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.
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) 1-9 and 11-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montgomery (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 20150342839, from hereinafter “Montgomery”) in view of Pinyayev et al. (WO 2006098719, from hereinafter “Pinyayev”)
In regards to claims 1 and 12, Montgomery teaches a method and exposure apparatus for illuminating a dental object (see abstract) comprising a chamber for receiving the dental object (FIGS. 1-2, over molded cup 10, paragraph 0153, “the over molded cup forms a small chamber that controls the positioning and movement of the gel on the tooth surface while emitting light energy…”) and a radiation source for exposing the dental object to a wavelength greater than 350 nm (paragraph 0056) and a power density greater than 5 W/cm^2 (paragraph 0056).
In regards to claims 1 and 12, Montgomery fails to teach a power density greater than 10 W/cm^2.
Pinyayev teaches a power density greater than 10 W/cm^2 (discusses 1-10,000 mW/cm^2, 10,000 mW is 1W).
In view of the teaching of Pinyayev it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the power density be greater than 10 W/cm^2. As Pinyayev discusses explicitly, “biostimulation” occurs at this power. As such, it would have been obvious.
In regards to claims 2 and 13, Montgomery teaches that the wavelength is greater than 700 nm (paragraph 0056 teaches up to 700 nm).
In regards to claims 3 and 14, the power of the radiation is more than 1 W (discusses 1-10,000 mW/cm^2, 10,000 mW is 1W).
In regards to claim 4, Montgomery teaches that the radiation source is formed by LEDs (paragraph 0056).
In regards to claims 6 and 15, Montgomery fails to teach that the radiation is emitted in a wavelength range between 350-1800 nm (paragraph 0056).
In regards to claims 7 and 16, Montgomery teaches that the radiation is emitted in a wavelength range of 350-1500 nm (paragraph 0056).
In regards to claims 8 and 17, Montgomery teaches that the radiation is emitted in a wavelength range of 350-1100 nm (paragraph 0056).
In regards to claim 9, Montgomery teaches that the exposure device comprises an intensity adjuster for adjusting a radiation intensity of the radiation source (paragraph 0056 teaches various intensities, therefore the device must be capable of changing the intensity).
In regards to claims 11 and 18, Montgomery teaches that the device comprises a timer for activating the radiation source for a predetermined period of time (paragraphs 0054, 0077, 0118, etc.).
In regards to claim 5, Montgomery as modified by Pinyayev fails to teach that the radiation is formed by a ND-Yag laser. Rather, these references teach LED’s. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, since it has been held that art recognized equivalents (in this case, a strong LED to a less powerful ND-Yag laser) are in fact obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE M IPPOLITO whose telephone number is (571)270-7449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:00am-4:00pm Mountain Time.
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, Robert H Kim can be reached at 571-272-2293. 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.
/NICOLE M IPPOLITO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights