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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/18/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/18/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and additionally do not address the new grounds of rejection and/or interpretation below necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Regarding Applicant’s amendments, Applicant argues the Montgomery, the secondary reference relied on to teach the facet and intermediate surfaces, does not teach the glass materials currently recited in claim 1. However, while Applicant acknowledges that Schott teaches the use of a variety of, Applicant does not address the fact that Schott already teaches the use of the glass materials currently recited in claim 1 [0023]. Additionally, Applicant has not provided any arguments or evidence that the relied on modification of Schott with the structure of the facets and intermediate structure of Montgomery would destroy the function of Schott or otherwise would not be possible due to the materials now recited in claim 1.
Applicant additionally argues that Montgomery does not teach the required structure of the end faces and intermediate surfaces as required. As previously recited and explained below, the Examiner has specifically identified the end faces (primary facets) and intermediate structures (secondary facets) in Montgomery as relied on for the modification. Additionally, as previously recited and repeated below, the Examiner has provided explicit and clear motivation as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the device of Schott to include Montgomery’s end faces and intermediate surfaces, found directly in Montgomery’s disclosure.
Applicant then argues that Montgomery does not teach the intermediate surfaces as the identified intermediate surface of Montgomery are facets themselves. However, the Examiner notes that such arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims as the claims do not prohibit the intermediate surfaces from reflecting; the only recited structure related thereto being that they connect the end faces.
Next, Applicant argues that such modification would not have been obvious as it is not concerned with the particularly geometry of the rod, with the exit being “adequately large”, the rod being “thin”, and having a “low profile”. However, the Examiner does not find such arguments persuasive as they are a) not commensurate with the scope of the claims and b) rely on several variably interpreted terms or terms of degree, which could be interpreted differently by different users. The Examiner notes that Schott already discloses a rod shape with a rod axis, and Montgomery also teaches a rod shaped light guiding element (see Fig. 2). Regarding the structure of Montgomery relied on to teach said modification, the Examiner sees no structural difference between Montgomery’s structure and the claimed langued.
Regarding Applicant’s argument to claim 7, the Examiner notes that the argument has been considered but is not persuasive as no criticality has been shown and Schott/Montgomery as modified, already teaches the general structure claimed.
Regarding Applicant’s argument to claim 12, the Examiner notes that the argument has been considered but is not persuasive as the language remains a product by process limitation, regardless of argument thereto. Still further, regarding alleged structure imparted by the process, the Examiner notes that the argued structure is not commensurate with the scope of the claims, and it is improper to read limitations of the specification into the claims. The Arguments do not establish that any structural distinction is present.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but respectfully are not persuasive and additionally do not address the new grounds of rejection and/or interpretation below necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
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(s) 1-3, 5-10, 12-18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schott (DE 102018119423 A1) in view of Montgomery et al (US 2008/0254405 A1).
Regarding the above claims, Schott discloses a light application device (see Fig. 1 and 3) for light curing of liquid materials [0007], comprising: a handpiece (1) with a housing (10) ;a light source (11) arranged in the housing (Fig. 1) and configured to emit light from the handpiece ([0008]); a light guiding element (20) mounted to the handpiece ([0044]) and has a light guiding body (21) comprising a solid body (see [0009] and [0023]), a light entrance (“light inlet” [0009]) for coupling light into the light guiding body, and a light exit (“light outlet”) for coupling light out of the light guiding body, wherein the solid body is a material selected from a group consisting of glass; pressed glass; borosilicate glass; and optical crown glass (see [0023]); wherein the light guiding element has a longitudinal extent and defines a first optical axis for light coupled into the light guiding body (see Figs. 1 and 3, and [0011]), wherein the first optical axis runs along the longitudinal extent [0011], and wherein the light exit defines a second optical axis for light coupled out of the light guiding body [0011], wherein the second optical axis runs transversely to the first optical axis (see Figs. 1, 3; [0011]), wherein the light guiding element is formed in the shape of a rod with a rod axis that runs along the longitudinal extent (see Figs. 1 and 3; [0012]); wherein the light guiding element has, at a distal end of the longitudinal extent, a distal end side (e.g. at 23) at which the light coupled into the light guiding body can be deflected for coupling out in such a way that the light exit is formed by a region of a lateral surface of the light guiding element (see Fig. 3), and wherein the distal end side has a plurality of end faces for deflecting the light (see [0058] describing reflector having several flat facet surfaces; not shown). Schott further discloses wherein the light guiding element is detachably mounted to the handpiece (see [0044]; per claim 2); wherein the light guiding element has a thickness perpendicular to the light exit that is in a range of 1 to 15 mm (see [0028], per claim 3); the second optical axis running at an angle to the first optical axis that is between 45 and 135 degrees (see [0018], per claim 6); wherein the light guiding element comprises a reflector (23) positioned and configured to couple out light from the light guiding body (per claim 8); wherein the reflector is a mirror or interference mirror (see [0017]; per claim 9); wherein the reflector has a reflectivity for light with a wavelength between 380 and 500 nanometers of more than 90 percent ([0020], [0057]; per claim 10); wherein the light guiding element further comprises a cladding partially or completely enclosing the light guiding body, wherein the cladding has a refractive index that is less than one or less than the refractive index of the light guiding body, wherein the refractive index of the light guiding body and the refractive index of the cladding have a difference of less than or equal to 0.16, and wherein the cladding has a thickness that is less than or equal to 100 pm (see [0026], [0035]; per claim 13); wherein the light guiding element comprises a mounting area (25) for mounting the light guiding element to the housing in such a way that light emitted by the light source is coupled into the light guiding body through the light entrance and is coupled out of the light guiding body outside the housing of the handpiece through the light exit (see citations above; per claim 14); wherein the second optical axis runs transversely to the longitudinal extent (see Figs. 1 and 3, citations above), and wherein the light guiding element has a proximal end face at a proximal end of the longitudinal extent, the proximal end face forming the light entrance (e.g. bottom of light guiding element in Fig. 3; per claim 15); wherein the longitudinal extent is between 1 and 30 centimeters, and wherein the light guiding element has a cross section along the longitudinal extent with an area between 0.1 and 3 square centimeters (see [0036]-[0037]; per claim 16); wherein the light guiding element has a variable cross section along the longitudinal extent (see [0039]; per claim 17); further comprising a voltage source arranged in the housing, the voltage source being configured to provide power to the light source (see [0043]; per claim 18) and wherein the light guiding element has a thickness perpendicular to the light exit that is in a range of 1-15 mm (see [0028], 7-12 mm thick; per claim 21).
Although Schott discloses wherein the reflector may have a plurality of end faces (facets), Schott does not specifically teach wherein the plurality of end faces each extend transversely to the first optical axis and transversely to the second optical axis and are connected to one another via intermediate surfaces as required.
Montgomery et al, however, teaches a similar dental light emitting device (see abstract, 10) comprising a light guiding element (22) having a distal end (30) forming a light exit, wherein the distal end side (30) has a plurality of end faces (e.g. primary facets), wherein the plurality of end faces each extend transversely to a first optical axis (longitudinal axis; e.g. 31 degrees or complementary angle, depending how measured) and transversely to a second optical axis (e.g. 31 degree angle or complement (59 degrees) is transverse to both the longitudinal axis and a second axis perpendicular thereto), and are connected to one another via intermediate surfaces (e.g. secondary facets, at least indirectly; see [0073]-[0078] and Fig. 2). Montgomery further discloses wherein at least some of the plurality of end faces and/or intermediate surfaces have a planar shape or common orientation to one another (per claim 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the faceted reflector of Schott to include Montgomery’s teaching the plurality of end faces being transverse to the first and second optical axes and connected to one another by intermediate surfaces, as such modification would provide a uniform and broader distribution of the light from the light guide, and provide an efficient means of achieving near total internal reflection of the device (see [0078], Montgomery).
Regarding claim 12, Schott/Montgomery, as combined above, discloses all the features of the claimed invention including the plurality of end faces and intermediate surfaces (see above). The Examiner notes that the term “laser cut surfaces” is a product by process limitation; that is the surfaces are formed by laser cutting. The Examiner notes that product by process limitations are not limited to the particular steps of the process (laser cutting) but instead only to the structure imparted thereby (the end faces and intermediate surfaces), which the prior art combination discloses as explained above. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 7, Schott/Montgomery, as combined above, discloses all the features of the claimed invention including wherein the plurality of end faces can comprise four end faces, and further that the number of end faces is variable as desired (see [0078]). Additionally, the Examiner notes that the particular number of faces is a result effective variable dependent on the desired degree of light application and size of the device. Still further, Applicant describes the number of faces merely preferable, and lacking any criticality (see [0031]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Schott/Montgomery, as combined above, to include between 5-20 end faces, as such modification would merely involve the optimization of a result effective variable, which has been held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results (see MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached PTO892 which cites several references with similar faceted surfaces formed of glass and/or plastic materials.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD MORAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 AM-4 PM 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, 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.
/EDWARD MORAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights