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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 5/11/26.
All previous claim interpretation under 35 USC 112, F is maintained herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments against the drawing objection, the Examiner points to 37 CFR 1.83 which states that the drawings must show each and every feature of the invention, and further that conventional features must be illustrated in the drawings in the form of a symbol or labeled box. As such the objection is maintained as Applicant’s arguments are based on incomplete analysis of MPEP 608.02.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments against the claim interpretation under 35 USC 112, F, the Examiner notes that the interpretation is maintained herein as previously described. If Applicant intends for the claims to not be considered under 35 USC 112, F, the language including the nonstructural modifier and/or generic placeholder should be removed and the claims should be amended to recite specific structure therein.
Regarding the prior art rejections, Applicant argues that Kim does not describe rotating the light sources during use for the purpose of spectral blending and is not capable of such function; however the Examiner does not find such arguments persuasive.
First, the Examiner notes that the term “whereby to spectrally blend light received from the light sources at any irradiated point” is a functional recitation; that is the prior art device must only be capable of performing such function in order to read on the claim.
Second, the Examiner notes that no special definition of the term “spectral blending” is listed in the original disclosure. Further, the claim does not require the light to be blended prior to irradiating the target, does not require the multiple light sources to be applied at the same time, and does not require the light sources to be applied at the same time, while the base plate is rotated, in order to achieve the blending. Indeed, the claim merely states that the base plate is rotatable during use, whereby to spectrally blend light received from the light sources at any irradiated point. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments do not appear to be commensurate with the scope of the claims.
The Examiner notes that in the original disclosure, according to Fig. 5, so long as a target receives levels of different spectra of light, the light can be interpreted as spectrally blended. Accordingly, should lights of different wavelengths be sequentially applied (e.g. one after another), at a high rate of changing of wavelengths (as Kim is capable of being used), since the target would be irradiated with light of multiple wavelengths, the light applied to the target, as a whole, can be interpreted as spectrally blended.
In other words, Kim is capable of rotating the light sources to spectrally blend the light to which the target is exposed to during the curing process; the target can be exposed to wavelengths of all the light sources sequentially, providing a spectrally blended light on the target and meeting the limitations of the claims.
Still further, the Examiner notes that Kim discloses that one of said light sources is a white LED (see [0003]). The Examiner notes that white light is interpreted as spectrally blended, as it comprises wavelengths of multiple colors of light emitted at the same time. As such, in addition to above, the device of Kim can be rotated during use to the position of the white LED to spectrally blend light (e.g. powering on the white LED) and apply the spectrally blended light to the target (e.g. applying the white light, which is spectrally blended, see above).
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but respectfully are not persuasive and additionally are not commensurate with the scope of the claims.
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 battery must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 § 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.
Claim(s) 12-13, 15, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (KR 102028079 B1).
Regarding the above claims, Kim discloses a light curing unit (LCU) for dentistry (100), comprising: a baseplate (130) having a plurality of light sources (132/133/134/135) disposed thereon and arranged to provide irradiation in generally a same direction (e.g. through tip 140); and a mechanism to rotate the baseplate during use (e.g. cavity 111 and opening 113 which allows/provides for manual rotation of the baseplate therein) whereby to spectrally blend light received from the light sources at any irradiated point (capable of being used as such; e.g. device can be rotated continuously and/or discreetly to blend light sources if desired); wherein the plurality of light sources have different emissions spectra (see Machine Translation, page 4, paragraph 3). The device of Kim is further capable of being rotated at a frequency of greater than 0.2 Hz (capable of being rotated as desired by the operator; per claims 12-13 and 19). Kim further discloses wherein the light sources are a plurality of LEDs (see MT, page 4, paragraph 3; per claims 15 and 21).
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.
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(s) 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Ishii et al (JP 2004230122, as evidenced by its Machine Translation).
Regarding claims 14 and 20, Kim discloses that the plurality of light sources comprise at least two LED each having a single emissions spectra peak (see above), including a first LED at 405 nm and a second at 460 nm (see citations above), but does not explicitly teach the second LED has a wavelength of 470 nm as required.
Ishii et al, however, teaches a similar dental curing light (see Fig. 2) with a rotatable element (3a) with a plurality of LEDS (10), wherein the peak emission wavelength of an LED can be 470 nm (see [0022]-[0023] and [0030], Machine Translation). Ishii et al further notes that the LED emission is matched to a common light cure initiator (see [0009]) and that the rotatable element can be electrically rotated (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 460 nm LED of Kim to include Ishii’s use of a 470nm wavelength, as such modification would make use of an old and well known curing wavelength, matching the light to a well-known light cure initiator (see Ishii, [0009]), improving efficiency of curing.
Claim(s) 18 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of LaRocque (US 2010/0190130 A1).
Regarding the above claims, Kim discloses that the rotating mechanism/base member is manually rotatable and wherein the light sources are powered by an internal battery (180), but does not teach wherein the rotating mechanism is powered by an internal battery as required.
LaRocque, however, teaches a similar dental curing light with a rotatable member (202) which is rotated by a motor (200) and powered by an internal battery [0030]. 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 Kim to include LaRocque’s use of a motor and battery to rotate a rotatable member, as such modification would improve ease of use of the device while improving treatment efficiency (see [0006] LaRocque). Further, the Examiner notes that such modification would merely involve the automation of a formerly manual activity, which has been held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan (see MPEP 2144.04(III)).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights