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 .
FINAL ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 3/12/2026 has been received and claims 1-8 and 10-16 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/17/2025.
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: “flow regulating device” in claim 1; “disinfection system” in claim 4.
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. Specifically, the “flow regulating device” is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification, namely a combination of a first valve associated with a steam generator and a second valve associated with a compressed air source.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, there is no written description support for a corresponding structure for the “disinfection system” within the Specification.
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.
Claim 4 is 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.
In Claim 4, it is not clear what specific structure corresponds with the “disinfection system”. For examination purposes, corresponding structure for the “disinfection system” is deemed to be one or more UVC light source(s) such as UVC lamp(s) or UVC LED(s).
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(s) 1, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tumiatti (ITMI20070118).
As to Claim 1, Tumiatti (‘118) discloses a system for cleaning and/or disinfecting a tool for dental or surgical use (see Figure 1), comprising a steam generator (“caldaia” - c1), a compressed air source (“aria compressa”), and a flow regulating device (r1, e1-e3, V1-V4; e4, V6) configured to inject wet steam and compressed air into at least one channel of the tool for dental or surgical use that is to be cleaned and/or disinfected (see Figure).
While Tumiatti (‘118) does not appear to specifically teach that the flow regulating device (r1, e1-e3, V1-V4; e4, V6) is configured to inject at least partially simultaneously wet steam and compressed air into at least one channel of the tool, as the flow regulating device (r1, e1-e3, V1-V4; e4, V6) of Tumiatti (‘118) discloses the same corresponding structure for the flow regulating device (which is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function – see paragraph 5 above), the flow regulating device of Tumiatti is deemed to perform the same function and meets this limitation.
As to Claim 6, Tumiatti (‘118) discloses that the flow regulating device (r1, e1-e3, V1-V4; e4, V6) comprises a first valve (r1, e1-e3, V1-V4) for outlet of wet steam and a second valve (e4, V6) for outlet of compressed air (see Figure 1), said second valve (e4) being/capable of being self-regulating (see English translation, p. 1 – 4th – 5th lines from the bottom).
As to Claim 8, Tumiatti (‘118) discloses that the flow regulating device comprises a mixing chamber (7) configured to make a fluid-air mixture, which is deliverable via a third valve (MV11, RV; MV1-MV4) (see Figure 7).
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tumiatti (ITMI20070118) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hruza (EP0638298).
Tumiatti (‘118) is relied upon for disclosure described in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
As to Claim 2, Tumiatti (‘118) discloses that the system further comprises a fixing support in the form of a coupling nose (b) for said tool for dental or surgical use to be cleaned and/or disinfected through which wet steam-air mixture is being injectable directly via said coupling nose (b) (see Figure; see English translation, p. 2 - claim 5 ), Tumiatti (‘118) does not appear to specifically teach a separate fixing support with a connecting nose.
However, it was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a fixing support that is provided with a coupling nose in a system for cleaning and/or disinfecting a tool for dental or surgical use. Hruza (‘298) discloses a system for cleaning and/or disinfecting a tool for dental or surgical use (13) (see Figures 1-2), comprising a steam generator (45), a compressed air source (48), a flow regulating device (MV1-MV10, MV13, MV15-MV16) configured to inject wet steam and compressed air into at least one channel of the tool for dental or surgical use that is to be cleaned and/or disinfected (via 16 - see Figure 7), and a fixing support (12) for said tool (13) for dental or surgical use to be cleaned and/or disinfected (see Figure 2), said fixing support (12) being provided with a coupling nose (16) as a substitute for a motor (see Figures 2, 5-7 and 9) where wet steam-air mixture being/capable of being injectable directly via said coupling nose (16), in order to allow coupling of the tool to the system so as to enable delivery of fluids and gases for cleaning and sterilization of the tool (see Figures 1-9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a separate fixing support and a coupling nose in the system of Tumiatti as a known alternate configuration in order to enable coupling of the tool in the system to deliver and inject fluids and gases into the tool so as to effect cleaning and sterilization of the tool for reuse as shown by Hruza.
As to Claim 3, Hruza (‘298) discloses that the fixing support (12) is disposed in a closed enclosure (1, 2) (see Figures 1-2, 6 and 9).
As to Claim 5, Hruza (‘298) discloses that the system further comprises a user interface (52 via 50) making is possible/being capable to determine at least one input parameter selected from among temperature, pressure, wet steam fraction and/or compressed air fraction (see Figures 1 and 7; see English translation, p. 5 – lines 7-8, p. 6 - lines 7-9).
Thus, Claims 2-3 and 5 would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103 over the combined teachings of Tumiatti (‘118) and Hruza (‘298).
Claim(s) 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tumiatti (ITMI20070118) and Hruza (EP0638298) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Xu (CN108404145).
Tumiatti (‘118) and Hruza (‘298) are relied upon for disclosure described in the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Neither Tumiatti (‘118) nor Hruza (‘298) appears to specifically teach that the enclosure is provided with a disinfection system with UVC rays.
It was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a disinfection system utilizing UVC rays in a system for cleaning and/or disinfecting a tool for dental or surgical use. Xu (‘145) discloses a system for cleaning and/or disinfecting a tool for dental or surgical use (see Figure 1), comprising a closed enclosure (7) (see Figures 1 and 6), a steam generator (3) (see English translation, p. 9 lines 16-17), and a disinfection system with UVC rays (42) (see Figure 7; see English translation, p. 10 lines 12-17), in order to provide a plurality of separate cleaning and sterilization processes of the tool (see English translation, Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a disinfection system with UVC rays in the system of Tumiatti as a known additional sterilization means in order to enable a plurality of sterilization processes for the tool within the system to provide a thorough and effective cleaning and sterilization of the tool for reuse as shown by Xu.
Thus, Claim 4 would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103 over the combined teachings of Tumiatti (‘118), Hruza (‘298), and Xu (‘145).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the primary reason is due to the limitation that “the flow regulating device further comprises a bypass channel connected to said second valve, said bypass channel being configured to convey an auxiliary compressed air flow to a pneumatic drive system driving in rotation at least some rotating parts of said tool for dental or surgical use” in the claim. None of prior art of record such as Tumiatti specifically teaches “a bypass channel connected to said second valve, said bypass channel being configured to convey an auxiliary compressed air flow to a pneumatic drive system driving in rotation at least some rotating parts of said tool”. It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a bypass channel connected to a second valve where said bypass channel is configured to convey an auxiliary compressed air flow to a pneumatic drive system driving in rotation at least some rotating parts of a tool for dental or surgical use in a system for cleaning and/or disinfecting a tool for dental or surgical use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, as to applicant’s argument on pp. 6-8 of Remarks regarding claim 1 , examiner disagrees and points out that the structure disclosed by the prior art of Tumiatti as the “flow regulating device” is not merely “capable of” performing the function (and such argument about capability is not applicable in this instance as the claim rejection does not indicate that Tumiatti is merely capable of having the same claimed function) but is deemed to perform the same claimed function since the limitation/structure of “a flow regulating device” is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) where the prior art of Tumiatti teaches the corresponding structure for the flow regulating device (which was previously indicated/discussed in the prior Office Action and is currently set forth in paragraph 5 above).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action (i.e. 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) rejections of claim 4). 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 REGINA M YOO whose telephone number is (571)272-6690. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571)270-7698. 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.
/REGINA M YOO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights