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 action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 2/9/26.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/9/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and additionally do not address the new grounds of rejection and/or interpretation below necessitated by Applicant’s arguments.
Upon further consideration and review of the references and the calculations applied below, the amendments do not overcome the prior art relied on as explained below. Further, Applicant’s arguments to the alleged criticality of the claimed ranges have been considered but are not persuasive as no optimization rejections are relied on’ the prior discloses the claimed ranges. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive and additionally do not address the new grounds of rejection and/or interpretation below necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
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 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, and 17-19 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 claims 7 and 9, the term “cauterizes and sterilizes inflammatory factors” is indefinite as it is unclear what an inflammatory factor is, and how a factor is cauterized. As best understood by the Examiner the term is interpreted to mean tissues or the like. Clarification is required.
Regarding claims 11 and 13, the term “a high frequency current” is indefinite as it is unclear which current the term refers to; specifically, the first current, second current or another current. Clarification is required.
All other claims not specifically addressed above are rejected based on their dependency on a previously rejected claim.
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Taft et al (US 9131597 B2) as evidenced by Calculator Academy (“Hz to Amps Calculator”).
Regarding claim 1, Taft et al discloses a treatment device (Fig. 2) that passes a high frequency current through a bone defect or a root apex lesion (see abstract, citations below; configured to be applied to the bone or root apex lesion if desired), the treatment device comprising: a holder (710) that holds an electrode (716a) to be located in the bone defect or the root apex lesion (configured to be placed as desired); a power circuit (726/732) configured to pass a first high frequency current through the electrode (see citations below); and a control circuit (728) configured to control a frequency of the first high frequency current to be passed through the electrode from the power circuit, wherein the control circuit is further configured to control the frequency of the first high frequency current to be passed through the electrode to be within a range of 7.751+- 2 MHz (see abstract, col 5, lines 42-50; col 6, lines 30-46; col 11, line 50 through col 12, line 5; col 13, lines 50-65; col 17, lines 40-45; col 18, lines 20-28; col 19, lines 20-22; col 21, line 28 through col 23, line 3) and a current value of the first high frequency current to be passed through the electrode to be 10 to less than 20 milliamps (e.g. Taft discloses a frequency in the range recited, a voltage from 5V to 1000V and an inductance of 10 microH to 50,000 microH, see col 19, lines 25-50; as shown in attached Hz to Amps Calculator, using a inductance of 10 microH, a voltage of 5V and a frequency of 7MHz, all supported by Taft’s disclosure, results in a current of 11.36 mA, meeting the limitations of the claims), the first high frequency current configured to promote bone regeneration in the bone defect of the root apex lesions (configured to be used as such; see citations above; additionally the Examiner notes that the prior art teaches the same application parameters of the instant invention and therefore would be capable of promoting bone regeneration, at least to some degree).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taft et al in view of Livaditis (US 6319007 B1).
Regarding claim 3, Taft et al does not explicitly teach that the control circuit is configured to control a waveform passed to the electrode, which is sinusoidal as required.
Livaditis, however, teaches a similar treatment device for soft and/or hard tissues wherein the controller applies a sinusoidal wave to treat the tissue (see col 6, lines 45-46). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Taft to include Livaditis’ teaching of providing the sinusoidal wave, as such modification would provide parameters of the electric signal and current effective to provide desired treatment (see Livaditis, abstract and citations above), thereby controlling treatment of the dental pulp.
Claim(s) 7, 9, 11, 13, 15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taft et al in view of Livaditis in view of Perdomini et al (US 6482008 B2), as evidenced by RapidTables (“Watts/Volts/Amps/Ohms Calculator”).
Regarding the above claims, Taft/Livaditis, as combined above does not teach wherein the control circuit is configured to switch between a first control mode of passing the first high frequency current through the electrode and a second control mode of passing a second high frequency current having a frequency controlled to be within a second range of 300 to 1000 kHz through the electrode and a current of 20mA to less than 200 mA, and the second high frequency current cauterizes and sterilizes inflammatory factors; wherein the control circuit is further configured to divide one energization period that passes a high frequency current through the electrode into a plurality of periods, wherein the one period includes, a first period passing the second high frequency current through the electrode, and a second period of passing the first high frequency current through the electrode and wherein the control circuit is configured to vary a frequency of the first or second high frequency current and vary a current value of the first or second high frequency current as required.
Livaditis, however, teaches a similar treatment device for soft and/or hard tissues having a controller which applies a high frequency current having a frequency controlled to be within of 300 to 1000 kHz through the electrode (22) and a current of 20mA to less than 200 mA, and the second high frequency current cauterizes and sterilizes inflammatory factors (see abtract, Fig. 3 and col 9, line 55 through col 10, line 60). The Examiner notes that Livaditis discloses the use of 500kHz, with a 100 ohm resistance and 3 Watts of power, which can be used to calculate a current of 173.2 mA (as evidenced by RapidTables), which meets the limitations of the claims. Further, Livaditis discloses that the second high frequency current cauterizes and sterilizes inflammatory factors (e.g. tissues, as best understood, see abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Taft/Livaditis, as combined above, to further include Livaditis’ teaching of applying the high frequency current at the second range, as such modification would allow for use of the device in cauterizing and sterilizing tissues, improving efficiency and versatility during use of the device at the surgical site.
Perdomini et al, however, additionally discloses a similar treatment device used for treating dental tissue (abstract) comprising a control circuit (e.g. circuitry associated with various mode control buttons and programming) configured to switch between a first control mode of passing a high frequency current through the electrode (e.g. use in devitalizing mode, see abstract, col 5, lines 5-40) and a second control mode of passing a high frequency current having a frequency controlled within a second range different from the first range (e.g. measuring mode, see col 4, lines 42 through line 66). Perdomini additionally discloses wherein the control circuit is configured to divide one energization period that passes a high frequency current through the electrode into a plurality of periods, the one energization period (devitalization period then to measurement period, see col 4, lines 63-67) includes: a first period of passing a high frequency current having a frequency controlled to be within a second range (e.g. time period of measurement function), and a second period of passing a high frequency current having a frequency controlled to be within the first range (e.g. devitalization treatment period; see citations above); and wherein the control circuit is configured to vary a frequency of the current within a first range or the second range and vary a current value within a range set in accordance with the first or second range (e.g. Perdomini, citations above; additionally both frequency and current would be varied at least on and off (e.g. 0 to a particular value) in order to perform the recited treatment). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Taft/Livaditis, as combined above, to include Perdomini’s teachings of providing control switching between different modes of operation, including setting first and second periods of passing the different frequencies to the electrode and varying the frequency and current, as such modification would allow for additional functionality achievable with electrode system, improving treatment efficiency, and additionally would allow for optimization of treatment parameters for a particular treatment location or patient.
The Examiner notes that should the device of Taft/Livaditis, as combined above, be modified with the teachings of Perdomini, as combined above, the controller would be provided with operability to switch (Perdomini) between the first (Taft) and second (Livaditis) modes of operation, with the energization period (use period) being divided into different periods for applying the different treatments (Perdomini), and the frequency and current to be varied as needed or desired (Perdomini).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 EDWARD MORAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 AM-4 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, Eric Rosen can be reached at 571-270-7855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/EDWARD MORAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights