=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 claim(s) 1, 9 and 14 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. Specifically, Kim is not relied upon to disclose the recently amended limitations pertaining to the structure of the head portion and debriding surface.
Claim Objections
Applicant’s arguments, see “Remarks”, filed 7/25/2025, with respect to the objection to Claims 2 and 6 for omitting the phrase “wherein” preceding the additional limitations claimed have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of Applicant’s amendment to cancel Claim 2 and to include the suggested mention of “wherein” in Claim 6 . The objection of Claims 2 and 6 has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 recites, “a proximal end configured for connection to a suction device” which should be corrected to recite, “a proximal end configured for connection to the suction device” to provide proper definite reference to the “suction device” previously defined within the claim so as to avoid issues of antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 11 and 18 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 11 recites the in the preamble "The system of claim 10". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as claim 10 has been canceled, rendering all limitations of claim 11 lacking in proper antecedent basis. For the purposes of examination, claim 11 is interpreted to refer and depend from claim 9.
Claim 18 recites the in the preamble "The system of claim 17". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as claim 17 has been canceled, rendering all limitations of claim 18 lacking in proper antecedent basis. For the purposes of examination, claim 18 is interpreted to refer and depend from claim 14.
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, 3, 6-7, 9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 6159226 A)(previously of record) in view of Millner (US 5766193 A), further in view of Ripich (US 2019/0223896 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses:
A tongue debriding apparatus (10, see Figs. 1-2, see also Col. 1, Lines 45-60) for use with a suction device (see Col. 1, Lines 45-60 and Col. 3, Lines 50-55), the apparatus comprising:
a tubular section (portion of cylindrical member 11 labeled in Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 2 below) having a hollow interior (see Figs. 3-4, see also Col. 3, Lines 55-67 mentioning wherein the cylindrical body defines a vacuum chamber therein), an exterior surface having an exterior diameter (see Figs. 1-3), and a proximal end configured for connection to a suction device (handle 7, see Fig. 1, see also Col. 3, Lines 44-47);
a head section (distal portion of the cylindrical member 11 labeled in Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 2 below) extending distally from the tubular section (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 2 below), the head section having a hollow interior in fluidic communication with the hollow interior of the tubular section (see Figs. 3-4, see also Col. 1, Lines 62-64 and Col. 3, Lines 55-67 mentioning wherein the cylindrical member defines a vacuum chamber as part of the cylindrical body);
the head section having a debriding surface (see Fig. 2 showing a scraping surface comprised of spatulate members 14, see Figs. 2-3, see also Col. 4, Lines 10-15) comprising a plurality of parallel spaced apart openings (openings 13, see Fig. 3) separated by parallel rows of bristles (brushes 15, see Fig. 3), wherein the parallel rows of bristles are parallel to the spaced apart openings (see Col. 4, Lines 32-40 mentioning wherein the brushes may be arranged parallel with the spatulate members, which are themselves parallel with the openings as shown in Fig. 2);
wherein the parallel openings and parallel rows of bristles are spaced apart between proximal and distal ends of the debriding surface (see Fig. 3), extend laterally between the sides of the debriding surface (see Figs. 2-3; the parallel bristles extend along the length of the debriding surface as shown in example of Fig. 2 illustrating a longitudinal arrangement), and have lengths that vary in relation to the side profile of the debriding surface (see Fig. 2 showing wherein the brushes (shown extending longitudinally merely by example) have varying widths that correspond to the uneven shape of the debriding surface as they extend along the length thereof);
wherein suction applied to the suction end of the tubular section is drawn through the openings in debriding surface (see Col. 1, Lines 62-64);
wherein the head section having an exterior surface with an opening (hole 17, see Fig. 2 and Col. 4, Lines 47-53) between the exterior surface and the hollow interior of the head section (see Fig. 4);
wherein the opening is positioned distally in the head section (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 2 below showing wherein the suction control mechanism 16, comprising said hole 17, is located distally to the proximal-most region of the head section, as identified in the annotated figure below); and
wherein the distally positioned opening in the head section prevents a vacuum lock between the debriding surface and tongue of a patient (see Col. 4, Lines 47-57); and
PNG
media_image1.png
585
592
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 2
However, Kim does not expressly disclose:
Wherein the debriding surface having flared sides with a side profile that tapers in width distally from a first width that is wider than the exterior diameter of the tubular section to a second width that is wider than the first width, and decreasing tapers in width from the second width to a third width that is narrower than the second width;
wherein the opening is positioned opposite the debriding surface.
In the same field of endeavor, namely tongue cleaning device comprising a vacuum source, Ripich discloses a tongue cleaning device (see Fig. 1) comprising a tubular body (2, see Fig. 1) and a distal head portion (6, see Fig. 1), comprising a debriding surface (50, see Fig. 3) having a vacuum opening (trough 60, see Fig. 3), wherein a vacuum-control opening (20, see Figs. 1 and 3) is disposed along the body of the device as a position radially opposite the debriding surface (see Figs. 1 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as a matter of simple substitution of one known element for another (see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)) to have obtained the predictable result of having the vacuum-control opening (17) of Kim be disposed along the head portion at a position radially-opposite that of the debriding surface as disclosed by Ripich, since none of either Ripich or Kim disclose any particular benefit as to the orientation of said vacuum-control opening aside from wherein it is configured to be opened and closed. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the device of Kim to function equally well should the vacuum-control opening be located on either the same radial side or opposing radial side to that of the debriding surface.
In the same field of endeavor, namely tongue cleaning instruments, Millner teaches wherein a tongue cleaning device (see Fig. 1) comprises tubular proximal section (12, see Fig. 1) and a distal debriding surface (head 14, see Fig. 1 and Col. 2, Lines 31-38), wherein the debriding surface comprises flared sides (see Examiner’s Diagram of Millner Fig. 1 below showing wherein the debriding surface comprises flared sides) with a side profile that tapers in width distally from a first width that is wider than the exterior diameter of the tubular section (see Examiner’s Diagram of Millner Fig. 1 below showing wherein the flared sides extend laterally outward of the tubular body and constitute a first width) to a second width that is wider than the first width (see Examiner’s Diagram of Millner Fig. 1 below showing a second width as the widest section of the head portion), and decreasing tapers in width from the second width to a third width that is narrower than the second width (see Examiner’s Diagram of Millner Fig. 1 below showing this described third width).
PNG
media_image2.png
515
592
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Diagram of Millner Fig. 1
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as a matter of simple substitution of one known element for another (see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)) to have obtained the predictable result of having the debriding the debriding surface of Kim comprise a diamond shape as disclosed by Millner. As Kim does not provide any express benefit to the current oval-shaped opening, merely providing an opening at the distal end of the cylindrical member, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the device of Kim to function equally well with either an oval or diamond shaped distal opening as both shapes are designed and configured to be operable within the mouth of a patient to scrape and/or otherwise clean a tongue. Further, Applicant has seemingly not placed any criticality on the claimed shape, indicating that the “teardrop” shape of the claimed invention is one of a plurality of interchangeable alternative shape (see Para. [0012], [0045] and [0068]) which indicates that the varying widths are not designed to solve any particular problem but are rather alternative shape embodiments.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kim, Millner and Ripich disclose the invention of claim 1, Kim further discloses wherein the spaced apart openings in the head section have a shape configured to amplify suction force from the suction device (see Col. 4, Lines 5-10 mentioning wherein the openings are angled which would cause suction to be amplified toward surface of tongue).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kim, Millner and Ripich disclose the invention of claim 1, Kim further discloses wherein said tubular section further comprises: a coupling positioned on the suction end of said tubular section opposite said head section (suction port 8, see Fig. 1, see also Col 3, Line 54), said coupling configured to couple said apparatus to a hose (see Col. 3, Lines 65-70 and Col. 4, Lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kim, Millner and Ripich discloses the invention of claim 6, Kim further discloses wherein said coupling is selected from the group of couplings consisting of a threaded coupling, a bayonet mount coupling and a compression coupling (see Col. 4, Lines 1-5 mentioning wherein the rear end of the cylindrical member may be threaded for thread engagement with the suction port).
Regarding claim 9, Kim discloses:
A tongue debriding system (see Figs. 1-2 and Col. 1, Lines 45-60), the system comprising:
(a) a suction device (vacuum cleaner 5, see Fig. 1); and
(b) a tongue debriding instrument (10, see Figs. 1-2, see also Col. 1, Lines 45-60) fluidly coupled to the suction device (see Col. 1, Lines 45-60 and Col. 3, Lines 50-55), the instrument comprising:
a tubular section (portion of cylindrical member 11 labeled in Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 2 below) having a hollow interior (see Figs. 3-4, see also Col. 3, Lines 55-67 mentioning wherein the cylindrical body defines a vacuum chamber therein), an exterior surface having an exterior diameter (see Figs. 1-3), and a proximal end configured for connection to a suction device (handle 7, see Fig. 1, see also Col. 3, Lines 44-47); and
a head section (distal portion of the cylindrical member 11 labeled in Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 2 below) extending distally from the tubular section (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 2 below), the head section having a hollow interior in fluidic communication with the hollow interior of the tubular section (see Figs. 3-4, see also Col. 1, Lines 62-64 and Col. 3, Lines 55-67 mentioning wherein the cylindrical member defines a vacuum chamber as part of the cylindrical body);
the head section having a debriding surface (see Fig. 2 showing a scraping surface comprised of spatulate members 14, see Figs. 2-3, see also Col. 4, Lines 10-15) comprising a plurality of parallel spaced apart openings (openings 13, see Fig. 3) separated by parallel rows of bristles (brushes 15, see Fig. 3), wherein the parallel rows of bristles are parallel to the spaced apart openings (see Col. 4, Lines 32-40 mentioning wherein the brushes may be arranged parallel with the spatulate members, which are themselves parallel with the openings as shown in Fig. 2);
wherein the parallel openings and parallel rows of bristles are spaced apart between proximal and distal ends of the debriding surface (see Fig. 3), extend laterally between the sides of the debriding surface (see Figs. 2-3; the parallel bristles extend along the length of the debriding surface as shown in example of Fig. 2 illustrating a longitudinal arrangement), and have lengths that vary in relation to the side profile of the debriding surface (see Fig. 2 showing wherein the brushes (shown extending longitudinally merely by example) have varying widths that correspond to the uneven shape of the debriding surface as they extend along the length thereof);
the head section having an exterior surface with an opening (hole 17, see Fig. 2 and Col. 4, Lines 47-53) between the exterior surface and the hollow interior of the head section (see Fig. 4), wherein the opening is positioned distally in the head section (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 2 below showing wherein the suction control mechanism 16, comprising said hole 17, is located distally to the proximal-most region of the head section, as identified in the annotated figure below);
(c) wherein suction applied to the suction end of the tubular section is drawn through the openings in the debriding surface to the interior of the instrument (see Col. 1, Lines 62-64) and wherein the distally positioned opening in the head section prevents a vacuum lock between the debriding surface and tongue of a patient (see Col. 4, Lines 47-57).
PNG
media_image1.png
585
592
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 2
However, Kim does not expressly disclose:
the debriding surface having flared sides with a side profile that tapers in width distally from a first width that is wider than the exterior diameter of the tubular section to a second width that is wider than the first width, and decreasing tapers in width from the second width to a third width that is narrower than the second width; and
wherein the opening is positioned opposite the debriding surface.
In the same field of endeavor, namely tongue cleaning device comprising a vacuum source, Ripich discloses a tongue cleaning device (see Fig. 1) comprising a tubular body (2, see Fig. 1) and a distal head portion (6, see Fig. 1), comprising a debriding surface (50, see Fig. 3) having a vacuum opening (trough 60, see Fig. 3), wherein a vacuum-control opening (20, see Figs. 1 and 3) is disposed along the body of the device as a position radially opposite the debriding surface (see Figs. 1 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as a matter of simple substitution of one known element for another (see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)) to have obtained the predictable result of having the vacuum-control opening (17) of Kim be disposed along the head portion at a position radially-opposite that of the debriding surface as disclosed by Ripich, since none of either Ripich or Kim disclose any particular benefit as to the orientation of said vacuum-control opening aside from wherein it is configured to be opened and closed. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the device of Kim to function equally well should the vacuum-control opening be located on either the same radial side or opposing radial side to that of the debriding surface.
In the same field of endeavor, namely tongue cleaning instruments, Millner teaches wherein a tongue cleaning device (see Fig. 1) comprises tubular proximal section (12, see Fig. 1) and a distal debriding surface (head 14, see Fig. 1 and Col. 2, Lines 31-38), wherein the debriding surface comprises flared sides (see Examiner’s Diagram of Millner Fig. 1 below showing wherein the debriding surface comprises flared sides) with a side profile that tapers in width distally from a first width that is wider than the exterior diameter of the tubular section (see Examiner’s Diagram of Millner Fig. 1 below showing wherein the flared sides extend laterally outward of the tubular body and constitute a first width) to a second width that is wider than the first width (see Examiner’s Diagram of Millner Fig. 1 below showing a second width as the widest section of the head portion), and decreasing tapers in width from the second width to a third width that is narrower than the second width (see Examiner’s Diagram of Millner Fig. 1 below showing this described third width).
PNG
media_image2.png
515
592
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Diagram of Millner Fig. 1
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as a matter of simple substitution of one known element for another (see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)) to have obtained the predictable result of having the debriding the debriding surface of Kim comprise a diamond shape as disclosed by Millner. As Kim does not provide any express benefit to the current oval-shaped opening, merely providing an opening at the distal end of the cylindrical member, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the device of Kim to function equally well with either an oval or diamond shaped distal opening as both shapes are designed and configured to be operable within the mouth of a patient to scrape and/or otherwise clean a tongue. Further, Applicant has seemingly not placed any criticality on the claimed shape, indicating that the “teardrop” shape of the claimed invention is one of a plurality of interchangeable alternative shape (see Para. [0012], [0045] and [0068]) which indicates that the varying widths are not designed to solve any particular problem but are rather alternative shape embodiments.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Kim, Millner and Ripich disclose the invention of claim 9, Kim further discloses wherein the spaced apart openings in the head section have a shape configured to amplify suction force from the suction device (see Col. 4, Lines 5-10 mentioning wherein the openings are angled which would cause suction to be amplified toward surface of tongue).
Claim(s) 5 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 6159226 A)(previously of record) in view of Millner (US 5766193 A), further in view of Ripich (US 2019/0223896 A1), further in view of Moskovich (US 2012/0174328 A1)(previously of record).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kim, Millner and Ripich discloses all of the limitations of the invention of claim 1.
However, Kim does not expressly disclose wherein said bristles are made of a material selected from the group of materials consisting of nylon, rubber and organic fibers.
In the same field of endeavor, namely tongue cleaning devices, Moskovich teaches a tongue cleaning device (see Fig. 1 – the examiner notes that toothbrushes are configured and used to clean a tongue) comprising a plurality of bristles (618, see Fig. 1) that are made from a material selected from a group consisting of nylon, rubber and organic fibers (see Para. [0092] and [0186]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the bristles of Kim to be made from materials selected from a group consisting of nylon since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Kim, Millner and Ripich discloses all of the limitations of the invention of claim 9.
However, Kim does not expressly disclose wherein said bristles are made of a material selected from the group of materials consisting of nylon, rubber and organic fibers.
In the same field of endeavor, namely tongue cleaning devices, Moskovich teaches a tongue cleaning device (see Fig. 1 – the examiner notes that toothbrushes are configured and used to clean a tongue) comprising a plurality of bristles (618, see Fig. 1) that are made from a material selected from a group consisting of nylon, rubber and organic fibers (see Para. [0092] and [0186]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the bristles of Kim to be made from materials selected from a group consisting of nylon since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 6159226 A)(previously of record) in view of Millner (US 5766193 A), further in view of Ripich (US 2019/0223896 A1), further in view of Jivan (US 2017/0333063 A1)(previously of record).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kim, Millner and Ripich discloses all of the limitations of the invention of claim 1.
However, Kim does not expressly disclose wherein said coupling further comprises an on-off valve.
In the same field of endeavor, namely tongue cleaning devices, Jivan teaches a tongue cleaning device (see Fig. 1, see also Para. [0033]) comprising a tubular section (head 10, see Fig. 1) with a suction apparatus (see Para. [0033]-[0037]) controllable via a handle (20, see Fig. 1), wherein the device comprises an on-off valve (button 21, see Fig. 1, see also Para. [0037]) to allow a user to control the amount of suction and irrigation (see Abstract and Para. [0006] and [0037] mentioning wherein the button manipulates a valve to control suction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the coupling suction port of Kim to comprise an on/off valve as taught and suggested by Jivan to, in this case, allow a user to control the amount of suction supplied to the distal end of the device (see Jivan Para. [0006] and [0037]).
Claim(s) 14-15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 6159226 A)(previously of record) in view of Millner (US 5766193 A), further in view of Ripich (US 2019/0223896 A1) in view of Vaska (US 2012/0132216 A1)(previously of record).
Regarding claim 14, Kim discloses:
A tongue debriding system (see Figs. 1-2 and Col. 1, Lines 45-60), the system comprising:
(a) a vacuum source (vacuum cleaner 5, see Fig. 1);
(c) a tongue debriding instrument (10, see Figs. 1-2, see also Col. 1, Lines 45-60), said tongue debriding instrument comprising:
a tubular section (portion of cylindrical member 11 labeled in Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 2 below) having a hollow interior (see Figs. 3-4, see also Col. 3, Lines 55-67 mentioning wherein the cylindrical body defines a vacuum chamber therein), an exterior surface having an exterior diameter (see Figs. 1-3), and a proximal end configured for connection to a suction device (handle 7, see Fig. 1, see also Col. 3, Lines 44-47);
a head section (distal portion of the cylindrical member 11 labeled in Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 2 below) extending distally from the tubular section (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 2 below), the head section having a hollow interior in fluidic communication with the hollow interior of the tubular section (see Figs. 3-4, see also Col. 1, Lines 62-64 and Col. 3, Lines 55-67 mentioning wherein the cylindrical member defines a vacuum chamber as part of the cylindrical body);
the head section having a debriding surface (see Fig. 2 showing a scraping surface comprised of spatulate members 14, see Figs. 2-3, see also Col. 4, Lines 10-15) comprising a plurality of parallel spaced apart openings (openings 13, see Fig. 3) separated by parallel rows of bristles (brushes 15, see Fig. 3), wherein the parallel rows of bristles are parallel to the spaced apart openings (see Col. 4, Lines 32-40 mentioning wherein the brushes may be arranged parallel with the spatulate members, which are themselves parallel with the openings as shown in Fig. 2);
wherein the parallel openings and parallel rows of bristles are spaced apart between proximal and distal ends of the debriding surface (see Fig. 3), extend laterally between the sides of the debriding surface (see Figs. 2-3; the parallel bristles extend along the length of the debriding surface as shown in example of Fig. 2 illustrating a longitudinal arrangement), and have lengths that vary in relation to the side profile of the debriding surface (see Fig. 2 showing wherein the brushes (shown extending longitudinally merely by example) have varying widths that correspond to the uneven shape of the debriding surface as they extend along the length thereof);
the head section having an exterior surface with an opening (hole 17, see Fig. 2 and Col. 4, Lines 47-53) between the exterior surface and the hollow interior of the head section (see Fig. 4), wherein the opening is positioned distally in the head section (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 2 below showing wherein the suction control mechanism 16, comprising said hole 17, is located distally to the proximal-most region of the head section, as identified in the annotated figure below);
(d) wherein negative pressure from the vacuum source creates negative pressure in the interior of said head section creating suction through the openings in the debriding surface to the interior of the head section (see Col. 1, Lines 62-64) and wherein the distally positioned opening in the head section prevents a vacuum lock between the debriding surface and tongue of a patient (see Col. 4, Lines 47-57).
PNG
media_image1.png
585
592
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 2
Kim further discloses wherein the tongue debriding device is configured to evacuate saliva accumulated in an oral cavity of a patient during dental treatment (see Col. 3, Lines 45-50). The examiner therefore contends that Kim makes clear that any generic vacuum suction system is suitable for use with the device. However, given this disclosure, Kim does not expressly disclose:
(b) a sealed collection vessel fluidly coupled to the vacuum source, the vacuum source configured to create a negative pressure in an interior of the collection vessel, wherein the vacuum source is configured to create a negative pressure in the interior of the collection vessel;
Wherein the tongue debriding instrument is fluidly coupled to the sealed collection vessel
(d) wherein negative pressure from the sealed collection vessel creates said negative pressure in the interior of said head section creating suction through the openings to the interior of the head section; and
(e) wherein particles or fluids drawn into the interior of the head section is collected in the sealed collection vessel;
the debriding surface having flared sides with a side profile that tapers in width distally from a first width that is wider than the exterior diameter of the tubular section to a second width that is wider than the first width, and decreasing tapers in width from the second width to a third width that is narrower than the second width; and
wherein the opening is positioned opposite the debriding surface.
In the same field of endeavor, namely tongue cleaning device comprising a vacuum source, Ripich discloses a tongue cleaning device (see Fig. 1) comprising a tubular body (2, see Fig. 1) and a distal head portion (6, see Fig. 1), comprising a debriding surface (50, see Fig. 3) having a vacuum opening (trough 60, see Fig. 3), wherein a vacuum-control opening (20, see Figs. 1 and 3) is disposed along the body of the device as a position radially opposite the debriding surface (see Figs. 1 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as a matter of simple substitution of one known element for another (see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)) to have obtained the predictable result of having the vacuum-control opening (17) of Kim be disposed along the head portion at a position radially-opposite that of the debriding surface as disclosed by Ripich, since none of either Ripich or Kim disclose any particular benefit as to the orientation of said vacuum-control opening aside from wherein it is configured to be opened and closed. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the device of Kim to function equally well should the vacuum-control opening be located on either the same radial side or opposing radial side to that of the debriding surface.
In the same field of endeavor, namely tongue cleaning instruments, Millner teaches wherein a tongue cleaning device (see Fig. 1) comprises tubular proximal section (12, see Fig. 1) and a distal debriding surface (head 14, see Fig. 1 and Col. 2, Lines 31-38), wherein the debriding surface comprises flared sides (see Examiner’s Diagram of Millner Fig. 1 below showing wherein the debriding surface comprises flared sides) with a side profile that tapers in width distally from a first width that is wider than the exterior diameter of the tubular section (see Examiner’s Diagram of Millner Fig. 1 below showing wherein the flared sides extend laterally outward of the tubular body and constitute a first width) to a second width that is wider than the first width (see Examiner’s Diagram of Millner Fig. 1 below showing a second width as the widest section of the head portion), and decreasing tapers in width from the second width to a third width that is narrower than the second width (see Examiner’s Diagram of Millner Fig. 1 below showing this described third width).
PNG
media_image2.png
515
592
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Diagram of Millner Fig. 1
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as a matter of simple substitution of one known element for another (see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)) to have obtained the predictable result of having the debriding the debriding surface of Kim comprise a diamond shape as disclosed by Millner. As Kim does not provide any express benefit to the current oval-shaped opening, merely providing an opening at the distal end of the cylindrical member, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the device of Kim to function equally well with either an oval or diamond shaped distal opening as both shapes are designed and configured to be operable within the mouth of a patient to scrape and/or otherwise clean a tongue. Further, Applicant has seemingly not placed any criticality on the claimed shape, indicating that the “teardrop” shape of the claimed invention is one of a plurality of interchangeable alternative shape (see Para. [0012], [0045] and [0068]) which indicates that the varying widths are not designed to solve any particular problem but are rather alternative shape embodiments.
In the field of endeavor of saliva collection devices for use with oral devices, Vaska teaches:
A saliva management device for use with an oral device (system 489, see Fig. 25, see also Para. [0032] and [0171]) comprising:
(a) a vacuum source (vacuum pump 492, see Fig. 25);
(b) a sealed collection vessel fluidly coupled to the vacuum source (liquid collector 517, see Fig. 25, see also Para. [0171]), the vacuum source configured to create a negative pressure in an interior of the collection vessel (see Para. [0171]); and
(c) wherein negative pressure from the sealed collection vessel creates negative pressure in the interior of an oral device (oral device 490, see Fig. 25, see also Para. [0171]) creating suction through the oral device (see Para. [0171] mentioning when negative pressure is applied through vacuum lumen 506 within the patient's oral cavity such that saliva or other liquids which collect may be aspirated through vacuum lumen 506 and vacuum tube 510);
(d) wherein particles or fluids drawn into the interior of the head section is collected in the sealed collection vessel (see Para. [0171]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the tongue debriding system of Kim to comprise a saliva collection apparatus as taught and suggested by Vaska, wherein the liquid collection device of Vaska would be fluidically coupled to the cylindrical portion and head portion of the tongue debriding device of Kim such that a negative pressure is generated within the liquid collection device, causing suction to be applied at the distal tip of the tongue debriding device of Kim to, in this case, provide a collection vessel to collect evacuated saliva from the tongue during oral cleaning. The examiner contends that, given Kim’s disclosure of a vacuum suction system, the limitations of the vacuum suction system of Vaska, as incorporated into the device of Kim, are well understood and routine parts of a vacuum suction system which generically contain a sealed collection container for dirt or other particulates (sealed so that the dirt does not get drawn into the vacuum motor and clog the device) which has a negative pressure applied through it and that causes negative pressure through the vacuum to the head, which causes dirt or particulates to be drawn through the head into the collection container. Combined with Kim’s omission of any sort of specific vacuum suction device within their disclosure, such an omission would leave it to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select from any routine and well known suction systems (such as the vacuum system of Vaska) for use with the device of Kim.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Kim, Millner, Ripich and Vaska disclose the invention of claim 14, Kim, as modified by Vaska, further discloses wherein the sealed collection vessel further comprises: an inlet valve fluidly connected to the tongue debriding instrument (input fitting 512, see Vaska Fig. 25, see also Vaska Para. [0171]); and an outlet valve fluidly connected to the vacuum source (output fitting 516, see Vaska Fig. 25, see also Vaska Para. [0171]); wherein movement of contents of said collection vessel out of said vessel by a change in pressure is prevented (the sealed vessel of Vaska is capable of preventing movement of contents during a change in pressure that causes contents to be drawn inward, preventing movement of contents out from the sealed container).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Kim, Millner, Ripich and Vaska discloses the invention of claim 14, Kim further discloses wherein the spaced apart openings in the head section have a shape configured to amplify suction force from the suction device (see Col. 4, Lines 5-10 mentioning wherein the openings are angled which would cause suction to be amplified toward surface of tongue).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 6159226 A)(previously of record) in view of Millner (US 5766193 A), further in view of Ripich (US 2019/0223896 A1) in view of Vaska (US 2012/0132216 A1)(previously of record), further in view of Davis (US 3770001 A)(previously of record).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Kim, Millner, Ripich and Vaska disclose all of the limitations of the invention of claim 15.
However, none of the combination expressly disclose wherein the inlet valve and the outlet valve are basket valves with buoyant balls.
In the field of endeavor of flow valves, Davis teaches basket valves (valve assembly 51, see Fig. 2, see also Col. 4, Lines 34-35) comprising a buoyant ball (valve member 80, see Fig. 2, see also Col. 4, Lines 35-36 and Lines 48-55) that rises upon a rise in liquid within the valve conduit and seals the valve chamber, preventing passage of liquid beyond the seal member (see Col. 4, Lines 55-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the inlet and outlet valves of Kim, as incorporated from the device of Vaska, to comprise basket valves having buoyant balls disposed therein as taught and suggested by Davis to, in this case, be able to rise with liquid introduced into the ball holding chamber to effectively seal the conduit to prevent further liquid from entering and passing through the valve chamber (see Davis Col. 4, Lines 55-60).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 6159226 A)(previously of record) in view of Millner (US 5766193 A), further in view of Ripich (US 2019/0223896 A1) in view of Vaska (US 2012/0132216 A1)(previously of record), further in view of Moskovich (US 2012/0174328 A1)(previously of record).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Kim, Millner, Ripich and Vaska discloses all of the limitations of the invention of claim 14.
However, none of the combination expressly disclose wherein said bristles are made of a material selected from the group of materials consisting of nylon, rubber and organic fibers.
In the same field of endeavor, namely tongue cleaning devices, Moskovich teaches a tongue cleaning device (see Fig. 1 – the examiner notes that toothbrushes are configured and used to clean a tongue) comprising a plurality of bristles (618, see Fig. 1) that are made from a material selected from a group consisting of nylon, rubber and organic fibers (see Para. [0092] and [0186]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the bristles of Kim to be made from materials selected from a group consisting of nylon since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin 125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s
disclosure. See the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited. Specifically, US 5313262 A to Leonard, US 5758380 A to Vrignaud, US 20110289707 A1 to Schaefer, US 8858580 B2 to Schaefer, US 20170007284 A1 to Georgi, US 20170238955 A1 to Cho, US 20210204994 A1 to Kim, US 20050107671 A1 to McKinley, US 20170340191 A1 to Zeng and US 20040143164 A1 to Suddaby all disclose tongue scrapers or cleaners having bristles and a suction supply source for evacuating saliva from the treatment site.
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 MITCHELL B HOAG whose telephone number is (571)272-0983. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 5:00 M-F.
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, Darwin Erezo can be reached on 5712724695. 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.
/M.B.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3771
/DARWIN P EREZO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3771