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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 13 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species B, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 10/13/2025.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 11, 16-17, 23-24, 26-27, 30, 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ruddle et al. (US 2021/0212799 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ruddle teaches an activator for heating and agitating an irrigant inside a tooth's root canal (abstract and see Figures), the activator comprising:
a first portion (2, 14, 114) having a length and being sized and configured to extend into a tooth’s root canal via a hole in the tooth’s dentin (see Figures and [0018]), the first portion also being operable to heat and physically agitate an irrigant disposed in the tooth's root canal, wherein the first portion generates heat along the length to heat irrigant in the tooth’s root canal ([0015], [0018], [0033], [0037], [0040-0041]; the tip is made of a material that may be conductive and may transmit light and therefore is fully capable of generating heat (i.e. due to the light transmission or through conduction)); and
a second portion operable (1, 12, 112) to move the first portion in response to a driving force that the second portion receives to cause the first portion to physically agitate irrigant in the tooth’s root canal, the second portion being sized and configured to move the first portion while the first portion extends into the tooth's root canal ([0033], [0040]).
Regarding claim 3, Ruddle teaches the activator of claim 1 (see rejection above) wherein the first portion is operable to agitate the irrigant disposed in the tooth's root canal by vibrating inside the tooth's root canal ([0033-0034]).
Regarding claim 5, Ruddle teaches the activator of claim 1 (see rejection above), wherein: the second portion (12) includes a proximal end and a distal end opposite the proximal end, and the first portion (14) extends from the second portion's distal end (see annotated Fig. below).
PNG
media_image1.png
404
518
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Ruddle teaches a system for heating and agitating an irrigant inside a tooth's root canal (abstract and see Figures), the system comprising:
a handpiece (3) operable to generate a driving force (see Fig. 7C and [0033]), wherein the handpiece includes:
a body sized and configured to be held by a dental professional (see 3 in Fig. 2B and [0033]), and
a coupling interface (4, see Fig. 7C) that includes a driver operable to generate a driving force ([0033]);
an activator (12+17+14) for heating and agitating an irrigant inside a tooth's root canal, the activator comprising:
a first portion (14) having a length and being sized and configured to extend into a tooth’s root canal via a hole in the tooth’s dentin (see Figures and [0018]), the first portion also being operable to heat and physically agitate an irrigant disposed in a tooth's root canal([0015], [0018], [0033], [0037], [0040-0041]; the tip is made of a material that may be conductive and may transmit light and therefore is fully capable of generating heat (i.e. due to the light transmission or through conduction)); and
a second portion (12+17) coupleable with the handpiece's coupling interface and operable to move the first portion in response to the driving force generated by the handpiece's driver to cause the first portion to physically agitate irrigant in the tooth’s root canal, the second portion being sized and configured to move the first portion while the first portion extends into the tooth's root canal ([0033], [0040]).
Regarding claim 16, Ruddle teaches a method for heating and physically agitating an irrigant inside a tooth's root canal (abstract and see claim 26), the method comprising:
extending a first portion of an activator into the pulp chamber of a tooth (see claim 26), the first portion having a length (see Figures);
generating a driving force (see claim 26 and [0033-0034]);
generating heat along the length in the first portion of the activator ([0015], [0037], [0041]; such that generated heat flows through the coupler and the activating portion and therefore the generated heat is transmitted along the length of the tip);
exposing a second portion of the activator to the driving force; with the driving force, moving the second portion of the activator; and with the second portion's movement, moving the first portion of the activator (see Figs. and [0033-0034]; the second portion 12 transfers movement from the drive to the active portion 14).
Regarding claim 17, Ruddle teaches the method of claim 16 (see rejection above), wherein extending the first portion of the activator into the pulp chamber includes extending the first portion through a hole in the crown of the tooth (see claim 26; the first portion is inserted into a root canal).
Regarding claim 23, Ruddle teaches the method of claim 16 (see rejection above), wherein moving the second portion (12+17) of the activator includes vibrating the second portion ([0011], [0033]).
Regarding claim 24, Ruddle teaches the method of claim 16 (see rejection above), wherein moving the first portion of the activator includes vibrating the first portion ([0033]).
Regarding claim 26, Ruddle teaches the method of claim 16 (see rejection above), further comprising supporting the second portion of the activator with a brace (17; see Fig. 7C).
Regarding claim 27, Ruddle teaches a method for cleaning a root canal (see claim 26), the method comprising:
coupling an activator (12+14+17) to a coupling interface (4) of a handpiece (3) (see Fig. 7C),
wherein: the activator includes a first portion (14) and a second portion (12+17), the first portion having a length (see Figures);
the coupling interface of the handpiece includes a driver ([0033]), and
the activator's second portion is coupled with the handpiece's coupling interface (see Fig. 7C);
extending the first portion of the activator into the pulp chamber of a tooth (see claim 26);
generating heat along the length in the first portion of the activator ([0015], [0037], [0041]; such that generated heat flows through the coupler and the activating portion and therefore the generated heat is transmitted along the length of the tip);
with the driver, generating a driving force (see claim 26 and [0033-0034]);
exposing a second portion of the activator to the driving force; with the driving force, moving the second portion of the activator; and with the second portion's movement, moving the first portion of the activator (see Figs. and [0033-0034]; the second portion 12 transfers movement from the drive to the active portion 14).
Regarding claim 30, Ruddle teaches the method of claim 27 (see rejection above), wherein coupling the activator to the handpiece's coupling interface includes fastening a brace (17) of the activator's second portion to the coupling interface (see Fig. 7C).
Regarding claim 32, Ruddle teaches an activator for heating and agitating an irrigant inside a tooth's root canal (abstract and see Figures), the activator comprising:
a first portion (2, 14, 114) having a length and being sized and configured to extend into a tooth’s root canal via a hole in the tooth’s dentin (see Figures and [0018]), the first portion also being operable to heat and physically agitate an irrigant disposed in the tooth's root canal, wherein the first portion generates heat along the length to heat irrigant in the tooth’s root canal ([0015], [0018], [0033], [0037], [0040-0041]; the tip is made of a material that may be conductive and may transmit light and therefore is fully capable of generating heat (i.e. due to the light transmission or through conduction)).
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(s) 2, 19, 33, 35-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruddle et al. (US 2021/0212799 A1), in view of Mays et al. (US 7,090,499 B1).
Regarding claim 2, Ruddle teaches the activator of claim 1 (see rejection above). Ruddle teaches wherein the first portion is operable to generate heat such that it transmits light and therefore can generate some heat depending on light intensity and it may be conductive ([0015], [0037], [0041]), but is silent to it specifically heating by resisting the flow of an electric current through the first portion.
Mays teaches an endodontic obturator having a shaft (12) for energy to flow through when inserted into the root canal and the shaft may be heated by current flow through the electrical resistance imposed by the shaft and/or conductive coating (Col. 9 l. 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Ruddle to be operable such that the heat is generated by resisting the flow of an electric current through the first portion, as taught by Mays, because one may be motivated to select a specific material for the shaft/active portion and the heat generation may be caused by electrical resistance or other heat transfer mechanism depending on the type of material selected.
Regarding claim 19, Ruddle teaches the method of claim 16 (see rejection above). Ruddle teaches wherein the first portion is operable to generate heat such that it transmits light and therefore can generate some heat depending on light intensity and it may be conductive ([0015], [0037], [0041]), but is silent to it specifically heating by resisting the flow of an electric current through the first portion.
Mays teaches an endodontic obturator having a shaft (12) for energy to flow through when inserted into the root canal and the shaft may be heated by current flow through the electrical resistance imposed by the shaft and/or conductive coating (Col. 9 l. 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Ruddle to be operable such that the heat is generated by resisting the flow of an electric current through the first portion, as taught by Mays, because one may be motivated to select a specific material for the shaft/active portion and the heat generation may be caused by electrical resistance or other heat transfer mechanism depending on the type of material selected.
Regarding claim 33, Ruddle teaches the activator of claim 32 (see rejection above). Ruddle teaches wherein the first portion is operable to generate heat such that it transmits light and therefore can generate some heat depending on light intensity and it may be conductive ([0015], [0037], [0041]), but is silent to it specifically heating by resisting the flow of an electric current through the first portion.
Mays teaches an endodontic obturator having a shaft (12) for energy to flow through when inserted into the root canal and the shaft may be heated by current flow through the electrical resistance imposed by the shaft and/or conductive coating (Col. 9 l. 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Ruddle to be operable such that the heat is generated by resisting the flow of an electric current through the first portion, as taught by Mays, because one may be motivated to select a specific material for the shaft/active portion and the heat generation may be caused by electrical resistance or other heat transfer mechanism depending on the type of material selected.
Regarding claims 35-36, Ruddle teaches a method for heating an irrigant inside a tooth's root canal (abstract and see claim 26), the method comprising:
extending a first portion of an activator into the pulp chamber of a tooth (see claim 26), the first portion having a length (see Figures);
Ruddle teaches heat being tramistted through the first portion but does not explicitly teach the first portion itself generating heat along its length to warm an irrigant inside the root canal or wherein generating heat in the first portion includes resisting the flow of an electric current through the first portion of the activator.
Mays teaches an endodontic obturator having a shaft (12) for energy to flow through when inserted into the root canal and the shaft may be heated by current flow through the electrical resistance imposed by the shaft and/or conductive coating (Col. 9 l. 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Ruddle to be operable such that the heat is generated by resisting the flow of an electric current through the first portion, as taught by Mays, because one may be motivated to select a specific material for the shaft/active portion and the heat generation may be caused by electrical resistance or other heat transfer mechanism depending on the type of material selected.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruddle et al. (US 2021/0212799 A1), in view of Ruddle et al. (US 2007/0015108 A1), henceforth referred to as Ruddle ‘108.
Regarding claim 15, Ruddle teaches the system of claim 11 (see rejection above), but is silent to it further comprising a base station operable to charge the handpiece when the base station is coupled with the handpiece.
Ruddle ‘108 teaches a dental handpiece system for endodontic applications (abstract) and comprising a base station operable to charge the handpiece when the base station is coupled with the handpiece ([0030]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system to include a charging unit for charging the handpiece, as taught by Ruddle ‘108, because it would allow the device to be rechargeable and cordless.
Claim(s) 6-7, 12, 21-22, 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruddle et al. (US 2021/0212799 A1), in view of Warrin (US 4,492,574).
Regarding claim 6, Ruddle teaches the activator of claim 1 (see rejection above), but is silent to wherein the driving force includes a magnetic force within a magnetic field.
Warrin teaches an ultrasonic endodontic handpiece having a coil for establishing an alternating magnetic field and further having a vibrator rigidly mounted to be vibrated by the electromagnetic field (abstract, Col. 3 ll. 50-63, claim 1). Warrin teaches the handpiece comprises a root canal file (96) and the vibrations are transmitted through the rigid metal of the shank and imparted to the root canal file (Col. 5 ll. 14-25).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Ruddle to be operable such that the driving force includes a magnetic force, as taught by Warrin, because electromagnetic driving force can produce controllable and efficient mechanical motion compared to electrostatic force.
Regarding claim 7, Ruddle teaches the activator of claim 1 (see rejection above), but is silent to wherein: the driving force includes a magnetic force within a magnetic field, and the second portion is operable to move the first portion by generating an electromagnetic field that reacts with the magnetic field.
Warrin teaches an ultrasonic endodontic handpiece having a coil for establishing an alternating magnetic field and further having a vibrator rigidly mounted to be vibrated by the electromagnetic field (abstract, Col. 3 ll. 50-63, claim 1). Warrin teaches the handpiece comprises a root canal file (96) and the vibrations are transmitted through the rigid metal of the shank and imparted to the root canal file (Col. 5 ll. 14-51).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Ruddle to be operable such that the driving force includes a magnetic force, as taught by Warrin, because electromagnetic driving force can produce controllable and efficient mechanical motion compared to electrostatic force.
Ruddle teaches the second portion (12+17) moves the first portion (14). Warrin teaches using an electromagnetic mechanism to effectively debride a root canal and agitation of an irrigation fluid within the root canal. The combination teaches that the second portion moves the first portion by generating the electromagnetic field.
Regarding claim 12, Ruddle teaches system of claim 11 (see rejection above), but is silent to wherein the driver of the handpiece includes a magnet that generates a magnetic field and the driving force includes a magnetic force within the magnetic field.
Warrin teaches an ultrasonic endodontic handpiece having a coil for establishing an alternating magnetic field and further having a vibrator rigidly mounted to be vibrated by the electromagnetic field (abstract, Col. 3 ll. 50-63, claim 1). Warrin teaches the handpiece comprises a root canal file (96) and the vibrations are transmitted through the rigid metal of the shank and imparted to the root canal file (Col. 5 ll. 14-25).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Ruddle to be operable such that the driving force includes a magnetic force, as taught by Warrin, because electromagnetic driving force can produce controllable and efficient mechanical motion compared to electrostatic force.
Regarding claims 21-22, Ruddle teaches the method of claim 16 (see rejection above), but is silent to wherein generating the driving force includes generating an electromagnetic field or wherein generating the driving force includes generating an electromagnetic field within a magnetic field.
Warrin teaches an ultrasonic endodontic handpiece having a coil for establishing an alternating magnetic field and further having a vibrator rigidly mounted to be vibrated by the electromagnetic field (abstract, Col. 3 ll. 50-63, claim 1). Warrin teaches the handpiece comprises a root canal file (96) and the vibrations are transmitted through the rigid metal of the shank and imparted to the root canal file (Col. 5 ll. 14-25).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Ruddle to be operable such that the driving force includes a magnetic force, as taught by Warrin, because electromagnetic driving force can produce controllable and efficient mechanical motion compared to electrostatic force.
Regarding claim 28, Ruddle teaches the method of claim 27 (see rejection above), but is silent to wherein coupling the activator to the coupling interface includes positioning the activator's second portion within a magnetic field generated by a magnet of the driver of the coupling interface.
Warrin teaches an ultrasonic endodontic handpiece having a coil for establishing an alternating magnetic field and further having a vibrator rigidly mounted to be vibrated by the electromagnetic field (abstract, Col. 3 ll. 50-63, claim 1). Warrin teaches the handpiece comprises a root canal file (96) and the vibrations are transmitted through the rigid metal of the shank and imparted to the root canal file (Col. 5 ll. 14-51).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Ruddle to be operable such that the driving force includes a magnetic force, as taught by Warrin, because electromagnetic driving force can produce controllable and efficient mechanical motion compared to electrostatic force.
Ruddle teaches the second portion (12+17) moves the first portion (14). Warrin teaches using an electromagnetic mechanism to effectively debride a root canal and agitation of an irrigation fluid within the root canal. The combination teaches that the second portion moves the first portion by generating the electromagnetic field.
Claim(s) 8, 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruddle et al. (US 2021/0212799 A1), in view of Mays et al. (US 7,090,499 B1), and further in view of Warrin (US 4,492,574)
Regarding claim 8, Ruddle teaches the activator of claim 1 (see rejection above), wherein the first portion is operable to generate heat ([0015], [0037, [0041]), but is silent to it specifically heating by resisting the flow of an electric current through the first portion and the second portion is sized and configured to generate an electromagnetic field when the electric current that flows through the first portion flows through the second portion.
Mays teaches an endodontic obturator having a shaft (12) for energy to flow through when inserted into the root canal and the shaft may be heated by current flow through the electrical resistance imposed by the shaft and/or conductive coating (Col. 9 l. 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Ruddle to be operable such that the heat is generated by resisting the flow of an electric current through the first portion, as taught by Mays, because one may be motivated to select a specific material for the shaft/active portion and the heat generation may be caused by electrical resistance or other heat transfer mechanism depending on the type of material selected.
Warrin teaches an ultrasonic endodontic handpiece having a coil for establishing an alternating magnetic field and further having a vibrator rigidly mounted to be vibrated by the electromagnetic field (abstract, Col. 3 ll. 50-63, claim 1). Warrin teaches the handpiece comprises a root canal file (96) and the vibrations are transmitted through the rigid metal of the shank and imparted to the root canal file (Col. 5 ll. 14-25).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Ruddle to be operable such that the driving force includes a magnetic force, as taught by Warrin, because electromagnetic driving force can produce controllable and efficient mechanical motion compared to electrostatic force.
Regarding claim 31, Ruddle teaches the method of claim 27 (see rejection above). Ruddle teaches the tip can be conductive ([0041]) and the first portion is operable to generate heat ([0015], [0037, [0041]; via light transmission and/or heat transmission), but is silent to explicitly wherein: generating heat in the activator's first portion includes resisting flow of electric current through the first portion, and generating the driving force includes generating an electromagnetic field with the electric current flowing through the first portion, flowing through the second portion.
Mays teaches an endodontic obturator having a shaft (12) for energy to flow through when inserted into the root canal and the shaft may be heated by current flow through the electrical resistance imposed by the shaft and/or conductive coating (Col. 9 l. 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Ruddle to be operable such that the heat is generated by resisting the flow of an electric current through the first portion, as taught by Mays, because one may be motivated to select a specific material for the shaft/active portion and the heat generation may be caused by electrical resistance or other heat transfer mechanism depending on the type of material selected.
Warrin teaches an ultrasonic endodontic handpiece having a coil for establishing an alternating magnetic field and further having a vibrator rigidly mounted to be vibrated by the electromagnetic field (abstract, Col. 3 ll. 50-63, claim 1). Warrin teaches the handpiece comprises a root canal file (96) and the vibrations are transmitted through the rigid metal of the shank and imparted to the root canal file (Col. 5 ll. 14-25).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Ruddle to be operable such that the driving force includes a magnetic force, as taught by Warrin, because electromagnetic driving force can produce controllable and efficient mechanical motion compared to electrostatic force.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruddle et al. (US 2021/0212799 A1), in view of Colby (US 2015/0374457 A1)
Regarding claim 25, Ruddle teaches the method of claim 16 (see rejection above), but is silent to wherein moving the first portion of the activator includes generating a standing wave in the first portion.
Colby teaches a handpiece for tooth bud ablation having a probe tip (320, 360) and being configured to create a standing wave ([0161]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method to generate a standing wave, as taught by Colby, because it provides a specific vibration pattern compared to simple vibration, which would enhance the efficiency of cleaning the root canal.
Claim(s) 14, 20, 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruddle et al. (US 2021/0212799 A1), in view of Feine (US 2008/0015551 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Ruddle teaches the system of claim 11 (see rejection above), but is silent to wherein the driver of the handpiece includes two leads operable to provide electric current to the activator when the activator is coupled with the handpiece.
Feine teaches a dental handpiece configured to vibrate ([0002-0003]) and having an active portion (824) and the current flows through the handpiece through one of the electrical conductors 808A and 832A to which coils 804A, 804B are connected (see Figs. 8A-8B and [0075-0076]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the handpiece to include two leads operable to provide electric current to the activator, as taught by Feine, because it would allow alternating the current within different conductors and therefore provide control over the flow of the current.
Regarding claim 20, Ruddle teaches the method of claim 16 (see rejection above), wherein generating the driving force includes generating an electric current in the second portion (12+17) of the activator ([0015], [0040]; heat may be applied from the driver through the coupler and can be generated by induction and therefore there would be current flowing through the coupler to the tip).
Feine teaches a dental handpiece configured to vibrate ([0002-0003]) and having an active portion (824) and the current flows through the handpiece through one of the electrical conductors 808A and 832A to which coils 804A, 804B are connected (see Figs. 8A-8B and [0075-0076]). Feine further teaches the current can be controlled to create a vibration effect ([0054]), such that the flow of alternating electrical flow at a high rate or frequency induces vibration ([0051], [0055-0056]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the handpiece to be configured to generate a driving force by generating a current flow, as taught by Feine, because it would provide controlled motion and energization levels of the tool.
Ruddle teaches the second portion (12+17) moves the first portion (14). Feine teaches the tool is driven by current flow. The combination teaches that the second portion must be driven as to impart the motion/force to the first portion.
Regarding claim 29, Ruddle teaches the method of claim 27 (see rejection above), but is silent to wherein coupling the activator to the coupling interface includes coupling the activator's second portion with two electrical leads of the driver of the coupling interface.
Feine teaches a dental handpiece configured to vibrate ([0002-0003]) and having an active portion (824) and the current flows through the handpiece through one of the electrical conductors 808A and 832A to which coils 804A, 804B are connected (see Figs. 8A-8B and [0075-0076]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the handpiece to include two leads operable to provide electric current to the activator, as taught by Feine, because it would allow alternating the current within different conductors and therefore provide control over the flow of the current.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 9-10, 34 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 37-38 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amended claims overcome the prior art since Ruddle (US 2021/0212799 A1) discloses that the tip transmits heat from the driver and therefore does not teach it generating heat to heat the solution. However, this is not persuasive. With respect to the apparatus claims, it should be noted that the recitation of heat generation is recited functionally, and therefore the device of Ruddle must only be fully capable of performing said function, and it appears that it is. Since the tip transmits light, depending on the intensity of the light and material absorption of the tip, it would generate heat. Similarly, since the material may be conductive, if electrical energy from the driver is dissipated therein, it can generate heat.
With respect to the method claims, applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. Please note that the claim recites “generating heat through the length of the first portion” which only requires generated heat through the first portion and therefore Ruddle’s teachings that heat generated by the driver being transmitted through the coupler and activating tip reads on the claimed limitation since it does not necessarily require the heat to be generated by the first portion itself but a heat generation step and the first portion being heated along its length.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 attached to this office action.
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. 19. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINA FARAJ whose telephone number is (571)272-4580. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at (571) 270-5614. 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.
/LINA FARAJ/ Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/HEIDI M EIDE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
4/30/2026
Prosecution Insights