DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to Applicant’s arguments filed 2/11/26.
The previous objection to the drawings is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to claim 12.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and additionally do not address the new grounds of rejection and/or interpretation below necessitated by Applicant’s arguments.
Applicant argues that the prior art combination relied on does not teach the newly added limitations to the claims, however, as explained below the Examiner disagrees. Specifically, the Examiner asserts that in the modified device of Dorward/Kwong/Kramer, as combined below, the openings, and the intersection of the lines, would be formed within the ridges (as shown below in Kwong). If the lines did not intersect in the ridges, or in the surface of the walls from which they are formed in, a projecting structure or nipple, or the like, would be formed to extend outward from the wall; the construction of the opening and intersecting lines of Kwong shows no such structure, instead showing a flush outer surface with a depression where the lines intersect. Further, Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach that the “air and water” intersect within the ridges, however such argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims as they do not require the air and water to intersect within the ridges, just the tubes therefore.
Further, regarding Applicant’s arguments to Dorward’s alleged mixing of the air and water prior to reaching the nozzle, the Examiner points to and incorporates all previous response to arguments regarding the relied on embodiment of Dorward which expressly states that air and gas may be separately conveyed in the device until they are mixed at the outlets. Similarly, regarding the arguments to the use of the device in a rotated or upside down configuration the Examiner notes that the modified device is capable of being used upside down, via rotating, if so desired. There is no reasons provided as to why the modified device could not be rotated and used inverted; the modified device is functionally capable of being used as such, and no motivation for any further modification regarding such use is required. Additionally, the arguments to the structure of the handle have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Since the indicated structure can be grasped by hand, it meets the limitation of the term. There is no limiting or excluding structure listed in the claim. Still further, regarding Applicant’s arguments to “only” an angle between 40 and 50 degrees, the Examiner points to the new grounds of rejection and/or interpretation below. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive and additionally do not address the new grounds of rejection and/or interpretation below necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claim 2 is 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.
Regarding claim 2, the term “only an angle” is not supported by the original disclosure and as such is deemed new matter and must be removed. Specifically, although one angle is shown and described in the original disclosure, there is no recitation that such angle is the only (single) angle, therefore excluding other angles, as required. Deletion is required.
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.
Claim 8 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.
Regarding claim 8, the term “the variable flow rates” lacks antecedent basis in the claims and as such it is unclear what variable flow rates from the console are referred to. Still further, it is unclear what structure is or is not specifically required to achieve said variable flow rates. Clarification is required.
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) 1, 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorward et al (US 2018/0344441 A1) in view of Kwong et al (US 2022/0280272 A1), further in view of Kramer (US 2019/0223991 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Dorward et al discloses a micro-scale mist teeth cleaning device (see Fig. 4, 13-14 and 17, showing fluid controller, tray and nozzle respectively) comprising: a source of air under pressure (330) [0039]; a source of water under pressure (320; [0040]); and a mouthguard (see Figs. 13-14) in the form of a generally semi-circular outer ridge (1116) and a generally semi- circular inner ridge (1114) with space in between for the teeth of a patient's dental arch (e.g. space therebetween), said mouthguard further including two channel receptors for separately receiving the air (346/348; conduits for air to mouthguard from controller) and water (342/344; conduits for water to mouthguard from controller) under pressure and internal tubes connected to respective receptors (implicitly in order for the air and water to be dispensed in the relied upon embodiment of Fig. 17 where the air and water do not mix until dispensed) and separately distributing the air (526/528; conduits inside mouthguard to distribute air from receptors to outlet) under pressure and the water (542/544/556/558; conduits inside mouthguard to distribute water from receptors to outlet) under pressure along the outer and inner ridges (as noted above, as the water and air are separately received, conveyed through the mouthpiece and then extend to the openings (as explained above and below in relied on embodiment of Fig. 17), they must be separately conveyed through it, otherwise the fluids would mix and the two fluid dispersing at the openings of the relied on embodiment would not be possible in the embodiment of Fig. 17), the mouthguard further including a plurality of openings (e.g. outlets of conduits; see plurality of outlets in Figs. 13-14) along an inner side of the outer ridge and an outer side of the inner ridge facing the locations of the patient's teeth when the mouthguard is installed in the patient's mouth (see Fig. 17); and wherein fluids for the air and water intersect at each of the plurality of openings and intersect at an angle such that they act to eject a micro-scale mist from the opening (e.g. gas entrained liquid or liquid entrained gas; see [0034]; see also [0070]-[0071], [0081]; and [0181]-[0185]). Dorward further discloses wherein the device includes a handle (e.g. projection where 1142/1144 are inserted, see Fig. 13-14), with a horizontal arm (e.g. horizontally extending portion) that supports the mouthguard while in the patient’s mouth cleaning one of the upper and lower rows of teeth (capable of supporting the mouthguard), said which handle can be used upside down so that the mouthguard can be turned over to clean the other of the upper and lower rows of teeth (capable of being used as such if so desired; per claims 7), and wherein said handle and the mouthguard are rotatable together so that the mouthguard can be turned over to clean the other of the upper and lower rows of teeth (e.g. handle capable of being rotated with the mouthguard so mouthguard can be turned over, if so desired; capable of being used as such, per claim 12).
While Dorward discloses that the mouthguard comprises a plurality of openings causing the intersecting of the gas and water lines forming the mist in the ports/mouthguards (see citations above and also [0181]-[0185]) and wherein the mouthguard comprises at least two internal tubes along the length of both the inner and outer ridges (see above, each ridge comprises a first tube for air and a second tube for water (see Fig. 17), Dorward does not explicitly teach that the tubes for the air and water intersect within the ridges at each opening at an angle such that they act to eject the microscale mist from the opening or wherein the tubes are located one above the other along the length of both the inner and outer ridges as required.
Kwong et al, however, teaches a dental micro scale mist cleaning device (see [0002] and Figs. 4-5 and 7), comprising a water line (2), a gas line (3), which intersect at an opening (e.g. depression where outlets of lines 2 and 3 meet, see Figs), at an angle such that they act to eject a micro scale mist from the opening (see [0028]; additionally see below showing opening and intersection of lines occurring inside the distal face of the device; within the tip). 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 Dorward, to include the air and water lines intersecting at a recessed opening, as taught by Kwong, as such modification would provide improved control of the generated spray (see [0028]) and would help protect the tubes and outlets thereof from clogs and damage. The Examiner notes that should the device of Dorward be modified to include the teachings of Kwong, as combined above, the tubes would intersect within the ridges at each opening as required, as the water and air are separately received, conveyed through the mouthpiece via the tubes which then extend to the opening (Dorward, Fig. 17) where they would intersect at the recessed opening within the ridge (Kwong), at least in part (see explanation of Dorward above).
PNG
media_image1.png
502
478
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kramer, however, teaches a similar teeth cleaning device with inner (90) and outer (85) ridges (see Fig. 15), the device having internal tubes (310/315) located one above the other along a length of the inner and outer ridges to convey a fluid therethrough (see [0105]). 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 Dorward/Kwong, as combined above, to include Kramer’s teaching of arranging internal tubes of a cleaning mouthpiece one above the other along the length of inner and outer ridges, as such modification would optimize space in the ridges, allowing them to be made thinner than if the lines are arranged side by side, improving the comfort of the user while wearing the device.
Claim(s) 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorward et al in view of Kwong et al in view of Kramer, as combined above,, further in view of Hihara et al (“Effectiveness and safety of a new dental plaque removal device utilizing micro mist spray for removing oral biofilm in vitro”, 2021, cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 2, Dorward/Kwong/Kramer, as combined above, discloses wherein the tubes for the air and water intersect at each opening at only an angle of between 40-50 degrees (see Kwong, single angle measurement formed at cross section of longitudinal axes of air and water outlets; additionally see claim 4 which teaches a range of 28-46 degrees for each guide vane, and as such encompasses only an angle of 40-50 degrees; e.g. two equal angles in said range forming the only angle is encompassed thereby) so as to create the micro scale mist, but does not explicitly teach the particles have a size form 10-40 microns in diameter.
Hihara et al, however, teaches a similar micro scale mist device, wherein the particles generated have a size from 10-40 microns as required (see Background, 40 microns). 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 Dorward/Kwong/Kramer, as combined above, to include Hihara’s teaching of providing a particle size of 40 microns, as such modification would provide improved removal of biofilm at low power to avoid mucosal pain and injury (see Hihara, citations above).
Regarding claim 3, Dorward/Kwong/Kramer, as combined above, does not explicitly teach that the sources of air and water under pressure are contained within a console and wherein the amount of air and water pressure can be independently controlled by dials on the console as required.
Hihara, however, teaches a similar micro scale mist device, comprising a console (see Fig. 1c.) containing the sources of air and water, wherein the amount of air and water pressure can be independently controlled by dials on the console (see dials for air MPa and water mL/min). 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 Dorward/Kwong/Kramer, as combined above, to include Hihara’s console with fluid sources and dials, as such modification would allow the specific parameters of the fluids to be precisely controlled as desired in order to achieve optimum cleaning.
Claim(s) 4-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorward et al in view of Kwong et al in view of Kramer in view of Hihara et al, as combined above, further in view of Quimby (US 4164940).
Regarding claims 4-5, Dorward/Kwong/Kramer/Hihara, as combined above, discloses all the features of the claimed invention as explained above, except wherein the console further comprises push buttons that control the output of air and water, including separately turning the output on or off as required.
Quimby, however, teaches a similar dental cleaning device comprising a console (22) with a plurality of pushbuttons (23, 24, 25) which separately and/or together control the output (e.g. turn on and off) a source of air and water (see col 5, lines 31-41). 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 Dorward/Kwong/Kramer/Hihara, as combined above, to further include Quimby’s pushbuttons to control (turn on and off) the water and gas supply as desired, as such modification would allow operation of the device with either fluid alone, or both fluids together as needed or desired for a particular patient.
Regarding claim 8, Dorward/Kwong/Kramer/Hihara/Quimby, as combined above, teaches wherein the gas and liquid flow from the console at a variable flow rate and are dispensed at each outlet at a flow rate, but does not specifically teach wherein the water and air input and output flow rates are 20-90 ml/min/40-60 L/min and 1-20 ml/min/0.5-40 L/min, as required. However, the Examiner notes that the specific input and output flow rates of the fluids are result effective variables dependent on the desired degree of cleaning for a particular patient as desired. For example, a patient with severe biofilm may require a different flow rate and/or mixture of fluids than that with a patient with less severe disease and/or damaged gums. Additionally, the Examiner notes that at [0026] of the instant application, Applicant does not describe such flow rates with any particular criticality and as such are interpreted as merely preferable. 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 Dorward/Kwong/Kramer/Hihara/Quimby, as combined above to include the input/output fluid flow rates as claimed, as such modification would merely involve the optimization of a result effective variable obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results, which has been held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan (see MPEP 2144.05(II)).
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorward et al in view of Kwong et al in view of Kramer in view of Hihara et al, as combined above, further in view of Kelly (US 3731675).
Regarding claim 6, Dorward/Kwong/Kramer/Hihara, as combined above teaches wherein the device separately conducts the air and water to the mouthpiece receptors in tubes (see Dorward, Fig. 4) from a console (see Hihara), but does not teach wherein the device includes dual channel tubes as required.
Kelly, however, teaches a similar dental cleaning apparatus comprising a dual channel hose/tube (50) containing multiple fluid lines (46/48) therein. 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 Dorward/Kwong/Kramer/Hihara, as combined above, to include Kelly’s dual channel tube arrangement, as such modification would reduce the number of separate lines going to the mouthpiece, providing a more compact and efficient arrangement, and provide better protection to the fluid lines.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD MORAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 AM-4 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eric Rosen can be reached at 571-270-7855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EDWARD MORAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights