Status under America Invents Act
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Drawings
The replacement drawings filed May 31, 2026 are approved.
Rejection based on 35 U.S.C. 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 14, line 2, the “in particular” limitation is not understood. Is the limitation a required element or simply a suggested element?
Rejections based on Prior Art
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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamane et al (US 2016/0000523) in view of Fregoso et al (US 2015/0327963).
In regard to claim 1, Yamane et al discloses an application nozzle for applying a dental active substance in the oral cavity of a patient wherein the nozzle comprises a nozzle body 202 having at least one media channel 22. The nozzle body 202 extends flat in a longitudinal direction between a connection region 201 and a free treatment end 220, tapering in cross-section (“[t]he nozzle body 202 is formed thin and flat such that the external width and thickness are gradually tapered from the connector portion 201” paragraph [0028]). Yamane et al do not disclose that “a number of electrical conductor elements are integrated” in the nozzle body or that the “electrical conductor elements” are positioned “in or on one of the media channels in such a way that they are wetted by cleaning electrolyte as it flows in the respective media channel” as required by claim 1. Fregoso et al, however, for a similar dental application nozzle (note particularly Figure 11) teaches that it is desirable to provide the nozzle with “electrodes are embedded in the tip” so that a “conductive medium such as water and/or fluid is treated by the electrodes and is dispensed into the mouth of a patient after it undergoes an electrical discharge event, an event includes, but is not limited to, cavitation, shock wave production, production of energized particles/ions” (paragraph [0032]). Fregoso et al indicate that the electrical discharge from the electrodes help to “eradicate pollutants, such as bacteria, can include but are not limited to mechanically destroying bacteria and microbial cells, chemically and permanently changing the cells so they cease regular biochemical activity, irreversibly changing the genetic system of the cells . . .” To have provided the Yamane et al nozzle media channel 22 with electrodes so that the treating fluid can be treated to eradicate pollutants such as bacteria as taught by Fregoso et al to be desirable for dental application nozzles would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Additionally, it is noted in regard to the intended use set forth in the preamble of claim 1 regarding the cleaning of an implant part, the Yamane et al/Fregoso et al dental nozzle is capable of such a use.
In regard to claims 4 and 5, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have integrated the conductor elements/electrodes. In regard to claim 8, note generally Figure 4 and 5 of Yaman et al. In regard to claim 13, anything can be disposed of. In regard to claims 14 and 15, note replaceable reservoir 1120 in Fregoso et al.
Claims 1, 6, 8 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamane et al (US 2016/0000523) in view of Gottenbos et al (US 2017/0347787)
In regard to claims 1 and 6, Yamane et al discloses an application nozzle for applying a dental active substance in the oral cavity of a patient wherein the nozzle comprises a nozzle body 202 having at least one media channel 22. The nozzle body 202 extends flat in a longitudinal direction between a connection region 201 and a free treatment end 220, tapering in cross-section (“[t]he nozzle body 202 is formed thin and flat such that the external width and thickness are gradually tapered from the connector portion 201” paragraph [0028]). Yamane et al do not disclose that “a number of electrical conductor elements are integrated” in the nozzle body or that the “electrical conductor elements” are positioned “in or on one of the media channels in such a way that they are wetted by cleaning electrolyte as it flows in the respective media channel” as required by claim 1. Gottenbos et al, however, for a similar dental application nozzle (note particularly Figure 2) teach that it is desirable to provide the nozzle with a first electrode 15 of a first polarity that is embedded in the tip so that a conductive medium wets electrode 15 as it flows through the media channel. Once the fluid is dispensed/administered a second electrode 14 of a second charge charges the dispensed fluid to increase/decrease the fluid’s pH level in order to improve the anti-plaque, anti-tarter, anti-gingivitis, anti-bacterial properties (paragraph [0002]) of the fluid. To have provided the Yamane et al nozzle media channel 22 with an internal electrode 15 and an external electrode 14 so that the dispensed treating fluid can be treated to improve the anti-plaque, anti-tarter, anti-gingivitis, anti-bacterial properties (paragraph [0002]) of the fluid as taught by Gottenbos et al to be desirable for dental application nozzles would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Additionally, it is noted in regard to the intended use set forth in the preamble of claim 1 regarding the cleaning of an implant part, the Yamane et al/Gottenbos et al dental nozzle is capable of such a use.
In regard to claim 8, note generally Figure 4 and 5 of Yaman et al. In regard to claim 13, anything can be disposed of. In regard to claims 14 and 15, note replaceable reservoir 12 in Gottenbos et al.
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamane et al (US 2016/0000523) and Fregoso et al (US 2015/0327963) as applied above, and in further view of Lohn (US 5,082,433).
In regard to claim 3, Lohn teaches that it is desirable to provide dental application nozzles with multiple fluid openings 9 at the distal end in order to distribute the fluid out flow. To have provided the Yamane et al/Fregoso et al dental nozzle with multiple openings for the media channel 22 to better distribute the outflow would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the teaching by Lohn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-12 are objected to as being dependent on a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the claims from which they depend.
Applicant’s Response
Applicant’s response and remarks regarding the prior rejections based upon Brodbeck are found to be generally persuasive, however, the broad scop of the present claims fails to reasonably distinguish the claimed invention from other prior art references as applied above.
Action Made Final
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 Ralph Lewis whose telephone number is (571)272-4712. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9AM-4PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Edelmira Bosques 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
/RALPH A LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
(571) 272-4712
Prosecution Insights