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 § 112(b)
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 1-6 and 8-9 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "feedback signal" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, the use of the term “feedback signal” in line 11 is indefinite. It is not understood the reason for the generation said signal by the control unit, or if said term was meant to be the “feedback indication” described in line 7. For examination purposes, the term will be interpreted as the “feedback indication” described in line 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. All the limitations described in the claims are found in lines 11-15 of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 4 uses the term “a body” where in line 2 the claim introduces said term. It is suggested to change it as “the[a] body”. Appropriate correction is required.
In line 6 uses the term “a rotary instrument” where in line 1 the claim introduces said term. It is suggested to change it as “the[a] rotary instrument”. Appropriate correction is required.
In lines 9-10 describe a list of “feedback indications including a visual indication a tactile indication or a combination …”, where a coma is missing between the visual indication and the tactile indication. Appropriate correction is required.
In line 15 uses the term “secondary input”. The Office understands that said term refers to the “at least one secondary input” described in lines 13-14 of the claim. It is suggested to maintain the same nomenclature across the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 3 uses the term “a user”. Due to the term has been introduced in claim 1, it is suggested to amend the claims as “the[a] user”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 4 uses the term “a body” where in line 2 the claim introduces said term. It is suggested to change it as “the[a] body”. Appropriate correction is required.
In line 5-6 uses the term “a rotary instrument” where in line 1 the claim introduces said term. It is suggested to change it as “the[a] rotary instrument”. Appropriate correction is required.
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:
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.
Claims 1-3, 6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Louis et al. (WO 2018194910 A1) in view of Wang et al. (CN 104546062 A), and in further view of Svagr (US 20110243673 A1).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Drill)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Body)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Pressure indicators)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Control system)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Handpiece)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (System)]
PNG
media_image1.png
402
578
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
442
654
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
438
562
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
408
542
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1, St. Louis et al. discloses a rotary instrument indication system, including:
a body (40) of the rotary instrument and a drill (60) (see annotated Fig. 1A above, [0027], [0058]), wherein at least part of the drill (60) is within the body (40) of the rotary instrument (see annotated Fig. 1A above and [0064] – “a shank of a bur, file or other suitable rotating instrument or tool 60 may be securely grasped by chuck 106”), wherein the body (40) includes a pressure sensor and a pressure indicator integrated into a body of the rotary instrument (see [0088] – “The piezoresistive sensor or pressure sensor is disposed in the contact interface between the file and the contra angle of the handpiece”),
wherein the pressure sensor configured to monitor force or pressure applied through a rotary instrument (see Fig. 14 above and [0007] – “a force is directed along the rotary instrument toward the cover and the force induces a deflection of the sensing cell. The amount of deflection is sensed by the strain gauge that produces an electrical signal corresponding to the deflection”, [0042] – “The handpiece also includes a sensing cell. The handpiece also includes at least one strain gauge. The at least one strain gauge can be affixed to the sensing cell”, [0043] – “The sensing cell can sense load applied to the handpiece during operation”, and Fig. 1A above, [0010] – “schematic representation of a dental rotary system including a console and a handpiece device”); and
wherein the pressure indicator is configured to provide a feedback indication when the monitored force or pressure reaches or exceeds a predefined threshold, wherein the feedback indication includes a visual indication (see Fig. 9 above and [0079], [0088]); that the feedback indication is controlled by the control unit (36) in communication with the pressure sensor (see [0079]).
However, St. Louis does not disclose that the pressure indicator is integrated into a body of the rotary instrument, that the pressure indication can include a tactile indication or a combination of visual and tactile indications; that the control unit is within the body of the rotary instrument; that the secondary input is an operating speed of the rotary instrument; and wherein the predefined threshold is determined based upon at least one secondary input received by the control unit; wherein the secondary input is an operating speed of the rotary instrument; wherein the operating speed can be selected by a user; and wherein the selection determines the predetermined threshold.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Rotary instrument)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Control unit)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Light)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Torque sensor)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Pressure sensor)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Drill)]
PNG
media_image5.png
320
498
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Wang et al. teaches a rotary instrument including a sensing module including a pressure sensor (6) and torque sensor (5), a control unit (4) (including a PLC, single chip, relay, a LED10 liquid crystal display screen and a key board) all located in the body of the rotary instrument, and an input module for inputting the torque threshold. Where the control unit (4) receives an electrical signal form the sensors and compare them to a threshold value. If the value is greater than the threshold value, control unit (4) sends instructions to turn on a red light (LED) (10), in this way providing a visual indication (see annotated Fig. 1 above, and [0005] - [0009], [0015] - [0021] and [0025] - [0027] and [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the kind and quantity of the feedback indication and the location of the pressure indicator of St. Louis, with the visual indication when exceeding the threshold value, and to have the pressure indicator in the body of the rotary instrument of Wang, in order to increase the pression during drilling up a point, and when to stop the rotation of the motor when the force and the torque sensed in the drill exceed the threshold preestablished by the user, in this way avoid damaging untargeted tissue.
