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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species A (claims 1-19) in the reply filed on 8/26/25 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim 20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/26/25.
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 7-19 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 8 and 10, the recited range contradicts the range presented in a base claim. Both claims 8 and 10 depend from claim 2, which specifies that the ranges is 7.751 +- 2 MHz. The range recited in claims 8-10 include values outside the previously claimed ranged. As such, the claim contradicts the base claim and it is unclear what range Applicant intends the claims to correspond to. Clarification is required.
Additionally regarding claims 7-10, the second instance of the recited “the high frequency current” is indefinite, as it is unclear whether this high frequency current refers to the first high frequency current or another current. Further it is unclear whether or not such second current is bounded by the recited frequency range in either claim 1 or the instant claims, and/or otherwise what said second “high frequency current” may or may not correspond to. Clarification is required.
Regarding claims 11-14, the term “high frequency current” is indefinite as it is unclear what specific high frequency current (and therefore current value) the term intends to refer back to. Clarification is required.
Regarding claims 15-19, the term “high frequency current” is indefinite as it is unclear what specific high frequency current (and therefore current value) the term intends to refer back to. Clarification is required.
Additionally, all claims depending from a previously rejected claim are also rejected based on their dependency thereon.
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) 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Taft et al (US 9131597 B2).
Regarding claims 1-2, Taft et al discloses a treatment device (Fig. 2) that passes a high frequency current through a site to be treated (see abstract, citations below), the treatment device comprising: a holder (710) that holds an electrode (716a) to be located in the site to be treated; a power circuit (726/732) configured to pass a high frequency current through the electrode (see citations below); and a control circuit (728) configured to control a frequency of the 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 high frequency current to be passed through the electrode to be within a range of 1.001 MHz to 11.700 MHz or 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).
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) 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taft et al in view of Livaditis (US 6319007 B1).
Regarding claims 3-6, Taft et al does not explicitly teach that the control circuit is configured to control a waveform passed to the electrode, which is sinusoidal or a current value, which is less than 20 mA as required.
Livaditis, however, teaches a similar treatment device for soft and/or hard tissues wherein the controller applies a sinusoidal wave with a current of less than 20 mA to treat the tissue (see col 6, lines 45-46 and col 10, lines 1 (providing values of power and resistance which can result in a calculated value of current at less than 20 mA)). 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 and current less than 20 mA, 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 bleeding of the dental pulp.
Claim(s) 7-8, 11-12, 15-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taft et al in view of Perdomini et al (US 6482008 B2).
Regarding the above claims, Taft et al teaches wherein the control circuit passes the high frequency current in a first range as recited in claim 1, thereby being interpreted as a first control mode (see Taft, explanation above) and a second period of passing the current through the electrode (e.g. any time the device of Taft is operating), but does not teach the circuit configured to switch to a second control mode of passing a high frequency current having a frequency controlled to be within a second ranged different from the first range through the electrode, or the control circuit being further configured to divide the energization period into a plurality of periods including a first period having the frequency in the second range, and a second period with the frequency in the first range, or wherein the circuit is configured to vary a frequency within the first range or second range, and vary a current with a range set in accordance with the first or second range as required.
Perdomini et al however 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 with in 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 to include Perdomini’s teachings of providing first and second control modes at different frequencies, including first and second periods of passing the first and second frequencies to the electrode and varying the frequency and current, as such modification would allow for additional functionality achievable with electrode system, allowing tooth root canal length to be measured, improving treatment efficiency, and additionally would allow for optimization of treatment parameters for a particular treatment location.
Claim(s) 9-10, 13-14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taft et al in view of Livaditis, as combined above, further in view of Perdomini et al (US 6482008 B2).
Regarding the above claims, Taft/Livaditis, as combined above, discloses wherein the control circuit passes the high frequency current in a first range as recited in claim 1, thereby being interpreted as a first control mode (see Taft, explanation above) and a second period of passing the current through the electrode (e.g. any time the device of Taft is operating), and wherein the current is variable (see Livaditis, above), but does not teach the circuit configured to switch to a second control mode of passing a high frequency current having a frequency controlled to be within a second ranged different from the first range through the electrode, or the control circuit being further configured to divide the energization period into a plurality of periods including a first period having the frequency in the second range, and a second period with the frequency in the first range, or wherein the circuit is configured to vary a frequency within the first range or second range, and vary a current with a range set in accordance with the first or second range as required.
Perdomini et al however 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 with in 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 first and second control modes at different frequencies, including first and second periods of passing the first and second frequencies to the electrode and varying the frequency and current, as such modification would allow for additional functionality achievable with electrode system, allowing tooth root canal length to be measured, improving treatment efficiency, and additionally would allow for optimization of treatment parameters for a particular treatment location.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-8, 11-12, 15-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perdomini et al in view of Taft et al.
Regarding claims 1-2, Perdomini et al discloses a treatment device (Fig. 1) that passes a high frequency current through a site to be treated (see abstract, citations below), the treatment device comprising: a holder (50) that holds an electrode (100) to be located in the site to be treated; a power circuit (20 and associated circuitry) configured to pass a high frequency current through the electrode (see citations below); and a control circuit (22,24,30-33) configured to control a frequency of the 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 high frequency current to be passed through the electrode to be about 0.5 MHz (see abstract, col 2, lines 3-15; col 3, lines 44-47; col 4, lines 42-67; col 5, lines 5-10 and lines 35-40). Perdomini et al further discloses wherein the control circuitry is 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; per claims 7-8); 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; per claims 11-12); 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 with in 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; per claims 15-16 and 18-19). Perdomini while teaching the use of high frequency current, does not specifically teach a current within a range of 1.001 to 11.7 MHz, or 7.751+-2 MHz as required.
Taft et al, however, teaches a similar treatment device that passes a high frequency current through a dental tissue site to be treated, comprising a holder, power circuit and control circuit (as explained above in regards to claim 1), and wherein the control circuit is configured to control the frequency of the current to be within a range of 1.001 to 11.7 MHz, or 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). 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 Perdomini to include Taft’s high frequency ranges as such modification would provide a known frequency range effective for efficient treatment, allowing for improved cleaning, sterilizing or preparing the tooth as desired (see Taft, citations above).
Claim(s) 3-6, 9-10, 13-14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perdomini et al in view of Taft, as combined above, further in view of Livaditis.
Regarding the above claims, Perdomini/Taft, as combined above, discloses all the features of claims 9-10, 13-14 and 17 (see Perdomini, explanation above), but does not disclose that the control circuit is configured to control a waveform passed to the electrode, which is sinusoidal or a current value, which is less than 20 mA as required.
Livaditis, however, teaches a similar treatment device for soft and/or hard tissues wherein the controller applies a sinusoidal wave with a current of less than 20 mA to treat the tissue (see col 6, lines 45-46 and col 10, lines 1 (providing values of power and resistance which can result in a calculated value of current at less than 20 mA)). 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 Perdomini/Taft, as combined above to include Livaditis’ teaching of providing the sinusoidal wave and current less than 20 mA, 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 bleeding of the dental pulp.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached PTO892 form.
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