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
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 6 recites the limitation of “the bottom egress half” in line 9, but should read “the egress half”.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 12 recites the limitation of “the bottom egress half” in line 11, but should read “the egress half”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 3-5, 8-10, 17-19 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.
Claims 3, 8, and 17 each recite “there are four proximal ports” however each claim depends from an independent claim that establishes both “ingress proximal ports” and “egress proximal ports” and thus it is unclear if the “proximal ports” of claims 3, 8, and 17 are further limiting the number of ingress proximal ports only, the number of egress proximal ports only, or some combined total number of both the ingress and egress proximal ports together. For purposes of examination any prior art which provides for any combination will be deemed to provide for the claim limitations.
Claims 4, 9, and 18, each recite “wherein the ingress proximal ports are adapted to substantially align with implanted denture mounting abutments”, however the claimed system is only directed to a mouthpiece and does not include any denture mounting abutments, nor indicates how such denture mounting abutments would be aligned themselves and thus links the structural arrangement of the ingress proximal ports to some undefined arrangement of abutments which renders the structure of the ingress proximal ports indefinite. For purposes of examination any prior art that provides ingress proximal ports that could in any way align with possible denture abutments in a mouth will be deemed to provide for the claim limitations.
Claims 5, 10, and 19 each recite the limitation of “wherein the ingress proximal ports are adapted to clip on to the denture mounting abutments”, however the claimed system is only directed to a mouthpiece and does not include any denture mounting abutments, nor indicates how such denture mounting abutments would be structured themselves and thus links the structural arrangement of the ingress proximal ports ability to clip to some undefined structural arrangement of undefined abutments which renders the structure of the ingress proximal ports which would thus be able to clip to the abutments indefinite. For purposes of examination any prior art that provides ingress proximal ports that could in any way clip or hold against possible denture abutments in a mouth will be deemed to provide for the claim limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (KR 20210097404 A-translation cited).
PNG
media_image1.png
520
845
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Lee discloses a system for cleaning space between dentures and gum lines (Fig. 1 all) comprising:
a substantially planar, flexible (page 1 last line to line 1 of page 2 disclosing the mouth piece made of a flexible material) mouthpiece having a longitudinal axis bilaterally dividing a right side and a left side (see image above, regarding the term “substantially planar” MPEP 2173.05(b)III d provides that the term “substantially” is a broad term and as understood by the instant specification the mouth piece is not literally a plane which would only have x and y dimension with no z dimension, the term “substantially planar” is deemed to only require a mouthpiece that would in some-way resemble a plane such as by having greater length(x) and width (y) than its height (z) as shown in applicant’s figure 1 where the mouth pieces do have a height(z) dimension);
a proximal end of the mouthpiece substantially forming a crescent (See image above),
a distal end of the mouthpiece stemming perpendicularly from the proximal end of the mouthpiece on the longitudinal axis (See image above);
the mouthpiece having a coplanar top ingress half and bottom egress half separable by a central planar axis coplanar to the longitudinal axis(See image above and Figs. 3 and 5 showing the two halves are separable at a coplanar axis, regarding the terms “top” and bottom” when placed on an upper jaw or lower jar either the 1st half or the 2nd half would switch from a “top” to a “bottom”, as such element 10/11 in figured 1-4 would read on top half and element 20/21 in figures 1-2, 5-6 would be a bottom half);
the ingress half having a plurality of ingress proximal ports fluidly connected to at least one ingress distal port by a branched ingress fluid channel (Fig. 4 multiple elements 13 connected to a distal ingress port 12);
the egress half having a plurality of egress proximal ports fluidly connected to at least one egress distal port by a branched egress fluid channel (Fig. 6 multiple egress ports 23a connected to distal egress port 22);
wherein pressure differentials in the ingress fluid channel propel fluid out the ingress proximal ports (page 4 lines 16-18);
wherein pressure differentials in the egress fluid channel draw at least fluid into the egress proximal ports (abstract disclosing the sucking/egress part has a pressure differential which results water being sucked into the egress ports); and
wherein pressure differentials in the ingress fluid channel and the egress fluid channel are adapted to be generated simultaneously (abstract discloses that the egress/sucking and ingress/washing spray are performed simultaneously).
Regarding claims 2 and 7, Lee further discloses wherein the mouthpiece is composed of a silicon-based compound (page 3 lines 41-42 disclosing the mouthpiece made of silicone which is compound of silicon).
Regarding claim 3, 8, and 11, Lee further discloses wherein there are four to six proximal ports (Fig. 4 showing at least 4-6 ports, as the preamble uses the open ended “comprising” it is open to more).
Regarding claims 4 and 9, Lee further discloses where the ingress proximal ports are adapted to substantially align with implanted denture mounting abutments (Fig. 4 elements 13 by being adapted to be surround a dental arch would thus be aligned where an arch would have implanted denture mounting abutments).
Regarding claims 5 and 10, Lee further discloses wherein the ingress proximal ports are adapted to clip onto the denture mounting abutments (Fig. 4 the ports 13 are adapted to hold against an arch and would thus clip onto denture mounting abutments when an arch would have them, page 3 lines 41-page 4 line 2 disclosing the egress ports by being made of the silicone material would have a restoring force and thus when place onto denture abutments in a mouth would essentially clip onto abutments by way of the restoring force).
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.
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.
Claims 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 20210097404 A-translation cited) in view of Laurent et al. (2020/0253368 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Lee discloses a system for cleaning space between dentures and gum lines (Fig. 1 all) comprising:
a substantially planar, flexible (page 1 last line to line 1 of page 2 disclosing the mouth piece made of a flexible material) mouthpiece having a longitudinal axis bilaterally dividing a right side and a left side (see image above, regarding the term “substantially planar” MPEP 2173.05(b)III d provides that the term “substantially” is a broad term and as understood by the instant specification the mouth piece is not literally a plane which would only have x and y dimension with no z dimension, the term “substantially planar” is deemed to only require a mouthpiece that would in some-way resemble a plane such as by having greater length(x) and width (y) than its height (z) as shown in applicant’s figure 1 where the mouth pieces do have a height(z) dimension);
a proximal end of the mouthpiece substantially forming a crescent (See image above),
a distal end of the mouthpiece stemming perpendicularly from the proximal end of the mouthpiece on the longitudinal axis (See image above);
the mouthpiece having a coplanar top ingress half and bottom egress half separable by a central planar axis coplanar to the longitudinal axis(See image above and Figs. 3 and 5 showing the two halves are separable at a coplanar axis, regarding the terms “top” and bottom” when placed on an upper jaw or lower jar either the 1st half or the 2nd half would switch from a “top” to a “bottom”, as such element 10/11 in figured 1-4 would read on top half and element 20/21 in figures 1-2, 5-6 would be a bottom half);
the ingress half having a plurality of ingress proximal ports fluidly connected to at least one ingress distal port by a branched ingress fluid channel (Fig. 4 multiple elements 13 connected to a distal ingress port 12);
the egress half having a plurality of egress proximal ports fluidly connected to at least one egress distal port by a branched egress fluid channel (Fig. 6 multiple egress ports 23a connected to distal egress port 22);
wherein pressure differentials in the ingress fluid channel propel fluid out the ingress proximal ports (page 4 lines 16-18);
wherein pressure differentials in the egress fluid channel draw at least fluid into the egress proximal ports (abstract disclosing the sucking/egress part has a pressure differential which results water being sucked into the egress ports); and
wherein pressure differentials in the ingress fluid channel and the egress fluid channel are adapted to be generated simultaneously(abstract discloses that the egress/sucking and ingress/washing spray are performed simultaneously).
Lee discloses structure substantially identical to the instant application as discussed above, including where the system has a supply for pressure of the cleaning/ingress water operatively coupled to the distal ingress port (page 4 lines 16-18, Fig 4 element 12 operatively connected to the source by the arrows of flow) and where the system includes some source of suction operatively connected to a distal egress port ( abstract disclosing the contaminated water is sucked out, Fig. 6 element 22 operatively connected to the suction by the arrows of flow) but fails to explicitly disclose where pressure for the system is a fluid pump assembly with at least one solenoid valve assembly and the suction source is a vacuum pump assembly.
However, Laurent disclose a system for oral care (Title and abstract) including a mouth piece with separate ingress and egress distal ports (Fig. 2b elements 118a/118/b) and a fluid pump with at least one solenoid valve assembly operatively connected to the ingress port (paragraph [0049] lines 16-28 disclosing a combination of a fluid pump with solenoid valves) and with a vacuum pump (paragraph [0049] line 25).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the fluid pump with at least one solenoid valve and a vacuum pump as taught by Laurent into the source of pressure and the suction respectively as taught by Lee for the purpose of being able to adapt the operation characteristics of an oral care device as taught by Laurent (paragraph [0049] lines 31-33).
Regarding claim 13, Lee/Laurent as combined above discloses structure substantially identical to the instant application as discussed above but fails to explicitly disclose further including a pressure chamber operatively connected to the fluid pump assembly, further operatively connected to a microcontroller and a pressure sensor.
However, Laurent further discloses where the oral care system includes a pressure sensor in a pressure chamber (paragraph [0055] lines 12-13) operatively connected to the fluid pump assembly and to a microcontroller (paragraph [0055] lines 13-22 the sensor controls the pump, paragraph [0013] all the microcontroller as part of the controlling means reads from the sensors).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a pressure chamber operatively connected to the fluid pump assembly, further operatively connected to a microcontroller and a pressure sensor as taught by Laurent into the oral care system the as taught by the combination of Lee/Laurent for the purpose of being able to adapt the treatment and operational characteristics of the system as taught by Laurent (paragraph [0013] lines 15-17).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Lee/Laurent as combined above discloses structure substantially identical to the instant application as discussed above but fails to explicitly disclose where the microcontroller operatively connected to a user-control switch adapted to manually control pressure or a user-controlled switch for setting automated pressure controls.
However, Laurent further discloses where the oral care system includes the microcontroller operatively connected to a user-controlled switch adapted to manually control pressure (paragraph [0020] lines 13-14 disclosing the user would define the treatment, further Fig. 4 showing a power button which can control the pressure by turning the device of) and a user controlled witch for setting automated pressure controls (paragraph [0020] 13-14 disclosing the user input switch could put in an automatic control, fig. 7 showing a user controlled digital switch in the smartphone controller 500).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate where the microcontroller operatively connected to a user-control switch adapted to manually control pressure as per claim 14 or a user-controlled switch for setting automated pressure controls as per claim 15 as taught by Laurent into the oral care system the as taught by the combination of Lee/Laurent for the purpose of being able to adapt the treatment and operational characteristics of the system as taught by Laurent (paragraph [0013] lines 15-17) and to provide for precises control of an oral care system as taught by Laurent (paragraph [0020] lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 16, Lee further discloses wherein the mouthpiece is composed of a silicon-based compound (page 3 lines 41-42 disclosing the mouthpiece made of silicone which is compound of silicon).
Regarding claims 17 and 20, Lee further discloses wherein there are four to six proximal ports (Fig. 4 showing at least 4-6 ports, as the preamble uses the open ended “comprising” it is open to more).
Regarding claim 18, Lee further discloses where the ingress proximal ports are adapted to substantially align with implanted denture mounting abutments (Fig. 4 elements 13 by being adapted to be surround a dental arch would thus be aligned where an arch would have implanted denture mounting abutments).
Regarding claim 19, Lee further discloses wherein the ingress proximal ports are adapted to clip onto the denture mounting abutments (Fig. 4 the ports 13 are adapted to hold against an arch and would thus clip onto denture mounting abutments when an arch would have them, page 3 lines 41-page 4 line 2 disclosing the egress ports by being made of the silicone material would have a restoring force and thus when place onto denture abutments in a mouth would essentially clip onto abutments by way of the restoring force).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW P SAUNDERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3250. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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.
/M.P.S/ Examiner, Art Unit 3772 03/21/2026
/EDELMIRA BOSQUES/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772