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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 17, 2026 has been entered.
Specification
The substitute specification filed June 17, 2026 has not been entered because it does not conform to 37 CFR 1.125(b) and (c) because: it appears to introduce new matter to the specification.
The amendment filed June 17, 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the specification and figures do not disclose a “connection surface.”
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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 “connection surface” must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim. 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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-10 are 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 1, amendments submitted in response on June 17, 2026 render the claim unclear. The newly added limitations of the “along a direction parallel to a connection surface” are unclear what the connection surface is or how the first and second clamping surfaces are interpreted along a direction parallel to the connections surface. For the purpose of examination, the first and second clamping surfaces will be interpreted relative to axis A-A of Figure 2.
All other claims not specifically addressed above are rejected based on their dependency on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 7-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jianke et al. (CN209629877, hereinafter “Jianke”) in view of Gang et al. (CN213525594, hereinafter “Gang”) in further view of Fairley et al. (US 2014/0308625 A1, hereinafter “Fairley”).
Regarding Claim 1, Jianke discloses a nozzle structure (Figure 1, 100) comprising a base (10) and a nozzle connected to the base (20), where the base is provided with a receiving groove (see annotated Figure 2 below). Jianke further discloses that the base is provided with a water inlet channel (see annotated Figure 2 below) communicated with the receiving groove, and the nozzle is provided with a water outlet channel (21) configured to facilitate outflow of whitening liquid (water outlet channel 21 is capable of allowing outflow of a whitening liquid), and a filter screen (40) that could be used for filtering the whitening liquid is installed at one side of the water outlet channel.
Jianke further discloses that the base comprises a first installation portion (see annotated Figure 2 below) and a second installation portion (see annotated Figure 1 below), and the first installation portion is detachably connected to the nozzle (via threads as seen in Figure 2). Jianke further discloses that the second installation portion is provided with a clamping slot (see annotated Figure 1 below) for clamping the base, and the clamping slot is in an annular shape (as seen in Figure 1) with a first clamping surface (top of clamping slot) and a second clamping surface (bottom of clamping slot) are provided inside the clamping slot (as seen in Figure 1).
Additionally, Jianke discloses that the nozzle is provided with an installation groove communicated with the water outlet channel, the filter screen is embedded in the installation groove (as seen in Figure 2), and the installation groove is provided with a fastening block (50) for abutting against the filter screen.
PNG
media_image1.png
569
601
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
577
856
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Jianke discloses the invention substantially as described above, but does not specifically teach that relative to a direction parallel to a connection surface between the base and the nozzle(i.e. a longitudinal axis of the device), the first clamping surface is in an inclined plane and the second clamping surface is in a horizontal plane.
In the same art of dental nozzles, Gang teaches a clamping slot with two surfaces (annotated below) with the first clamping surface in an inclined plane relative to a longitudinal axis of the device, and the second clamping surface is in a horizontal plane relative to a longitudinal axis of the device. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the clamping surfaces of Jianke with an inclined plane of the first clamping surface and a horizontal plane of the second clamping surface relative to a longitudinal axis of the device in order to provide a more gentle clamping action upon insertion of the nozzle and reduce wear and tear on the clamping structure.
PNG
media_image3.png
551
370
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Jianke in view of Gang discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but does not disclose that a whitening agent is provided inside the receiving groove. In the similar art of dental delivery devices, Fairley teaches the use of a whitening agent (Figure 2, particles 28, described in [0020] as a tooth whitening agent and housed in capsules 34) with a base and a nozzle that is configured to allow outflow of a whitening liquid (as seen in Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the device of Jianke in view of Gang with a whitening capsule as taught by Fairley in the receiving groove in order to whiten the teeth.
Regarding Claim 2, Jianke in view of Gang in further view of Fairley discloses the invention of Claim 1 as described above and Jianke further discloses that the nozzle is threadedly connected to the base (via threads 11).
Regarding Claim 7, Jianke in view of Gang in further view of Fairley discloses the invention of Claim 6 as described above and Jianke further discloses that the fastening block is provided with a through hole communicated with the installation groove (fastening block 50 has a through hole as seen in Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 8, Jianke in of Gang in further view of Fairley discloses the invention of Claim 1 as described above and Jianke further discloses that a sealing ring is provided between the base and the nozzle (70).
Regarding Claim 10, Jianke in of Gang in further view of Fairley discloses an oral irrigator (Figure 1), comprising an oral irrigator body (10) and the nozzle structure according to claim 1 as described above, where the nozzle structure is detachably installed (as seen in Figure 1, the nozzle structure can be detached via threads 11) at the oral irrigator body, and the nozzle structure is configured to spray the whitening liquid (as seen in Figure 1 of Jianke, the tip of nozzle 20 is configured to spray a liquid, which as modified by Fairley as described above would be a whitening liquid).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jianke in of Gang in further view of Fairley and in further view of LIU et al. (US 2022/0110731 A1, hereinafter “Liu”).
Regarding Claim 3, Jianke in of Gang in further view of Fairley discloses the invention of Claim 1 as described above, but does not disclose that the base and the nozzle are connected through screws. In the similar art of oral irrigators, Liu teaches the use of screws to securely fasten parts of the device (Figure 3, b, a described in [0045]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to secure the base to the nozzle of the device of Jianke in of Gang in further view of Fairley with screws as taught by Liu in order to provide a secure attachment.
Regarding Claims 4 and 5, Jianke in of Gang in further view of Fairley discloses the invention of Claim 1 as described above, but does not disclose that the nozzle is snapped on and fastened to the base and provided with a positioning post, and the nozzle is provided with a positioning hole configured to be snapped on and match with the positioning post. Liu teaches the use of a positioning element and a buckle system that snaps into place ([0046-0047]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the positioning post and buckle of Liu as the fastening mechanism of the device of Jianke in of Gang in further view of Fairley in order to connect and lock the base and nozzle elements together and provide angular positioning correction.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jianke in of Gang in further view of Fairley in further view of Mueller (US 2012/00282570).
Regarding Claim 9, Jianke in of Gang in further view of Fairley discloses the invention of Claim 1 as described above, but does not teach that the whitening agent is a solid tablet or a paste. In the similar art of tooth cleaning devices, Mueller teaches the use of a tablet containing mildly abrasive cleaning ingredients ([0010]) that are mixed with water and dispersed in a water jet (nozzle). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the whitening agent of Jianke in of Gang in further view of Fairley with a tablet structure as taught by Mueller as the delivery method in order to provide a more compact delivery system for particles without the need for a capsule.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim1-5 and 7-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on the teaching of Gang to meet the newly added claim limitations.
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 9-5 ET.
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
