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
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.
Claim 5 is 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. Claim 5 recites broader limitations with respect to the number of teeth on the gear (14 to 20 and 10 to 14), however claim 1 from which it depends already has established teeth counts of 16 and 12. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (US 2017/0035530).
Tanaka shows a dental handpiece comprising a main body to be held by a user (4); and a head (10) connected to the main body, wherein the head includes a tool rotating mechanism that holds a cutting tool for operating a region to be operated (tool 50 and surrounding mechanism for rotating it near 15 in Fig. 2), rotates based on rotation of a drive unit that is rotationally driven (for rotating tool), and rotates the cutting tool (rotating tool 50), wherein the main body includes a first rotary shaft (102) to which rotation of the drive unit is transmitted (Fig. 2), a second rotary shaft (201) to which rotation of the first rotary shaft is transmitted (Fig. 2), and a third rotary shaft to which rotation of the second rotary shaft is transmitted (301), a first gear mechanism that transmits rotation of the first rotary shaft to the second rotary shaft is provided between the first rotary shaft and the second rotary shaft (114), a second gear mechanism that transmits rotation of the second rotary shaft to the third rotary shaft is provided between the second rotary shaft and the third rotary shaft (207/209), and a third gear mechanism that transmits rotation of the third rotary shaft to the tool rotating mechanism is provided between the third rotary shaft and the tool rotating mechanism (307), wherein the main body bends upward at a portion where the second gear mechanism is located in a longitudinal direction wherein the dental handpiece is held with the cutting tool on the lower side and the head on an upper side in a horizontal fashion (curve of body upwards seen near 207 in Fig. 2).
However, Tanaka fails to show the tool rotating mechanism has a rotation speed of at least 5.5 times or more a rotation speed of the drive unit with the first gear mechanism having 23/7 interfacing teeth, the second gear mechanism having 13/8 interfacing teeth, and the third gear mechanism having 16/12 interfacing teeth. With respect to claims 4-5, the third gear mechanism transmits rotation of the drive unit to the tool rotating mechanism such that the rotation speed of the tool rotating mechanism becomes 1.00 to 2.00 times the rotation speed of the third rotary shaft, and the rotation speed of the tool rotating mechanism is 6.5 times or more and 7.2 times or less the rotation speed of the drive unit. Tanaka instead shows a ratio of around 4.15, but establishes this as a results effective variable of a tradeoff between speed and durability achieved by varying the amount of teeth ([0062]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tanaka by having the ratio of rotating speeds at least 5.5 or between 6.5 and 7.2 and third gear to tool of 1 to 2 times (and corresponding teeth number interfacing: the first gear mechanism having 23/7 interfacing teeth, the second gear mechanism having 13/8 interfacing teeth, and the third gear mechanism having 16/12 interfacing teeth) since this is recognized as a results effective variable for achieving recognized results. With specific regards to the teeth, the number of teeth is directly correlated to the speed and therefore also part of the results effective variable, wherein the third gear mechanism includes a third rotary-shaft-side gear that is a bevel gear provided in the third rotary shaft, and a head-side gear that is a bevel gear provided in the tool rotating mechanism and meshes with the third rotary-shaft-side gear, the third rotary-shaft-side gear has 14 to 20 of teeth, and the head-side gear has 10 to 14 of teeth (see also 112 4th rejection above with regard to claim 5). Claim 10 is similarly addressed with the established results effective variable for achieving the higher claimed speeds, wherein the drive unit has a maximum rotation speed of 40,000 rpm, and the tool rotating mechanism has a maximum rotation speed of 285,000 rpm.
With respect to claim 3, wherein the first gear mechanism transmits rotation of the drive unit to the second rotary shaft such that a rotation speed of the second rotary shaft becomes 1.64 to 4.50 times a rotation speed of the drive unit transmitted to the first rotary shaft (132k rpm / 40k rpm = 3.3; [0062]), the second gear mechanism transmits rotation of the drive unit to the third rotary shaft such that a rotation speed of the third rotary shaft becomes 1.00 to 2.43 times the rotation speed of the second rotary shaft (185k rpm / 132k rpm = 1.4; [0062]), and the third gear mechanism transmits rotation of the drive unit to the tool rotating mechanism such that a rotation speed of the tool rotating mechanism becomes 0.80 to 2.00 times the rotation speed of the third rotary shaft (166k rpm / 185k rpm = .90; [0062]), to rotate the cutting tool. With respect to claim 6, wherein at least one of the first gear mechanism and the second gear mechanism includes an internal gear that transmits rotation and an external gear to which rotation is transmitted, the external gear having a smaller diameter than the internal gear (see Fig. 2-7 for instance show the relative sizes). With respect to claim 7, wherein a tooth of the external gear is configured such that a tooth surface has an area protruding toward a radially outer side of the external gear (see Fig. 2-7 for the arrangements). With respect to claim 8, wherein the main body includes a substantially cylindrical first main body provided with the second rotary shaft and a substantially cylindrical second main body provided with a distal end of the third rotary shaft, and the second main body has a head side smaller in diameter than a first main body side (Fig. 2-7 shows these relative sizes and the “hollow tube” cylindrical bodies). With respect to claim 9, wherein the second rotary shaft and the third rotary shaft form an obtuse angle (Fig. 5A in particular).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that nothing in the Tanaka reference discloses that the rotation speed of a tool rotating mechanism has any relationship between the ability of the device to achieve its intended result, and that the reference does not mention rotation speed at all. However this was addressed in the previous rejection, specifically citing paragraph 62, which states that a ratio of the rotation number of the cutting tool to that of the motor depends upon the teeth numbers of the gears; and the rotation number/speed being decreased reduces mechanical stress to be applied to the gears thereof. And with respect to mention of rotation speed, paragraph 62 explicitly discusses increasing and decreasing rotation speeds with specific rpm’s noted.
Applicant argues that no reason or motivation has been provided, however the rejection above has motivation with results effective variables, specifically the number of teeth/speed and tradeoff with durability.
Applicant argues the newly amended language, however this has been addressed with the Tanaka reference as detailed above.
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 MATTHEW NELSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5898. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm EDT.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Eric Rosen, 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW M NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772