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 .
Acknowledgement made of amendment filed 8/13/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cipolla (US 5,616,141) in view of Richardson et al. (US 6,377,739 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Cipolla teaches a handheld curing light (10, figure 1) comprising:
a laser (12, figure 1) as a light source which emits a laser beam;
a fiber (14, figure 1) directly connected to the laser to receive and transport the laser beam, the fiber having two ends, one end being coupled to the laser and the other having a divergent aperture (column 6 lines 7-10),
a collimating lens (24, figure 2) positioned to receive the divergent laser light after it is emitted by the fiber, and
a reflective surface (30, figure 2) positioned to receive the collimated light form the lens and direct said light towards a target;
wherein light is made divergent by the divergent aperture of the opposite end of the fiber (column 6 lines 7-10).
Cipolla does not teach the diode laser and wherein light is not divergent upon receipt by the fiber from the laser module.
Richardson teaches the diode laser (claim 15), and
The light is not divergent upon receipt by the fiber from the laser module (see ray trace from 2a-c to 3a-c, figure 32).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the dental tool of Cipolla to use a converging coupling optic as taught in Richardson in order to improve light coupling efficiency.
Regarding claim 2, Cipolla in view of Richardson teaches the claimed invention except for specifying that the parallel laser beam has an effective length ranging from 2 to 14 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the effective length of the parallel laser beam 2 to 14 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the light source of Cipolla in view of Richardson to make the effective length range from 2 to 14 mm in order to improve photo curing for oral applications.
Regarding claim 3, Cipolla in view of Richardson teaches the claimed invention except for specifying that the intensity variation across the emitted parallel laser beam is less than 15%. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the intensity variation across the laser beam less than 15%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the light source of Cipolla in view of Richardson to make the intensity more uniform across the laser beam in order to ensure a more even curing.
Regarding claim 4, Cipolla in view of Richardson teaches the claimed invention except for specifying that the divergence of the parallel laser beam is less than 10 degrees from the beam exit to a 10mm distance. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the divergence of the parallel laser beam is less than 10 degrees from the beam exit to a 10mm distance, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the light source of Cipolla in view of Richardson to make the divergence less than 10 degrees from beam exit to a distance of 10mm in order to get a good cure without precisely positioning the light.
Regarding claim 5, Cipolla in view of Richardson teaches the claimed invention except for specifying that the beam intensity variation of the parallel laser beam is less than 15% from the beam exit to a 10mm distance. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the beam intensity variation of the parallel laser beam less than 15% from the beam exit to a 10mm distance, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the light source of Cipolla in view of Richardson to make the intensity more uniform across the laser beam in order to ensure a more even curing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s argument (page 4, paragraph 2) that Cipolla is mistaken in the assertion that laser light is naturally divergent from the end of the fiber, and that a structure of the emission end is responsible for acting upon the light to make it divergent. Examiner notes that the specification provides no support for the structure of the emission end being responsible for diverging the laser. See paragraph 0043 of the USPGPUB of this application. In that paragraph it’s only indicated that the refractive indices of the fiber and the cladding are usually different and that both the values are used to determine the systems NA. In paragraph 0008 of the USPGPUB of this application it merely states that the device may utilize either a fiber with a divergent numerical aperture or a divergent lens or a lens system. But this paragraph clearly distinguishes a fiber with a divergent numerical aperture from a divergent lens used to diverge a beam from the fiber as do the embodiments shown in figure 21. Therefore, the teaching that a diverging beam is emitted from the fiber of Cipolla and that this fiber optical arrangement tends to produce a diverging beam is sufficient to teach ‘is made divergent by the divergent aperture of the opposite end of the fiber’.
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 RYAN D HOWARD whose telephone number is (571)270-5358. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00.
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, Minh-Toan Ton can be reached at 5712722303. 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.
/RYAN D HOWARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
10/13/2026
