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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 1/6/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-13 and 18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/6/26.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
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 1-7 and 14-17 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, the term “converging-diverging nozzle” is indefinite as it is unclear what specific structure the term imparts to the nozzle. For example although the term requires the nozzle to converge and diverge, it is unclear where or how said converging and diverging occurs (for example in the inner profile, outer profile, with a smooth taper, arcuate taper or stepped transition). It is unclear what structure is encompassed by the term. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 2, the term “a manually operated safety valve” is indefinite, as it is unclear what, if any particular structure is required by the term. Specifically, as best understood by the Examiner, the “safety valve” is not a separate component per se (as evidenced by the original disclosure) but instead the hole in the swivel ring, in combination with the users finger covering and uncovering the hole, forms said safety valve, and will be interpreted as such. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 3, the term “a process intensification valve” is indefinite, as it is unclear what, if any particular structure is required by the term. Specifically, as best understood by the Examiner, the “intensification valve” is not a separate component per se (as evidenced by the original disclosure) but instead an additional hole in the swivel ring, in combination with the users finger covering and uncovering the hole, forms said intensification valve, and will be interpreted as such. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 5, the term “compressed liquid source” is indefinite as it is unclear how or what liquid used in the system is compressed. As best understood by the Examiner the liquid used is water, which is generally considered incompressible. As best understood by the Examiner, the term is interpreted to mean “pressurized” and will be interpreted as such. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 7, the claim depends from claim 1, and the terms “compressed liquid source” and “source of electricity” lack antecedent basis in the claims. Additionally it is unclear what said sources refer to. Still further, the term “compressed liquid source” is indefinite for the same reasons as explained above. Still further, the term “is a dental supply unit” is indefinite, as it is unclear how a source of fluid or electricity is a supply unit (the term should read “are located in a dental supply unit” or the like, as best understood). As best understood by the Examiner, since the claim depends from claim 1, where only the compressed gas source is required, the liquid and electric sources are interpreted as not positively required or recited by claim 7. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 14, the claim as a whole is indefinite as it is unclear how the housing is provided with a vacuum source yet is also exposed to atmospheric air via the fluidizing plate. Further the term “feeder in a powder feeder holder” is indefinite as it is unclear what particular structure the term corresponds too. The term “the feeder” additionally lacks antecedent basis in the claims. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 15, the claim as a whole is indefinite as it refers to the “powder feeder holder” but makes no mention of the previously recited “feeder” and/or how it is incorporated into the powder feeder holder. As such it remains unclear what the feeder refers to and also unclear what structure the powder feeder holder actually encompasses. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 16, the claim depends on claim 5, and the “source of electricity” lacks antecedent basis in the claim. Additionally it is unclear what said source refers to. Still further, the term “compressed liquid source” is indefinite for the same reasons as explained above. Still further, the term “is a dental supply unit” is indefinite, as it is unclear how a source of fluid or electricity is a supply unit (the term should read “are located in a dental supply unit” or the like, as best understood). As best understood by the Examiner, since the claim depends from claim 5, where only the compressed gas source and liquid source are required, the electric source is interpreted as not positively required or recited by claim 16. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 17, the term depends on claim 6, and the “compressed liquid source” lacks antecedent basis in the claim. Additionally it is unclear what said source refers to. Still further, the term “compressed liquid source” is indefinite for the same reasons as explained above. Still further, the term “is a dental supply unit” is indefinite, as it is unclear how a source of fluid or electricity is a supply unit (the term should read “are located in a dental supply unit” or the like, as best understood). As best understood by the Examiner, since the claim depends from claim 6, where only the compressed gas source and electric source are required, the liquid source is interpreted as not positively required or recited by claim 17. Clarification is required.
All other claims not specifically addressed above are rejected based on their dependency on a previously rejected claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruns et al (US 5765759) in view of Larson et al (US 2744361).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Bruns discloses a dental apparatus for generating a jet of gas mixed with solid powder particles (see abstract, col 1, line 14 and Figs. 1-5), the dental apparatus comprising: a compressed gas source (see col 1, line 35; col 2, line 42); a nozzle (6/7) within a tip (A, below) for directing the jet of gas mixed with solid powder particles against a surface (configured to be used as such), where an inlet of the nozzle is operably coupled to the compressed gas source (via line 9; at the top of the nozzle); a handle (B) which holds at one end the tip (via swivel ring C) and a supply cable (D) connected to the compressed gas source at the other end, where the connections between them are sealed and secured, and fluid communication within them is established (see col 4, lines 5-10; implicitly or else gas could not be conveyed); and a powder feeder (E) operably coupled with the nozzle for feeding solid powder particles into the jet of gas (via line 10). Bruns et al additionally discloses wherein where the compressed gas source is a dental supply unit (remote source of compressed gas interpreted as a dental supply unit as it is used in a dental procedure; additionally, as noted above the Examiner interprets the liquid source and electricity source to not be positively required in claim 7, see above). Bruns, however, does not teach wherein the nozzle is a converging diverging nozzle with the powder feeder operably coupled with a diverging side of the nozzle as required.
PNG
media_image1.png
658
880
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Larson et al, however, teaches a similar apparatus for generating an abrasive jet, comprising a converging diverging nozzle (18/22) within a tip (12) for directing the abrasive jet against a surface, where an inlet of the converging diverging nozzle is operably coupled to a compressed gas source (via line 15), and an abrasive feeder (19) operably coupled with a diverging side of the converging diverging nozzle (at 30) for feeding the abrasive into the jet of gas (see Figs. 3-4). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Bruns et al to include Larson’s converging-diverging nozzle with gas and abrasive inlet locations, as such modification would improve the speed of the fluid and accelerate the gas, while providing uniform abrasive distribution, thereby improving treatment efficiency.
Claim(s) 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruns et al in view of Larson et al (US 4214871), as best understood by the Examiner.
Regarding claim 2, Bruns/Larson, as combined above, discloses a swivel ring (C above) which has a rotational connection with the handle, and the handle having a powder channel along the handles elongated interior (20/22), but does not teach the swivel ring having a first opening across its wall in fluid communication with the powder channel, thereby forming a manually operated safety valve as required.
Arnold, however, teaches as similar dental apparatus for generating a jet of gas mixed with abrasives, comprising a swivel ring (10) having a first opening (52) across its wall in fluid communication with an abrasive channel (e.g. path that abrasive follows from source), thereby forming a manually operated safety valve which works via operator finger covering/unveiling of the opening for feeding/not feeding the abrasive into the jet of gas (see col 4. Lines 51-55). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Bruns/Larson, as combined above, to include Arnold’s hole forming the safety valve in the swivel ring, as such modification would allow control of stopping and starting the abrasive stream.
Regarding claims 3-4, Bruns/Larson/Arnold, as combined above, does not teach where the swivel ring has a second opening across its wall which together with finger covering/unveiling create a manually operated process intensification valve which can be used to change the volume ratio of solid powder particles to gas in the jet of the mixture, or wherein the swivel ring has a third opening across its wall for stabilizing the flow of powder particles in the powder channel as required. However, the Examiner notes that such modification would merely involve a duplication of the hole of the swivel ring as taught by Arnold (see above). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Bruns/Larson/Arnold, as combined above, to provide a second and/or third hole in the swivel ring, forming finger controlled valves, as such modification would merely involve the duplication of known parts of the device, which has been held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)). The Examiner notes that should the device of Bruns/Larson/Arnold, be modified to include additional holes, as modified above, the additional openings would provide for creating a process intensification valve to change the volume ratio of solid powder particles to gas in the jet of the mixture and stabilize the flow of powder, via use with the user’s fingers, at least to some degree.
