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
Regarding the specification objection, applicant’s amendments have obviated this objection and it is hereby withdrawn.
Regarding the drawing objections, applicant’s newly submitted drawings are not being entered, as they introduce new matter. Therefore, the drawing objections remain.
Regarding the written description rejection of claims 2-4 and 10, while the examiner understands applicant’s position (as explained in the arguments) this position is not supported by the specification, as originally filed. Specifically, a POSITA would not readily/necessarily understand that “the irrigant and the UVC light do not occupy the same space within the light conduit. The light conduit is comprised of several components, one of which is a transverse core capable of transmitting electromagnetic energy and another is a channel that allows fluid to flow around the central transverse core. The electromagnetic energy does not escape the transverse core until the distal end of the device, where the sheathing around the core is removed”, as argued. There is nothing in applicant’s specification that supports applicant’s position of a separate channel within the light conduit or that the light and irrigant do not occupy the same space until the distal end of the device. In fact, the specification seemingly contradicts applicant’s position. “FIG. 6 shows a UVC light and irrigant device 300 comprising of a light conduit 302 with an irrigant channel304. A light source 305 in accordance with the types discussed in the other embodiments herein is provided. Therapeutic and microbial killing UVC light 306 from light source 305 is combined with an irrigant 308 to provide enhanced antimicrobial effect. UVC light has a double acting effect of disinfecting irrigant 306 as it travels down light conduit 302 and disinfecting wound 310. This means less irrigant 308 can be used to treat wound 310 while simultaneously ensuring that irrigant 308 is disinfected before it comes into contact with wound 310.” And “By combining the UVC light with the irrigant, less
irrigant or a more diluted irrigant can be used to clear out the infected area because the bleach is oxidized by the UVC light as it travels down light conduit 302 to the treatment area” How can the UVC light disinfect the irrigant as it travels down the light conduit if the light and the irrigant do not interact within the light conduit? Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the written description rejections are maintained. Furthermore, applicant’s amendments that change “travel together down the portion of the light conduit before reaching the area of interest” to “exit the light conduit” are not supported by the originally filed specification
Regarding the written description rejection of claim 7, applicant’s statement that a selectively operated cover is well known and therefore does not need to be described is a mere opinion/allegation by applicant with no evidence to support this position. Furthermore, there is no indication from the originally filed specification that the selectively operated cover is a valve. For example, if the selectively operated cover is a valve, then why wasn’t it described as such in the originally filed specification?
Regarding the written description rejection of claim 14, as discussed above, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Furthermore, the additional explanation does not resolve the issues as to how the claimed attachment mechanism cooperates with the irrigant channel.
Regarding the written description and enablement rejections of claims 15-16, applicant’s amendments have overcome these rejections and they are hereby withdrawn.
Regarding the 112b indefiniteness rejections of claims 12, 15 and 16, applicant’s amendments have overcome these rejections and they are hereby withdrawn.
Regarding the 102 rejection to Shur, applicant’s arguments and amendments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. First it noted that applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the current claim language. Specifically, applicant argues “Contrary to Shur, the light conduit comprises a transverse core for delivering UVC light that is not adjacent to a hollow end of the light conduit or that can be used as both the electromagnetic communication and the irrigant communication; rather, the light conduit communicates UVC light and irrigant in a non-adjacent manner, within separate areas of the light conduit”. However, none of these concepts, specifically the “non-adjacent manner” and “separate areas”, are reflected in the claim language. All that is required is that the light conduit includes a transverse core (which all optical fibers inherently have, along with a cladding in order to transmit light along the length of the fiber via total internal reflection; waveguiding structure 20 is disclosed as an optical fiber; Pars 0026 and 0028), wherein the irrigant surrounds the transverse core/fiber (channels 18A-B surround fiber 20) and wherein the light conduit communicates the irrigant to the area of interest (via insertion end 14). Therefore, the amendments continue to be taught by Shur and the 102 rejection is substantially maintained, with updated claim mapping/interpretation to address the amendments, as detailed below.
To summarize, applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claim language. Specifically, applicant argues “the irrigant and the UVC light do not travel within the same path. Thus the comparison of these claims to Shur's use of the same hollow tube for electromagnetic communication and fluid communication does not describe the same structure as the present application”, but this concept/idea that the irrigant and UVC light do not travel within the same path, i.e. are in separate/non-adjacent portions of the light conduit, is found nowhere in the claims. In fact, the claims explicitly require the irrigant to surround the core/fiber. Furthermore, even if this concept (as argued, by applicant) was recited in the claims, the examiner contends that such a concept is not supported by the originally filed specification, as the spec seemingly discloses the opposite (as explained in detail above). Therefore, the majority of the previous rejections are maintained (except for those explicitly pointed out as withdrawn, above) with updated explanation/interpretation/analysis for the amended limitations. See rejections below.
Regarding claim 2, applicant has withdrawn this claim, however such a withdrawal seems improper as applicant has provided no reason for it nor does it seem to be based on the restriction. Therefore, the examiner is considering this claim (and its two dependent claims 3 and 4) to be currently pending examination, i.e. not withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the proper status identifier for this claim should be “previously presented” (not “withdrawn”). Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following features must be shown or canceled from the claims:
-Pump recited in claims 5-6
-Selectively operated cover in claim 7
-Heatsink in claims 15-16
No new matter should be entered.
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
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 2-4, 7, 10 and 14 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.
[Claims 2-4] These claims require “the irrigant channel is in communication with the light conduit allowing the UVC light and the irrigant to travel together down a portion of the light conduit before reaching the area of interest”. However, the specification fails to provide sufficient disclosure as to HOW this claimed function is achieved. While Figs. 5-6 show an irrigant traveling together down a light conduit (302), the specification fails to provide any details as to HOW this is accomplished. Specifically, the specification states “Light conduit 302 can be the same as or similar to light conduit 202 discussed above” and “Light conduit 202 implemented as, for example, hollow tube, fiberoptic strand, etc.”. While a hollow tube can clearly allow fluid to travel down it, it’s unclear how it allows light to travel down it because light would mostly scatter and be lost at the tube's inner surface due to reflections. The only material/structure disclosed for the light conduit is a “plastic or a non-thermal conductive material”, but it’s unclear how such a material used for a hollow tube would allow light to travel down it without escaping out the side. Conversely, while an optical fiber can clearly allow light to travel down it, it’s unclear how it allows fluid to travel down it, as the core (210) of the disclosed fiber (where light travels) is a solid material. There is no explanation or details as to HOW the claimed function of a light conduit that allows both fluid and light to travel together down the conduit is achieved.
An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. "Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement." MPEP 2163.03
If it is applicant’s position that such a configuration of a light conduit, e.g. hollow tube or optical fiber, that allows both fluid and light to travel down the light conduit together is so well-known/conventional that they are not required to disclose it in detail, then applicant would need to provide proof/evidence of such conventionality.
Additionally, applicant’s amendments that change “travel together down the portion of the light conduit before reaching the area of interest” to “exit the light conduit” are not supported by the originally filed specification. It is emphasized that applicant’s substitute specification that changes this language in the specification is not entered, as it introduces new matter. Specifically, disinfecting/oxidizing the irrigant/bleach as it travels down the light guide is not remotely the same as disinfect/oxidizing the irrigant/bleach as it exits the light guide. There is no indication that applicant’s originally filed specification encompassed such a configuration/limitation, as claimed.
[Claim 7] The claims recite “a selectively operated cover configured to selectively prevent the flow of irrigant from the irrigant source into the light conduit” but no explanation or details as to what this cover is and how it functions to provide the claimed effect are not discussed in the specification. It is noted that the cover is never shown in the drawings and how it is “selectively operated” are not disclosed. If applicant believes that this selectively operated cover is so well-known that they do not need to provide details, then applicant should provide evidence of such in their response.
[Claim 10] While applicant has support for “a plastic fiberoptic conduit comprising a cladding that has been removed from a distal end so that UVC light is emitted radially and axially relative to the distal end of the conduit”, it doesn’t appear as if they had support for such a plastic fiberoptic conduit in combination with the irrigant channel, as recited in claim 1. Specifically, it appears as if applicant is mixing embodiments without sufficient explanation/details as to how these two separate features can be combined into a single embodiment. It is noted that Figs. 6-7 are the only figures/embodiments that show/include an irrigant channel. Based on the lack of explanation, it’s unclear how the specific plastic fiberoptic conduit with the cladding removed (as shown/described in relation to Figs. 102) can be combined/included within the irrigant channel, as shown in Figs. 6-7. It is noted that the core of the claimed plastic fiberoptic conduit (where the cladding is removed from the distal end) is a solid material, which would not allow fluid to travel down it (as shown in Figs. 6-7).
[Claim 14] Similar to claim 10 above, it appears as if applicant has possession of all of the separate structural elements recited in the claims, but fails to explain in sufficient detail as to how all of these components cooperate together in a single functioning embodiment. For example, Fig. 6 discloses a housing (300) including a light source, a lens, a light conduit and irrigant channel; Fig. 5 discloses a controller; Figs. 1-2 disclose an attachment mechanism for attaching a light conduit. It’s unclear how all of these elements cooperate together in a single embodiment. In particular, the limitation “an attachment mechanism for selectively attaching the light conduit to the housing with the light conduit aligned with the lens to focus light from the UVC light source into the light conduit” is not sufficiently supported, especially when considering the claimed irrigant channel. It’s unclear how the attachment feature (106) cooperates with lens and the irrigant channel (303/304) which is also part of the light conduit (302).
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.
Claims 1-9, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2017/0189711 to Shur et al.
[Claim 1] Shur discloses a device (Figs 1-2) for disinfecting an area of interest (Par 0045 discloses disinfection. Furthermore, a statement of intended use in the preamble is “not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction”; MPEP 2111.02), the device comprising:
a housing (devices 24A or 24b; Figs. 2A-B)
an ultra-violet C spectrum (UVC) light source (optoelectronic device 30) for emitting UVC light (Pars 0031 and 0045);
an irrigant source configured to supply an irrigant (syringe 26 can include a tube defining an enclosed volume for storing a fluid; Par 0029 and/or containers of fluid 54A-B shown in Figs. 8A-B that connect to the device in Figs. 1-2; Par 0047);
a light conduit (hollow tube 12/needle 10) comprising a transverse core (wave guiding structure 20 which is an optical fiber; Pars 0026 and 0028. Optical fibers, by definition, inherently include a transverse core) in electromagnetic communication with the UVC light source configured to communicate light from the UVC light source to the area of interest (at least Pars 0026-27);
an irrigant channel (connector 28, Figs. 2A-B, which fluidly attaches the syringe 26 with the needle/hollow tube AND/OR tube 60A-B, Figs 8A-B, that is “fluidly connected” to the needle) in communication with the irrigant source, the irrigant channel configured to communicate the irrigant from the irrigant source to the light conduit (Pars 0029-30 and 0047), wherein the irrigant surrounds the transverse core (see channels 18A-B that surround optical fiber/core 20) and wherein the light conduit communicates the irrigant to the area of interest (channels 18A-B deliver fluid to the treatment site via opening at the insertion end 14 of needle 10; at least Par 0028);
and a controller (control unit 34) combined with the UVC light source for controlling the intensity of the light emitted to the area of interest (Pars 0032 and 0036).
[Claims 2-4] As explained above, the light (via waveguide/fiber/core 20) and the irrigant (via channels 18A-B) travel together down a portion of the light conduit (needle/hollow tube 10/12) before reaching the area of interest (via opening/exit at insertion end 14). The examiner contends that the device of Shur teaches all of the necessary structural components/configurations to be capable of disinfecting or activating the irrigant with the light as they (the light and irrigant) exit the light conduit together (via opening at insertion end 14).
"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim; MPEP 2114.
[Claims 5 and 6] Shur discloses a plunger for drawing the fluid into the enclosed volume and/or expelling fluid from the enclosed volume (Par 0029); the plunger is considered a pump.
[Claim 7] The examiner interprets the connector (28; Par 0029) as a selectively operable cover that selectively prevents the flow of irrigant from the source to the light conduit.
[Claim 8] It is noted that an irrigant is not positively recited/required by the claims, only a source that is functionally configured to supply an irrigant and a channel that is functionally configured to communicate an irrigant from the source to the area of interest. Therefore, the prior art is only required to teach a device capable of supplying and communicating the claimed irrigant, and does not necessarily need to teach the claimed irrigant in order to be capable of such a functionality; MPEP 2114. The examiner contends that Shur discloses all of the necessary structure to supply and communicate any of the claimed irrigants. Furthermore, Shur explicitly teaches saline (Par 0028)
[Claim 9] Shur discloses a light conduit (hollow tube 12 or optical fiber 20) that has a cylindrical distal end, i.e. both a tube and an optical fiber are cylindrical and so are their distal ends. The examiner contends that the light radiated from these cylindrical structures is inherently/implicitly in three dimensions; see MPEP 2114 and 2112. Furthermore, Shur discloses an optical element (38) at the distal end of the waveguide that can include a diffusive element (Par 0035) which functions to diffuse/spread out light, i.e. in three dimensions.
[Claim 12] Shur discloses a control unit (34) that includes a battery (Par 0032). Furthermore, Shur discloses “while shown separate from the syringe 26 and connector 28, it is understood that embodiments of the control unit 34 can be incorporated into one or both of the syringe 26 and connector 28.” (Par 0033), i.e. inside the housing.
[Claim 13] Applicant is reminded that the material/article worked upon (in this case inflamed endodontic tissues) does not impart patentability to the claims; MPEP 2115. Furthermore, the examiner takes the position that the claimed effect of sterilization and regeneration is an inherent effect of UVC. As pointed out above, Shur explicitly discloses that UVC is commonly used for disinfection and vitamin D production of skin. It is noted that endodontic tissue, i.e. gums, are considered skin tissue.
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.
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shur, as applied to claim 1 above, as evidenced by “Constant Current vs. Constant Voltage: Find the Right LED Power Supply” to Chonowski.
Shur is discussed above, but is silent as to the specific LED driver that is used to operate the disclosed diodes (Par 0031). Chonowski discloses that there are only two types of LED drivers, i.e. constant-current and constant voltage, and the pros and cons of each. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Shur to include/try a constant current driver for the LEDs as this is merely choosing from a finite number (2) of identified, predictable solutions (constant current or constant voltage drivers), with a reasonable expectation of success (to operate a LED). Furthermore, the examiner takes the position that in order to effectively operate an LED, i.e. over its full range of emission wavelengths, the driver inherently/necessarily has to control the current “throughout the temperature range of the UVC light source”, as there is a well-known and natural correlation between the wavelength emitted and the temperature; see MPEP 2112.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shur as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 6,004,315 to Dumont
Shur is discussed above, including disclosing that the light conduit “be configured to provide any desired optical function for radiation traveling through the wave guiding structure” including diffusion (Par 0035), but fails to explicitly disclose a plastic optical fiber with a removed cladding to provide radial emission. However, in the same field of endeavor, in particular laser surgical optical fiber devices, Dumont discloses “An optical fiber device includes a polymeric optical fiber having a proximal end for coupling to a source of light, and a diffusing region. The polymeric optical fiber includes a core and a cladding around the core. The diffusing region includes a length of the polymeric optical fiber in which the cladding is partially removed to expose the core and in which the exposed core and the remaining cladding have a roughened surface for outwardly diffusing light carried through the polymeric optical fiber.” (Abstract) and specifically discloses that the polymeric optical fiber is plastic (Col 4, lines 29-32). Dumont also teaches “the optical fiber of the invention is potentially of use in any medical application requiring the radial or substantially symmetric delivery of light to a region of the human body, particularly in circumstances where breaking of the diffuser while in use could be hazardous” (Col 9, lines 3-10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the optical diffusive element taught by Shur with the optical fiber diffuser taught by Dumont, specifically by modifying Shur to remove the cladding and expose the core of the optical fiber, in order to obtain predictable results, i.e. diffusion of light in a radial/three-dimensional pattern, with the explicit advantage of being resistant to breaking.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shur as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2013/0289548 to Hamada et al.
Shur is discussed above and discloses a housing for the UVC light source and the controller (connector 28; “as illustrated, the optoelectronic device 30 can be located within the connector 28.” Par 0030; “it is understood that embodiments of the control unit 34 can be incorporated into one or both of the syringe 26 and connector 28” Par 0033) and an attachment mechanism (coupling mechanism) for selectively attaching the light conduit to the housing (“In an embodiment, the connector 28 can include a coupling mechanism (e.g., a male or female connector), which allows for a removable connection between the control unit 34 and the optoelectronic device 30. In this manner, the same control unit 34 can be utilized to control optoelectronic devices 30 in different connectors 28 and/or needles 10”).
Shur discloses “an embodiment of the connector 28 can include an optical coupling mechanism for the wave guiding structure 20”, but fails to explicit teach that the optical coupling mechanism is a lens. However, in the same field of endeavor, Hamada discloses a similar laser surgical handpiece with a lens (collecting lens 25; Fig. 2) for focusing light from a light source into a distal light conduit/optical fiber (Par 0038). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the generic optical coupling mechanism for the focusing lens taught by Hamada, as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, i.e. execute optical connection/coupling of a laser beam to a light guide.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shur as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2012/0045730 to Sayder.
[Claim 15] Shur is discussed above, but fails to explicitly teach a heat sink that removes heat from the light source. However, in the same field of endeavor, specifically light-based dental treatment devices, Sayder discloses a heat sink (956, Fig. 13) that is “held in compression with the light source 916 by a spring bias 958 in order to cool the light source 916 when in operation” (Par 0093). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in to modify the light-based dental treatment device of Shur with the heat sink taught by Sayder in order to cool the light source and prevent overheating of the handpiece/device.
[Claim 16] Shur discloses a device (Figs 1-2) for disinfecting an area of interest (Par 0045 discloses disinfection. Furthermore, a statement of intended use in the preamble is “not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction”; MPEP 2111.02), the device comprising:
a housing (devices 24A or 24b; Figs. 2A-B)
an ultra-violet C spectrum (UVC) light source (optoelectronic device 30) for emitting UVC light (Pars 0031 and 0045);
an irrigant source configured to supply an irrigant (syringe 26 can include a tube defining an enclosed volume for storing a fluid; Par 0029 and/or containers of fluid 54A-B shown in Figs. 8A-B that connect to the device in Figs. 1-2; Par 0047);
a light conduit (hollow tube 12/needle 10) comprising a transverse core (wave guiding structure 20 which is an optical fiber; Pars 0026 and 0028. Optical fibers, by definition, inherently include a transverse core) in electromagnetic communication with the UVC light source configured to communicate light from the UVC light source to the area of interest (at least Pars 0026-27);
an attachment mechanism (coupling mechanism) for selectively attaching the light conduit to the housing for selectively attaching the light conduit to the housing (“In an embodiment, the connector 28 can include a coupling mechanism (e.g., a male or female connector), which allows for a removable connection between the control unit 34 and the optoelectronic device 30. In this manner, the same control unit 34 can be utilized to control optoelectronic devices 30 in different connectors 28 and/or needles 10”; Par 0033)
an irrigant channel (connector 28, Figs. 2A-B, which fluidly attaches the syringe 26 with the needle/hollow tube AND/OR tube 60A-B, Figs 8A-B, that is “fluidly connected” to the needle) in communication with the irrigant source, the irrigant channel configured to communicate the irrigant from the irrigant source to the light conduit (Pars 0029-30 and 0047), wherein the irrigant surrounds the transverse core (see channels 18A-B that surround optical fiber/core 20) and wherein the light conduit communicates the irrigant to the area of interest (channels 18A-B deliver fluid to the treatment site via opening at the insertion end 14 of needle 10; at least Par 0028);
a DC battery power source inside the housing and configured to provide power to the UVC light source (battery; Par 0032. All batteries, by definition, are inherently direct current/DC batteries);
and a controller (control unit 34) combined with the UVC light source for controlling the intensity of the light emitted to the area of interest (Pars 0032 and 0036).
Shur is discussed above, but fails to teach a heat sink that removes heat from the light source. However, in the same field of endeavor, specifically light-based dental treatment devices, Sayder discloses a heat sink (956, Fig. 13) that is “held in compression with the light source 916 by a spring bias 958 in order to cool the light source 916 when in operation” (Par 0093). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in to modify the light-based dental treatment device of Shur with the heat sink taught by Sayder in order to cool the light source and prevent overheating of the handpiece/device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fig. 12 of Sayder teaches applicant’s claimed (and argued) invention.
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 Lynsey C Eiseman whose telephone number is (571)270-7035. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday and alternating Fridays 7 to 4 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, David Hamaoui can be reached at 571-270-5625. 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.
/LYNSEY C Eiseman/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796