Furthermore, by having the visual indicator integrated with the body of the rotary instrument, it allows the user to see immediately the response of the instrument by been in the same general sight of view as the surgical area, in this way allowing the user to see the red light as soon as it turns on. Furthermore, with respect to having the control unit within the body of the rotary instrument, the control unit includes a key board configured to input the threshold value. This allows the user to conveniently input the value in the same instrument without the need to reach any other body or place, in this way any added threshold value can be done faster.
However, However, St. Louis/Wang does not disclose the predefined threshold is determined based upon at least one secondary input received by the control unit; that the secondary input is an operating speed of the rotary instrument; that the operating speed can be selected by a user; and wherein the selection determines the predetermined threshold.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Drill bit)][AltContent: textbox (Secondary input by a speed sensor)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image6.png
584
384
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Svagr teaches a drill bit apparatus including a sensor (146) that detects change in speed of the drill bit (120). “Change in a speed of the drill bit includes detecting an increase in the speed of the drill bit. In one implementation, detecting a change in a speed of the drill bit includes detecting a change in revolutions per minute ("RPM") of the drill bit. Furthermore, detecting a change in a speed of the drill bit may include detecting a change in amperage pull of the driving device”) (see Fig. 1A above and abstract, [0006], [0011-0012] and [0068]). Where implementation of that detection can be “disengaging the drill bit from the driving device in response to detecting a change in speed of the drill bit”, “reducing the speed of the drill bit in response to the first engaging element engaging with the second engaging element” (see [0012]). Furthermore, “the sensor 146 may detect the change in speed by detecting a change in pressure of the pressurized gas and/or change in flow rate of the pressurized gas driving the motor. For example, when the drill bit 120 increases in speed, the sensor may detect a sudden change in gas pressure (e.g., decrease in gas pressure) or gas flow rate (e.g., increase in gas flow rate).“ And, “ the sensor 146 may be in communication with the pressure gauge on the pressure control unit.“(see [0048]). Furthermore, the “sensor 146 may be configured to differentiate between the standard acceleration”, “when the drill bit 102 slips off of the drilling surface” (see [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotary instrument of Lt. Louis/Wang, with the secondary input as the operating speed of the rotary instrument of Svagr, in order to provide a detection system in the rotary system to prevents damage sensitive material when the velocity of the drill drastically changes during its operation resulting in unintended and undesirable consequences., in this case damaging nerves and tissue surrounding a drill site ([see [0002]).
Regarding claim 2, St. Louis/Wang/Svagr discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1, and where St. Louis et al. discloses that the pressure sensor includes a load cell (1404) (see annotated Fig. 14 and [0087] – “Sensing area 1404 may be a portion of the piezoresistive sensor 1402 that senses force”).
Regarding claim 3, St. Louis/Wang/Svagr discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1, and where St. Louis et al. discloses that the feedback indication further includes an audio indication (see Fig. 1A above and [0088] – “Once a maximum threshold is exceeded, the sensor triggers any combination of the following: an audio cue output by the audio output device 28”).
Regarding claim 6, St. Louis/Wang/Svagr discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1, and where St. Louis et al. discloses that the pressure sensor measures the force or pressure applied to the rotary instrument, wherein the force or pressure is applied to the rotary instrument by a user or applied through a dental attachment affixed to the rotary instrument (see [0007] – therefore the pressure is applied by the user to the dental attachment affixed to the rotary instrument).
Regarding claim 8, St. Louis/Wang/Svagr discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1, and where St. Louis et al. discloses that the predefined threshold corresponds to a force in a range from about 100 gm to about 1 kg (see [0062]).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Sensing cell)]
PNG
media_image7.png
514
612
media_image7.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Sensing cell)]
PNG
media_image8.png
508
648
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, St. Louis/Wang discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1, and where St. Louis et al. discloses that the pressure sensor is configured to detachably attach to the rotary instrument (see Fig. 3A and 4 above – where each embodiment includes the sensing cell 118 including the sensors 120 and 122, that can be detached from the rotary instrument).
