DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/27/2025 has been entered.
Drawings
3. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. The drawings do not show the newly recited underlined limitation(s) in the claims.
Claim 13: “a pre-bent horn”.
Claim 14: “a pre-bent horn having a bend between about 50 degrees and about 90 degrees”.
Claim 21: “the horn is formed to include a bend between about 50 degrees and about 90 degrees such that the cordless ultrasonic dental device is a contra-angle device”.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
4. 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.
5. Claim 18 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.
Claim 18 recites “the back mass includes a body”, which is indefinite because it is unclear whether such “a body” is the same or different from “a solid body” previously defined in the base claim 1 “the back mass comprises a solid body” (line 10).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
7. Claims 1, 4, 6-8, and 15-17, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miller et al. (2010/0069940).
Regarding claim 1, Miller et al. discloses a cordless ultrasonic dental device 120 (Figs. 3-4), the device 120 comprising:
-- a housing 140 to contain internal components of the device ([0059] “handle assembly”);
-- a direct current electrical power source 112 contained within the housing 140 ([0055] “one or more batteries… or other portable sources of power may be provided…”);
-- a printed circuit board assembly 180 that controls the device ([0064] “circuit assembly”); and -- an ultrasonic piezoelectric transducer 126 located distally on the device and contained within the housing 140 that mechanically mates to an exterior treatment tip 130/132 ([0058]-[0065] “transducer 126 produces ultrasonic vibrations which are communicated to blade 130”).
Miller et al. discloses the transducer 126 may be a conventional ultrasonic transducer. Miller et al. discloses an example transducer 1560 (Fig. 26) comprising: a back mass 1562, at least one piezoelectric disc 1564, and a horn 1566 (see Fig. 26, paragraph [0166] “endmass 1562, piezo discs 1564, horn 1566).
Back mass 1562 is shown comprising a solid body with a curved, exterior surface shape defined by a plurality of diameters perpendicular to a central axis between a back mass first end and a back mass second end; and wherein the back mass first end is adjacent to one of the at least one piezoelectric disc 1564 (Fig. 26; [0166] “endmass 1562 has a frusto-conical shape”). That is, the backmass 1562 has an exterior surface forming a frusto-conical shape that is curved about the central longitudinal axis and tapering from a largest diameter (distal end 1562) to a smallest diameter adjacent the discs 1564.
As to claim 4, Miller et al. discloses the electrical power source is selected from a DC battery, a supercapacitor, a rechargeable battery, etc. ([0055] “electrical power… one or more batteries … or other portable sources of power…”).
As to claim 6, Miller et al. discloses at least one button 174/176 for device operation (Figs. 3-4; [0065] “pushbuttons 174, 176”).
As to claim 7, Miller et al. discloses the printed circuit board assembly is capable of delivering different voltages to the ultrasonic piezoelectric transducer at a loaded resonant frequency thereby causing the ultrasonic piezoelectric transducer to ultrasonically vibrate at different amplitudes depending on the applied voltage ([0065]-[0066] “generator may respond with a certain energy level, such as a maximum power setting… a minimum power setting”).
As to claim 8, wherein mechanical ultrasonic vibrations from the ultrasonic piezoelectric transducer are transferred to a treatment site via the treatment tip 130/132 (Figs. 3-4; [0058] “ultrasonic transducer 126produces ultrasonic vibrations, which are communicated to blade 130 via ultrasonic waveguide 128. This causes tip 132 of blade 130 to vibrate at an ultrasonic frequency, allowing blade 130 to be used to cut and coagulate tissue, etc.”).
As to claim 15, Miller et al. discloses the treatment tip is made from stainless steel, aluminum, titanium, plastic composites, or a combination thereof ([0049] “Ultrasonic waveguide and blade may be fabricated from a solid core shaft constructed out of a material or combination of materials that propagates ultrasonic energy efficiently, such as titanium alloy… stainless steel, or any other acoustically compatible material or combination of materials”).
As to claim 16, wherein the treatment tip is mechanically mated to a horn of the ultrasonic piezoelectric transducer via threads or quick connect means ([0058] “ultrasonic transmission assembly 127 is coupled with ultrasonic transducer 126 by a threaded connection”; [0061] “Blade 130 may be integral with ultrasonic waveguide 128… blade 130 may be connected by a threaded connection, a welded joint, or other coupling mechanisms”).
As to claim 17, the treatment tip 130 is titanium or stainless steel and mechanically mates to the ultrasonic piezoelectric transducer via threads ([0049] “blade may be fabricated… stainless steel”; [0061] “blade 130 may be connected by a threaded connection”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al.
Per claim 2, Miller et al. discloses the ultrasonic piezoelectric transducer may have a length of 33 mm at halfwave or 66 mm at full wavelength (paragraph [0167]), which is outside of the claimed range of between 40 and 60 mm but effectively indicates that such transducer length is of optimizable variable. Therefore, such claimed transducer length range of 40 and 60 mm would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in art at the time the invention was made since it has been held that discovering an optimum or workable ranges is well within the skill of an artisan via routine experimentation in order to improve upon what is already generally known. See MPEP §§ 2144.05.
Per claim 3, Miller et al. discloses the ultrasonic piezoelectric transducer 1560 having a loaded resonance frequency of 55 kHz Hz (paragraph [0166]), which is outside of the claimed range of between 25 and 50 kHz, but effectively indicates that such frequency is of optimizable variable. Therefore, such claimed range of 25 and 50 kHz would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in art at the time the invention was made since it has been held that discovering an optimum or workable ranges is well within the skill of an artisan via routine experimentation in order to improve upon what is already generally known. See MPEP §§ 2144.05.
10. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. in view of Ross et al. (2013/0331875).
Miller et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed as applied to claim 1 as detailed above. However, as per claim 5, Miller et al. fails to disclose the printed circuit board assembly first determines a loaded resonant frequency of the ultrasonic piezoelectric transducer and the treatment tip via a phase-lock loop in a feedback loop by identifying where an impedance is a local minimum and a phase is zero; and drives the ultrasonic piezoelectric transducer and the treatment tip at a resonant frequency via an AC voltage signal of 100 to 800 V.
Ross et al. discloses an ultrasonic device comprising a printed circuit board assembly (Figs. 1-10) first determines a loaded resonant frequency of the ultrasonic piezoelectric transducer and the treatment tip via a phase-lock loop in a feedback loop by identifying where an impedance is a local minimum and a phase is zero, and drives the ultrasonic piezoelectric transducer and the treatment tip at a resonant frequency via an AC voltage signal of 100 to 800 V ([0006] “voltage applied to the cutting tool must all be controlled dynamically, as these parameters change with the varying load”; [0043]-[0049] “relatively high-voltage… 1000V or more… resonance is maintained by a phase locked loop (PLL)”.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miller et al. by incorporating the printed circuit board to first determines the resonant frequency of the transducer and treatment tip via a phase-lock loop in a feedback loop by identifying where the impedance is a local minimum and the phase is zero; and drives the transducer and treatment tip at the resonant frequency at the AC voltage signal of 100 or more as taught by Ross in order to achieve efficiency with the available electrical source.
11. Claims 9, 13-14, and 21-25, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. in view of Wagner et al. (2011/0143305).
Miller et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed as applied to claim 1 as detailed above. However, as per claim 9, Miller et al. fails to disclose a fluid source in communication with the treatment tip. Wagner et al. discloses an ultrasonic device 8 (Figs. 8-9) having a fluid source 11 in communication with the treatment tip 12 ([0061]-[0067] “ampoule 11C in which the rinsing fluid or disinfecting fluid is store… can be dispensed through the probe 12”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miller et al. by including a fluid source, such as rinsing or disinfecting fluid, in communication with the treatment tip in order to dispense such fluid to the treatment site as taught by Wagner et al.
As to claims 13-14, Miller et al. fails to disclose the horn having a bend between about 50 degrees and about 90 degrees such that the device is a contra-angle device. Wagner et al. discloses a horn, i.e. sonotrode 9 ([0054] “piezoelectric… sonotrode 9 for transferring the vibrations generated”). Fig. 8 shows that the horn/sonotrode 9 being straight; while Fig. 9 shows the horn/sonotrode 9 being pre-bent with an angle that appears to be about less than 90 degrees ([0010] “treatment device is designed as a straight or contra-angle handpiece”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miller et al. by providing a pre-bent horn/sonotrode as taught by Wagner et al. in order to assemble a contra-angle handpiece for easy access or placement at the treatment site.
Regarding claim 21, Miller et al. discloses a cordless ultrasonic dental device 120 (Figs. 3-4) comprising a miniaturized ultrasonic piezoelectric transducer 126 ([0058]-[0065] “transducer 126 produces ultrasonic vibrations”). Miller et al. discloses an example transducer 1560 (Fig. 26) comprising: a horn 1566, a piezoelectric stack assembly 1564, and a back mass 1562 (see Fig. 26, paragraph [0166] “endmass 1562, piezo discs 1564, horn 1566). The back mass 1562 comprises a solid body and an outer surface shape defined by a plurality of diameters perpendicular to a central axis between a back mass first end and a back mass second end; wherein the outer surface shape consists of a curved outwardly facing surface between the back mass first end and the back mass second end; and wherein the back mass first end is adjacent to the piezoelectric stack assembly 1564 (see Fig. 26; [0166] “endmass 1562 has a frusto-conical shape”). That is, the backmass 1562 has an exterior surface forming a frusto-conical shape that is curved about the central longitudinal axis and tapering from a largest diameter (distal end 1562) to a smallest diameter adjacent the discs 1564.
Miller et al. fails to disclose the horn 1566 having a bend between about 50 degrees and about 90 degrees such that the device is a contra-angle device. Wagner et al. discloses a horn, i.e. sonotrode 9 ([0054] “piezoelectric… sonotrode 9 for transferring the vibrations generated”). Fig. 8 shows that the horn/sonotrode 9 being straight; while Fig. 9 shows the horn/sonotrode 9 being pre-bent with an angle that appears to be about less than 90 degrees ([0010] “treatment device is designed as a straight or contra-angle handpiece”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miller et al. by providing a pre-bent horn/sonotrode as taught by Wagner et al. in order to assemble a contra-angle handpiece for easy access or placement at the treatment site.
Per claim 22, Miller et al. discloses the ultrasonic piezoelectric transducer may have a length of 33 mm at halfwave or 66 mm at full wavelength (paragraph [0167]), which is outside of the claimed range of between 40 and 60 mm but effectively indicates that such transducer length is of optimizable variable. Therefore, such claimed transducer length range of 40 and 60 mm would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in art at the time the invention was made since it has been held that discovering an optimum or workable ranges is well within the skill of an artisan via routine experimentation in order to improve upon what is already generally known. See MPEP §§ 2144.05.
Per claim 23, Miller et al. discloses the ultrasonic piezoelectric transducer 1560 having a loaded resonance frequency of 55 kHz Hz (paragraph [0166]), which is outside of the claimed range of between 25 and 50 kHz, but effectively indicates that such frequency is of optimizable variable. Therefore, such claimed range of 25 and 50 kHz would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in art at the time the invention was made since it has been held that discovering an optimum or workable ranges is well within the skill of an artisan via routine experimentation in order to improve upon what is already generally known. See MPEP §§ 2144.05.
Per claim 24, Miller et al. discloses the piezoelectric stack assembly 1564 comprising at least one piezoelectric disc 1564 (Fig. 26).
Per claim 25, Miller et al. discloses the piezoelectric stack assembly 1564 comprising at least one piezoelectric disc 1564 having an outer diameter of approximately 10mm ([0166] “each piezo disc 564 has an outer diameter of approximately 10 mm”) but fails to disclose an inner diameter of about 5 mm, and a height of about 2 mm. Nonetheless, note that Miller et al. discloses a bolt 1568 received in the inner diameters of the discs 1564 and an overall length of 33 mm or 66 mm, indicating that the dimensions inner diameter and height of each disc 1564 are of optimizable variables. Therefore, such claimed ranges of inner diameter of about 5, and a height of about 2 mm, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in art at the time the invention was made since it has been held that discovering an optimum or workable ranges is well within the skill of an artisan via routine experimentation in order to improve upon what is already generally known. See MPEP §§ 2144.05.
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claim 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
19. Applicant’s arguments regarding the amendments made to the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive as having overcome the previous ground(s) of rejection under Schafer, Ross, and Johnson. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Miller et al.
Applicant’s remarks regarding the claim amendment are held to be responded to in the above ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
20. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAO D MAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3002. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:00-4:30. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eric Rosen can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HAO D MAI/
Examiner, Art Unit 3772