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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitations of Claim 4 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 7 is 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.
Regarding Claim 7, it is physically impossible for the curvature of the suction head to be 45 degrees, 75 degrees, 90 degrees, and 135 degrees at the same time. Therefore, the suction head is best understood to be “45 degrees, 75 degrees, 90 degrees, or 135 degrees”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McClure (US 20110184427 A1) in view of Greene (US 20190191970 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, McClure discloses a negative-pressure suction device for a tonsillolith ([0012]), comprising:
an electric base ("handle" [0011-0013]; Drawing 2/2), a saliva bin ("reservoir head" [0013]), and a suction pipe ("detachable straw" [0014]),
wherein a cavity is disposed in the electric base, a vacuum pump is disposed in the cavity ("mini-vacuum motor internally housed within a plastic casing" [0015]),
the vacuum pump is provided with a first connecting pipe (see Annotated Drawing 2/2)
the first connecting pipe communicates with the saliva bin (see Annotated Drawing 2/2); and
the suction pipe communicates with the saliva bin ("straw locks securely to detachable reservoir head"; Drawing 2/2).
Annotated Drawing 2/2
PNG
media_image1.png
268
234
media_image1.png
Greyscale
McClure fails to specify a second connecting pipe wherein the second connecting pipe communicates with the cavity. However, Greene teaches a handheld vacuum device for removing tonsilloliths from the tonsillar crypts of a user (see Abstract) comprising a second connecting pipe ([0043]; Annotated FIG. 7) wherein the second connecting pipe communicates with the cavity (see Annotated FIG. 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of McClure to incorporate the teachings of Greene to suitably “produce an effective vacuum force” ([0043]).
Annotated FIG. 7
PNG
media_image2.png
599
441
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McClure/Greene in view of Pagliacci et al. (US 20160361078 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, McClure discloses a suction head ("rubberized, or silicone head" [0014]) but fails to specify the remaining limitations. However, Pagliacci teaches “oral debris extractor” for “removal of tonsilloliths and tonsil stones in an oral cavity” ([0002]) wherein the suction head is a bent pipe (see FIGs. 1-2), the suction head is sleeved on the suction pipe ("tip portion 16′ may optionally attach to shaft 14 by pushing over top of the distal end of shaft 14" [0229]), and the suction pipe communicates with the suction head ("tip is a separate piece which is mounted on and/or attached to the shaft" [0228]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the device of McClure/Greene to suitably tailor the suction head to the target ([0236]).
Regarding Claim 6, McClure fails to specify the suction pipe is detachably connected with the suction head. However, Pagliacci teaches the suction pipe is detachably connected with the suction head (“the bulb suction means, the shaft and the elastomeric tip are fully detachable and reattachable” ([0049]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the device of McClure/Greene to suitably tailor the device according to manufacturing costs and methods ([0173]).
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McClure/Greene in view of Muse (US 20220280177 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, McClure discloses the electric base comprises a front housing and a rear housing, the front housing is engaged with the rear housing to form the cavity (NOTE: inherent physical feature of any cavity), a circuit board and a battery are further installed in the cavity ("Battery housing to store two "AA" batteries, or two "AAA" batteries; a circuit board to conduct power" [0012]),and a switch are disposed on the circuit board ("power button will be attached to the circuit card" [0012]), and a switch hole is opened ([0012]; Drawing 2/2) but fails to specify a charging port and a gear button, and a gear button column is disposed on the front housing. However, Muse teaches “a wireless oral electronic device with an electronic or electrically-powered vacuum action which allows for the aspiration of tonsil stones, fluids and other oral debris” ([0005]) comprising a charging port (“charging port 130” [0011]; FIG. 1) and a gear button, and a gear button column is disposed on the front housing (“interface 240 allows the user to specify the suction strength of the vacuum” [0015]; FIG. 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the device of McClure/Greene to suitably enable recharging of the device ([0013]) and “specify the suction strength of the vacuum” ([0014]).
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McClure/Greene in view of Ripich et al. (US 20180280047 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, McClure/Greene fails to specify a conical pipe is disposed at a nozzle of the first connecting pipe, a bottom of the saliva bin is sleeved on the conical pipe and is not in tight contact with the conical pipe, and a gap is formed between the bottom of the saliva bin and the conical pipe; and an air duct that penetrates through a bottom plate is disposed on the bottom plate of the saliva bin, and the first connecting pipe, the gap, and the saliva bin communicate with each other through the air duct. However, Ripich teaches “a portable, self-contained vacuum tongue cleaning device” ([0006]) wherein a conical pipe (“frustoconical wall” [0022]; FIGs. 3-4) is disposed at a nozzle of the first connecting pipe (see FIG. 4), a bottom of the saliva bin (“baffle 40 is carried in chamber 32” [0022]) is sleeved on the conical pipe and is not in tight contact with the conical pipe (“Baffle 40 can be substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of device 2 or it can be tilted towards or away from the front of device 2 to increase the size of impingement surface of baffle 40” [0022]; FIG. 4), and a gap (“sidewall 44” [0022]; FIG. 4) is formed between the bottom of the saliva bin and the conical pipe; and an air duct (“opening 42” [0022]; FIG. 4) that penetrates through a bottom plate is disposed on the bottom plate of the saliva bin, and the first connecting pipe, the gap, and the saliva bin communicate with each other through the air duct (see FIG. 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the device of McClure/Greene to suitably control the speed of the vacuum flow ([0021]).
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McClure/Greene/Ripich in view of Muse.
Regarding Claim 5, McClure/Greene/Ripich fails to specify the saliva bin comprises a cylindrical bin pipe and a conical bin head, an upper part of the conical bin head is used for disposing the suction pipe, and a lower part of the conical bin head is detachably connected with the cylindrical bin pipe. However, Muse teaches the saliva bin comprises a cylindrical bin pipe ("sealing cap 390" [0015]; FIG. 3) and a conical bin head ("aspirator 395" [0015]; FIG. 3), an upper part of the conical bin head is used for disposing the suction pipe ("suction head 110" [0015]; FIG. 3), and a lower part of the conical bin head is detachably connected with the cylindrical bin pipe (see FIG. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the device of McClure/Greene/Ripich “to navigate to the intended target and perform its suction action upon contact with the target” while being “easily and comfortably received in the mouth of a user” ([0011]).
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McClure/Greene/Pagliacci in view of Kheradvar et al. (US 20220023020 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, McClure/Greene/Pagliacci fails to specify curvature of the suction head comprises 45 degrees, 75 degrees, 90 degrees, or 135 degrees. However, Kheradvar teaches a tonsilloliths treatment device ([0006]) wherein curvature of the suction head (“cleaning tip 9” [0055]; FIG. 5) comprises 45 degrees, 75 degrees, 90 degrees, or 135 degrees (“nozzle tip has a curvature that has an arc angle/measure ranging from about 90° to about 120°” [0057]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the device of McClure/Greene/Pagliacci “to maximize cleaning efficiency” ([0058-0059]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The references provided on the attached PTO-892 form are considered relevant to applicant’s disclosure and are cited to further show the general state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cheng Fong "Ted" Yang whose telephone number is (571)272-8846. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 6pm (EST) M-F.
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, Rebecca E. Eisenberg can be reached at (571) 270-5879. 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.
/Adam Marcetich/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Cheng Fong "Ted" Yang
Examiner
Art Unit 3781