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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 11, 12, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mosimann USPA 2010/0178522. Mosimann teaches a tool holder (paragraph 6: “head that carries the tool” and “body”) that may be comprised of amorphous Zr/Cu alloy (paragraphs 11, 12, and 19). Mosimann explains that the body allows the instrument to be carried by hand (paragraph 6) or coupled to a motor (paragraphs 3 and 5) that rotates the instrument. As such, the outer surface of the body defines a spindle interface for joining to a hand or a rotating motor. Mosimann explains that the head, the body, and the means that drive the rotation (paragraph 12) can be made of amorphous alloy. Impliedly, the portion of the means that drives the rotation, which is also part of the tool holder, also has spindle interface. Mosimann does not exemplify such configuration. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to prepare instrument with these configurations since Mosimann teaches that they are effective. Regarding Claim 3, the cited alloy contains Zr. Regarding Claims 4 and 11, the suggested alloys are encompassed by these claimed amounts (paragraph 19); the alloy with no Y has 68 wt. % Zr and 32 wt. % remainder of Al, Ni, and Cu. Regarding Claims 5 and 18, the cited alloy further contains Cu, Al, and Ni (paragraph 19). Regarding Claim 6, Mosimann teaches that the handpiece (machine tool component) may be comprised of head or body or drivers, which may be amorphous metal, and may be comprised of other parts which are not necessarily amorphous metal (paragraph 11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to prepare instrument with mixture of conventional material for parts of handpiece and amorphous metal for tool holder since Mosimann teaches that such configuration is effective. Claim 6 can also be considered suggested since Mosimann teaches that as little as 50 of part need to be amorphous (paragraph 14), rendering feature obvious. Regarding Claim 7, Mosimann teaches that entire part can be amorphous metal (paragraph 15; and Claim 12). Regarding Claim 12, Mosimann teaches that the part can be comprised of portions of bulk amorphous phase with remainder other metallic phase (paragraph 14; Claim 11). In this case, the other metallic phase can be considered “add-on”. Furthermore, Mosimann teaches that the conventional parts of handpiece are stainless steel and injected plastic (paragraphs 8 and 9) which the amorphous metal is replacing at least in part. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to make the tool holder from amorphous metal and make what attaches to the tool holder from one of these other conventional materials with these other conventional materials being metallic or plastic “add-on”.
Claim(s) 4, 9, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mosimann USPA 2010/0178522 in view of Elsen USPA 2017/0151609. Mosimann is relied upon as set forth above in the section 103 rejection over Mosimann. While Mosimann teaches several amorphous alloys and teaches making parts from powder starting materials, Mosimann may not teach or exemplify claimed alloys. Elsen discloses a fabricated general component (paragraph 58) which is formed by casting and composed of an amorphous metal (Claim 1; and paragraph 71). Regarding Claims 4 and 11, Elsen teaches Zr/Cu/Al based alloy having 70.5 wt. % Zr and 23.9 wt. % Cu (Paragraph 68). As well, Elsen teaches ranges of Claims 9 and 10, which are thus suggested in Elsen (paragraph 37) and rendered obvious. See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to prepare part in Mosimann with amorphous alloy in Elsen since Mosimann teaches that general bulk amorphous alloy can be used, since these are compositionally close to those in Mosimann, and since Elsen teaches powder precursor which Mosimann uses in making parts in Mosimann.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 11, 12, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mosimann USPA 2010/0178522 in view of Smailus USPA 2013/0052612. Mosimann teaches a tool holder (paragraph 6: “head that carries the tool” and “body”) that may be comprised of amorphous Zr/Cu alloy (paragraphs 11, 12, and 19). Mosimann explains that the body allows the instrument to be carried by hand (paragraph 6) or coupled to a motor (paragraphs 3 and 5) that rotates the instrument. Smailus teaches conventional structure as being a head (1A) and spindle body (1C) that joins to a driver means (1D) (Figure 1; paragraphs 1 and 29; and Claim 1) As such, the outer surface (1C) of the body defines a spindle interface for joining to a hand or a rotating motor. Mosimann explains that the head, the body, and the means that drive the rotation (paragraph 12) can be made of amorphous alloy. Impliedly, the portion of the means that drives the rotation, which is also part of the tool holder, also has spindle interface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to prepare instrument with these configurations, including of Smailus, since they correspond to the structure Mosimann characterizes and since Smailus and Mosimann teaches that they are effective for dental instrument. Regarding Claim 3, the cited alloy contains Zr. Regarding Claims 4 and 11, the suggested alloys are encompassed by these claimed amounts (paragraph 19); the alloy with no Y has 68 wt. % Zr and 32 wt. % remainder of Al, Ni, and Cu. Regarding Claims 5 and 18, the cited alloy further contains Cu, Al, and Ni (paragraph 19). Regarding Claim 6, Mosimann teaches that the handpiece (machine tool component) may be comprised of head or body or drivers, which may be amorphous metal, and may be comprised of other parts which are not necessarily amorphous metal (paragraph 11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to prepare instrument with mixture of conventional material for parts of handpiece and amorphous metal for tool holder since Mosimann teaches that such configuration is effective. Claim 6 can also be considered suggested since Mosimann teaches that as little as 50 of part need to be amorphous (paragraph 14), rendering feature obvious. Regarding Claim 7, Mosimann teaches that entire part can be amorphous metal (paragraph 15; and Claim 12). Regarding Claim 12, Mosimann teaches that the part can be comprised of portions of bulk amorphous phase with remainder other metallic phase (paragraph 14; Claim 11). In this case, the other metallic phase can be considered “add-on”. Furthermore, Mosimann teaches that the conventional parts of handpiece are stainless steel and injected plastic (paragraphs 8 and 9) which the amorphous metal is replacing at least in part. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to make the tool holder from amorphous metal and make what attaches to the tool holder from one of these other conventional materials with these other conventional materials being metallic or plastic “add-on”.
Claim(s) 4, 9, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mosimann USPA 2010/0178522 in view of Smailus USPA 2013/0052612 in view of Elsen USPA 2017/0151609. Mosimann in view of Smailus is relied upon as set forth above in the section 103 rejection over Mosimann in view of Smailus. While Mosimann teaches several amorphous alloys and teaches making parts from powder starting materials, Mosimann may not teach or exemplify claimed alloys. Elsen discloses a fabricated general component (paragraph 58) which is formed by casting and composed of an amorphous metal (Claim 1; and paragraph 71). Regarding Claims 4 and 11, Elsen teaches Zr/Cu/Al based alloy having 70.5 wt. % Zr and 23.9 wt. % Cu (Paragraph 68). As well, Elsen teaches ranges of Claims 9 and 10, which are thus suggested in Elsen (paragraph 37) and rendered obvious. See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to prepare part in Mosimann with amorphous alloy in Elsen since Mosimann teaches that general bulk amorphous alloy can be used, since these are compositionally close to those in Mosimann, and since Elsen teaches powder precursor which Mosimann uses in making parts in Mosimann.
Response to Amendment
In view of applicant’s amendments and arguments, applicant traverses the claim objection of the Office Action mailed on 21 August 2025. Objection is withdrawn.
In view of applicant’s amendments and arguments, applicant traverses the section 112, paragraph (a) rejection of the Office Action mailed on 21 August 2025. Rejection is withdrawn.
In view of applicant’s amendments and arguments, applicant traverses the section 112, paragraph (b) rejection of the Office Action mailed on 21 August 2025. Rejection is withdrawn.
In view of applicant’s amendments and arguments, applicant traverses the section 103 rejection over Mosimann and the section 103 rejection over Mosimann in view of Elsen of the Office Action mailed on 21 August 2025. Applicant argues that Mosimann relates to hand tool and not to a power tool and that Mosimann does not disclose a spindle interface. As set forth in the revised rejections, Mosimann also suggest power tool and impliedly teaches the spindle interface since the instrument of Mosimann must be coupled to a rotating driving motor which is expectedly accomplished by a spindle interface. Rejection is maintained.
Applicant requests rejoinder of withdrawn method claims. It is pointed out that those claims would not be eligible for rejoinder absent being fully commensurate with allowable product claims.
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 MICHAEL E. LA VILLA whose telephone number is (571)272-1539. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri. from 9:00 a.m. ET to 5:30 p.m. ET.
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, Humera N. Sheikh, can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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.
/MICHAEL E. LA VILLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
2 March 2026