out on each of the first wall and the second wall (8a show the location of outlet holes in Fig. 4-5), wherein the outlet holes laid out on the first wall are approximately facing the outlet holes laid out on the second wall (holes best seen in Fig. 5 with 8a going towards one another), wherein at least one of the first wall and the second wall is capable of contacting a user’s tooth (the end of the first and second walls may be contacted with a user’s tooth), the first manifold has a first axis of symmetry located between the first wall and the second wall (at 3a in Fig. 4), and wherein at least a portion of the first manifold is shaped to accommodate a tooth and configured to glide across a plurality of teeth in the user’s dental arch (Fig. 1-5 show structure for the gliding across the teeth); and a rotating inlet joint (3) positioned adjacent to the first manifold (Figures), the rotating inlet joint comprising an inlet channel (2) to receive fluid and channel the fluid into the first manifold towards the first plurality of outlet holes (from 2 to spray at 8a), such that the fluid is channeled to be expelled from the first plurality of outlet holes approximately towards the axis of symmetry (Fig. 4-5); wherein the rotating inlet joint connects to the first manifold via a first inlet portion at the first base (along 3a to enter 1 and reach the holes at 8a), wherein the inlet channel of the rotating inlet joint protrudes from the rotating inlet joint to form an angle relative to the axis of symmetry (perpendicular thereto as best seen in Fig. 3), and wherein the rotating inlet joint is configured to rotate about the axis of symmetry (pivot axis 3a) to enable the inlet channel to turn about the axis of symmetry without blocking a flow of fluid from the inlet channel to the first manifold (about pivot axis 3a), and wherein the rotating inlet joint is configured to enable the flow of the fluid into the first manifold from the inlet channel at any angle of rotation about the axis of symmetry (rotary coupling 3 enables handle arm 2 to be pivoted relative to the nozzle about the pivot axis 3a). With respect to claim 2, wherein the first manifold is configured to receive a portion of a user's teeth (Fig. 4), and wherein the rotating inlet joint is designed to accommodate the user's teeth arrangement by a location of the first inlet portion (Fig. 1-5). With respect to claim 3, wherein a combined design of the first manifold and the rotating inlet joint enables the user to sweep the apparatus from one side of the user's mouth to the other side of the user's mouth while the user's teeth are within each corresponding manifold (best seen in Fig. 1 moving from 1 to 1a).
With respect to claim 13, Eenboom shows an apparatus for dental irrigation (Fig. 1-5), the apparatus comprising: a substantially U-shaped first manifold segment (best seen in Fig. 4) comprising: a first arm having a first plurality of outlet holes providing a plurality of openings into a hollow interior of the first arm (left side of Fig. 4, water spray jets shown as 8a, body having a hollow interior in order to connect the nozzles producing 8a to the fluid source through 2 and 3), and a second arm having a second plurality of outlet holes providing a plurality of openings into a hollow interior of the second arm (similarly to the above, but the right side of Fig. 4), wherein the first manifold segment has a first axis of symmetry located between the first arm and the second arm (3a for instance in Fig. 4); and a rotating inlet segment disposed along the first axis of symmetry (at 3 in Fig. 4), the rotating inlet segment being configured to rotatably couple to the first manifold segment and to enable flow of a fluid into the first manifold segment from an inlet channel (2) at any angle of rotation (rotating coupling best seen in Fig. 1-2 at different points of rotation).
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 10-11, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eenboom.
Eenboom discloses the device as previously described above, but fails to show the arm length is different. This would have been considered obvious to try, as the two options of the arms either being the same length or different are of a finite number of predictable solutions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Eenboom’s arms to be of different lengths because this would have been obvious to try.
Eenboom also fails to show wherein the first manifold further comprises a first inner shell; and a first outer shell, wherein the first inner shell and the first outer shell are coupled together by one of the following: a first snap connection, an adhesive, a welded joint, or a connecting means; instead showing this structure as one piece (Figures). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Eenboom to have separable halves of the manifold since this is merely making previously integral components separable (MPEP 2144.04 V C). the first inner shell corresponding to structure that would be within and below 3 in Fig. 3 for instance, and the first outer shell corresponding to structure that would be at 3.
Claims 6, 9, 12, 16, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eenboom in view of Zeng (US 2011/0191971).
Eenboom discloses the device as previously described above, but fails to show the second manifold and corresponding structure being similar to the first manifold.
Zeng similarly teaches a device for cleaning the teeth (Fig. 1) with two heads wherein an axis of symmetry of the second wall is approximately aligned with the axis of symmetry of the first manifold (best seen in Fig. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Eenboom’s device by placing a second head on the opposite side of the first as taught by Zeng in order to clean both the upper and lower arch simultaneously. In the combination of duplicating the manifold of Eenboom to above the rotating inlet as well, the remainder of claim 6 is met as the second manifold would function in the same manner as the first. With respect to claim 9, wherein the rotating inlet joint serves as a point of reflection about which the first manifold and the second manifold are reflected, such that the first manifold and the second manifold are oriented in substantially opposite directions (as shown in Zeng in Fig. 1-3 that would be applied to the combination).
However, with respect to claim 12, Eenboom/Zeng fails to show the arm length is different. This would have been considered obvious to try, as the two options of the arms either being the same length or different are of a finite number of predictable solutions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Eenboom/Zeng’s arms to be of different lengths because this would have been obvious to try.
Apparatus claims 16 and 18 are rejected similarly to the above as they have the same claimed structure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As discussed in the interview held on 2/9/2026, Eenbom shows both the walls capable of touching teeth as described above, and capable of gliding over the teeth as described above. It was suggested to amend the language to require these limitations simultaneously since Eenbom appears to show either one or the other.
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 MATTHEW NELSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5898. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm EDT.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Eric Rosen, 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 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.
/MATTHEW M NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights