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 .
Acknowledgments
In the reply, filed on May 12, 2026, Applicant amended claims 1-14 and 16-17.
Applicant cancelled claim 15.
In the non-final rejection of January 12, 2026, Examiner objected to the Abstract. Applicant amended the Abstract; however, Applicant did not address all of the objections. Objection is maintained.
Examiner objected to claims 1-17. Applicant amended claims 1-14 and 16-17, and cancelled claim 15. Objection is withdrawn.
Examiner rejected claims 6-11, 13, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Applicant amended claims 6, 13, and 16. Rejection is withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed May 20, 2026, fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because:
Non-patent literature document citation #4 is missing a date (with at least the year)
It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
In line 17, “the body” should be changed to “the body of the osteotome”
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-12, 14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Song (US 9,757,215).
In regards to claim 1, Song teaches a nozzle (Figures 1-7, dental device 100) for a syringe for distributing blood plasma at a target treatment site within a patient's mouth (Figure 11), the nozzle comprising:
a body (100) having a passage (12) extending through the body along a longitudinal axis of the body, the passage extending from a proximal end (13) to a distal end (10) of the body
an inlet (labeled in Figure 7 below) to the passage at the proximal end for receiving the blood plasma from the syringe (Figures 6-7)
an outlet (labeled in Figure 7 below) from the passage at the distal end for distributing the blood plasma at the target treatment site (Figures 1, 6-7)
wherein the outlet comprises an outlet aperture located on a distal tip of the nozzle (Figures 1, 6-7)
at least one exit gate (11) extends from the passage through the distal end of the body (Figure 6), wherein the at least one exit gate tapers outwardly from the passage (Figure 6)
PNG
media_image1.png
750
293
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 2, Song teaches wherein the body comprises a distal shoulder (labeled in Figure 7 above) extending around an external surface of the body (Figures 1-3, 6-7).
In regards to claim 3, Song teaches wherein the distal end of the body extends distally from the distal shoulder and wherein the distal end of the body tapers in a distal direction from the distal shoulder towards the distal tip along the longitudinal axis (Figures 1-2, 7).
In regards to claim 4, Song teaches wherein the distal end of the body is frustoconical such that the distal tip is generally planar (Figures 1-2, 7).
In regards to claim 5, Song teaches wherein the body comprises a proximal shoulder (labeled in Figure 7 above) extending around the external surface of the body (Figures 1-3, 6-7).
In regards to claim 6, Song teaches wherein the proximal end of the body extends proximally from the proximal shoulder and wherein the proximal end of the body tapers in a proximal direction from the proximal shoulder towards a proximal tip along the longitudinal axis (Figures 1-3, 6-7).
In regards to claim 7, Song teaches wherein the proximal end of the body is frustoconical such that the proximal tip is generally planar (Figures 1-3, 6-7).
In regards to claim 8, Song teaches wherein the inlet is positioned on the proximal tip and wherein the inlet is concentrically aligned with the longitudinal axis (Figure 6-7).
In regards to claim 9, Song teaches wherein a central body portion is defined between the distal shoulder and the proximal shoulder (Figures 1-3, 6-7).
In regards to claim 10, Song teaches wherein the central body portion tapers in the proximal direction along the longitudinal axis from the distal shoulder towards the proximal shoulder (Figures 1-3, 6-7; between 63 and 71, and between 71 and 13).
In regards to claim 11, Song teaches wherein the central body portion has generally parallel edges such that a cross sectional area of the central body portion is substantially constant along the longitudinal axis between the distal shoulder and the proximal shoulder (Figures 6-7).
In regards to claim 12, Song teaches wherein the at least one exit gate extends substantially perpendicularly from the passage to an external surface of the distal end (Figure 6).
In regards to claim 14, Song teaches wherein the at least one exit gate is generally square shaped (column 3, lines 39-41).
In regards to claim 16, Song teaches a syringe system (Figure 11) for delivering blood plasma to a target treatment site, the syringe system comprising:
a syringe (16)
the nozzle (100) as claimed in claim 1
In regards to claim 17, Song teaches wherein a flexible tube (18) fluidly connects the nozzle to the syringe.
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (US 2011/0008746).
In regards to claim 13, Song teaches wherein the at least one exit gate totals three or more exit gates extending from the passage through the distal end of the body, wherein the three or more exit gates are positioned circumferentially around the distal end of the body (column 3, lines 37-39); however, Song does not specifically teach wherein the at least one exit gate totals four exit gates extending from the passage through the distal end of the body, wherein the four exit gates are positioned circumferentially around the distal end of the body. Kim teaches a nozzle (Figures 3-4, liquid injection apparatus 10) wherein at least one exit gate totals four exit gates (17) extending from a passage (12) through a distal end of a body (10), wherein the four exit gates are positioned circumferentially around the distal end of the body. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the at least one exit gate, of the nozzle of Song, to total four exit gates extending from the passage through the distal end of the body, wherein the four exit gates are positioned circumferentially around the distal end of the body, as taught by Kim, as such will allow for smoothly injecting liquid in various directions (paragraph [0040]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 12, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
In regards to claim 1, Applicant argued: Amended claim 1 now recites that the "at least one exit gate tapers outwardly from the passage." This structural feature is neither disclosed nor suggested by Song (Remarks, page 9). Examiner disagrees. Song teaches wherein the at least one exit gate (11) tapers outwardly from the passage (12) (Figure 6).
In regards to claim 1, Applicant argued: The device of Song is not configured as a nozzle for syringe-based, controlled delivery of blood plasma, nor does Song disclose or suggest the specific exit gate geometry claimed (Remarks, page 10). Examiner disagrees. First, the claim does not require “The device… configured as a nozzle for syringe-based, controlled delivery of blood plasma”. The claim instead requires “a nozzle for a syringe for distributing blood plasma at a target treatment site within a patient's mouth”. Song teaches a nozzle (Figures 1-7, dental device 100) for a syringe for distributing blood plasma at a target treatment site within a patient's mouth (Figure 11). Second, Song teaches at least one exit gate (11) extends from the passage (12) through the distal end (10) of the body (100) (Figure 6), wherein the at least one exit gate tapers outwardly from the passage (Figure 6).
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 SHEFALI D PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-3645. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-4:30pm 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, Kevin C Sirmons can be reached at (571) 272-4965. 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.
/SHEFALI D PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights