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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 19 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19, line 11 change “an extra-oral aerosol suction device” to “the extra-oral aerosol suction device”.
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 9-11 and 15-16 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 9 recites the limitation "said tube support sleeve" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted as a part of the tube support sleeve.
Claims 10-11 and 15-16 are rejected based on claim dependency on claim 9.
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.
Claims 4-5, 7, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Paquette et al (US 2021/0369430).
Regarding claim 4, Paquette discloses a support device (hands free suction device 100) for supporting an extra-oral aerosol suction device (nozzle 120 see figure 1 and par 15 which discloses the positioning of the nozzle outside the mouth of the patient) adjacent a dental patient’s chair of a dental delivery system unit without use of an external support arm connected to the dental patient’s chair (see figure 1), said dental delivery system unit comprising a vacuum collection cannister including a main outlet port fluidically connected to an associated dental suction source and including first and second high volume evacuator ports and a saliva ejector port, wherein each of the first and second high volume evacuator ports and the saliva ejector port of the vacuum collection cannister are in fluid communication with the main outlet port of the vacuum collection cannister through an internal space of the vacuum collection cannister (this limitation is interpreted as a functional limitation, as the “dental delivery system unit” is introduced as being adjacent to the support device and does not structurally limit the support device, as such the hands free suction device 100 is interpreted as capable of supporting an extra oral suction device adjacent to the dental patient’s chair of a dental delivery system unit in view of the disclosure of figure 1 and discussed in par 14-17 which discloses a direct connection between the hose 116 and the suction system), said support device (100) comprising:
a semi rigid tube (116) comprising:
a first end connected directly physically and fluidically to one of the first and second high-volume evacuator ports of the vacuum collection cannister (via hose 148, see figure 1 which connects to the dental suction system 104 or directly to system 104 as set forth in par 114, where the limitation regarding the connection to one of the first and second high-volume evacuator ports of the vacuum collection cannister is interpreted as a functional limitation as set forth above);
an opposite second end (suction end 128) spaced from said first end that connects physically and fluidically to the extra-oral suction device (120, see figure 1); and
at least one lumen portion (hollow fluid flow passageway 136) that extends between and fluidically connects the first and second ends of the semi-rigid tube for fluidically connecting suction at said one of the first and second ends of the semi-rigid tube for fluidically connecting suction at said one of the first and second high-volume evacuator ports of the vacuum collection cannister to the extra-oral aerosol suction device located at the second end of the semi-rigid tube (see figure 1 and par 14), wherein said second end of the semi-rigid tube including the extra-oral aerosol suction device connected thereto is self-supporting relative to the first end of the semi-rigid tube without any external support arm connected to the semi-rigid tube between the vacuum suction cannister and the extra-oral aerosol suction device (see figure 1 and par 14 which discloses the hose not being within a sleeve or any other positioning element, and furthermore discuses direct connection to the dental suction system 104 or by means of a different manner and therefore is considered functionally capable of connecting to the first and second high volume evacuator ports of the vacuum collection cannister).
Regarding claim 5, Paquette discloses a manually operated inline valve (valve 226) connected to the lumen portion of the semi-rigid tube in fluid communication between the extra-oral aerosol suction device and the first end of the semi-rigid tube and configured for manual operation between: (i) an opened position to allow fluid communication between the first end of the semi-rigid tube and the extra-oral aerosol suction device; and (ii) a closed position to block fluid communication between the first end of the semi-rigid tube and the extra-oral aerosol suction device (par 20 discloses the inclusion of a valve in line with the hose 116 and opens and closes the passageway 136, see figure 2).
Regarding claim 7, Paquette discloses said lumen portion of said semi-rigid tube comprises a plurality of flexible pleats (see figures 1 and 2) that allow the semi-rigid tube to be manually shape-formed to adjust a position of the extra-oral aerosol device (par 118 discloses the hose having the plurality of segments which are articulable relative to one another to reposition the hose).
Regarding claim 14, Paquette discloses the associated extra-oral aerosol suction device is constructed as a one-piece structure with said second end of said semi-rigid tube (see par 15, which discloses the nozzle being fixedly attached to the suction end 128 of the hose 116 as seen in figure 1).
Regarding claim 19. Paquette discloses a support device (hands free suction device 100) for supporting an extra-oral aerosol suction device (nozzle 120 see figure 1 and par 15 which discloses the positioning of the nozzle outside the mouth of the patient) adjacent a dental patient’s chair of a dental delivery system unit (see figure 1), said dental delivery system unit comprising a cradle and a high volume evacuator valve supported in the cradle and connected to an associated vacuum source, said high volume evacuator valve including a hand operated on/off actuator for selectively opening and closing the high-volume evacuator valve supported in said cradle (this limitation is interpreted as a functional limitation, as the “dental delivery system unit” is introduced as being adjacent to the support device and does not structurally limit the support device, as such the hands free suction device 100 is interpreted as capable of supporting an extra oral suction device adjacent to the dental patient’s chair of a dental delivery system unit in view of the disclosure of figure 1 and discussed in par 14-17 which discloses a direct connection between the hose 116 and the suction system), said support device comprising a semi-rigid tube comprising:
a first end connected directly physically and fluidically to an inlet of the high-volume evacuator valve that is supported in the cradle (via hose 148, see figure 1 which connects to the dental suction system 104 or directly to system 104 as set forth in par 114, where the limitation regarding the connection to an inlet of the high-volume evacuator valve that is supported in the cradle is interpreted as a functional limitation as set forth above);
an opposite second end (suction end 128) spaced from said first end that connects physically and fluidically to an extra-oral aerosol suction device (120) located at the second end of said semi-rigid tube (see figure 1); and
at least one lumen portion (hollow fluid flow passageway 136) that extends between and fluidically connects the first and second ends for fluidically connecting suction at the inlet of the high-volume evacuator valve to the extra-oral aerosol suction device located at the second end of the semi-rigid tube (see figure 1 and par 14), wherein said second end of the semi-rigid tube including the extra-oral aerosol suction device connected thereto is self-supporting relative to the first end of the semi-rigid tube without any external support arm connected to the semi-rigid tube between the high volume evacuator valve supported in the cradle and the extra-oral aerosol suction device (see figure 1 and par 14 which discloses the hose not being within a sleeve or any other positioning element, and furthermore discuses direct connection to the dental suction system 104 or by means of a different manner and therefore is considered functionally capable of connecting to the high volume evacuator valve supported by the cradle of the dental delivery system).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paquette et al as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Crohin et al (US 2021/0338396)
Regarding claim 6, Paquette discloses the claimed invention as set forth in claim 19, but fails to disclose further comprising an anti-rotational device connected to the first end of the semi-rigid tube and operatively engaged between the first end of the semi-rigid tube and the cradle supporting the high-volume evacuator valve to prevent rotation of the semi-rigid tube and the high-volume evacuator valve relative to the cradle.
However, Crohin teaches an anti-rotational device (connector 124 which is a threaded connection which prevents unintentional rotation) connected to a first end of a tube and capable of being operatively engaged between n the first end of the rigid tube and cradle supporting the high-volume evacuator valve to prevent rotation of the semi-rigid tube and the high-volume evacuator valve relative to the cradle (see figure 1-3, where the threaded connection is connected to the end of the tube which connects to the evacuator valve and further discussed in par 48).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Paquette to have an anti-rotational device connected to the first end of the semi-rigid tube and operatively engaged between the first end of the semi-rigid tube and the cradle supporting the high-volume evacuator valve to prevent rotation of the semi-rigid tube and the high-volume evacuator valve relative to the cradle as taught by Crohin for the purpose of minimizing unintentional detachment by unscrewing or extending force.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paquette et al as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Bekiri (US 2021/0368428).
Regarding claim 12, Paquette discloses the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 4, and further discloses said semi-rigid tube and said extra-oral aerosol suction device are made as a single one-piece construction (see par 15, which discloses the nozzle being fixedly attached to the suction end 128 of the hose 116 as seen in figure 1), but fails to disclose it is entirely from a disposable material comprising a cellulosic pulp-based material.
Bekiri teaches a self-supporting tube made entirely from a disposable material (par 36) comprising a cellulosic pulp-based material (par 36) for the purpose of making the single use device recyclable (par 36).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Paquette to have the semi rigid tube made entirely from a disposable material comprising a cellulosic pulp-based material as taught by Bekiri for the purpose of making the single use device recyclable
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paquette et al as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Christman et al (US 2010/0021860).
Regarding claim 18, Paquette discloses the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 4, and further discloses the support device being capable of connecting to said first and second high-volume evacuator ports are located on a bottom of the vacuum collection canister (in view of par 14, which discloses the attachment directly to the suction device), but fails to disclose said support device further comprises a U-shaped connector tube fitting comprising a first end connected to said one of the first and second high volume evacuator ports on the bottom of the associated vacuum collection cannister and a second end connected to the first end of said semi-rigid tube.
However, Christman teaches U-shaped connector tube fitting (vacuum connector 45 which has an inverted U shape, par 49) comprising a first end connected to said one of the first and second high volume evacuator ports on the bottom of the associated vacuum collection cannister (vacuum connector portion 47 connects to the source 60, see par 49 and figure 1 and 3) and a second end connected to the first end of said semi-rigid tube (hose connector portion 46, which connects to hose 30) for the purpose of promoting a pneumatic tight and fluid tight interconnection between a source and an evacuation tube (par 49).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Paquette to have said support device further comprises a U-shaped connector tube fitting comprising a first end connected to said one of the first and second high volume evacuator ports on the bottom of the associated vacuum collection cannister and a second end connected to the first end of said semi-rigid tube as taught by Christman for the purpose of promoting a pneumatic and fluidic tight interconnection between the source and the tube.
Claim 20 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paquette et al in view of Christman as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Beguiristain (US 3,612,089).
Regarding claim 20, Paquette/Christman discloses the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 18, but fails to disclose said first end of said U shaped connector tube fitting is non-rotatably connected to said one of the first and second high volume evacuator ports on the bottom of the vacuum collection cannister to prevent undesired rotation of the self-supporting tube relative to the vacuum collection canister.
Beguiristain teaches a U-shaped connection (connector 17) wherein a first end having a fitting that is non-rotatably connected to said evacuator port (via shoulder 19 and nut 20, see figure 1) for the purpose of holding the connector in a desired position (col 2, lines 3-8).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify Paquette/Christman to have said first end of said U shaped connector tube fitting is non-rotatably connected to said one of the first and second high volume evacuator ports as taught by Beguiristain for the purpose of holding the connector in a desired position. The resulting modification would be capable of attaching to one of the first and second high volume evacuator ports on the bottom of the vacuum collection cannister to prevent undesired rotation of the self-supporting tube relative to the vacuum collection canister (which is supported by figure 1 of Beguiristain).
Regarding claim 25, Paquette/Christman discloses the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 18, Paquette further discloses a manually operated inline valve (valve 226) selectively manually operable between: (i) an opened position to allow fluid communication through the tube fitting; and (ii) a closed position to block fluid communication through the tube fitting (par 20 discloses the inline valve selectively opening and closing the passageway 136),but fails to disclose the manually operated inline valve provided as part of said U-shaped connector tube fitting
Beguiristain teaches a U-shaped connector tube fitting (connector 25) which includes a valve (check valve 37).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the manually operated inline valve of Paquette to be within an attached U-shaped connector tube fitting as disclosed by Beguiristain for the purpose of turning the vacuum on and off quickly. Furthermore, moving the inline valve to the U-shaped connector is considered a rearrangement of parts, which is unpatentable over prior art when the operation of the device is not changed. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)
Claims 9-11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paquette et al in view of Asamarai (US 2022/0061950).
Regarding claim 9, Paquette discloses a support device (hands free suction device 100)for supporting an extra-oral aerosol suction device of a dental delivery system unit (nozzle 120 see figure 1 and par 15 which discloses the positioning of the nozzle outside the mouth of the patient), wherein the dental delivery system unit includes a dental patient’s chair for a dental patient and a movable dental assistant’s chair for a dental assistant (this limitation is interpreted as a functional limitation, as the support device is disclosed as supporting an extra-oral aerosol suction device of the “dental delivery system unit” and the dental delivery system does not structurally limit the support device, as such the hands free suction device 100 is interpreted as capable of supporting an extra oral suction device of a dental delivery system unit in view of the disclosure of figure 1 and discussed in par 14-17 which discloses a direct connection between the hose 116 and the suction system), said device comprising a semi-rigid tube (116) comprising:
(i) a first end that connects physically and fluidically to a high-volume evacuator port of a vacuum collection cannister of said dental delivery system unit or to an inlet of a high-volume evacuator valve supported in a cradle of the dental delivery system unit (via hose 148, see figure 1 which connects to the dental suction system 104 or directly to system 104 as set forth in par 114, where the limitation regarding the connection to a high-volume evacuator port of a vacuum collection cannister of said dental delivery system unit or to an inlet of a high-volume evacuator valve supported in a cradle of the dental delivery system unit is interpreted as a functional limitation as set forth above);
(ii) an opposite second end (suction end 128) spaced from said first end that connects physically and fluidically to the extra-oral suction device (120, see figure 1); and
(iii) at least one lumen portion (hollow fluid flow passageway 136) that extends between and fluidically connects the first and second ends for fluidically connecting suction at the high volume evacuator port of the vacuum collection cannister or at the inlet of the high-volume evacuator valve to the extra-oral aerosol suction device (see figure 1 and par 14 which discloses the hose not being within a sleeve or any other positioning element, and furthermore discuses direct connection to the dental suction system 104 or by means of a different manner and therefore is considered functionally capable of connecting to the first and second high volume evacuator ports of the vacuum collection cannister), wherein said movable dental assistant’s chair includes a tube support (adapter 140/mounting element 124, wherein par 16 discloses the mounting element can be removably or fixedly attached to any object in an examination room, in the instant case a dental chair and is therefore interpreted as capable of attachment to the dental assistant’s chair) that receives and supports said lumen portion of said semi-rigid tube to said dental assistant’s chair such that said lumen portion of said semi-rigid tube (par 15 discloses the attachment of the mounting element to the hose 116)
Paquette fails to disclose the semi rigid tube located in said tube support which is a tube support sleeve moves together with the dental assistant’s chair.
Asamarai teaches a tube support which is a tube support sleeve (distal clamp 114) which locates a tube (HVE conduit 104) and the support capable of moving together with a dental assistant chair (in view of par 47 which discloses attachment of a proximal end of a tube support which is securable to ant stable structure via clamp 102) for the purpose of enabling repositioning of the tube during a dental procedure (par 46).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Paquette to have the semi rigid tube located in said tube support which is a tube support sleeve moves together with the dental assistant’s chair as taught by Asamarai for the purpose of aiding in the repositioning of the tube during a dental procedure.
In regard to claim 10, Paquette further discloses said tube support (140/124) comprises a fastening element (mounting element 124) that selectively releasably connect the tube support to the movable dental assistant’s chair (in view of par 16 which discloses the mounting element 124 removably mounts the hose 116 to an object in the examination room).
In regard to claim 11, Paquette/Asamarai discloses the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 9. Asamarai further teaches said tube support sleeve (104) is connected to an armrest portion of the movable dental assistant’s chair (wherein the structure of the clamp is disclosed as being securable to the stable structure and therefore, is capable of connecting to the movable dental assistant’s chair), for the reasons set forth above.
Regarding claim 15, Paquette further discloses an adhesive or other fastening element (mounting element 124, par 16-17 discloses various connection methods including snap fit, adhesives or Velcro) on an exterior surface of the lumen portion of the semi-rigid tube for releasably connecting said lumen portion of said semi-rigid tube to at least one of: (i) the dental patient’s chair; (ii) the dental assistant’s chair, (iii) a dentist chair (in view of figure 1).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paquette in view of Asamarai as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Schoolman (US 5,215,539).
Regarding claim 16, Paquette discloses the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 15, but fails to disclose said semi-rigid tube comprises a non-circular cross-section including a flat exterior surface on which said adhesive or other fastening element is located.
However, Schoolman teaches a semi rigid tube (strip 6, which is disclosed as being made of a flexible and resilient material that can conform to varying contours, see col 4, lines 60- col 5, line 4) comprises a non-circular cross-section (see figures 1 and 2) including a flat exterior surface (flat engagement surface 39) on which said adhesive or other fastening element is located (via the adhesive tape 41) for the purpose of better positioning the tube parallel to a desired surface (col 5, lines 19-23).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Paquette to have said semi-rigid tube comprises a non-circular cross-section including a flat exterior surface on which said adhesive or other fastening element is located as taught by Schoolman for the purpose of better positioning the tube parallel to a desired surface.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 4-7,9-12,14-16,18-20 and 25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 SHANNEL N BELK whose telephone number is (571)272-9671. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. -Fri. 11:30 am - 3:30 pm.
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.
/S.N.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/THOMAS C BARRETT/ SPE, Art Unit 3799