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 § 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 29, 32, 35-37, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen Tanugi (US 2015/0118645 A1) in view of Gaffar et al. (US 4,843,099, hereinafter “Gaffar”).
Regarding Claims 29 and 42, Cohen Tanugi discloses a dental irrigator (Figure 7, 20) comprising a connection portion (see Figure 7 below) comprising a water inlet (at F) and no air inlets, a main body (10) comprising a first end (end at connection to connection portion labeled below) configured to couple with the connection portion, and a second end opposite to the first end (see Figure 7 below). The second end comprises a connection element (section toward the tip end from button 16) which extends from a main step of the main body (see Figure 7 below), the connection element comprising an inner connection surface (15) and an outer connection surface (see Figure 7 below). The main body is configured to let water pass from the first end to the second end (as described in [0063]). The dental irrigator further comprises a working tip (33), the working tip comprising a first portion configured to be connected to the inner connection surface (at 34) and a second portion with a fluid outlet (see Figure 7 below), configured to project the water outside the dental irrigator, where the fluid outlet is configured to provide a fluid exit projected in one or more different directions from a tangent to an end of the working tip (as would be the case with the tip as seen in Figure 7 since the working tip is bent) and has a blind end and a lateral orifice (as seen in Figure 7, the curved end of the tip would constitute a blind end and the orifice is lateral to the central axis of the device). Cohen Tanugi further discloses an intermediate connector (see annotated Figure 7 below), arranged to manage a connection between the first portion of the working tip and the connection element of the main body, and an elastic element (36) arranged around the outer connection surface, where the connection element of the main body comprises a stop element (screw threads 15) which prevents the intermediate connector from escaping from the dental irrigator. Cohen Tanugi further discloses that the intermediate connector comprises an interior step configured to receive the elastic element (as seen in the Figure, the elastic element is received in a step of the intermediate connector) and an end configured to be abutted against the stop element (at 35), the interior step being oriented so that the elastic element exerts a force configured to push the intermediate connector towards the stop element (as seen in Figure 7). The outer connection surface has a length that is greater than a distance between the interior step and the end of the intermediate connector (as would be the case as the outer connection surface extends the length of the main body) and the first portion of the working tip comprises a first engaging element (see annotated Figure below), and the second connection element further comprises at least one second engaging element configured to engage with the first engaging element (see annotated Figure below).
Cohen Tanugi discloses the invention of Claim 29 substantially as described above but does not specifically disclose that the working tip is made out of a flexible material and is configured for adapting to a morphology of a patient’s tissue. In the same art of dental fluid application, Gaffar teaches a flexible tip that facilitates maneuvering within the oral cavity in order to access the gingival sulcus (Column 1, lines 5-8 and Column 3, lines 3-5), which would be adapting to a morphology of the patient’s tissue. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the tip of Cohen Tanugi out of a flexible material that is configured for adapting to a morphology of a patient’s tissue as taught by Gaffar in order to access difficult to reach portions of the morphology of the mouth as is taught by Gaffar.
PNG
media_image1.png
609
824
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 32, Figure 7 of Cohen Tanugi in view of Gaffar discloses the invention of Claim 29 substantially as described above but does not specifically disclose that the inner connection surface and the first portion of the working tip have a circular cross section. However, in the embodiment of Figure 1, all the connection elements and the corresponding first portion of the working tip (114) are shown with a circular cross section. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the connection surfaces and the working tip of the embodiment of Figure 7 with a with a circular cross section as seen in the embodiment of Figure 1 in order to distribute the connection forces equally while allowing the central portion of the device to conduct fluid.
Regarding Claim 35, Cohen Tanugi in view of Gaffar discloses the invention of Claim 29 substantially as described above and Cohen Tanugi further discloses that the working tip has a curved shape (see Figure 7).
Regarding Claim 36, Figure 7 of Cohen Tanugi in view of Gaffar discloses the invention of Claim 29 substantially as described above but does not specifically disclose that the fluid outlet comprised in the working tip has a shape selected from the group consisting of a circle, a semicircle, an ellipse, a spiderweb, a circle with at least one wing, a helix, and a combination thereof. Figure 1 of Cohen Tanugi does disclose a tip with a circular shape (see Figure 1, 111). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the shape of the working tip of the embodiment of Figure 7 with a with a circular cross section as seen in the embodiment of Figure 1 in order to distribute the irrigation forces equally while allowing the central portion of the device to conduct fluid.
Regarding Claim 37, Cohen Tanugi in view of Gaffar discloses the invention of Claim 29 substantially as described above and Figure 7 Cohen Tanugi further discloses that the working tip comprises a frustoconical chamber (see Figure 7).
Claims 30-31 and 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen Tanugi in view of Gaffar in further view of Xu Yu (CN 203564361).
Regarding Claims 30 and 33, Cohen Tanugi in view of Gaffar discloses the invention of Claims 29 and 32 substantially as claimed, but does not disclose that the first engaging element is a complete circular groove, the second engaging element comprises a plurality of balls configured to be partially inserted in the circular groove, the balls being located at a distance from the main step which is greater than the distance between the interior step and the end of the intermediate connector, and the balls are arranged in through holes of the second connection element, each ball being configured to protrude both from the inner connection surface and from the outer connection surface.
In the same art of dental devices, Xu Yu teaches an adapter for a dental device with a first engaging element that is a complete circular groove (lowest groove that overlaps with slot 33 as seen in Figure 1), the second engaging element comprises a plurality of balls (34) configured to be partially inserted in the circular groove (as balls are inserted in slots 33 they will partially overlap with lowest groove), the balls being located at a distance from a main step which is greater than the distance between the interior step and the end of the intermediate connector (as seen in Figure 2), and the balls are arranged in through holes (slots 33) of the second connection element, each ball being configured to protrude both from the inner connection surface and from the outer connection surface (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 utilize the ball and groove/slot connection for an adapter as taught by XuYu with the device of Cohen Tanugi in view of Gaffar in order to provide additional connection and stability to the attachment device when under pressure from use in a clinical setting.
Regarding Claim 31, Cohen Tanugi in view of Gaffar discloses the dental irrigator according to claim 29 substantially as described above, but does not disclose that the elastic element is a spring. In the same art of dental devices, Xu Yu teaches an adapter for a dental device with an elastic element that is a spring (Figure 2, 40). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Cohen Tanugi in view of Gaffar with an elastic spring element as taught by Xu Yu in order to provide for a secure attachment that is able to absorb force and motion without failing or breaking.
Regarding Claim 34, Cohen Tanugi in view of Gaffar discloses the dental irrigator according to claim 29 substantially as described above, but does not disclose the inner connection surface or the first portion of the working tip comprises friction o-rings configured to create a friction fitting between the inner connection surface and the first portion of the working tip. In the same art of dental devices, Xu Yu teaches an adapter for a dental device with o-rings that create a friction fitting between the inner connection surface and the first portion of a working tip (elements 21 and 35 are both o-rings that would create such a friction fit as seen in Figure 2. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Cohen Tanugi in view of Gaffar with the o-rings as taught by Xu Yu in order to provide for additional secure attachment between the connection surface and a working tip.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen Tanugi in view of Gaffar in further view of Pond (US 6,390,815 B1, hereinafter “Pond”).
Regarding Claim 38, Cohen Tanugi in view of Gaffar discloses the invention of Claim 29 substantially as described above, but does not disclose a heater to increase a temperature of a water jet. In the same art of dental irrigators, Pond teaches use of a heating element (Figure 8, 87) to heat fluid before it is discharged into the mouth. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize a heater as taught by Pond with the dental irrigator of Cohen Tanugi in view of Gaffar in order to provide optimal patient comfort (see Pond, Column 7, lines 40-50).
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen Tanugi in view of Gaffar in further view of Berkely (US 2015/0209124 A1).
Regarding Claim 39, Cohen Tanugi in view of Gaffar discloses the invention of Claim 29 substantially as described above, but does not disclose a light source. In the same art of dental adapters, Berkely teaches the use of built in light sources (abstract, and Figure 12, 1202). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize a light source as taught by Berkley with the dental irrigator of Cohen Tanugi in view of Gaffar in order to provide better visualization of the dental working field during use.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen Tanugi in view of Gaffar in further view of Hof (US 2010/0028830 A1).
Regarding Claim 40, Cohen Tanugi in view of Gaffar discloses the invention of Claim 29 substantially as described above, but does not disclose that at least some portions of the dental irrigator are made of sterilizable materials.
In the same art of dental irrigators, Hof teaches the use of sterilizable materials for at least some portions of the dental irrigator ([0050]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize some sterilizable materials as taught by Hof with the dental irrigator of Cohen Tanugi in view of Gaffar in order to create less waste and safely re-use the device.
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen Tanugi in view of Gaffar in further view of Wagner (US 2017/0007384 A1).
Regarding Claim 41, Cohen Tanugi in view of Gaffar discloses the invention of Claim 29 substantially as described above, but does not disclose that the flexible material is an elastomeric material.
In the same art of dental devices, Wagner teaches the use of an elastomeric material for a tip of a water dispenser (Figure 2A, 108 as described in [0142]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize an elastomeric material tip taught by Wagner with the dental irrigator of Cohen Tanugi in view of Gaffar in order to provide a tip with a high level of flexibility as is desired by Cohen Tanugi in view of Gaffar.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments submitted December 2, 2025 have overcome the drawing objections. Additionally, amendments have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection. The corrected IDS without the reference line through has been attached.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 29-41 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The combination of Cohen Tanugi in view of Gaffar teaches the working tip made out of a flexible material and configured for adapting to a morphology of a patient’s tissue as is required by the independent claims as described above.
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.
/CHRISTINE L NELSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/EDWARD MORAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772