Claim(s) 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruns et al in view of Larson et al, further in view of Beani et al (DE 102019125019 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Bruns/Larson, as combined above, does not teach a compressed liquid source; a liquid whirl chamber created inside the tip where a liquid inlet passage connected with the compressed liquid source is introduced tangentially which force a stream of the compressed liquid to flow in a swirling manner; and a liquid nozzle incorporated into the tip and disposed coaxially with the outside wall of the converging-diverging nozzle for the creation of a liquid annular discharge orifice which is slightly upstream of the converging diverging nozzle outlet as required.
Beani et al, however, teaches a similar dental apparatus for generating a jet of gas mixed with abrasives, comprising a compressed (pressurized) liquid source (21; pressurized in order to flow); a liquid whirl chamber (12) created inside a tip (1) where a liquid inlet passage connected with the liquid source is introduced tangentially (at 53, see Fig. 1) which force stream of the liquid to flow in a swirling manner (at least to some degree); and a liquid nozzle (opening at 12) incorporated into the tip and disposed coaxially with the outside wall of a nozzle (see Fig. 1) for the creation of a liquid annular discharge orifice which is slightly upstream of the nozzle outlet (see Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Bruns/Larson, as combined above, to include the liquid source, whirl chamber and liquid nozzle, as taught by Beani, as such modification would reduce dust production and spread while the device is in use.
Regarding claim 16, as best understood by the Examiner, Bruns/Larson/Beani, as combined above, teaches wherein the compressed gas source and the source of liquid is a dental supply unit (see Bruns (remote source of compressed gas interpreted as a dental supply unit as it is used in a dental procedure) and Beani (source of liquid interpreted as a dental supply unit as it is used in a dental procedure); additionally as noted above the Examiner interprets the electricity source to not be positively required in claim 16, see above).
Claim(s) 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruns et al in view of Larson et al, as combined above, in view of Castellini (IT 102002901010925) further in view of Liu et al (CN 109498183 A).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Bruns/Larson, as combined above does not teach a source of electricity; and an LED lamp installed inside a fitting connector of the supply cable connected to the source of electricity and optically connected to fiber optics installed inside the handle and the tip which transmits light to the converging-diverging nozzle outlet, or wherein the compressed gas source, the compressed liquid source, and the source of electricity is a dental supply unit as required.
Castellini, however, teaches a similar dental apparatus for generating a jet of gas mixed with abrasives (see Fig. 4), comprising a dental unit with a lamp and a source of electricity (20), a fitting connector of the supply cable (where cable connects to 20), and optically connected to fiber optics (9/9a) installed inside a handle and tip which transmit light to the nozzle outlet (see Fig. 4; machine translation page 4, last 2 paragraphs and page 5, first 2 paragraphs). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Bruns/Larson, as combined above, to include Castellini’s lamp and source of electricity, as such modification would improve visibility of the working area.
The Examiner notes that Bruns/Larson/Castellini, as combined above, teaches the lamp can be relocated from the handle (Fig. 1), to the dental unit (Fig. 4), but does not explicitly teach placing the lamp inside the fitting connector of the supply cable as required. However, the Examiner notes, that as Castellini already contemplates rearranging the location of the lamp, such modification would merely involve a relocation of known parts of the device, which has been held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Bruns/Larson/Castellini, as combined above, to place the lamp in the fitting connector of the cable, as such modification would merely involve a rearrangement of known parts of the device, which has been held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)).
Liu et al, however, teaches a similar dental apparatus for generating a jet of gas mixed with abrasives with lighting means comprising an LED (211; see Machine Translation, page 9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Bruns/Larson/Castellini, as combined above, to include Liu’s teaching of using an LED lamp, as such modification would reduce heat output and minimize size and costs of the lamp.
Regarding claim 17, as best understood by the Examiner, Bruns/Larson/Castellini/Liu, as combined above, teaches wherein the compressed gas source and the source of electricity is a dental supply unit (see Bruns (remote source of compressed gas interpreted as a dental supply unit as it is used in a dental procedure) and Castellini (electric source in supply unit 20); additionally as noted above the Examiner interprets the liquid source to not be positively required in claim 17, see above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD MORAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 AM-4 PM EST.
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.
/EDWARD MORAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772