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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 39-41 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 claim 39, the limitation “the pilot control input” has insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 40, the limitation “the pilot control input” has insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-18, 33-38, 40-44, and 46-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thornton, Jr. et al. (U.S. Patent No. 3,872,593) in view of Schrader (Pub. No. US 2021/0381617).
Regarding claim 1, Thornton, Jr. et al. disclose a water coolant circuit (Figs. 1-36) for a dental unit (10), comprising: a plurality (Fig. 1, plurality of positions for modules) of defined dental device positions (162) to which dental devices (164) that use water coolant (Column 8 line 59-Column 9 line 18) can be connected; and a water coolant valve (306 or 308) connected to the plurality of dental device positions (Column 15 line 66-Column 16 line 14) and connectible to a pressurized water coolant source (402), wherein the water coolant valve (306 or 308) is selectively controllable to supply the water coolant from the water coolant source (402) to at least one of the plurality of dental device positions at a time (Fig. 1, Column 9 lines 19-65), but lacks disclosure wherein the water coolant valve is operable via low frequency pulse width modulation (PWM).
Schrader teach a valve system (36) having a solenoid control valve (300) that is operable via low frequency pulse width modulation (paragraphs 35, 39, and 55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the drive of the solenoid valve of Thornton, Jr. et al. with a pulse width modulated solenoid valve as taught by Schrader for the advantage of regulating the current conducted through the solenoid coil (paragraph 55).
Regarding claim 2, Schrader (modified above) teach wherein the low frequency PWM is in a range of 10-30 Hz (paragraph 39).
Regarding claim 3, Schrader (modified above) teach wherein the low frequency PWM is in a range of 15-25 Hz (paragraph 39).
Regarding claim 4, Schrader (modified above) teach wherein the water valve (300) is operable at a duty cycle of 1-25% (operable at desired duty cycle, paragraph 55).
Regarding claim 5, Schrader (modified above) teach wherein the water valve (300) is operable at a duty cycle of 100% (operable at desired duty cycle, paragraph 55).
Regarding claim 6, Thornton, Jr. et al. disclose the water coolant circuit (Figs. 1-36), wherein the water coolant valve (306) is a solenoid actuated, two-position, normally closed valve (Column 16 lines 1-14).
Regarding claim 7, Thornton, Jr. et al. disclose the water coolant circuit (Figs. 1-36), wherein the water coolant valve (306) has an isolation valve design (Figs. 12-14).
Regarding claim 8, Thornton, Jr. et al. disclose the water coolant circuit (Figs. 1-36), wherein the water coolant valve (308) is operable to supply the water coolant at a desired flow rate (Column 16 lines 1-14), but lacks disclosure of a flow rate from 3mL per minute to 500mL per minute.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the flow rate of the regulating valve of Thornton, Jr. et al. to be between 3mL per minute to 500 mL per minute, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentable distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the regulating valve of Thornton, Jr. et al. is capable of operating in the desired flow rate range and would not operate differently with the claimed flow rate dimensions since the regulating valve of Thornton, Jr. et al. function in the same manner as the inventor’s claimed valve. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the flowrate dimensions are “3mL per minute to 500 mL per minute” the claimed range. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A): Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.").
Regarding claim 9, Thornton, Jr. et al. disclose the water coolant circuit (Figs. 1-36), wherein the water coolant valve (308) is operable to supply the water coolant at a desired flow rate (Column 16 lines 1-14), but lacks disclosure of a flow rate from 5mL per minute to 150mL per minute.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the flow rate of the regulating valve of Thornton, Jr. et al. to be between 5mL per minute to 150 mL per minute, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentable distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the regulating valve of Thornton, Jr. et al. is capable of operating in the desired flow rate range and would not operate differently with the claimed flow rate dimensions since the regulating valve of Thornton, Jr. et al. function in the same manner as the inventor’s claimed valve. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the flowrate dimensions are “5mL per minute to 150 mL per minute” the claimed range. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A): Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.").
Regarding claim 10, Thornton, Jr. et al. disclose the water coolant circuit (Figs. 1-36), wherein the plurality of dental device positions (Fig. 1) comprises at least one dental device position (with module 390) that receives pressurized air in addition to water coolant (Column 22 lines 20-32).
Regarding claim 11, Thornton, Jr. et al. disclose the water coolant circuit (Figs. 1-36), further comprising at least one connected dental device (164) connected to one of the dental device positions (Fig. 1), and wherein the water coolant valve (306 or 308) is selectively controllable to supply water coolant through the connected dental device at a quasi-continuous flow rate (supplying a continuous water flow rate, Column 15 line 66-Column 16 line 14).
Regarding claim 12, Thornton, Jr. et al. disclose the water coolant circuit (Figs. 1-36), further comprising a compliance member (flexible tubing, Column 15 lines 21-32) positioned downstream of the water coolant valve (306), wherein the compliance member attenuates pulsations in the water coolant flow from the water coolant valve (306).
Regarding claim 13, Thornton, Jr. et al. disclose the water coolant circuit (Figs. 1-36), wherein the compliance member comprises flexible tubing (Column 15 lines 21-32) through which the water coolant flows.
Regarding claim 14, Thornton, Jr. et al. disclose the water coolant circuit (Figs. 1-36), wherein the compliance member comprises a valve member (within valve 150), but lacks disclosure wherein the valve member is a flexible diaphragm.
Schrader teach a valve system (36) having a solenoid control valve (300) that has a flexible diaphragm (320) as a valve member.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the valve member of the solenoid valve of Thornton, Jr. et al. with a diaphragm valve member as taught by Schrader since they are considered art recognized equivalents in the art of solenoid valves, that perform the same function of controlling a fluid flow through a solenoid valve.
Regarding claim 15, Thornton, Jr. et al. disclose the water coolant circuit (Figs. 1-36), wherein the water coolant valve (306) is operable (valve is operable to fully open to function as claimed) in a flush mode to supply water coolant to one or more of the dental device positions (modules, Fig. 1) simultaneously.
Regarding claim 16, Thornton, Jr. et al. disclose the water coolant circuit (Figs. 1-36), wherein, in the flush mode (on mode), substantially all flush flow (all water flows through the valve) is routed through the water coolant valve (306) for simultaneous flushing of dental devices (modules, Fig. 1) at the one or more of the dental device positions (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, Thornton, Jr. et al. disclose the water coolant circuit (Figs. 1-36), wherein the water control valve (306) is connectible to an electrical power source (Column 15 line 66-Column 16 line 14), wherein in response to turning off electrical power or lost of electrical power supplied to the coolant valve (306), the water coolant valve (306) remains in an off state and water coolant flow is blocked (electric power is required to actuate the valves, Column 16 lines 40-50).
Regarding claim 18, Thornton, Jr. et al. disclose a method of supplying dental water coolant in a dental delivery system (Figs. 1-36), comprising: providing a single water coolant valve (306 or 308) connected to multiple dental device positions (162, Fig. 1) defined on a control head (22); connecting the single water coolant valve (306 or 308) to a pressurized dental water coolant source (Column 15 line 66-Column 16 line 14); and operating the water coolant valve (306 or 308) to selectively control a flow of dental water coolant (Column 15 line 66-Column 16 line 14) from the single water coolant valve (306 or 308) to at least a selected one of the multiple dental device positions (162, Fig. 1), but lacks disclosure wherein the water coolant valve is operable via pulse width modulation (PWM), wherein the water coolant valve is operated via PWM with a valve poppet cycling substantially full stoke between open and closed positions.
Schrader teach a valve system (36) having a solenoid control valve (300) that is operable via low frequency pulse width modulation (paragraphs 35, 39, and 55), wherein the valve (300) is operated via PWM with a valve poppet (312) cycling substantially full stroke between open and closed positions (paragraph 58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the drive of the solenoid valve of Thornton, Jr. et al. with a pulse width modulated solenoid valve as taught by Schrader for the advantage of regulating the current conducted through the solenoid coil (paragraph 55).
Regarding claim 33, Thornton, Jr. et al. disclose the water coolant circuit (Figs. 1-36), wherein the water coolant valve (306 or 308) is selectively controllable to supply the water coolant (Column 15 line 66-Column 16 line 14) at a programmed constant flow rate (the set desired flow rate).
Regarding claim 34, Thornton, Jr. et al. disclose the water coolant circuit (Figs. 1-36), wherein the water coolant valve (306 or 308) is selectively controllable to supply the water coolant (Column 15 line 66-Column 16 line 14) at a programmed flow rate (the desired flow rate) that varies over a time period (the desired intended use).
Regarding claim 35, Thornton, Jr. et al. disclose the water coolant circuit (Figs. 1-36), wherein the water coolant valve (32) is selectively controllable to supply the water coolant at a flow rate (set flow rate) set according to load sensed (if the handpiece is within the hanger, Column 8 line 7-Column 11 line 68) by a dental device (315) connected to the at least one of the plurality of dental device positions (208).
Regarding claim 36, Thornton, Jr. et al. disclose the water coolant circuit (Figs. 1-36), wherein the plurality of defined device positions (162) define separate, parallel connections (Fig. 10) for dental devices (164).
Regarding claim 37, Thornton, Jr. et al. disclose the water coolant circuit (Figs. 1-36), further comprising a water coolant holdback valve (150 or 410), comprising: a valve body (Fig. 9) having a valve inlet and a valve outlet for the water coolant (Column 10 lines 17-35); wherein the valve (150 or 410) is selectively controllable (Column 10 lines 17-35) to allow inflow of the water coolant from the valve inlet and outflow of the water coolant through the valve outlet and to shut off inflow of the water coolant (Column 26 lines 31-50 & Column 22 lines 20-32); wherein the water coolant holdback valve (150 or 410) is connectible within the dental unit (10) downstream of a water coolant source (402) and upstream of one of the plurality of dental device positions (162) at which a dental device (164) can be connected, but lacks disclosure of a flexible diaphragm positioned in the valve body between the inlet and outlet to selectively control the flow of water.
Schrader teach a valve system (36) having a solenoid control valve (300) that has a flexible diaphragm (320) as a valve member positioned (Fig. 3A) in a valve body (316) between an inlet (302) and outlet (304) to control fluid flow (paragraphs 52-59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the valve member of the solenoid valve of Thornton, Jr. et al. with a diaphragm valve member as taught by Schrader since they are considered art recognized equivalents in the art of solenoid valves, that perform the same function of controlling a fluid flow through a solenoid valve.
Regarding claim 38, Thornton, Jr. et al. disclose the water coolant circuit (Figs. 1-36), further comprising a pilot control input (182), wherein a pilot control off signal (Column 11 lines 35-48) forces the valve (150 or 410) into an off position in which flow of the water coolant is prevented (Column 26 lines 16-50).
Regarding claim 40, Thornton, Jr. et al. disclose the water coolant circuit (Figs. 1-36), wherein one of the plurality of dental device positions (162, Fig. 10) comprises a dental device holder (162), wherein the pilot control input is a signal (Column 26 lines 16-50) from a holder valve (182) operably connected (Column 11 lines 35-48) to the dental device holder (162), wherein the pilot control input is configured to change (Column 26 lines 16-50) from a closed signal to an open signal when the holder valve (182) changes to indicate that a dental device (164) has been removed from the dental device holder (162).
Regarding claim 41, Thornton, Jr. et al. disclose the water coolant circuit (Figs. 1-36), wherein the water coolant holdback valve (150 or 410) is configured to (“configured to” merely limits the claim to capable of performing the claimed function) prevent drips (capable of preventing drips in the closed position) from the dental device (164) when the dental device (164) is returned to the dental device holder (162).
Regarding claim 42, Thornton, Jr. et al. disclose the water coolant circuit (Figs. 1-36), wherein the water coolant holdback valve (150 or 410) is configured to (“configured to” merely limits the claim to capable of performing the claimed function) prevent water drops (capable of preventing water drops in the closed position) from forming at an outlet of the dental device (164).
Regarding claim 43, Schrader (modified above) teaches at least one biasing member (314) configured to bias the diaphragm (320) towards a closed position (Fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 44, Thornton, Jr. et al. disclose the water coolant circuit (Figs. 1-36), wherein the valve (150 or 410) is pilot controlled by a pilot on or a pilot off signal (Column 26 lines 16-50), wherein the water coolant holdback valve (150 or 410) comprises four states of operation: a first OFF state (when switch 182 is ON and valve 306 is OFF) in which the pilot signal is on and no inflow of water coolant is present at the valve inlet (at 150 or 410); a second OFF state (when switch 182 is ON and valve 306 is ON) in which the pilot signal is on and inflow of water coolant is present at the valve inlet; a third ON state (when switch 184 is OFF and valve 306 is ON) in which the pilot signal is off and inflow of water coolant is present at the valve inlet and outflow of water coolant is present at the valve outlet; and a fourth OFF state (when switch 184 is OFF and valve 306 is OFF) in which the pilot signal is off and no inflow of water coolant is present at the valve inlet.
Regarding claim 46, Schrader (modified above) teach wherein the valve (300) is operable (operable to set at the desired rate) to supply the water coolant at a selected rate and through a connected device (34) in a quasi-continuous flow (supplying a desired flow rate, paragraph 48), wherein the quasi-continuous flow includes flow components (paragraphs 52-58) that differ from a mean flow but the difference are not perceptible to the user (paragraph 48) .
Regarding claim 47, Schrader (modified above) teach an electronic controller (paragraph 48) configured to generate a pulse-width modulated control signal (paragraph 48) to the valve (300), and a sensor (paragraph 48) configured to detect a flow rate and provide feedback to the controller (paragraph 48), wherein the controller dynamically adjust a duty cycle (paragraph 55) of the control signal based on the feedback to maintain a predetermined pressure (paragraph 48).
Claim(s) 39 and 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thornton, Jr. et al. (U.S. Patent No. 3,872,593) in view of Schrader (Pub. No. US 2021/0381617), and further in view of Brockway (U.S. Patent No. 5,425,634).
Regarding claims 39 and 45, Thornton, Jr. et al. disclose the essential features of the claimed invention but lack disclosure wherein the pilot control input in a pneumatic pressure signal.
Brockway teaches a water coolant circuit (Figs. 1-2) comprising a water valve actuator (36) that is actuated via a pilot valve (32) having a pilot control input (at 54) that is a pneumatic pressure signal (Column 4 lines 11-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the electric pilot signal of Thornton, JR. et al. with a pneumatic pressure signal as disclosed by Thornton, JR, et al. (Column 11 line 66-Colmn 12 line 4), and as taught by Brockway, since such actuating means are considered art recognized equivalents in the art of actuators that perform the same function of communicating an actuation signal to an actuator.
Regarding claim 45, Thornton, Jr. et al. disclose the essential features of the claimed invention but lack disclosure wherein the pilot pneumatic signal is in the range of 70-125 psi.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the pneumatic pilot signal of Brockway to be in the range of 70-125 psi, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentable distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A): Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.").
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 Reinaldo Sanchez-Medina, telephone number 571-270-5168, fax number 571-270-6168. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (7:30AM-4:00PM 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 supervisors can be reached by phone. Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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.
/REINALDO SANCHEZ-MEDINA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753