Claims 29-30 and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over St. Louis et al. (WO 2018194910 A1) in view of Houser et al. (US 20120116364 A1).
Regarding claims 29, St. Louis et al. discloses a rotary instrument indication system, including:
a body (40) of the rotary instrument and a drill (60) (see annotated Fig. 1A above, [0027], [0058]), wherein at least part of the drill (60) is within the body (40) of the rotary instrument (see annotated Fig. 1A above and [0064] – “a shank of a bur, file or other suitable rotating instrument or tool 60 may be securely grasped by chuck 106”), wherein the body (40) includes a pressure sensor and a pressure indicator integrated into a body of the rotary instrument (see [0088] – “The piezoresistive sensor or pressure sensor is disposed in the contact interface between the file and the contra angle of the handpiece”),
wherein the pressure sensor configured to monitor force or pressure applied through a rotary instrument (see Fig. 14 above and [0007] – “a force is directed along the rotary instrument toward the cover and the force induces a deflection of the sensing cell. The amount of deflection is sensed by the strain gauge that produces an electrical signal corresponding to the deflection”, [0042] – “The handpiece also includes a sensing cell. The handpiece also includes at least one strain gauge. The at least one strain gauge can be affixed to the sensing cell”, [0043] – “The sensing cell can sense load applied to the handpiece during operation”, and Fig. 1A above, [0010] – “schematic representation of a dental rotary system including a console and a handpiece device”); and
wherein the pressure indicator is configured to provide a feedback indication when the monitored force or pressure reaches or exceeds a predefined threshold.
However, St. Louis does not disclose that the feedback indication is a tactile indication.
Houser et al. teaches handpiece of a surgical instrument including a user input feature and a user haptic user feedback system for providing tactile sensation to a user with feedback in the form of vibration indicating a triggering event or a change in status of certain received data or information (see [0035]), such as providing an indication that while an instrument is active it provides an indication of an error codes when device encounters an error (see [0043]). Furthermore, other kind of feedback tactile is a “click” used in surgical instruments when an electrical connection is made (0044]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the feedback indication of St. Louis, with the tactile indication as vibration of Houser, in order to provide an alternate feedback indication through the tissue/skin of the user of the situation of the rotary instrument.
Regarding claim 30, St. Louis/Houser discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 29, and where St. Louis discloses the pressure sensor includes a strain coil, a strain gauge and a load cell (see [0042] – “The handpiece also includes a sensing cell. The handpiece also includes at least one strain gauge. The at least one strain gauge can be affixed to the sensing cell”; and [0057] – where includes a cover as a load cell, a sensing cell and a strain gauge).
Regarding claim 33, St. Louis/Houser discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 29, and where St. Louis discloses that the pressure sensor measures the force or pressure applied to the rotary instrument, wherein the force or pressure is applied to the rotary instrument by a user or applied through a dental attachment affixed to the rotary instrument (see Fig. 14 above and [0007] – “a force is directed along the rotary instrument toward the cover and the force induces a deflection of the sensing cell. The amount of deflection is sensed by the strain gauge that produces an electrical signal corresponding to the deflection”, [0042] – “The handpiece also includes a sensing cell. The handpiece also includes at least one strain gauge. The at least one strain gauge can be affixed to the sensing cell”, [0043] – “The sensing cell can sense load applied to the handpiece during operation”, and Fig. 1A above, [0010] – “schematic representation of a dental rotary system including a console and a handpiece device”).
Regarding claim 34, St. Louis/Houser discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 29, and where St. Louis discloses that the predefined threshold corresponds to a force in a range from about 100 gm to about 1 kg (see [0062]).
Regarding claim 35, St. Louis/Houser discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 29, and where St. Louis discloses that the pressure sensor is configured to detachably attach to the rotary instrument (see Fig. 3A and 4 above – where each embodiment includes the sensing cell 118 including the sensors 120 and 122, that can be detached from the rotary instrument).
Claims 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Louis et al. (WO 2018194910 A1) in view of Houser et al. (US 20120116364 A1) as applied to claim 29 above, further in view of Wang et al. (CN 104546062 A) and in further view of Svagr (US 20110243673 A1).
Regarding claims 31-32, St. Louis/Houser discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 29, and where St. Louis disclose that the feedback indication is controlled by a control unit (36) in communication with the pressure sensor (see [0079]).
However, St. Louis/Houser does not disclose that the control unit is within the body of the rotary instrument, and wherein the predefined threshold is determined based upon at least one secondary input received by the control unit (for claim 31); and wherein the secondary input is an operating speed of the rotary instrument (for claim 32).
Wang et al. teaches a rotary instrument including a sensing module including a pressure sensor (6) and torque sensor (5), a control unit (4) (including a PLC, single chip, relay, a LED10 liquid crystal display screen and a key board) all located in the body of the rotary instrument, and an input module for inputting the torque threshold. Where the control unit (4) receives an electrical signal form the sensors and compare them to a threshold value. If the value is greater than the threshold value, control unit (4) sends instructions to turn on a red light (LED) (10), in this way providing a visual indication (see annotated Fig. 1 above, and [0005] - [0009], [0015] - [0021] and [0025] - [0027] and [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the location of the control unit indicator of St. Louis, with the control unit in the body of Wang, in order provide a compact rotary instrument.
However, St. Louis/Houser does not disclose that the predefined threshold is determined based upon at least one secondary input received by the control unit.
Svagr teaches a drill bit apparatus including a sensor (146) that detects change in speed of the drill bit (120). “Change in a speed of the drill bit includes detecting an increase in the speed of the drill bit. In one implementation, detecting a change in a speed of the drill bit includes detecting a change in revolutions per minute ("RPM") of the drill bit. Furthermore, detecting a change in a speed of the drill bit may include detecting a change in amperage pull of the driving device”) (see Fig. 1A above and abstract, [0006], [0011-0012] and [0068]). Where implementation of that detection can be “disengaging the drill bit from the driving device in response to detecting a change in speed of the drill bit”, “reducing the speed of the drill bit in response to the first engaging element engaging with the second engaging element” (see [0012]). Furthermore, “the sensor 146 may detect the change in speed by detecting a change in pressure of the pressurized gas and/or change in flow rate of the pressurized gas driving the motor. For example, when the drill bit 120 increases in speed, the sensor may detect a sudden change in gas pressure (e.g., decrease in gas pressure) or gas flow rate (e.g., increase in gas flow rate).“ And, “ the sensor 146 may be in communication with the pressure gauge on the pressure control unit.“(see [0048]). Furthermore, the “sensor 146 may be configured to differentiate between the standard acceleration”, “when the drill bit 102 slips off of the drilling surface” (see [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotary instrument of Lt. Louis/Houser/Wang, with the secondary input as the operating speed of the rotary instrument of Svagr, in order to provide a detection system in the rotary system to prevents damage sensitive material when the velocity of the drill drastically changes during its operation resulting in unintended and undesirable consequences., in this case damaging nerves and tissue surrounding a drill site ([see [0002]).
Regarding claim 33, St. Louis/Houser discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 29, and where St. Louis discloses that the pressure sensor measures the force or pressure applied to the rotary instrument, wherein the force or pressure is applied to the rotary instrument by a user or applied through a dental attachment affixed to the rotary instrument (see Fig. 14 above and [0007] – “a force is directed along the rotary instrument toward the cover and the force induces a deflection of the sensing cell. The amount of deflection is sensed by the strain gauge that produces an electrical signal corresponding to the deflection”, [0042] – “The handpiece also includes a sensing cell. The handpiece also includes at least one strain gauge. The at least one strain gauge can be affixed to the sensing cell”, [0043] – “The sensing cell can sense load applied to the handpiece during operation”, and Fig. 1A above, [0010] – “schematic representation of a dental rotary system including a console and a handpiece device”).
Regarding claim 34, St. Louis/Houser discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 29, and where St. Louis discloses that the predefined threshold corresponds to a force in a range from about 100 gm to about 1 kg (see [0062]).
Regarding claim 35, St. Louis/Houser discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 29, and where St. Louis discloses that the pressure sensor is configured to detachably attach to the rotary instrument (see Fig. 3A and 4 above – where each embodiment includes the sensing cell 118 including the sensors 120 and 122, that can be detached from the rotary instrument).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks with respect to the allowable subject matter indicated in the last Office action of 31 December 2025 have been considered. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Svagr (US 20110243673 A1) and Houser (US 20120116364 A1). And, because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument is moot.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIRAYDA ARLENE APONTE whose telephone number is (571)270-1933. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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.
/MIRAYDA A APONTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3772 /ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights