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.
Objection to the Drawings
The drawings (Figures 1-23, filed November 18, 2024) are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(l) and (p) which requires that lines, numbers, and letters must be plain, legible and uniform, sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The lines, numbers and letters in the current drawings are uneven, poorly defined and nonuniform.
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance. 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.
Objection to the Claims
Claim 1 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(i) which requires claims setting forth a plurality of elements to separate each claimed element with a line indentation.
Claims 1-15 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(a) for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim what applicant regard to be the invention.
More particularly with regard to claim 1, line 2, the “in particular” language is confusing and not understood. In lines 3 and 4, the “on the one hand” and “on the other hand” language is superfluous and confusing. Additionally, it would help to provide the “base or nozzle body” element with a defined structure to which the “longitudinal direction,” connection region and “treatment end” elements may reasonably be related. The claims are required to “particularly point out and distinctly claim” the invention.
In claim 9, it is unclear how a “laminate of a plurality of pieces of film” reasonably make up the nozzle body.
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 1-8 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brodbeck (US 9,931,422) in view of Valentine (US 4,787,845).
In Figure 3 Brodbeck discloses an application nozzle for applying a dental substance in the oral cavity of a patient, in particular a system for cleaning a dental implant 20 contaminated with biofilm (note abstract), having a base or nozzle body 30 including at least one media channel 2 and a number of electrical conductor elements 2, 19, 10 and 14 (note column 4, lines 15-19) that are integrated. The Brodbeck base or nozzle body 20 appears to be generally cylindrical of constant diameter and lacks the claimed flat design which extends flat in a longitudinal direction from a connection region towards a free treatment end and tapers in its cross-section in the direction of the treatment end. Valentine, however, for a similar dental application nozzle for irrigating and cleansing periodontal pockets (column 1, lines 5 and 6) teaches that it is desirable to form the nozzle tip with flat surfaces 24 extending in a longitudinal direction such that the nozzle tip tapers in cross-section (note Figure 4) in the direction of the distal/treatment end in order to “hold the gum tissue away from the channels thus permitting relative free flow of the fluid to and from the entire pocket” (column 1, lines 52-55). To have formed/designed the Brodbeck nozzle body 20 with a flat tapering shape in order to hold gum tissue away from the treatment site allowing for the free flow to treating fluid throughout the periodontal pocket as taught by Valentine would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In regard to claim 2, note column 14, lines 10-12 of Brodbeck. In regard to claim 3, Valentine teaches that it is desirable to provide for a plurality of outlet openings 27 arranged in the outflow region of the treatment end. In regard to claims 4 and 5, Brodbeck teaches that the conduction element 10 may be formed in a “coaxial configuration” (column 14, line 30) which reasonably suggests (makes obvious) that the coaxial conductor element may be constructed of a conventional prior art multi-strand conductor (i.e. plural conductors). In regard to claim 6, Brodbeck discloses that contact tip14 extends out the distal end so that it may be pressed against the implant to establish electric contact (note column 4, lines 10-20). In regard to claim 7, the Valentine openings 27 are aligned laterally. In regard to claim 8, note Figure 4 of Valentine. In regard to claim 13, any article may be disposed of. In regard to claims 14 and 15, providing a conventional handle for the Brodbeck/Valentine nozzle (e.g. similar to 12 in Valentine) so that the nozzle member may be easily grasped and manipulated would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
In regard to claims 9-12, the prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest an application nozzle for cleaning a dental implant with all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition to the further requirements of claim 9 limiting the nozzle body being designed as a laminate of plurality of pieces of film. It is noted, however, that the claims require further clarification and revision so as to reasonably particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention.
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