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 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 20-22 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 20 recites “imaging the tooth after sealing and/or remineralizing the tooth”, however, intervening claim 19 and independent claim 16 do not recite a step of sealing the tooth rendering the claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted as being the step of sealing recited in claim 17.
Claim 21 recites “disinfecting the carious region of the tooth comprises delivering an alkaline fluid to the carious region”, it is unclear if the alkaline fluid is a part of the treatment fluid that is disclosed as partially disinfecting the carious region in claim 16 or if the alkaline fluid follows the treatment fluid. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted as the alkaline fluid being a part of the treatment fluid.
Claim 22 recites “delivering a remineralizing solution”, it is unclear if this is an additional remineralization solution than recited in previous claim 16 or an additional remineralization solution. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted as the same remineralizing solution as recited in previous claim 16.
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.
Claims 68-70, 72, and 80 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergheim et al (US 2015/0044632) in view of DiVito et al (US 2014/0087333).
Regarding claim 68, Bergheim discloses a method of treating a carious region on an exterior surface of a tooth (see figures 1 -9 and par 9 discloses the treatment of dental caries), the method comprising:
treating the carious region on the exterior surface of the tooth using a treatment instrument comprising a pressure wave generator, wherein treating the carious region on the tooth (see figures 1A-B and par 38-40 discloses treating a carious region of a tooth with pressure waves in a treatment fluid) comprises:
delivering propagating pressure waves with a first treatment liquid with the pressure wave generator to destroy bacteria (par 133-134 discloses a treatment liquid with chemicals being agitated to create pressure waves that destroy bacteria on the tooth); and
Bergheim fails to disclose after propagating pressure waves with the first treatment liquid, propagating pressure waves through a second treatment liquid with the pressure wave generator to neutralize an acidity of at least the carious region wherein the second treatment liquid is a buffering solution wherein neutralizing the acidity of at least the carious region maintains a pH of the carious region above 5.
However, DiVito teaches a first treatment liquid activation on a tooth (par 56 discloses a first, second and third fluids being circulated and activated which remove bacteria and other organic manner from the tooth/pulp chamber or pocket) being followed up with a second treatment liquid being activated which neutralizes the acidity of the tooth wherein the second treatment liquid is a buffering solution wherein neutralizing the acidity of at least the carious region maintains a pH of the carious region above 5 (par 60 discloses the introduction of a fourth and fifth fluid which is a buffered solution comprising water, sodium hydroxide, and cetrimide at a pH of 10 so therefore it neutralizes the acidity of the tooth and at least momentarily maintains a pH of 10 when in contact with the tooth) for the purpose of increased plaque destroying and defining a liquid for the reservoir of an activated liquid (par 60).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bergheim to have after propagating pressure waves with the first treatment liquid, propagating pressure waves through a second treatment liquid with the pressure wave generator to neutralize an acidity of at least the carious region wherein the second treatment liquid is a buffering solution wherein neutralizing the acidity of at least the carious region maintains a pH of the carious region above 5 as taught by DiVito for the purpose of increasing or continuing the destruction of plaque while maintaining a reservoir of activatable liquid.
Regarding claim 69, Bergheim discloses the pressure wave generator is configured to generate pressure waves with the first treatment liquid to disinfect the carious region when a chamber of the treatment instrument is substantially filled with the first treatment liquid (par 139-141).
Regarding claim 70, Bergheim discloses the pressure wave generator being configured to generate pressure wave when a chamber of the treatment instrument is substantially filled with a treatment liquid (par 139-141), but fails to disclose this occurs when the chamber is filled with the buffering solution.
However, DiVito teaches filling a reservoir with the follow up/buffering solution prior to propagation (par 60), for the reasons set forth above.
Regarding claim 72, Bergheim further discloses the first treatment liquid comprises sodium hypochlorite (par 137-139 discloses the delivery of sodium hypochlorite).
Regarding claim 80, Bergheim discloses the first treatment liquid is a disinfectant solution (par 39-40).
Claim 71 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DiVito et al in view of Bergheim et al as applied to claim 68 above, and further in view of MORFILL et al (US 2019/0076225).
DiVito/Bergheim fail to disclose the buffering solution comprises a phosphate buffered saline (PBS).
However, MORFILL teaches cleaning solution with phosphate buffered saline solution inn a buffering solution (par 76) for the purpose of allowing a solution with a constant pH (par 76).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the buffering solution include a phosphate buffered saline as taught by MORFILL for the purpose of enabling the solution to have a constant pH.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-14, 16-19, 23-25, and 79 allowed.
Claims 20-22 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1 and 16, the closest prior art of record being Bergheim et al (US 2014/0087333), which discloses a method of treating a carious region on an exterior surface of a tooth (par 13) comprising: treating the carious region with a pressure wave generator (see figure 1A-B and par 36) comprises propagating pressure waves through a first treatment liquid with the pressure wave generator to reduce infection of the carious region (par 62-63), but fails to disclose propagating pressure waves through a second treatment liquid with the pressure wave generator to neutralize an acidity of at least the carious region, wherein the second treatment liquid is a buffering solution, wherein neutralizing the acidity of at least the carious region maintains a pH of the carious region above 5, and propagating pressure wave through a third treatment liquid with the pressure wave generator to remineralize at least the carious region wherein the third treatment liquid is a remineralizing fluid.
DiVito further discloses a treatment liquid activation on a tooth (par 56 discloses a first, second and third fluids being circulated and activated which remove bacteria and other organic manner from the tooth/pulp chamber or pocket) being followed up with an additional treatment liquid being activated which neutralizes the acidity of the tooth wherein the second treatment liquid is a buffering solution wherein neutralizing the acidity of at least the carious region maintains a pH of the carious region above 5 (par 60 discloses the introduction of a fourth and fifth fluid which is a buffered solution comprising water, sodium hydroxide, and cetrimide at a pH of 10 so therefore it neutralizes the acidity of the tooth and at least momentarily maintains a pH of 10 when in contact with the tooth). However, the prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious pressure wave through a third treatment liquid with the pressure wave generator to remineralize at least the carious region wherein the third treatment liquid is a remineralizing fluid or remineralizing the carious region of the tooth after neutralizing the carious region with the buffering solution by propagating pressure waves through a remineralizing solution with the pressure wave generator in combination with all additionally recited claim limitations of claim 1 and 16.
Claims 2-3, 5, 8-14, 17-25, and 79 are indicated allowable subject matter based on dependency on claims 1 and 16.
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, 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.
/S.N.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/HEIDI M EIDE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
7/8/2026
Prosecution Insights