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 Objections
Claim 1 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 3 change “a suction element to place at a first lateral side of the oral cavity” to “a suction element configured to be placed on a first lateral side of the oral cavity”.
Claim 1, line 6 change “an irrigation element to dispose at a second lateral side of the oral cavity” to “an irrigation element configured to be disposed at a second lateral side of the oral cavity”.
Claim 15, line 2-3 change “located exterior to the oral cavity during use” to “configured to be located exterior to the oral cavity during use”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 18-19, 32, 51 and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by LEE (WO2020/045708).
In regard to claim 1, LEE discloses medical device for suction and irrigation of an oral cavity in a patient (see figures 1-9, par 25 discloses an inlet and outlet port), the device comprising:
a suction element (suction hole section 80, wastewater section 60, wastewater outlet section 70) to place at a first lateral side of the oral cavity (see the main suction hole 81 in figure 2 where the suction hole is positioned on one side of a u shaped mouthpiece enabling the positioning of the suction element on one lateral side of the oral cavity), the suction element comprising an elongated arm (above section hole 81/outlet section 70) and at least one suction inlet (main suction hole 81/auxiliary suction hole 82) to suction fluid out of the oral cavity (par 77 discloses the suction hole being used to clear wastewater);
an irrigation element (main body 10, outer cleaning water outlet 21, outer protrusion 20) to dispose at a second lateral side of the oral cavity (see outer protrusion 20, which is the outer wall of the mouthpiece and includes outlets 21, where one side of the outer protrusion is on a second lateral side of the oral cavity as seen in figure 7, enabling the irrigation element to be disposed on a second lateral side of the oral cavity), the irrigation element comprising a plate (main body 10) and one or more irrigation outlets (21) to irrigate the oral cavity with fluid (par 63), the second lateral side opposite the first lateral side (see figure 7, where the suction hole 81 is positioned on one lateral side of the u shaped main body and there is a side of outer protrusion 20 which is on a different opposite lateral side of the u shaped main body) ;
a suction port (outlet 70) to couple with the suction element for removal of fluid from at least a first portion of the oral cavity (see figure 6); and
an irrigation port (inlet port 50) coupled with the irrigation element to provide the fluid thereto to irrigate at least a second portion of the oral cavity (see figure 6).
In regard to claim 3, LEE discloses a bridge (auxiliary protrusion 90) to couple the suction element with the irrigation element (see figure 6).
In regard to claim 18, LEE discloses a suction line fluidly coupled with the suction port (par 104 discloses the connection of the wastewater pipe to the wastewater port from a suction part).
In regard to claim 19, LEE discloses an irrigation line fluidly coupled with the irrigation port (par 72 discloses connecting a cleaning water supply unit to the supply cleaning water to the inlet port 50).
In regard to claim 32, LEE discloses the suction element including at least one of a rectangular shaped slot, a conical shaped slot, an elliptical shaped slot, a semi-circular shaped slot, an almond-shaped slot, a curved slot or a curved slit (see figure 9, which shows the suction element being rectangularly shaped).
In regard to claim 51, LEE discloses the plate (10) configured to dispose between upper and lower teeth of the patient at a location of the oral cavity between the first lateral side and the second lateral side (par 57 discloses the main body 10 being attached to the oral cavity by having the main body being bit by the user).
In regard to claim 53, LEE discloses the suction port (81) fluidically coupled with the suction element to provide negative pressure thereto to suction at least the first portion of the oral cavity (par 106 discloses a motor providing a suction pressure).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamamoto et al (US 2014/0147804).
Regarding claim 6, LEE fails to disclose a center portion of the bridge has a low profile relative to outer portions of the bridge.
However, Yamamoto teaches a bridge (gripper 21) which connects a suction and irrigation element (suction tube 38 and supply tube 13, see figure 2/16) wherein a center portion of the bridge has a low profile relative to outer portions of the bridge (see figure 2/16).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the bridge of Kramer to have a center portion of the bridge has a low profile relative to outer portions of the bridge as taught by Yamamoto for the purpose of providing a fixed distance between the suction and irrigation element without obstructing the view of the working area/mouth.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Harris et al (US 2024/0374365).
Regarding claim 8, LEE further discloses a bridge (90) and the suction port and the irrigation port (50/70) located at the bridge (see figure 1) and laterally offset from a center the bridge (see figure 4), but fails to disclose the bridge is configured to extend outside of the oral cavity during use.
Harris teaches a bridge (mouthpiece 110) and a suction port and the irrigation port (inlet conduit 140 and outlet conduit 160) at the bridge (see figures 1-1C) and laterally offset from a center the bridge (see figures 1-1C) and configured to extend outside of the oral cavity during use (see figure 6) for the purpose of fixing a suction and inlet of fluid when the mouth the lips/oral cavity is closed (par 59).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to have the bridge configured to extend outside of the oral cavity during use as taught by Harris for the purpose of fixing a suction and inlet of fluid connection to the mouth when the lips/mouth are closed.
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Reiz (US 2003/0017433).
Regarding claim 9, Lee fails to disclose the suction element including a paddle, the paddle including the elongated arm with an enlarged head.
However, Reiz teaches a suction element (figure 4) which includes a paddle (paddle like structure 60), the paddle including the elongated arm (suction tip 50) and an enlarged head (paddle 64) for the purpose of retracting the tongue, lips and or the cheeks (par 24).
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 suction element of Lee modified to include a paddle, the paddle including the elongated arm with an enlarged head as taught by Reiz for the purpose of assisting in retracting the tongue.
Regarding claim 10, LEE fails to disclose the suction element including a paddle, the paddle including the elongated arm.
Reiz teaches the suction element (figure 4) including a paddle (60), the paddle including the elongated arm (50) for the purpose of retracting the tongue, lips and or the cheeks (par 24).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify LEE to have the suction element including a paddle, the paddle including the elongated arm as taught by Reiz for the purpose of retracting the tongue.
Regarding claim 11, LEE fails to disclose the suction element comprises a paddle formed on the elongated arm and disposed near a distal end of the suction element.
Reiz teaches the suction element (figure 4) comprises a paddle (64) formed on the elongated arm (50) and disposed near a distal end of the suction element (see figure 4) for the purpose of retracting the tongue, lips and or the cheeks (par 24).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify LEE to have the suction element comprises a paddle formed on the elongated arm and disposed near a distal end of the suction element as taught by Reiz for the purpose of retracting the tongue.
Regarding claim 12, LEE fails to disclose paddle having a raised surface on an inner surface thereof.
Reiz teaches paddle (64) having a raised surface on an inner surface thereof (see figure 5, where the top surface 61 includes a raised circular surface concentric to the outer periphery 66) for the purpose of providing a dry filed of work while retracting the lips, tongue or cheeks (see par 24).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s filing to modify LEE to have paddle having a raised surface on an inner surface thereof as taught by Reiz for the purpose of providing a dry filed of work while retracting the tongue.
Regarding claim 13, Lee discloses at least one suction inlet spaced apart from a distal end of a raised surface of the suction element.
However, Ruiz teaches at least one suction inlet (holes or slots 65) spaced apart from a distal end of a raised surface of the suction element (where the raised center portion is concentric and therefore spaced apart from the outer periphery 66 which includes the slots/holes 65) for the purpose of providing a dry filed of work while retracting the lips, tongue or cheeks (see par 24).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s filing to modify LEE to have at least one suction inlet spaced apart from a distal end of a raised surface of the suction element thereof as taught by Reiz for the purpose of providing a dry filed of work while retracting the tongue.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 19, 51 and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris et al (WO 2023/034578) in view of Kramer (US 2019/0223991).
. Regarding claim 1, Harris discloses a medical device for suction and irrigation of an oral cavity in a patient (see figures 9-9D), the device comprising:
a suction element (outlet conduit 960) to place at a first lateral side of the oral cavity (the limitation is interpreted as intended use, the prior art is capable of performing in view of figure 9, which shows the outlet 962 is positioned on a side of the mouth), the suction element (960) comprising an elongated arm (the exterior of the conduit 960) and at least one suction inlet (962) to suction fluid out of the oral cavity (par 98 discloses the outlet 962 is “for receiving therapeutic fluid from the oral cavity”);
an irrigation element (water flosser instrument 930) to dispose at a second lateral side of the oral cavity (the limitation is interpreted as intended use the prior art is capable of performing in view of the disclosure of par 99 which states “a waterjet 950” extends into “into the oral cavity and which the user manipulates by hand to clean around the teeth and gums”, therefore the flosser instrument is positionable within the oral cavity including a second lateral side if so desired) , the irrigation element comprising one or more irrigation outlets (inlet 942) to irrigate the oral cavity with fluid (via the water flosser jet 950, which is inserted into the inlet as disclosed in par 105), the second lateral side opposite the first lateral side (interpreted as intended use, the first lateral side would be at the inlet 962 and the opposite side is interpreted as the second lateral side, where the water flosser jet 950 can be positioned);
a suction port (fluid output 970) to couple with the suction element for removal of fluid from at least a first portion of the oral cavity (see figure 9C); and an
irrigation port (pointed out as 930, the end that connects to the fluid source 920) coupled with the irrigation element to provide the fluid thereto to irrigate at least a second portion of the oral cavity (see figure 9C and par 99 discloses “he pressurized fluid source 920 is ejected through a waterjet 950 (FIG. 9C) which is extended into the oral cavity”.
Harris fails to disclose the irrigation element including a plate.
However, Kramer teaches an irrigation element (liquid feed line 65) with a plate (headpiece 70 includes plate elements of the upper and lower segments 72 and 74) for the purpose of providing multiple fluid outlets in a uniform manner to enable uniform cleaning and fluid pressure delivery (par 13).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harris to have the irrigation element include a plate as taught by Kramer for the purpose of providing multiple fluid outlets in a uniform manner to enable uniform cleaning and fluid pressure delivery.
Regarding claim 3, Harris further discloses a bridge (mouthpiece 910) to couple the suction element (960) with the irrigation element (930, see figure 9C).
Regarding claim 6, Harris further discloses a center portion (flexible membrane 940) of the bridge (910) has a low profile relative to outer portions of the bridge (lip engaging surface 912, see figures 9A-9B, where the thickness of the lip engaging surface 912 is greater than the membrane 940 which enables the outlet and inlets 962 and 942).
Regarding claim 19, Kramer further teaches an irrigation line (rigid supply line 55) fluidly coupled with the irrigation port (liquid feed line 65, see par 83) for the purpose of providing exterior cleaning fluid (par 83).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harris to have the irrigation line fluidly coupled with the irrigation port as taught by Kramer for the purpose of providing exterior cleaning fluid.
Regarding claim 51, Kramer further teaches the plate (72/74) configured to dispose between upper and lower teeth of the patent at a second location of the oral cavity (see figure 3, where seam region 73 is positioned between the teeth), for the reasons set forth above.
Regarding claim 53, Harris further discloses the suction port (970) fluidically coupled with the suction element (960) to provide negative pressure thereto to suction at least the first portion of the oral cavity (par 99 discloses the suction or fluid output via the outlet 962).
Claims 9-13, 32, 50 and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris et al in view of Kramer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wakefield (US 2019/0262110).
Regarding claim 9, Harris/Kramer fails to disclose the suction element including a paddle, the paddle including the elongated arm with an enlarged head.
Wakefield teaches a suction element (device 1) including a paddle (buccal plate 100), the paddle (100) including an elongated arm (oral evacuation tube 107) with an enlarged head (see figure 2, starting at curved neck 109 extending to distal aperture 101) for the purpose of reducing the risk of damage to soft tissue (par 104).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harris/Kramer to have the suction element including a paddle, the paddle including the elongated arm with an enlarged head as taught by Wakefield for the purpose of reducing the risk of damage to soft tissue.
Regarding claim 10, Harris/Kramer fails to disclose the suction element including a paddle, the paddle including the elongated arm.
Wakefield further teaches a suction element (1) including a paddle (100), the paddle including the elongated arm (107, see figure 2) for the purpose of reducing the risk of damage to soft tissue (par 104).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harris/Kramer to have the suction element including a paddle, the paddle including the elongated arm as taught by Wakefield for the purpose of reducing the risk of damage to soft tissue.
Regarding claim 11, Harris/Kramer fails to disclose the suction element comprises a paddle formed on the elongated arm and disposed near a distal end of the suction element.
Wakefield teaches a suction element (1) comprises a paddle (100) formed on the elongated arm (107) and disposed near a distal end of the suction element (see figure 2) for the purpose of reducing the risk of damage to soft tissue (par 104).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harris/Kramer to have the suction element comprises a paddle formed on the elongated arm and disposed near a distal end of the suction element as taught by Wakefield for the purpose of reducing the risk of damage to soft tissue.
Regarding claim 12, Harris/Kramer discloses the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 1, but fails to disclose a paddle having a raised surface on an inner surface thereof.
Wakefield teaches a paddle (100) having a raised surface on an inner surface (bite plate 104, see figure 1 and 13) for the purpose of reducing the risk of damage to soft tissue (par 104).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harris/Kramer to have a paddle having a raised surface on an inner surface thereof as taught by Wakefield for the purpose of reducing the risk of damage to soft tissue.
Regarding claim 13, Harris/Kramer fails to disclose at least one suction inlet spaced apart from a distal end of a raised surface of the suction element.
However, Wakefield teaches at least one suction inlet (apertures 105) spaced apart from a distal end of a raised surface of the suction element (104, the distal end having 101, see figure 3) for the purpose of minimizing the risk of aerosol formation (see par 144).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify Kramer to have at least one suction inlet spaced apart from a distal end of a raised surface of the suction element as taught by Wakefield for the purpose of minimizing the risk of aerosol formation.
Regarding claim 32, Harris/Kramer fails to disclose the suction element including at least one of a rectangular shaped slot, a conical shaped slot, an elliptical shaped slot, a semi-circular shaped slot, an almond shaped slot a curved slot or a curved slit.
Wakefield teaches the suction element (1) having the suction element including at least one of a rectangular shaped slot, a conical shaped slot, an elliptical shaped slot, a semi-circular shaped slot, an almond shaped slot a curved slot or a curved slit (distal aperture 101, see figure 8 and par 141) for the purpose of enabling the collection of most forms of debris, such as saliva, blood and debris (par 142).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harris/Kramer to have the suction element including at least one of a rectangular shaped slot, a conical shaped slot, an elliptical shaped slot, a semi-circular shaped slot, an almond shaped slot a curved slot or a curved slit as taught by Wakefield for the purpose of enabling the collection of most forms of debris.
Regarding claim 50, Harris/Kramer fails to disclose the elongated arm configured to dispose between a cheek and upper and lower teeth of the patient at the location of the oral cavity.
However, Wakefield teaches the elongated arm (106) configured to dispose between a cheek and upper and lower teeth of the patient at the location of the oral cavity (see figure 13 and par 24) for the purpose of reducing the risk of damage to soft tissue (par 104).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harris/Kramer to have the elongated arm configured to dispose between a cheek and upper and lower teeth of the patient at the location of the oral cavity as taught by Wakefield for the purpose of reducing the risk of damage to soft tissue.
Regarding claim 52, Harris/Kramer fails to disclose the suction element including a paddle for placement between a check and upper and lower teeth of the patient at a location of the oral cavity.
However, Wakefield teaches the suction element including a paddle (100) for placement between a check and upper and lower teeth of the patient at a location of the oral cavity (see figure 13) for the purpose of reducing the risk of damage to soft tissue (par 104).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harris/Kramer to have the suction element including a paddle for placement between a check and upper and lower teeth of the patient at a location of the oral cavity as taught by Wakefield for the purpose of reducing the risk of damage to soft tissue.
Claims 15, 26 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris et al in view of Kramer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Prendergast et al (US 2020/0054426).
Regarding claim 15, Harris/Kramer discloses the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 1, but fails to disclose a clip to releasably couple with the suction port and the irrigation port and located exterior to the oral cavity during use, the clip configured to control a distance between inner edges of the suction element and the irrigation element when the device is placed within the oral cavity.
However, Prendergast teaches a clip (track 202) to releasably couple with the suction port and the irrigation port (see figure13A-B, par 97 discloses the track can be coupled to the handle 104 of the irrigation tip 114 and connecting to the slider 198 which connects to the suction assembly 106) and located exterior to the oral cavity during use (see par 28-29), the clip configured to control a distance between inner edges of the suction element and the irrigation element when the device is placed within the oral cavity (see figure 28 –29 and par 97 which discloses the suction head and the irrigation head of the tooth brush moving relative to one another).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harris/Kramer to have a clip to releasably couple with the suction port and the irrigation port and located exterior to the oral cavity during use, the clip configured to control a distance between inner edges of the suction element and the irrigation element when the device is placed within the oral cavity as taught by Prendergast for the purpose of adjustably positioning the irrigation and suction elements into a desired place in the mouth.
Regarding claim 26, Harris/Kramer discloses the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 1, but fails to disclose a locking mechanism to releasably couple with the suction port and the irrigation port and exterior to the oral cavity during use, the locking mechanism including a first arm having at least one clip and a second arm having at least one ridge, the at least one ridge being releasably engaged by the at least one clip and configure to control a distance between the suction element and the irrigation element with the device placed within the oral cavity.
However, Prendergast teaches a locking mechanism (slider 256, see figures 22A, par 114 discloses the closed end of the tracker acting as a stopper mechanism/lock) to releasably couple with the suction port (suction connection 278) and the irrigation port (housing 126 which includes the irrigation compartment, see par 90 and see par 109 which discloses the coupling of the components to the handle ) and exterior to the oral cavity during use (where the connection is on the handle and therefore exterior to the oral cavity during use, see figure 28-29), the locking mechanism including a first arm having at least one clip (protrusion 268) and a second arm having at least one ridge (ribs 266 of track 260), the at least one ridge being releasably engaged by the at least one clip and configure to control a distance between the suction element and the irrigation element with the device placed within the oral cavity (see figures 23A-B, and par 111-112 which discloses the movement of the protrusion along the track in a manner that controls the distance between the tip 112 with the irrigation ports 124 and the suction tip 204).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harris/Kramer to include a locking mechanism to releasably couple with the suction port and the irrigation port and exterior to the oral cavity during use, the locking mechanism including a first arm having at least one clip and a second arm having at least one ridge, the at least one ridge being releasably engaged by the at least one clip and configure to control a distance between the suction element and the irrigation element with the device placed within the oral cavity as taught by Prendergast for the purpose of adjustably positioning the irrigation and suction elements into a desired place in the mouth.
Regarding claim 29, Harris/Kramer discloses the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 1, but fails to disclose a handle mechanism including male and female connectors, the male and female connectors including first and second tabs, respectively, ant the first tab and the second tab are releasably engaged when pressed together to control a distance between the suction and the irrigation element.
However, Prendergast teaches a handle mechanism (figures 21-23, see par 109) including male and female connectors (protrusion 268 and track 260), the male and female connectors including first and second tabs (see figures 21 and 21A), respectively, and the first tab and the second tab are releasably engaged when pressed together to control a distance between the suction and the irrigation element (112 and 204, see par 109).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harris/Kramer to include a handle mechanism including male and female connectors, the male and female connectors including first and second tabs, respectively, ant the first tab and the second tab are releasably engaged when pressed together to control a distance between the suction and the irrigation element as taught by Prendergast for the purpose of adjustably positioning the irrigation and suction elements into a desired place in the mouth.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris et al in view of Kramer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McGuire (US 5,203,699).
Regarding claim 17, Harris discloses a bridge (910) which connects the irrigation element and suction element (see figure 9), but Harris/Kramer fail to disclose the suction port and the irrigation port each including a positioning slot for releasably receiving a clip where the positioning slot is located at a distance away from a front surface of the bridge and at least one slot of the clip is located to allow the suction port and the irrigation port to be moved together with the clip placed at the positioning slots thereby widening the distance between inner edges of the suction element and irrigation element.
However, McGuire discloses an means for adjustment between two tubular members (see figure 6) that teaches two ports (tubes 60/61) each including a positioning slot (exposed surface of the tubes 60/61 between the adapter tube 70 and the rollers 25) for releasably receiving a clip (slide collar 65, see col 7, lines33-40 which discloses intermittent connections between the components of the tube arrangement) where the positioning slot is located at a distance away from a front surface of a bridge (retaining members 12, see figure 6) and at least one slot of the clip (bore 67) is located to allow the two ports to be moved together with the clip placed at the positioning slots thereby widening the distance between inner edges of the two distal elements (see figure 6 and col 7, lines 8-15 which discloses the sliding of the collar along the exposed tube members to modify the distance between the two distal ends) for the purpose of providing the best configuration for the patient’s mouth (col 7, lines 17-19).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicants invention to modify Harris/Kramer to have the suction port and the irrigation port each including a positioning slot for releasably receiving a clip where the positioning slot is located at a distance away from a front surface of a bridge and at least one slot of the clip is located to allow the suction port and the irrigation port to be moved together with the clip placed at the positioning slots thereby widening the distance between inner edges of the suction element and irrigation element as taught by McGuire for the purpose of providing modifications of the arrangement of the suction and irrigation elements to best accommodate the patient’s mouth.
Claim 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris et al in view of Kramer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamamoto et al (US 2014/0147804).
Regarding claim 18, Harris/Kramer fails to explicitly disclose a suction line fluidly coupled to the suction port.
However, Yamamoto teaches a suction port (outlet 762) which fluidly couples to a suction line (par 80 discloses the outlet connecting to the output conduit 760) for the purpose of safely dispose of residual pressurized fluids (par 80).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harris/Kramer to have a suction line fluidly coupled to the suction port as taught by Yamamoto for the purpose of safely dispose of residual pressurized fluids.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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.
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
4/15/2026
Prosecution Insights