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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 6 recites "the rigid component extends at least partially or completely around the outlet opening", however claim 1 states that the flexible plastic “forms part of an outlet opening towards the suction hose” and “the remainder of the outlet opening is composed of the rigid plastic component”. In summary, claim 1 now requires part of the outlet opening be flexible plastic component and the rest of it be composed of the rigid plastic component which means the rigid component can only extend partially around the outlet opening and claim 6 does not further limit the claim 1. Therefore, claim 6 fails to further limit the limitations of claim 1 as it broadens the limitation to have the rigid component be either partially or completely around the outlet Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-8, and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Assum (US 2021/038354).
Applicant has provided evidence in this file showing that the claimed invention and the subject matter disclosed in the prior art reference were owned by, or subject to an obligation of assignment to, the same entity as IVOCLAR VIVADENT AG not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, or the subject matter disclosed in the prior art reference was developed and the claimed invention was made by, or on behalf of one or more parties to a joint research agreement in effect not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention. However, although reference Assum (US 2021/0038354) has been excepted as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), it is still applicable as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) that cannot be excepted under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C).
Applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) to overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) by a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application, and is therefore not prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). Alternatively, applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) by providing evidence of a prior public disclosure via an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b).
In regard to claim 1, Assum discloses a saliva aspirator comprising
a plastic moulding made of injection moulding (this limitation is interpreted as product by process, applicant is advised that limitations considered product by process are limited by the product and not the process of manufacturing, as such any product made of mouldable plastic is considered to read on the limitation; par 14 discloses the creation of the suction device by injection molding from an elastic material and par 17 further details appropriate injection molding materials such as plastics, polyethylene, polypropylene, and/or nylon), comprising a coupling for connection to a suction hose (connection 14, see par 44-45 which discloses connections of the connection to a suction line or hose),
wherein the plastic moulding is produced as a multi component injection moulding (this limitation is considered product by process, applicant is advised that limitations considered product by process are limited by the product and not the process in which they are made, as such any product comprising multiple components which are mouldable is considered to read on the claim par 17 and 18 disclose the harder plastic and the softer sponge plastic applicable for the fabrication of the claimed invention) comprising a rigid plastic component and a flexible plastic component (see par 17-18 where the harder plastic and softer material are discussed),
wherein the rigid plastic component has a hardness greater than the flexible plastic component (see par 17-18 which discloses the harder plastic of the suction hose being more than the suction sponge material which is softer) and comprises the coupling (see figure 1, the hard plastic includes the connection 14),
wherein the flexible plastic component (suction sponge 80) comprises a suction region with at least one suction opening or pore for saliva (par 65 discloses the sponge has open pores with fine pores, par 4 discloses collecting saliva) and forms part of an outlet opening towards the suction hose (opening of the molded part 12, adjacent connection 14 where the sponge 18 is positioned at the connection 14 creating part of the outlet opening , see annotated figure 5),
PNG
media_image1.png
252
503
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 5
wherein the plastic moulding is curved and has a radius of curvature extending transversely to its longitudinal direction (via the I central portion 22 seen in figure 5) and is a hollow chamber extending longitudinally as a curved cylinder (via suction tube 18, as seen in figures 3-5),
wherein a length of the plastic moulding (the material of the suction tube 18) which forms part of the outlet opening (opening of the molded part 12, adjacent connection 14 in figure 5) is composed of the rigid plastic component (par 17 discloses the molded part being made of a hard plastic) from the outlet opening to an opposite closed end (see figure 5, where the suction tube 18 which is composed of the hard material extends from the outlet opening adjacent connection 14 to the end which is closed by the sponge 80, where the claim limitation requires a length of the plastic molding be made of a rigid plastic component and not the actual closed end be made of the rigid plastic component)
wherein the curved cylinder has a convex area where the flexible plastic component is located (see figure 5, where the sponge 80 is positioned on the interior of the U curved portion 22) and a concave area where the rigid plastic component is located (see figure 5, where the tube 18 is positioned on the exterior of the U curved portion 22).
In regard to claim 2, Assum discloses the flexible plastic component has a hardness lower than the rigid plastic component (see par 17-18 which discloses the molded material is much harder than the suction sponge) and is fabricated of an open-pored, thermoplastic, elastomer (par 31 discloses the sponge being open pored and par 17-18 discloses the sponge is made of a thermoplastic such as an elastomer).
In regard to claim 4, Assum discloses the plastic moulding comprises a tongue holder (tongue protection 16) which extends away on a side of the moulding opposite the suction region (see figure 5).
In regard to claim 6, Assum discloses the rigid component extends at least partially or completely around the outlet opening and keeps the outlet opening stretched open (see figures 6-7).
In regard to claim 7, Assum discloses the suction region is formed by a hollow chamber (lower U leg 24) which is closed on all sides apart from the at least one suction opening or pore (34) and the outlet opening (14, when the suction sponge is attached see figure 5), and which suction region is under negative pressure during operation of the saliva aspirator (par 34 discloses the lower leg is under pressure when placed in the mouth of a user, as the pressure is suction it is considered negative pressure).
In regard to claim 8, Assum discloses the suction region (80), on a side opposite the tongue holder (16, see figure 5), is formed entirely by the flexible component (see figure 5 and par 18).
In regard to claim 10, Assum discloses the outlet opening (14) has a cross -section which is larger than a cross-section of the suction hose (84, see figure 5).
In regard to claim 11, Assum discloses a tongue holder (16) extends in extension of a highly oval or elliptical cross-section of the suction region (see figure 7).
In regard to claim 12, Assum discloses the suction region (80) has a cross-section which dimension is substantially constant over its longitudinal extension up to the outlet opening (12, figures 5-6), which cross-section is larger than a free flow cross-section of the suction hose (84, see figure 5).
In regard to claim 13, Assum discloses the suction region (80) has, on a side opposite the tongue holder or the rigid component (16), a structure profile with ribs or projections (mandrels 40/42), with a profile height which is a substantially the same over a course of the side (see figure 5).
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.
Claims 3, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Assum as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tevrizian (US 2022/0202546).
Regarding claim 3, Assum fail to disclose further comprising an adapter, wherein the adapter is fabricated of the rigid plastic.
Tevrizian teaches an adapter (210) made of a rigid plastic (par 77 discloses the adapter is comprised of PVC) to enable a quick connection between a hose and the device with an additional flow adjustment or shut off valve (par 77).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing to modify Assum to include an adapter fabricated of rigid plastic as taught by Tevrizian for the purpose of enabling a quick connection between a suction line and the saliva aspirator.
Regarding claim 15, Assum/Tevrizian disclose the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 3. Tevrizian further teaches the adapter (210) can be releasably coupled to the coupling of the plastic moulding (par 30 discloses the adapter attachable to the end 110) and wherein the adapter (210) produces a cross-sectional adaption between the suction tube and the outlet opening (see figure 1 and par 20 which discloses the connection) and is made of the rigid plastic as a part separate from the plastic moulding (see figure 1, the two components are separable and par 29 discloses the semi rigid material), for the reasons set forth above.
Regarding claim 16, Assum/Tevrizian disclose the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 3. Tevrizian further teaches the adapter is configured for positive connection to the plastic moulding and/or positive connection to the suction hose via the coupling (par 30), for the reasons set forth above.
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Assum as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Booth et al (US 2016/0038348).
Regarding claim 5, Assum fail to disclose the flexible plastic component is dimensionally stable when the suction vacuum of the saliva aspirator operates at a level of between 80 mbar and 250 mbar.
Booth teaches a flexible plastic component (10) that is dimensionally stable to withstand a suction vacuum for a saliva aspirator (par 68 discloses the dimensions and spaces of the walls remain steady in their intended function) for the purpose of selectively remove cleaning fluid, mucus/saliva or debris (par 76).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Assum to have the flexible plastic component is dimensionally stable when the suction vacuum of the saliva aspirator operates as disclosed by Booth for the purpose of aiding in the selective removal cleaning fluids, mucus/saliva or debris.
Additionally, there is no evidence of record that establishes changing the flexible plastics ability to stay stable at specific pressure levels results in a difference in function of the Assum/Booth device. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the flexible plastic component of Booth would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such modification and appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed operative pressure range. Lastly applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, indicating that the claimed range of pressure which the flexible plastic component remains stable and appears to place no criticality on the operative range such as unexpected results. 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 Booth to have the flexible plastic component be stable at a range of pressure such as 80 mbar and 360 mbar as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
In regard to claim 9, Assum discloses the rigid component and the flexible component are connected to one another (par 49-50 discloses the attachment of the suction sponge to the molded part of the lower U leg 24). Assum fails to disclose the connection is bonding by injection molding.
Booth teaches the rigid component (stem 12) and the flexible component (head 14) are firmly connected to each other by bonded injection molding (par 60- 61).
As set forth above, both Assum and Booth disclose attachment between the rigid and flexible component (Assum par 49-50 and Booth par 60-61), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the connection method disclosed in Assum with the bonded injection molding connection of Booth to achieve the predictable results of permanently connecting the rigid and flexible components.
Claims 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Assum as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Jamshidi (US 5,489,276) and Georgi et al (US 2017/0007284).
In regard to claim 14, Assum fail to disclose wherein the structure profile has a height of more than 0.2 mm, and wherein suction pores of the suction region end at a base of the structure profile, such that, when the structure profile bears against tissue, the structure profile prevents the suction pore from also blocking the tissue.
Jamshidi teaches suction pores (openings 22) of the suction region end (distal end 14) at a base of a structure profile (fins 24), such that, when the structure profile bears against tissue, the structure profile prevents the suction pore from also blocking the tissue (col 2, lines 53-58 discloses the tip 10 use proximate lose tissue to reduce clogging) for the purpose of improving the efficiency of the tip (col 2, lines 56-58).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Assum to have the structure profile has the suction pores of the suction region end at a base of the structure profile, such that, when the structure profile bears against tissue, the structure profile prevents the suction pore from also blocking the tissue Jamshidi for the purpose of improving the efficiency of the tip.
Georgi teaches a structure profile (nubs 52-54 on the surface of cleaner 48) which is at a height of more than 0.2 mm (see par 50 which discloses the height of the nubs being between 0.5-1.5 mm) for the purpose of providing a desired surface for cleaning (par 50).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify Assum/Jamshidi to have the structure profile have a height of more than 0.2 mm as taught by Georgi for the purpose of providing a desired cleaning surface.
Regarding claim 19, Assum discloses the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 13, but fails to disclose the structure profile has a height of about 0.5 mm, and wherein suction pores of the suction region end at a base of the structure profile, such that, when the structure profile bears against tissue, the structure profile prevents the suction pore from also blocking the tissue.
Jamshidi teaches suction pores (openings 22) of the suction region end (distal end 14) at a base of a structure profile (fins 24), such that, when the structure profile bears against tissue, the structure profile prevents the suction pore from also blocking the tissue (col 2, lines 53-58 discloses the tip 10 use proximate lose tissue to reduce clogging) for the purpose of improving the efficiency of the tip (col 2, lines 56-58).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Assum to have the structure profile has the suction pores of the suction region end at a base of the structure profile, such that, when the structure profile bears against tissue, the structure profile prevents the suction pore from also blocking the tissue Jamshidi for the purpose of improving the efficiency of the tip.
Georgi teaches a structure profile (nubs 52-54 on the surface of cleaner 48) which is at a height of about 0.5 mm (see par 50 which discloses the height of the nubs being between 0.5-1.5 mm) for the purpose of providing a desired surface for cleaning (par 50).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify Assum/Jamshidi to have the structure profile have a height of about 0.5 mm as taught by Georgi for the purpose of providing a desired cleaning surface.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Assum as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Burney (US 2003/0054317).
Regarding claim 17, Assum fail to disclose the suction hose has an integrated wire receptacle for receiving a plastically deformable wire, which ends at the adapter and/or at the plastic molding for connecting the wire thereto.
Burney teaches a suction hose (flexible conduit 16) having an integrated wire receptacle for receiving a plastically deformable wire (malleable wire member 18, figure 2-3), which ends at the adapter and/or at the plastic molding for connecting the wire (see figure 6, the wire 18 being able to end in the plastic molding/suction head 28) for the purpose of deforming and contort the structure of the hose/conduit (par 69).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Assum the suction hose has an integrated wire receptacle for receiving a plastically deformable wire, which ends at the adapter and/or at the plastic molding for connecting the wire thereto as taught by Burney for the purpose of deforming and contort the structure of the hose/conduit.
Regarding claim 18, Assum/Burney discloses the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 17.
Burney further teaches a wire (18) extends into an adapter (vacuum connection member 46) and is captively anchored therein (see figure 7), such that the suction hose cannot be separated from the adapter without being destroyed (par 71 discloses the wire member 18 being inserted into the wall of the tube being semi-permanent) for the purpose of maintaining the deformation or bends (par 71).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Assum/Burney to have a wire extends into the adapter and is captively anchored therein, such that the suction hose cannot be separated from the adapter without being destroyed as taught by Burney for the purpose of maintaining the deformation or bends.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 7-8 of REMARKS, applicant argues that Asum does not disclose that the opening is comprised partly of the rigid plastic component and partly of the soft flexible component. The examiner disagrees. As seen in figure 5, the sponge 80 has a part positioned adjacent to the connector 14, creating part of the opening of the upper U-leg 20. Applicant argument that the sponge 80 forms a separate opening, does not disqualify other portions of the sponge being part of the outlet opening that receives connector 14 as the limitation only requires the sponge be part of the outlet opening.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the rigid plastic component and the flexible plastic component together form the curved cylinder, the flexible plastic component forming a convex area of the curved cylinder and the rigid plastic component forming a concave area of the curved cylinder) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 SHANNEL N BELK whose telephone number is (571)272-9671. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. -Fri. 11:30 am - 3:30 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, Eric Rosen can be reached on (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.
/S.N.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/HEIDI M EIDE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
1/13/2026
Prosecution Insights