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
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 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kebel et al (U.S. 2006/0149315 A1, hereinafter “Kebel”) in view of Li (U.S. Patent No. 10,384,332 B2).
PNG
media_image1.png
879
845
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
545
550
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
708
583
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 1, Kebel discloses a forceps (Figs. 7-12) comprising: a pair of elongate members (1st and 2nd elongate members in annotated Fig. 7) releasably connected at a pivot point (3 in Fig. 7), each elongate member having a beak portion (1st and 2nd beak portions in annotated Fig. 7) at its distal end and a handle portion (12 and 2 in annotated Fig. 7) at its proximal end;
a first elongate member (1st elongate member in annotated Fig. 7) of the pair of elongate members having a locking arm (locking arm in annotated Fig. 7) connected thereto, the locking arm having a head (head in annotated Fig. 7) at its distal end and a release (release in annotated Fig. 7) at its proximal end (Fig. 7);
a second elongate member (2nd elongate member in annotated Fig. 7) of the pair of elongate members having a series of teeth (series of teeth in annotated Fig. 9) engageable by said head (Fig. 10, paras. 0030-0031) to maintain the pair of elongate members in position relative to one another (paras. 0030-0031);
a biasing mechanism (28 in Fig. 8) including a first end (1st end in annotated Fig. 8) and a second end (2nd end in annotated Fig. 8), wherein the first end of the biasing mechanism is attached to the locking arm (Fig. 7) at the release (annotated Fig. 8, para. 0031) and the second end of the biasing mechanism is attached to the first elongate member (Fig. 8, para. 0031);
wherein the series of teeth is defined on a surface (surface of 2nd beak in annotated Fig. 7) of the beak portion of the second elongate member (Fig. 7).
With regard to the statement of intended use and other functional statements (e.g. “dental” as in the preamble of claim 1), they do not impose any structural limitations on the claims distinguishable over the prior art which is capable of being used as claimed if one so desires to do so. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Kebel does not disclose wherein the first end of the biasing mechanism extends substantially orthogonally with respect to a longitudinal axis of the locking arm, and the second end of the biasing mechanism extends substantially orthogonally with respect to a longitudinal axis of the first elongate member.
Li teaches an apparatus (Figs. 1-10) comprising a first elongate member (52 in Fig. 2) having a locking arm (4 in Fig. 2) having a head (head in annotated Fig. 2) and a release (release in annotated Fig. 2), and a biasing mechanism (44 in Fig. 2) including a first end (end 1 in annotated Fig. 2) and a second end (end 2 in annotated Fig. 2), wherein the first end of the biasing mechanism is attached to the locking arm at the release (Fig. 2, col. 7 lines 30-33) and the second end of the biasing mechanism is attached to the first elongate member (Fig. 2, col. 7 lines 30-33), and wherein the first end of the biasing mechanism extends substantially orthogonally with respect to a longitudinal axis (axis in annotated Fig. 2) of the locking arm (Fig. 2), and the second end of the biasing mechanism extends substantially orthogonally with respect to a longitudinal axis (axis 2 in annotated Fig. 2) of the first elongate member (Fig. 2).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ratcheting locking clamps.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the biasing mechanism, locking arm, and handle of Kebel so that the first end of the biasing mechanism extends substantially orthogonally with respect to a longitudinal axis of the locking arm, and the second end of the biasing mechanism extends substantially orthogonally with respect to a longitudinal axis of the first elongate member as taught by Li in order to allow for maintaining of the clamping force even after the user releases the elongate members (LI col. 5 lines 47-52) using an alternative known means for creating biased locking.
In regard to claims 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7, Kebel in view of Li discloses the invention of claim 1. Kebel further discloses wherein the series of teeth (series of teeth in annotated Fig. 9) is defined on a proximal facing surface (proximal facing surface in annotated Fig. 9) of the beak portion (2nd beak portion in annotated Fig. 7) of the second elongate member (2nd elongate member in annotated Fig. 7),
wherein the first elongate member (1st elongate member in annotated Fig. 7) includes a first pivot recess (Fig. 7), wherein the second elongate member includes a second pivot recess (2nd pivot recess in annotated Fig. 9); and wherein the first pivot recess is aligned with the second pivot recess when the pair of elongate members are releasably connected (Fig. 7),
wherein the head (head in annotated Fig. 7) is capable of disengaging the series of teeth when pressure is applied to the release of the locking arm (paras. 0030-0031),
wherein the first elongate member and the second elongate member may pivot with respect to each other when the head (head in annotated Fig. 7) of the locking arm (locking arm in annotated Fig. 7) is disengaged from the series of teeth (paras. 0030-0031, Fig. 7),
wherein the head of the locking arm is capable of moving to an adjacent tooth in the series of teeth when pressure is applied to the handle portions of the first elongate member and the second elongate member (para. 0036, “The further closing of the jaws through movement of the handles…”).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kebel in view of Li and Landanger (DE 2849009 C2 and translated PDF).
PNG
media_image4.png
950
646
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
468
502
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 4, Kebel in view of Li discloses the invention of claim 3. Kebel does not disclose wherein a connection member is removably inserted through the first pivot recess and the second pivot recess to form the pivot point when the first pivot recess and the second pivot recess are aligned.
Landanger teaches a dental forceps (Figs. 1-2, paras. 0009-0010) comprising:
a pair of elongate members (2, 1, e.g. elongate members A and B in annotated Fig. 1, Fig. 1) releasably connected at a pivot point (pivot point in annotated Fig. 1, Fig. 1, para. 0013), each elongate member having a beak portion (21,11, e.g. beak portions A and B in Fig. 1, para. 0012) at its distal end (distal ends A and B in annotated Fig. 1, Fig. 1) and a handle portion (handle portions A and B in annotated Fig. 1, Fig. 1, paras. 0014 and 0016) at its proximal end (proximal ends A and B in annotated Fig. 1, Fig. 1);
a first elongate member (2, e.g. elongate member A in annotated Fig. 1, Fig. 1) of the pair of elongate members having a locking arm (29, Figs. 1 and 2, paras. 0018 and 0020) connected thereto, the locking arm having a head (head in annotated Fig. 2, Fig. 2) at its distal end (distal end in annotated Fig. 2, Fig. 2) and a release (release in annotated Fig. 2, Fig. 2, paras. 0018 and 0020); and
a second elongate member (1, e. g. elongate member B in annotated Fig. 1, Fig. 1) of the pair of elongate members having a series of teeth (16 in Fig. 1) engageable by said head (paras. 0018 and 0020) to maintain the pair of elongate members in position relative to one another (paras. 0018 and 0020);
wherein a connection member (3 in annotated Fig. 1, Fig. 1) is removably inserted through a first pivot recess a second pivot recess (25, 15, e.g. pivot recesses A and B in annotated Fig. 1, Fig. 1) to form the pivot point (Fig. 1) when the first pivot recess and the second pivot recess are aligned (Fig. 1, paras. 0013 and 0015).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of forceps.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the forceps of Kebel in view of Li by specifying that a connection member is removably inserted through the first pivot recess and the second pivot recess to form the pivot point when the first pivot recess and the second pivot recess are aligned as taught by Landanger in order to allow for disassembly and assembly (Landanger paras. 0009-0010, 0018) which would allow cleaning or maintenance.
Claims 9-18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GerDentUSA (American Forceps, https://web.archive.org/web/20201127115556/https:// www.gerdentusa.com/american-forceps-pedo-split-beak-lower-no-151xas, see attached PDF) in view of Kebel in view of Landanger.
PNG
media_image6.png
444
564
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 9, GerDentUSA discloses a dental forceps (Fig. 1, p. 1) comprising:
a first elongate member (elongate member 1 in annotated Fig. 1) having a first beak portion (beak 1 in annotated Fig. 1) at its distal end (Fig. 1) and a handle portion at its proximal end (handle 1 in annotated Fig. 1);
a second elongate member (elongate member 2 in annotated Fig. 1) connected to the first elongate member at a pivot point (pivot in annotated Fig. 1), wherein the second elongate member includes a second beak portion (beak 2 in annotated Fig. 1) at its distal end (Fig. 1) and a handle portion at its proximal end (handle 2 in annotated Fig. 1),
wherein the first beak portion includes a first divot and a second divot each positioned on an inner surface of said first beak portion (divots 1 and 2 in annotated Fig. 1), wherein each of said first divot and said second divot extend through an entire thickness of said first beak portion (Fig. 1), wherein the entirety of the second divot is proximal of the first divot (Fig. 1), and wherein a diameter of the second divot is greater than a diameter of the first divot (Fig. 1); and
wherein the second beak portion includes a third divot and a fourth divot each positioned on an inner surface of said second beak portion (divots 3 and 4 in annotated Fig. 1), wherein each of said third divot and said fourth divot extend through an entire thickness of said second beak portion (Fig. 1), wherein the entirety of the fourth divot is proximal of the third divot (Fig. 1), and wherein a diameter of the fourth divot is greater than a diameter of the third divot (Fig. 1); and
wherein the dental forceps define a longitudinal sectional plane (plane in annotated Fig. 1) orthogonal to the thickness of the first beak portion and second beak portion (thickness in annotated Fig. 1), and wherein each of said first divot, said second divot, said third divot, and said fourth divot extends through the longitudinal sectional plane (Fig. 1).
GerDentUSA does not disclose wherein a recess is defined through a portion of the first elongate member, a locking arm positioned within the recess defined in the first elongate member, wherein the locking arm includes a head at a distal end of the locking arm and a release at a proximal end of the locking arm, wherein the second elongate member includes a series of teeth; and wherein the series of teeth is engageable by the head of the locking arm to maintain a position of the second elongate member with respect to a position of the first elongate member.
Kebel teaches a forceps (Figs. 7-12) comprising: a first elongate member (1st elongate member in annotated Fig. 7) having a first beak portion (1st beak portion in annotated Fig. 7),
a locking arm (locking arm in annotated Fig. 7), wherein the locking arm includes a head (head in annotated Fig. 7) at a distal end of the locking arm (Fig. 7) and a release (release in annotated Fig. 7) at a proximal end (Fig. 7) of the locking arm;
a second elongate member (2nd elongate member in annotated Fig. 7) including a second beak portion (2nd beak portion in annotated Fig. 7) at its distal end (Fig. 7), wherein the second elongate member includes a series of teeth (series of teeth in annotated Fig. 9);
and wherein the series of teeth is engageable by the head of the locking arm (Fig. 10, paras. 0030-0031) to maintain a position of the second elongate member with respect to a position of the first elongate member (Fig. 10, paras. 0030-0031).
Landanger teaches a dental forceps (Figs. 1-2, paras. 0009-0010) comprising:
a first elongate member (2, e.g. elongate member A in annotated Fig. 1, Fig. 1) having a first beak portion (21, e.g. beak portion A in Fig. 1, para. 0012) and a handle portion (handle portion A in annotated Fig. 1, Fig. 1, paras. 0014 and 0016), wherein a recess (28 in Fig. 2) is defined through a portion of the first elongate member (Figs. 1 and 2, para. 0018);
a locking arm (29, Figs. 1 and 2, paras. 0018 and 0020) positioned within the recess defined in the first elongate member (Figs. 1 and 2), wherein the locking arm includes a head (head in annotated Fig. 2, Fig. 2) and a release (release in annotated Fig. 2, Fig. 2, paras. 0018 and 0020).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of forceps.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second elongate members of GerDentUSA by adding a locking arm on the first elongate member, wherein the locking arm includes a head at a distal end and a release at a proximal end of the locking arm, and adding a series of teeth to the second elongate member, wherein the series of teeth is engageable by the head of the locking arm to maintain a position of the second elongate member with respect to a position of the first elongate member as taught by Kebel in order to allow for advantageously changing between locked and unlocked positions (Kebel paras. 0030-0031) and strengthening the security of the device (Kebel para. 0004).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first elongate member and locking arm of GerDentUSA in view of Kebel by specifying a recess is defined through a portion of the first elongate member and the locking arm is positioned within the recess as taught by Landanger in order to allow for the locking arm to be guided into its position (Landanger para. 0017).
In regard to claim 10, GerDentUSA in view of Kebel in view of Landanger discloses the invention of claim 9. GerDentUSA does not disclose wherein the locking arm is rotatable within the recess with respect to the first elongate member.
Landanger teaches that the locking arm (29, Figs. 1 and 2, paras. 0018 and 0020) is rotatable within the recess (28 in Fig. 2) with respect to the first elongate member (Figs. 1 and 2, paras. 0018 and 0020).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of forceps. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first elongate member and locking arm of GerDentUSA in view of Kebel in view of Landanger by specifying the locking arm is rotatable within the recess as taught by Landanger in order to allow for the locking arm to be guided into its position (Landanger para. 0017).
In regard to claim 11, GerDentUSA in view of Kebel in view of Landanger discloses the invention of claim 9. GerDentUSA does not disclose wherein the series of teeth is defined on a proximal facing surface of the second elongate member.
Kebel further teaches wherein the series of teeth (series of teeth in annotated Fig. 9) is defined on a proximal facing surface (proximal facing surface in annotated Fig. 9) of the second elongate member (2nd elongate member in annotated Fig. 7).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of forceps. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second elongate members of GerDentUSA in view of Kebel in view of Landanger by defining the series of teeth on a proximal facing surface of the second elongate member as taught by Kebel in order to allow for advantageously changing between locked and unlocked positions (Kebel paras. 0030-0031), and giving better control for the locking device while strengthening the security of the device (Kebel para. 0004).
In regard to claim 12, GerDentUSA in view of Kebel in view of Landanger discloses the invention of claim 9. GerDentUSA does not disclose further comprising: a biasing mechanism including a first end and a second end; and wherein the first end of the biasing mechanism is attached to the locking arm and the second end of the biasing mechanism is attached to the first elongate member.
Kebel further teaches wherein the forceps further comprising: a biasing mechanism (28 in Fig. 8) including a first end (1st end in annotated Fig. 8) and a second end (2nd end in annotated Fig. 8); and wherein the first end of the biasing mechanism is attached to the locking arm (locking arm in annotated Fig. 7, Fig. 8) and the second end of the biasing mechanism is attached to the first elongate member (Fig. 8, para. 0031).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of forceps. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the forceps of GerDentUSA in view of Kebel in view of Landanger by adding a biasing mechanism including a first end and a second end, wherein the first end is attached to the locking arm and the second end is attached to the first elongate member as taught by Kebel in order to allow for advantageously changing between locked and unlocked positions (Kebel paras. 0030-0031), and giving better control for the locking device while strengthening the security of the device (Kebel para. 0004).
In regard to claim 13, GerDentUSA in view of Kebel in view of Landanger discloses the invention of claim 12. GerDentUSA does not disclose wherein the biasing mechanism biases the locking arm so that the head of the locking arm engages the series of teeth.
Kebel further teaches wherein the biasing mechanism (28 in Fig. 8) biases the locking arm (locking arm in annotated Fig 7) so that the head (head in annotated Fig. 7) of the locking arm engages the series of teeth (Figs. 10-12, para. 0031).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of forceps. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the biasing mechanism and locking arm of GerDentUSA in view of Kebel in view of Landanger by fabricating the forceps so that the biasing mechanism biases the locking arm so that the head of the locking arm engages the series of teeth as taught by Kebel in order to allow for advantageously changing between locked and unlocked positions (Kebel paras. 0030-0031), and giving better control for the locking device while strengthening the security of the device (Kebel para. 0004).
In regard to claim 14, GerDentUSA in view of Kebel in view of Landanger discloses the invention of claim 12. GerDentUSA does not disclose wherein the biasing mechanism is attached to the locking arm at the release.
Kebel further teaches wherein the biasing mechanism (28 in Fig. 8) is attached to the locking arm at the release (Fig. 7).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of forceps. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the biasing mechanism and locking arm of GerDentUSA in view of Kebel in view of Landanger by fabricating the forceps so that the biasing mechanism is attached to the locking arm at the release as taught by Kebel in order to allow for advantageously changing between locked and unlocked positions (Kebel paras. 0030-0031), and giving better control for the locking device while strengthening the security of the device (Kebel para. 0004).
In regard to claim 15, GerDentUSA in view of Kebel in view of Landanger discloses the invention of claim 9. GerDentUSA does not disclose wherein the first elongate member includes a first pivot recess, wherein the second elongate member includes a second pivot recess; wherein the first pivot recess is aligned with the second pivot recess when the first and second elongate members are releasably connected; and wherein a connection member is inserted through the first pivot recess and the second pivot recess to form the pivot point when the first pivot recess and the second pivot recess are aligned.
Landanger teaches wherein the first elongate member (2, e.g. elongate member A in annotated Fig. 1, Fig. 1) includes a first pivot recess (25, e.g. pivot recess A in annotated Fig. 1, Fig. 1), wherein the second elongate member (1, e. g. elongate member B in annotated Fig. 1, Fig. 1) includes a second pivot recess (15, e.g. pivot recess B in annotated Fig. 1, Fig. 1); wherein the first pivot recess is aligned with the second pivot recess when the first and second elongate members are releasably connected (Fig. 1, paras. 0013 and 0015); and wherein a connection member (3 in annotated Fig. 1, Fig. 1) is inserted through the first pivot recess and the second pivot recess to form the pivot point (pivot point in annotated Fig. 1, Fig. 1) when the first pivot recess and the second pivot recess are aligned (Fig. 1, paras. 0013 and 0015).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of forceps. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the forceps of GerDentUSA in view of Kebel in view of Landanger by replacing the pivot between the first and second elongate members with a first and a second pivot recess in the first and second elongate members, respectively, wherein the first pivot recess is aligned with the second when the first and second elongate members are releasably connected; and a connection member is inserted through the first and the second pivot recesses to form the pivot point when the first and the second pivot recesses are aligned as taught by Landanger in order to allow for disassembly and assembly (Landanger paras. 0009-0010, 0018) which would allow cleaning or maintenance.
In regard to claim 16, GerDentUSA in view of Kebel in view of Landanger discloses the invention of claim 9. GerDentUSA does not disclose wherein the head of the locking arm is configured to disengage the series of teeth when pressure is applied to the release of the locking arm.
Kebel further teaches wherein the head (head in annotated Fig. 7) of the locking arm (locking arm in annotated Fig. 7) is capable of disengaging the series of teeth (series of teeth in annotated Fig. 9) when pressure is applied to the release of the locking arm (paras. 0030-0031).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of forceps. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the locking arm of GerDentUSA in view of Kebel in view of Landanger by specifying the head of the locking arm is capable of disengaging the series of teeth when pressure is applied to the release of the locking arm as taught by Kebel in order to allow for advantageously changing between locked and unlocked positions (Kebel paras. 0030-0031), and giving better control for the locking device while strengthening the security of the device (Kebel para. 0004).
In regard to claim 17, GerDentUSA in view of Kebel in view of Landanger discloses the invention of claim 9. GerDentUSA does not disclose wherein the first elongate member and the second elongate member may pivot with respect to each other when the head of the locking arm is disengaged from the series of teeth.
