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
Claims 16, 17, and 18 objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1 of each of Claims 16, 17, and 18, the word “magnetic” should be changed to “magnet”, as the examiner believes this is the intended meaning of the claim. If that is not the intended meaning, further clarification of these claims will be required. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8-10, 12-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masri et al. (US 2017/0197070 A1, hereinafter “Masri” in view of Dreier et al. (US 2021/0369431 A1, hereinafter “Dreier”).
Regarding Claim 1, Masri discloses a ferrofluid comprising nanoscale or microscale magnetic particles ([0088-0091] teaches the use of nanoparticles that are ferromagnetic in a fluid, i.e, a ferrofluid) applied to the teeth and gums of the patient ([0085]) and a magnet (Figure 9, magnet described in [0033]) configured to emit a magnetic field to manipulate the ferrofluid mixture (abstract).
Masri discloses the invention substantially as claimed, and Marsi teaches the use of a “U-shaped piece” for holding the magnets (Figures 11B and 12 and as described in [0144-0145]), but does not provide a detailed description of the “U-shaped piece.”
In the same art of dental hygiene, Dreier discloses a stringless oral debris removal system (abstract), comprising a U-shaped mouth tray (Figure 1, 1) appropriately fitted to a dental ridge and teeth of a patient ([0065]) and having a trough defined by walls corresponding roughly to the height of the teeth and extending 1mm to 2 inches above or below an upper or lower gum line of the patient (Figure 3A where overmold 29 is seen projecting past upper and lower gum lines to a degree that would be at least 1 mm), where the mouth tray is optically clear ([0065] discloses that the mouth tray can be made of polyurethane or polycarbonate which are optically clear materials) thereby enabling penetration of visible, ultraviolet and infrared light.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize a tray configuration as taught by Dreier with magnets placed in the mouth tray in order to provide a U-shaped delivery system for the ferrofluid and magnets of Masri, as this would provide a stable configuration to administer the ferrofluid mixture within the trough and around the teeth and gumline and stabilize the magnets.
Regarding Claim 2, Masri in view of Dreier discloses the invention of Claim 1, and Dreier further teaches that the mouth tray from a flexible material ([0065] discloses that the mouth tray can be made of polycarbonate which is inherently flexible at least to some degree). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the mouth tray of Masri in view Dreier of a flexible material as is taught by Dreier for ease of insertion and maximum patient comfort.
Regarding Claim 3, Masri in view of Dreier discloses the invention of Claim 1, and Dreier further teaches that the mouth tray is formed in small, medium and large sizes and is customizable to fit patient upper and lower teeth and extend over the patient gum lines ([0065] discloses that the mouth piece is available in multiple sizes and [0009] discloses customization based on the mouthpiece). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the mouth tray of Masri in view Dreier with sizes that could be considered small, medium, and large and that would be customizable as is taught by Dreier for maximum patient fit and effectiveness. Regarding Claims 4 and 5, Masri in view of Dreier discloses the invention of Claim 1, and Dreier further teaches a lighting device configured to emit light through the U-shaped mouth tray (LED’s, 8) that are integrated with the U-shaped mouth tray. The device of Dreier with the LED’s as disclosed, when used for delivery of the ferrofluid and magnets of Masri, would cause the light emitted by the LED’s to transmit onto the ferrofluid, the teeth and the gums. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the LED’s as found in Dreier with the mouth tray of Masri in view Dreier as an additional method of providing antibacterial benefits.
Regarding Claim 8, Masri in view of Dreier discloses the invention of Claim 1, and Masri further teaches that the ferrofluid comprises magnetic particles coated with a polymer ([0115]) for colloidal stability and biofunctionalization.
Regarding Claim 9, Masri in view of Dreier discloses the invention of Claim 1, and Masri further teaches that the ferrofluid comprises a coating material including polyethylene glycol ([0115]).
Regarding Claim 10, Masri in view of Dreier discloses the invention of Claim 1, and Masri further teaches that the ferrofluid contains hydroxyapatite nanoscale or microscale particles ([0048]).
Regarding Claim 12, Masri in view of Dreier discloses the invention of Claim 1, and Masri further teaches that the ferrofluid contains a detergent ([0122]).
Regarding Claim 13, Masri in view of Dreier discloses the invention of Claim 1, and Masri further teaches that the magnet is comprised of iron ([0136]).
Regarding Claim 14, Masri in view of Dreier discloses the invention of Claim 1, and Masri further teaches that the magnet is an electromagnet ([0129]).
Regarding Claim 16, Masri in view of Dreier discloses the invention of Claim 1, and in the modified device the magnet includes a handle (tray handle 5 of Dreier) as the same handle manipulates the tray and the magnet.
Regarding Claim 17, Masri in view of Dreier discloses the invention of Claim 1, and Masri further discloses that the magnet can have a curved shape (Figure 11 B) which would easily connect with the u-shaped trough.
Regarding Claim 18, Masri in view of Dreier discloses the invention of Claim 1, and the shape of the magnets in the modified device would be configured for use with top and bottom trays since as Dreier teaches a tray that can be used for both the top and bottom teeth (as described in [0065] of Dreier ).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masri in view of Dreier in further view of BELKOWSKI (US 2023/0010922 A1, hereinafter “Belkowski”).
Regarding Claim 6, Masri in view of Dreier discloses the invention of Claim 4, but does not specifically teach the color spectrum of the light that is emitted. In the same art of mouth pieces for use with light therapy, Belkowski discloses the use of red light with a wavelength of 600-750 nm ([0026]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the red wavelength light as taught by Belkowski with the device of Masri in view of Dreier, as Belkowski teaches that this is a desired wavelength to enact beneficial effects for oral health.
Regarding Claim 7, Masri in view of Dreier discloses the invention of Claim 1, but does not specifically disclose the use of hydrogen peroxide in the ferrofluid. Belkowski discloses the use of hydrogen peroxide ([0057]) with the fluid of the mouth piece. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize hydrogen peroxide as taught by Belkowski with the mouth guard and ferrofluid of Masri in view of Dreier, in order to impart well known beneficial properties of hydrogen peroxide such as whitening and killing bacteria.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masri in view of Dreier in further view of White et al. (US2017/0151339 A1, hereinafter “White”).
Regarding Claim 11, Masri in view of Dreier discloses the invention of Claim 1, but does not specifically disclose that the ferrofluid contains carbomer. In the art of pharmaceutical formulation, White teaches the use of carbomer as an emulsifier ([0385]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add a known biocompatible emulsifier like carbomer as taught by White to the ferrofluid of Masri in view of Dreier in order to thicken the composition for application for easier application within the mouth piece.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masri in view of Dreier in further view of PEDDI et al. (US 2022/0226073 A1, hereinafter “Peddi”).
Regarding Claim 15, Masri in view of Dreier discloses the invention of Claim 14, but does not specifically disclose that the electromagnet is configured to produce alternating magnetic fields. In the art of controlling the motion of magnetic particles in dental use, Peddi teaches the use of alternating current signals in order to cause an oscillating magnetic field. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize an alternating current as taught by Peddi with the electromagnet of the device of Masri in view of Dreier in order to more closely control the movement of the particles within the ferrofluid to achieve the desired effect.
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 7:30-4:30 PT.
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