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. This office action is in response to applicant’s communication of 11/30/2023. Currently claims 1-7 are pending and rejected below. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/9/2026 and 11/30/2023 is being considered by the examiner. 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)(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- 5, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 FILLIN "Insert either \“(a)(1)\” or \“(a)(2)\” or both. If paragraph (a)(2) of 35 U.S.C. 102 is applicable, use form paragraph 7.15.01.aia, 7.15.02.aia or 7.15.03.aia where applicable." \d "[ 2 ]" (a)(2) as being anticipated by LUKAC et al. (US 2021/0069756 A1). Lukac discloses a liquid drug delivery device (as in figures 1-3b for example) for delivering a liquid drug (see para [0116] and liquid drug delivery system 26) to a target site in a living tissue by irradiating said liquid drug with laser light (see para [00117] and laser source 4) at a location near said target site . Concerning claim 2 and said liquid drug is selected from a group comprising an anti-inflammatory agent, a disinfectant, an analgesic, a local anesthetic, a molecularly targeted drug, and a physiological saline solution (see para [0016] and anti-inflammatory medication) . Concerning claim 3 and wherein said target site is a jawbone (see para [0194] and it is examiners position that a “root canal” or bone cavity would be located at the “jawbone” as this is the structure that holds teeth for a root canal . Concerning claim 4 and the target site is in a root canal from which dental pulp of a tooth adjacent to the jawbone has been removed (see para [0003], [0017], and [0194]) . Further concerning claims 3-4 the claimed limitations are directed to an apparatus or device, it is examiner’s position that these limitations are a functional intended use type limitation. Concerning claim 5 and a liquid drug delivery system (as in figures 1-3b for example) comprising : an injector (see liquid delivery system 26 and handpiece 7 for example) for injecting a liquid drug into a location near a target site in a living tissue; and the liquid drug delivery device according to claim 1 (see rejection above of claim 1 and paras [0016]-[0017] and 26 delivery system and laser source 4) . 7. (Original) A liquid drug delivery method comprising steps of: injecting a liquid drug into a location near a target site in a living tissue (see para [0016] and liquid delivery system 26) ; and delivering said liquid drug to said target site by irradiating said liquid drug with laser light (see para [0017] and laser source 4 for examples in the device shown in figures 1-3b). 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim (s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LUKAC et al. (US 2021/0069756 A1) in view of Wallinski (US 2021/0353754 A1). Lukac discloses the claimed invention except for the injector is a prefilled syringe . Wallinski teaches that it is known to use injector is a prefilled syringe as set forth in syringe element 14 and discussed in paragraphs at [0033] -[ 0037] (and further see figure 3) to provide a well known means to administer the drug fluid in a photodynamic laser therapy to a root canal for efficient and direct application of a medicament to a patient. . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system and method as taught by Lukac with injector is a prefilled syringe as taught by Wallinski , since such a modification would provide the system and method with injector is a prefilled syringe for providing a well known means to administer the drug fluid in a photodynamic laser therapy to a root canal for efficient and direct application of a medicament to a patient. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT PHILLIP A GRAY whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-7180 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9-5 EST (FLEX) . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Michael Tsai can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5246 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT PHILLIP A. GRAY Primary Examiner Art Unit 3783 /PHILLIP A GRAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783