Kebel further teaches wherein the first elongate member and the second elongate member (1st and 2nd elongate members in annotated Fig. 7) may pivot with respect to each other when the head of the locking arm (locking arm in annotated Fig. 7) is disengaged from the series of teeth (paras. 0030-0031, Fig. 7),
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of forceps. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second elongate members of GerDentUSA in view of Kebel in view of Landanger by specifying the first elongate member and the second elongate member may pivot with respect to each other when the head of the locking arm is disengaged from the series of teeth, as taught by Kebel in order to allow for advantageously changing between locked and unlocked positions (Kebel paras. 0030-0031), and giving better control for the locking device while strengthening the security of the device (Kebel para. 0004).
In regard to claim 18, GerDentUSA in view of Kebel in view of Landanger discloses the invention of claim 9. GerDentUSA does not disclose wherein the head of the locking arm is configured to move to an adjacent tooth in the series of teeth when pressure is applied to the handle portions of the first elongate member and the second elongate member.
Kebel further teaches wherein the head of the locking arm (locking arm in annotated Fig. 7) is capable of moving to an adjacent tooth in the series of teeth (series of teeth in annotated Fig. 9) when pressure is applied to the handle portions of the first elongate member and the second elongate member (para. 0036, “The further closing of the jaws through movement of the handles…”),
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of forceps. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the head of the locking arm of GerDentUSA in view of Kebel in view of Landanger by specifying the head of the locking arm is capable of moving to an adjacent tooth in the series of teeth when pressure is applied to the handle portions of the first and the second elongate members as taught by Kebel in order to allow for advantageously changing between locked and unlocked positions (Kebel paras. 0030-0031), and giving better control for the locking device while strengthening the security of the device (Kebel para. 0004).
In regard to claim 20, GerDentUSA in view of Kebel in view of Landanger discloses the invention of claim 9. GerDentUSA does not disclose wherein the pivot point is positioned between the first and second beak portions and the locking arm.
Kebel further teaches wherein the pivot point (3 in Fig. 7) is positioned between the first and second beak portions (1st and 2nd beak portions in annotated Fig. 7) and the locking arm (Fig. 7).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of forceps. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pivot point of GerDentUSA in view of Kebel in view of Landanger by positioning the pivot point between the first and second beak portions and the locking arm as taught by Kebel in order to allow for advantageously changing between locked and unlocked positions (Kebel paras. 0030-0031), and giving better control for the locking device while strengthening the security of the device (Kebel para. 0004).
In regard to claim 21, GerDentUSA in view of Kebel in view of Landanger discloses the invention of claim 9. GerDentUSA does not disclose wherein the series of teeth are defined on a surface of the second beak portion.
Kebel further teaches wherein the series of teeth (series of teeth in annotated Fig. 9) are defined on a surface of the second beak portion (surface of 2nd beak in annotated Fig. 7).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of forceps. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the series of teeth of GerDentUSA in view of Kebel in view of Landanger by defining the series of teeth are defined on a surface of the second beak portion as taught by Kebel in order to allow for advantageously changing between locked and unlocked positions (Kebel paras. 0030-0031), and giving better control for the locking device while strengthening the security of the device (Kebel para. 0004).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GerDentUSA in view of Kebel in view of Landanger and Anderson (U.S. 1,085,235 A).
PNG
media_image7.png
412
721
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 19, GerDentUSA in view of Kebel in view of Landanger discloses the invention of claim 9. GerDentUSA does not disclose that the first beak portion is removable from the first elongate member and the second beak portion is removable from the second elongate member.
Anderson teaches a dental forceps (Figs. 1-7) comprising: a first elongate member (elongate member 1 in annotated Fig. 1, Fig. 1) having a first beak portion (8 in Fig. 1, col. 2 lines 60-63) at its distal end (distal end 1 in annotated Fig. 1, Fig. 1) and a handle portion (5 in Fig. 1) at its proximal end (proximal end 1 in annotated Fig. 1, Fig. 1); a second elongate member (elongate member 2 in annotated Fig. 1, Fig. 1) connected to the first elongate member at a pivot point (pivot point in annotated Fig. 1, Figs. 1-3 and 5, col. 2 lines 81-102), wherein the second elongate member includes a second beak portion (7 in Fig. 1, col. 2 lines 60-63) at its distal end (distal end 2 in annotated Fig. 1, Fig. 1) and a handle portion (6 in Fig. 2) at its proximal end (proximal end 2 in annotated Fig. 2, Fig. 2), wherein the first beak portion is removable from the first elongate member (Figs. 2 and 4, col. 4 lines 87-94) and the second beak portion is removable from the second elongate member (Fig. 5, col. 4 lines 87-94).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of forceps. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the elongate members and beak portions of GerDentUSA in view of Kebel in view of Landanger by modifying the first beak portion to be removable from the first elongate member, and modifying the second beak portion to be removable from the second elongate member as taught by Anderson in order to allow for various forms of forceps to be produced conveniently and for a smaller cost for the operator (Anderson col. 4 lines 94-99).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that in regard to the rejection of Claims 1-3 and 5-7 stand preliminarily rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kebel in view of Ericson, Claim 1 has been amended and Kebel and Ericson do not disclose the limitations of amended claim 1. Applicant argues that Kebel teaches orthopedic ratcheting forceps that are not designed for intraoral use in a dental setting as with the dental forceps described in the present application and instead teaches forceps designed to manipulate and hold bone for the fixation of fractures which would be difficult to use intraorally due to the large span between each jaw. Applicant argues that Kebel and Ericson do not disclose a biasing mechanism with a first end and second end which reads on the limitations of amended claim 1. Applicant argues that Claim 4 is dependent on amended independent claim 1 and should be allowable at least on that basis and/or on its own merit.
Examiner notes that in the above rejection, Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kebel in view of Li, and Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kebel in view of Li and Landanger. Examiner notes that Examiner’s arguments regarding Kebel are narrower than the claims. With regard to the statement of intended use and other functional statements (e.g. “dental” as in the preamble of claim 1), they do not impose any structural limitations on the claims distinguishable over the prior art which is capable of being used as claimed if one so desires to do so. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Examiner notes that in the above rejection, Li teaches an apparatus wherein the first end of the biasing mechanism extends substantially orthogonally with respect to a longitudinal axis (axis in annotated Fig. 2) of the locking arm (Fig. 2), and the second end of the biasing mechanism extends substantially orthogonally with respect to a longitudinal axis (axis 2 in annotated Fig. 2) of the first elongate member (Fig. 2). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have modified Kebel by the teachings of Li in order to in order to allow for maintaining of the clamping force even after the user releases the elongate members (LI col. 5 lines 47-52). Applicant is directed to the rejections in view of the amendments.
In regard to the rejections of Claims 9-18 and 20-21 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Premium Plus in view of Kebel in view of Landanger, Applicant argues that the combination of Premium Plus, Kebel, and Landanger does not disclose all of the features of the amended claim 9 and it would not be obvious to modify the Premium Plus forceps in view of either Kebel or Landanger so that each of the divots extends through a common longitudinal sectional plane. Applicant argues that Claims 10-18 and 20-21 are dependent on claim 9 and should be allowable at least on that basis and/or on their own merit. Applicant argues that Claim 19 is dependent on claim 9 and should be allowable at least on that basis and/or on its own merit.
Examiner notes that in the above rejection, Claims 9-18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GerDentUSA in view of Kebel in view of Landanger, and Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GerDentUSA in view of Kebel in view of Landanger and Anderson. GerDentUSA discloses a device wherein the dental forceps define a longitudinal sectional plane (plane in annotated Fig. 1) orthogonal to the thickness of the first beak portion and second beak portion (thickness in annotated Fig. 1), and wherein each of said first divot, said second divot, said third divot, and said fourth divot extends through the longitudinal sectional plane (Fig. 1). Applicant is directed to the rejections in view of the amendments.
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 COURTNEY N HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-7219. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-5:00PM (EST) flex, 2nd Friday off.
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.
/COURTNEY N HUYNH/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772