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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9, 11-13, and 19 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on January 26, 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of subspecies b for the adjustable mirror in the reply filed on January 26, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that subspecies b directed to the adjustable mirror and subspecies d directed to a mirror that changes rotationally at least partially overlap. This is found persuasive and the subspecies adjusted to consider an adjustable mirror that changes rotationally one subspecies.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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)(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.
Claims 1-8, 10, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Patel (US 5,738,678).
Regarding Claim 1, Patel discloses a radiation device (Figure 2) for use in activating polymerizable dental materials (abstract), comprising a housing (Figure 2, 13) comprising a base portion, and a head portion connected to the base portion (see annotated Figure below). The housing further comprises a radiation emission window (15) in the head portion, a radiation source arranged in the region of the base portion in the interior of the housing (10, where laser light is the radiation source), for emitting electromagnetic radiation (a laser is a type of electromagnetic radiation), the radiation source having an emission intensity maximum at a wavelength in a range from 350 to 600 nm (wavelength of the laser is disclosed as visible light in Column 3, lines 20-25 and the wavelength of visible light includes this range), and a mirror (16) arranged in the region of the head portion in the interior of the housing. Patel further discloses that that a radiation path (as seen in Figures 2 and 3) extends between the radiation source and the mirror, and the radiation device is configured to allow electromagnetic radiation emitted by the radiation source to arrive at the mirror via the radiation path, and when the mirror is arranged such that the electromagnetic radiation arriving at the mirror via the radiation path is reflected by the mirror such that the reflected electromagnetic radiation exits the housing through the radiation emission window (as seen in Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 2, Patel discloses the radiation device of claim 1, and further discloses that the radiation source has an emission intensity maximum at a wavelength in a range from 380 to 550 nm (wavelength of the laser is disclosed as visible light in Column 3, lines 20-25 and the wavelength of visible light includes this range which could also be an intensity maximum if desired).
Regarding Claim 3, Patel discloses the radiation device of claim 1, and further discloses that the radiation device comprises at least one lens (Figure 2, 21) arranged in the radiation path and configured to influence the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the radiation source before it arrives at the mirror.
Regarding Claim 4, Patel discloses the radiation device of claim 3, and further discloses that the radiation device is configured so that a distance between the lens and the radiation source is reversibly and non-destructively changeable (lens are movable as described in Column 3, lines 60-65).
Regarding Clam 5, Patel discloses the radiation device of claim 1, and further discloses that the mirror is reversibly and non-destructively movably arranged in the interior of the housing (mirror 16 is mounted on a pivot 21 which allows for change in angulation as seen in Figures 2 and 3).
Regarding Claim 6, Patel discloses the radiation device of claim 1, and also discloses that the radiation device comprises at least one photosensor (Figure 2, 22).
Regarding Claim 7, Patel discloses the radiation device of Claim 1, and also discloses that the mirror is arranged between the photosensor and the radiation source (as seen in Figure 2).
Regarding Claims 8 and 16, the radiation device of claims 6 and 7, wherein the radiation device is configured such that one or more of a position of the mirror and an orientation of the mirror is reversibly and non-destructively changeable such that the electromagnetic radiation arriving at the mirror via the radiation path is reflected in such a way that the reflected electromagnetic radiation is directed onto the photosensor, or the electromagnetic radiation is directed past the mirror onto the photosensor (as described in Column 5, lines 57-67).
Regarding Claims 10, 17, and 18, Patel discloses the radiation device of claims 6, 7, and 8, and further discloses that the photosensor is arranged to determine intensity information for incoming electromagnetic radiation, wherein the intensity information comprises one or more of an intensity of the radiation and a parameter correlating with the intensity (as described in Column 5 line 65 through Column 6 line 3).
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel in view of Gill et al. (US 9,072,572, hereinafter “Gill”).
Regarding Claim 14, Patel discloses the invention of claim 1 as described above but does not disclose that the radiation device is arranged to emit electromagnetic radiation with an intensity of at least 500 mW/cm2 from the radiation emission window. In the same art of dental radiation devices, Gill discloses that in order to properly cure a light intensity of at least 500 mW/cm2 is required (Column 13, lines 35-42). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize an intensity of at least 500 mW/cm2 as taught by Gill with the device of Patel in order to achieve an intensity necessary for curing the dental material being treated.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE L NELSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5368. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 7:30-4:30 PT.
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.
/CHRISTINE L NELSON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3772 /EDWARD MORAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772