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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 8/14/2026 has been received and claims 1-8, 10, and 12-18 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/10/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10 and 12-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 18.
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. The corresponding structures for the “flow regulating device” are one or more valves (see Figures 1-3).
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.
Claims 8 and 17-18 are 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 the limitation that the flow regulating device is “for simultaneously injecting a wet steam-air mixture” 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.
Claims 8 and 17-18 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.
In Claim 18, it is not clear how a mixture can be “simultaneously inject[ed]” and what (separate/additional) components are being “simultaneously inject[ed]” as the wet steam and air are already in a mixture.
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) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tumiatti (ITMI20070118).
As to Claim 18, 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) for simultaneously injecting a wet steam-air mixture into multiple channels of the tool for dental or surgical use that is to be cleaned and/or disinfected (see Figure, where the flow regulating device (r1, e1-e3, V1-V4; e4, V6) is 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 6 above), the flow regulating device of Tumiatti is deemed to perform the same function and meets this limitation.
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) 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tumiatti (ITMI20070118) in view of Schaffarzick (20090000648).
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.
Tumiatti (‘118) does not appear to specifically teach that the flow regulating device (r1, e1-e3, V1-V4; e4, V6) comprises a first valve for outlet of wet steam and a second valve for outlet of compressed air, wherein the first valve is the only valve between the steam generator and the at least one channel and the second valve is the only valve between the compressed air source and the at least one channel.
It was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a flow regulating device comprised of a first valve for outlet of wet steam and a second valve for outlet of compressed air, wherein the first valve is the only valve between a steam generator and at least one channel and the second valve is the only valve between a compressed air source and the at least one channel. Schaffarzick (‘648) discloses a system for cleaning and/or disinfecting a tool (82, 84) for dental or surgical use (see Figure 1), comprising
a cleaning/disinfecting agent source (40; 50),
a compressed air source (20), and
a flow regulating device (100) for injecting a cleaning/disinfecting agent and compressed air into at least one channel of the tool (82, 84) for dental or surgical use that is to be cleaned and/or disinfected, the flow regulating device (100) comprising a first valve for outlet of cleaning/disinfecting agent source (40; 50) (see entire document, particularly p. 4 [0053] – lines 1-4 and [0055]) and a second valve for outlet of compressed air (20) (see entire document, particularly p. 4 [0053] – lines 4-7), wherein the first valve is the only valve between the cleaning/disinfecting agent source (40; 50) and the at least one channel and the second valve is the only valve between the compressed air source (20) and the at least one channel (see entire document, particularly Figure 1, p. 4 [0053] and [0055]),
in order to control or regulate the quantity of cleaning/disinfecting agent and air flowing through to the tool (see entire document, particularly Figure 1, p. 4 [0053] and [0055]).
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 flow regulating device comprising a first valve as the only valve between the cleaning/disinfecting agent source such as the steam generator and the at least one channel and a second valve as the only valve between the compressed air source and the at least one channel in the apparatus of Tumiatti as a known alternate configuration in order to control or regulate quantity of air and disinfecting/cleaning agent that is flowing into the tool to be cleaned/disinfected as shown by Schaffarzick.
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).
Thus, Claims 1 and 6 would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103 over the combined teachings of Tumiatti (‘118) and Schaffarzick (‘648).
Claim(s) 2-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tumiatti (ITMI20070118) in view of Schaffarzick (20090000648) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hruza (EP0638298).
Tumiatti (‘118) and Schaffarzick (‘648) are relied upon for disclosure described in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
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 ), neither Tumiatti (‘118) nor Schaffarzick (‘648) 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 modified by Schaffarzick 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), Schaffarzick (‘648) and Hruza (‘298).
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tumiatti (ITMI20070118) in view of Schaffarzick (20090000648) and Hruza (EP0638298) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Xu (CN108404145).
Tumiatti (‘118), Schaffarzick (‘648) and Hruza (‘298) are relied upon for disclosure described in the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Neither Tumiatti (‘118) or Schaffarzick (‘648) nor Hruza (‘298) appears to specifically teach that the enclosure is configured to generate/provide 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 means that generate UVC rays in the system of Tumiatti as modified by Schaffarzick and Hruza 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), Schaffarzick (‘648), Hruza (‘298), and Xu (‘145).
Claim(s) 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tumiatti (ITMI20070118) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Schaffarzick (20090000648).
Tumiatti (‘118) is relied upon for disclosure described in the rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
Tumiatti (‘118) does not appear to specifically teach that the flow regulating device comprises a mixing chamber configured to make the wet steam-air mixture deliverable via a third valve that is upstream of the mixing chamber.
It was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a flow regulating device comprised of a mixing chamber. Schaffarzick (‘648) discloses a system for cleaning and/or disinfecting a tool (82, 84) for dental or surgical use (see Figure 1), comprising
a cleaning/disinfecting agent source (40; 50),
a compressed air source (20), and
a flow regulating device (100) for injecting a cleaning/disinfecting agent and compressed air into at least one channel of the tool (82, 84) for dental or surgical use that is to be cleaned and/or disinfected, the flow regulating device (100) comprising a first valve for outlet of cleaning/disinfecting agent source (40; 50) (see entire document, particularly p. 4 [0053] – lines 1-4 and [0055]), a second valve for outlet of compressed air (20) (see entire document, particularly p. 4 [0053] – lines 4-7), wherein the first valve is the only valve between the cleaning/disinfecting agent source (40; 50) and the at least one channel and the second valve is the only valve between the compressed air source (20) and the at least one channel (see entire document, particularly Figure 1, p. 4 [0053] and [0055]), and a mixing chamber configured to make a fluid-air mixture (see entire document, particularly p. 4 [0056] and [0058]-[0059]),
in order to mix a quantity of cleaning/disinfecting agent and air prior to flowing into and through the tool (see entire document, particularly Figure 1, p. 4 [0056] and [0058]-[0059]).
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 flow regulating device that is also comprised of a mixing chamber in the apparatus of Tumiatti as a known additional component in order to bring together a quantity of air and disinfecting/cleaning agent prior to flowing into the tool to be cleaned/disinfected as shown by Schaffarzick.
While Schaffarzick (‘648) does not appear to specifically teach an additional/third valve that is upstream from the mixing chamber, it would have been well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a third valve that is upstream of the mixing chamber in the system of Tumiatti as modified by Schaffarzick in order to retain and allow proper mixing of the fluids prior to being delivered/provided to the tool for cleaning/disinfection so as to obtain desired form/format of the cleaning/disinfecting agent-air mixture and to control/regulate the flow of the cleaning/disinfecting agent-air mixture to the tool. Only the expected results would be attained.
Thus, Claims 8 and 17 would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103 over the combined teachings of Tumiatti (‘118) and Schaffarzick (‘648).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the primary reason for allowance of the claims is due to amendment of claim 7 (which was indicated to contain allowable subject matter) to rewrite the claim into an independent form including all limitations of the base claim, claim 1. While prior art such as Tumiatti (ITMI20070118) discloses a system as discussed in paragraph 12 of the previous office action mailed 6/11/2026, Tumiatti (‘118) does not specifically teach 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”. 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 system comprised of components in the configuration as set forth in the claim, particularly a “flow regulating device further comprise[d of] 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”.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same (combination of) references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references relate either to the field of the invention or subject matter of the invention, but are not relied upon in the rejection of record: 20120325819 (dental or surgical tool disinfecting/sterilizing device with one valve for each agent/medium).
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