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
This Office Action is in response to a preliminary amendment filed on 11/10/2022. As directed by the preliminary amendment, no claims were canceled, claims 1-5 were amended, and claims 6-15 were added. Thus, claims 1-15 are pending for this application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to for the following:
Figure 1 is objected to because it appears that the hydro pulser system 2 includes the abrasive powder supply system 3, rather than connecting to the abrasive powder supply system 3, which contradicts claim 1 line 3. In addition, reference numeral “3” is pointed to a line between check vale 8 and the powder generator 17 rather than the abrasive powder supply system
Figure 2 is objected to because claim 1 lines 22-23 recites “water tank comprise …. In the bottom onto which is disposed an automatic closing valve and a filter”, however figure 2 shows that valve 14 is located at the top of the tank
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a truncated cone shaped flexible tube” (claim 1) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title is objected to for the following reason:
The word “horal” appears to be a typographical error and should be changed to “oral”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 2 in each of claims 5 and 14, “type E968 (C4H1004).” should be changed to --type E968.-- , as adding “C4H1004” is redundant, and parentheticals within claims are reserved for reference numbers or acronyms, not chemical formulas.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “regulation device adapted to intercept said water flow downstream of said water pump” in claim 1 lines 10-11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. In this case, the corresponding structures of “regulation device” described in page 6 line 8 of the specification: a solenoid valve.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “said hydro pulser system comprises a water tank connected with said water pump adapted to supply a water flow to a treatment device connected to said water pump through an interposition of a regulation device adapted to intercept said water flow downstream of said water pump by means of a truncated cone shaped flexible tube that comes out of a casing” in lines 8-13 is unclear what exactly structure that the hydro pulser system includes. Does it only include the water tank? Or it includes structures such as the water pump, regulation device, means of truncated cone shaped flexible tube and the casing?
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “comprising” in lines 14-16, it is not clear which structure is being referred to, the hydro pulser system and the abrasive powder supply system, or the casing?
Claim 1 is also unclear as to whether or not the opening-closing valve , dispensing head and the treatment device are part of the claimed oral hygiene device. If they are intended to be part of the claimed invention, we should suggest the applicant to add a word –and—after “filter;” in line 23 of the claim in order to link them to the claimed device. Note in lines 8-9, the treatment device is not being positively claimed as part of the oral hygiene device.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said water pump" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 4, 6 and 11-13 recites the limitation "the solution of water and abrasive powder" in lines 2-3 of each claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 8 recites the limitation "the abrasive powder generator" in lines 4 There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the water pump" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Furthermore, the phrase “a water pump” in line 7 renders claim 8 unclear whether this “water pump” is the same as or in addition to the water pump of line 6.
The remaining claims are rejected due to dependence on a rejected base claim.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Germini (EP 2862543) in view of Aoyama (JP H07328035) and Lehmann (WO 02074180).
Regarding claim 1, Germini discloses (Fig. 1-2) an oral hygiene device, comprising:
a hydro pulser system (hydropulser system 2), an ambient air intake opening (environmental air inlet opening 18), and a water pump (pump 5), wherein:
said hydro pulser system comprises
a water tank (reservoir 4) connected with said water pump (see Fig. 1) adapted to supply a water flow to a treatment device (treatment device 6) connected to said water pump through an interposition of a regulation device (electrovalve 16) adapted to intercept said water flow downstream of said water pump (paragraph [0028]) by means of a flexible tube (tube 19) that comes out of a casing (casing 7, see paragraph [0029]), and:
said hydro pulser system is contained in said casing (paragraph [0046]) comprising a housing (housing 12) for mounting said water pump (paragraph [0018]);
a bracket connection (bracket 13) placed between said water tank and said water pump (paragraph [0018]), wherein: said bracket connection includes a manifold (manifold 13a) adapted to convey said water flow to said water pump (paragraph [0018]) through a spout (spout 13b, paragraph [0018]) that is adapted to connect said water tank to said manifold (paragraph [0018]), wherein said water tank comprises a hole in the bottom onto which is disposed an automatic closing valve (automatic closure valve 14) and a filter (water filter 15);
an opening-closing valve (opening-closure valve 20) and a dispensing head (dispensing head 21) are integrated in said treatment device (paragraph [0030] and Fig. 2), wherein said opening-closing valve is enclosed in a handle (handle 22) formed by two half-shells (paragraph [0031]), and one of said two half- shells comprises a space (window 23) onto which is disposed a control/command button (button 24, paragraph [0031]).
Germini does not disclose the hydro pulser system connected to an abrasive powder supply system consisting of an abrasive powder generator connected to an ambient air intake opening, said abrasive powder generator produces abrasive powder intercepted by a check valve, wherein said abrasive powder generator produces abrasive that mixes with water entering or leaving said water pump, said abrasive powder supply system contained in said casing.
However, Aoyama teaches (Fig. 1-2) a hydro pulser system (comprising nozzle 5 and connecting pipe 9 that carries water and pressurized gas from a source) connected to an abrasive powder supply system consisting of an abrasive powder generator (powder cylinder 3 which discharges cleaning powder into water and gas flow, paragraph [0010]) connected to an air intake opening (nozzle 5, paragraph [0006]), said abrasive powder generator produces abrasive powder intercepted by a check valve (ozone generator 2 and abrasive powder generator 3 are coupled in Aoyama, and because Germini discloses the ozonized airflow is intercepted by a check valve 32, the abrasive powder is also intercepted by check valve 32, see paragraph [0060] Germini)), wherein said abrasive powder generator produces abrasive that mixes with water entering or leaving said water pump (paragraph [0006]. While Aoyama does not explicitly disclose a water pump, one of ordinary skill would recognize that when combined with the Germini reference (which discloses a water pump), the abrasive would mix with water entering or leaving the water pump due to the combination of references).
Regarding the “air intake opening” being an “ambient air intake opening”, this feature is already disclosed by primary reference Germini (air inlet opening 18 is an “environmental air inlet opening”, paragraph [0022]), therefore one of ordinary skill would recognize that combining the teaching of Lehmann with the primary reference Germini would provide for the air intake opening connected to the abrasive powder supply system of Aoyama to be an ambient air intake opening. Furthermore, even if this were not the case, the claim only requires “connection”, therefore because the hydro pulser system of Germini is connected to the ambient air intake opening and because the abrasive powder generator of Aoyama is connected to the hydro pulser system, the abrasive powder generator is also connected to the ambient air intake opening.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Germini such that the hydro pulser system is connected to an abrasive powder supply system consisting of an abrasive powder generator connected to an ambient air intake opening, said abrasive powder generator produces abrasive powder intercepted by a check valve, wherein said abrasive powder generator produces abrasive that mixes with water entering or leaving said water pump, as taught and suggested by Aoyama, for the purpose of allowing for simultaneous cleaning and disinfection of the tooth, as well as tooth whitening (paragraphs [0005] and [0007] Aoyama).
Modified Germini discloses the abrasive powder supply system and hyo pulser system are coupled together but does not disclose said abrasive powder supply system contained in said casing.
However, Lehmann teaches (Fig. 1-2) a hydro pulser system (comprising water line 33 and actuating element 35) connected to an abrasive powder supply system consisting of an abrasive powder generator (powder chamber 7 which receives compressed air, page 1 paragraph 4 and page 3 paragraph 6) wherein said abrasive powder supply system contained in said casing (connected to housing 6 as shown in Fig. 1 and described in page 2 paragraph 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of modified such that said abrasive powder supply system contained in said casing, as taught by Lehmann, for the purpose of protecting the powder supply system from environmental damage.
Modified Germini does not disclose the flexible tube is truncated cone shaped flexible tube. However, absent evidence of criticality, it has been held that changes in shape are a matter of design choice, and therefore a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to use a flexible tube having a truncated cone shape. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 7, modified Germini discloses method comprising providing the oral hygiene device according to claim 1 (see full rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 8, Germini discloses (Figs. 1-2) an oral hygiene device, comprising:
a hydro pulser system (hydropulser system 2);
an ambient air intake opening (environmental air inlet opening 18), and a water pump (pump 5);
wherein the hydro pulser system comprises a water tank (reservoir 4) connected to a water pump (pump 5) adapted to supply a water flow to a treatment device (treatment device 6) connected to the water pump through an interposition of a regulation device (electrovalve 16) adapted to intercept said water flow downstream of said water pump (paragraph [0028]) by means of a flexible tube (tube 19) that comes out of a casing (casing 7, see paragraph [0029]);
said hydro pulser system is contained in said casing (paragraph [0046]) comprising a housing (housing 12) for mounting said water pump (paragraph [0018]);
a bracket connection (bracket 13) placed between said water tank and said water pump (paragraph [0018]), wherein: said bracket connection includes a manifold (manifold 13a) adapted to convey said water flow to said water pump (paragraph [0018]) through a spout (spout 13b, paragraph [0018]) that is adapted to connect said water tank to said manifold (paragraph [0018]), wherein said water tank comprises a hole in the bottom onto which is disposed an automatic closing valve (automatic closure valve 14) and a filter (water filter 15);
an opening-closing valve (opening-closure valve 20) and a dispensing head (dispensing head 21) are integrated in said treatment device (paragraph [0030] and Fig. 2), wherein said opening-closing valve is enclosed in a handle (handle 22) formed by a shell housing (paragraph [0031]), comprising a space (window 23) onto which is disposed a control/command button (button 24, paragraph [0031]).
However, Aoyama teaches (Fig. 1-2) a hydro pulser system (comprising nozzle 5 and connecting pipe 9 that carries water and pressurized gas from a source) connected to an abrasive powder supply system consisting of an abrasive powder generator (powder cylinder 3 which discharges cleaning powder into water and gas flow, paragraph [0010]) connected to an air intake opening (nozzle 5, paragraph [0006]), said abrasive powder generator produces abrasive powder intercepted by a check valve (ozone generator 2 and abrasive powder generator 3 are coupled in Aoyama, and because Germini discloses the ozonized airflow is intercepted by a check valve 32, the abrasive powder is also intercepted by check valve 32, see paragraph [0060] Germini)), wherein said abrasive powder generator produces abrasive that mixes with water entering or leaving said water pump (paragraph [0006]. While Aoyama does not explicitly disclose a water pump, one of ordinary skill would recognize that when combined with the Germini reference (which discloses a water pump), the abrasive would mix with water entering or leaving the water pump due to the combination of references).
Regarding the “air intake opening” being an “ambient air intake opening”, this feature is already disclosed by primary reference Germini (air inlet opening 18 is an “environmental air inlet opening”, paragraph [0022]), therefore one of ordinary skill would recognize that combining the teaching of Lehmann with the primary reference Germini would provide for the air intake opening connected to the abrasive powder supply system of Aoyama to be an ambient air intake opening. Furthermore, even if this were not the case, the claim only requires “connection”, therefore because the hydro pulser system of Germini is connected to the ambient air intake opening and because the abrasive powder generator of Aoyama is connected to the hydro pulser system, the abrasive powder generator is also connected to the ambient air intake opening.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Germini such that the hydro pulser system is connected to an abrasive powder supply system consisting of an abrasive powder generator connected to an ambient air intake opening, said abrasive powder generator produces abrasive powder intercepted by a check valve, wherein said abrasive powder generator produces abrasive that mixes with water entering or leaving said water pump, as taught and suggested by Aoyama, for the purpose of allowing for simultaneous cleaning and disinfection of the tooth, as well as tooth whitening (paragraphs [0005] and [0007] Aoyama).
Modified Germini discloses the abrasive powder supply system and hyo pulser system are coupled together but does not disclose said abrasive powder supply system contained in said casing.
However, Lehmann teaches (Fig. 1-2) a hydro pulser system (comprising water line 33 and actuating element 35) connected to an abrasive powder supply system consisting of an abrasive powder generator (powder chamber 7 which receives compressed air, page 1 paragraph 4 and page 3 paragraph 6) wherein said abrasive powder supply system contained in said casing (connected to housing 6 as shown in Fig. 1 and described in page 2 paragraph 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of modified such that said abrasive powder supply system contained in said casing, as taught by Lehmann, for the purpose of protecting the powder supply system from environmental damage.
Modified Germini does not disclose the flexible tube is truncated cone shaped flexible tube. However, absent evidence of criticality, it has been held that changes in shape are a matter of design choice, and therefore a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to use a flexible tube having a truncated cone shape. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 15, modified Germini discloses a method comprising providing the oral hygiene device according to claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8 above).
Regarding claims 3 and 10, modified Germini discloses the abrasive powder is soluble in a supersaturated solution (sodium bicarbonate (baking soda), paragraph [0008]) that is soluble in a supersaturated solution (limitation interpreted as capable of being dissolved in a supersaturated solution (in other words a supersaturated solution is not positively claimed). Because baking soda is dissolvable and water and thus soluble in a super saturated solution, the limitation is comprehended)
Claim(s) 2, 4, 6, 9, 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Germini (EP 2862543) in view of Aoyama (JP H07328035) and Lehmann (WO 02074180)., and further in view of Policicchio (US 2016/0058526).
Regarding claims 6, 11, and 13, modified Germini discloses an abrasive powder, but does not disclose the abrasive powder is soluble in a supersaturated solution and wherein the solution of water and abrasive powder is contained in a premixed cartridge.
However, Policicchio teaches (Fig. 1-2) a dental cleaning device comprising an abrasive powder (baking soda precipitate, paragraphs [0037] and [0043]) wherein the solution of water and abrasive powder is contained in a premixed cartridge (post-mixed water and abrasive powder slurry 26, Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of modified Germini such that the abrasive powder is contained in a premixed cartridge, as taught by Policicchio, for the purpose of improving portability and accessibility of the device by allowing the device to be used when the water pump is inoperable or no external water source to provide water to the water pump is available.
Regarding claims 2, 4, 9 and 12, modified Germini discloses an abrasive powder, but is does not disclose wherein the abrasive powder is insoluble and wherein the solution of water and abrasive powder is contained in a premixed cartridge.
However, Policicchio teaches (Fig. 1-2) a dental cleaning device comprising an abrasive powder (calcium triphosphate precipitate, paragraphs [0037]-[0044]) that is insoluble (calcium triphosphate is an insoluble compound), wherein the solution of water and abrasive powder is contained in a premixed cartridge (post-mixed water and abrasive powder slurry 26, Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of modified Germini such that the abrasive powder is insoluble (i.e. calcium triphosphate), as taught by Policicchio, for the purpose of improving remineralization of the teeth (a well-known effect of calcium triphosphate on teeth of a user), thereby improving therapeutic outcome, and to further modify the solution of water and abrasive powder of modified Germini to be contained in a premixed cartridge, as taught by Policicchio, for the purpose of improving portability and accessibility of the device by allowing the device to be used when the water pump is inoperable or no external water source to provide water to the water pump is available.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Germini (EP 2862543) in view of Aoyama (JP H07328035) and Lehmann (WO 02074180), and further in view of Franco (US 2021/0251732), as evidenced by de Cock (de Cock P, Mäkinen K, Honkala E, Saag M, Kennepohl E, Eapen A. Erythritol Is More Effective Than Xylitol and Sorbitol in Managing Oral Health Endpoints. Int J Dent. 2016;2016:9868421. doi: 10.1155/2016/9868421. Epub 2016 Aug 21. PMID: 27635141; PMCID: PMC5011233).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, modified Germini discloses an abrasive powder, but does not disclose wherein the abrasive powder is of type E968 (C4H1004).
However, Franco teaches (Fig. 1) an oral care device comprising an abrasive powder (powder stored in powder storage element 26, paragraph [0026]) of type E968 (discloses erythritol, which is otherwise known as E968, paragraph [0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the powder of modified Germini to be E968, as taught by Franco, for the purpose of reducing dental plaque buildup on teeth (Abstract of de Cock), thereby improving patient outcome.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Davies (US 20210275283) discloses a dental treatment device that dispenses a powder/air/water mixture.
Fournie (US 2014/0342309) discloses a cannula for a dental syringe having a tube with a truncated cone shape.
Ochs (US 2011/0027758) discloses a dental device that dispenses a powder/air/water mixture.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R MOON whose telephone number is (571)272-2554. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5:30pm.
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, Justine Yu can be reached at 571-272-4835. 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.
/MATTHEW R MOON/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/JUSTINE R YU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785