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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/13/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 20,21,22,23,24,27,28,29,30,32,34,36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jeffries 20050026106.
With regard to claims 20, 21,30, Jeffries discloses a method of filling a treatment region of a tooth, the method comprising: supplying a flowable filling material 60 (see paragraph 18) to the treatment region (root canal, see fig. 4); and generating pressure waves (via vibrational generator 32, see paragraph 17) through the flowable filling material to cause the flowable filling material to substantially fill the treatment region. Jefferies also discloses hardening the flowable filling material after the flowable filling material substantially fills the treatment region to seal the treatment region with a hardened filling material. See paragraph 5.
With regard to claims 22 and 27, note that activating the pressure wave generator comprises activating a liquid jet device (vibrational generator 32 is considered to be a “jet” device since it propagates material 60.
With regard to claim 23, note that activating the liquid jet device comprises passing a jet of the filling material 60 along a guide tube 40, the guide tube 40 having one or more openings through which the filling material 60 passes. See fig. 4.
With regard to claim 24, note that a handpiece 32/43 may be positioned near the treatment region, the pressure wave generator coupled to/formed with the handpiece. It is noted that vibration generator 32/43 is considered to comprise a “handpiece” inasmuch as it can be move by hand near the treatment site.
With regard to claim 28, note that the flowable filling material is hardened with a second material at the treatment region. See paragraph 18 which discloses how materials 51 and 60 may be mixed in the treatment region in order to provide for backfilling and obturation at the same time.
With regard to claim 29, note that causing the flowable filling material to harden comprises activating a pressure wave generator. See paragraph 5 which clearly discloses that during the delivery of the filling material (caused by the pressure wave generator 32), it is subsequently cured when in the root canal.
With regard to claim 32, note that Jeffries discloses mixing multiple components in the treatment region. See paragraph 18 which discloses how materials 51 and 60 may be mixed in the treatment region in order to provide for backfilling and obturation at the same time.
With regard to claim 34, note that Jefferies discloses that the flowable filling material may be gutta percha, which is a degassed material.
With regard to claim 36, note that the flowable filling material may be gutta percha, which is a radiopaque material.
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 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeffries 20050026106.
With regard to claim 33, Jeffries does not explicitly disclose multiple components in the handpiece. It is noted however, that Jeffries discloses that the handpiece may be used to deliver the filling material (paragraph 15), and also discloses that the filling material may have multiple components (paragraph 18).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to mix multiple components of the filling material in the handpiece of Jeffries, in view of the combined teachings of Jeffries that a handpiece may be used to deliver the filling material, and that the filling material may comprise multiple components.
Claims 25,26 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeffries 20050026106 in view of Gharib et al 20100143861.
With regard to claims 25 and 26, Jeffries does not disclose activating the pressure wave generator to clean the treatment region via supplying a cleaning fluid to the treatment region.
Gharib et al disclose a method of filling a treatment region of a tooth, by supplying a cleaning fluid to the treatment region and activating a pressure wave generator to clean the treatment region. See paragraphs 54, 119 and 121.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to supply a cleaning fluid to the treatment region of a tooth and activating a pressure wave generator to clean the tooth, in the method of Jeffries, in view of the teaching of Gharib et al that supplying a cleaning fluid to a tooth undergoing treatment, and activating a pressure wave generator, allows for cleaning of the tooth.
With regard to claim 35, Jeffries does not disclose removing the hardened filling material at the treatment region with a pressure wave generator.
Gharib et al discloses the use of a pressure wave generator to remove material from a tooth. See paragraph 52, which discloses how both inorganic and organic material may be removed.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use a pressure wave generator to remove hardened filling material from a tooth, in the method of Jeffries, in view of the teaching of Gharib et al that a pressure wave generator may be used to remove both inorganic and organic material from a tooth undergoing treatment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 6 of response) that Jeffries does not disclose “hardening the flowable filling material after the filling material substantially fills the treatment region to seal the treatment region with a hardened filling material”. This is not found persuasive, as it is clear that the filling material of Jeffries (for example, gutta percha), hardens after it is introduced into the tooth.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS D LUCCHESI whose telephone number is (571)272-4977. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 800-430.
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.
/NICHOLAS D LUCCHESI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772