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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claimed subject matter of claim 8 showing vacuum; claim 13 (e.g. current limit sensor, motor), claim 15 (spring loaded cam on a front face) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-20 in the reply filed on 11/03/2025 is acknowledged; however, certain claims are drawn to non-elected species and therefore withdrawn from further consideration. Claims 4 drawn to non-elected species figure 3 regarding planetary motion, claim 5 drawn to fig. 55 regarding offset mixing chamber, claims 9, 10, 11 drawn to non-elected species figures 16-24, claims 12, 16-19 are drawn to non-elected species figures 48, 25, 18, 17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “The handpiece” should be corrected with “the handpiece.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8, 13, 14 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.
Regarding claim 8, it is not clear what is meant by the handpiece includes a vacuum. Is it refereeing to void of air, or some suction device. The claim is treated as the handpiece having capability to provide vacuum to remove air as best understood.
Regarding claim 13, it is not clear how a current limit sensor reduces the motor speed without claiming working parts. “The motor” lacks antecedent basis in the claim. The claim is treated as the handpieces having a current limit sensor as a structure, not tied to any functioning mechanism.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
…continue next page
Claim(s) 1, 20, 2, 3, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cheetham (2012/0295221).
PNG
media_image1.png
805
889
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Cheetham discloses a handpiece (e.g. dispensing device [0026], figures 1-3), comprising: a chamber (shown above) having a powder and liquid, the handpiece capable of (functional/intended use limitation) activating the chamber such that the powder and the liquid are mixed into a paste, the handpiece further being capable of dispensing the paste (e.g. mixture of liquid and powder; [0017]) from the chamber.
With regard the statement of intended use and other functional statements, 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.
Regarding claim 20, Cheetham discloses a dental material applicator system ([0026], figures 1-3, comprising: a segmented capsule (shown above) having a powder and a liquid, a handpiece (e.g. dispensing device [0026])), wherein the handpiece is capable of (function/intended use limitation) being triggered in order for the capsule to be activated such that the powder and the liquid are mixed into a paste, and wherein the mixed paste is extruded from the handpiece (e.g. mixture of liquid and powder; [0017]).
With regard the statement of intended use and other functional statements, 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.
Regarding claim 2, the chamber is a capsule as shown above.
Regarding claim 3, the handpiece/chamber is capable of mixing through ultrasonic vibrations.
Regarding 14, the handpiece is capable of (intended use/functional limitation) automatically retracting plungers and unlocking the chamber after all of the paste has been dispensed so that the chamber can be unloaded upon installing appropriate functioning mechanisms.
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheetham as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pond (6,319,002).
Cheetham discloses the invention substantially as claimed but silent about battery powered handpiece as claimed; however, Pond teaches battery powered handpiece as claimed (fig. 4 shows battery 76).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the handpiece of Cheetham by providing battery powered handpiece as taught by Pond in order to easily dispense material without manual efforts and dispensing in a controlled manner.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheetham as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bergheim et al. (2015/0010882).
Cheetham discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for the chamber further comprising a radio frequency identification such that the chamber is read by the handpiece and the handpiece imparts the proper mixing sequence for that a product; however, Bergheim discloses a dental handpiece having an RFID emitter for sending desired information for the handpiece ([0014], [0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the chamber by providing RFID identifier as claimed as taught by Bergheim in order to provide information about the handpiece functions.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheetham as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mukasa et al. (2003/0103409).
Cheetham discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for vacuum as claimed; however, Mukasa teaches a handpiece device having a capsule with vacuum device 10.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify handpiece of Cheetham by providing vacuum as taught by Mukasa in order to remove air from the mixture.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheetham as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of cattani (7,326,282).
Cheetham discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for a current limit sensor as claimed; however, cattani teaches a current sensor in a dental device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Cheetham by providing a current sensor as taught by cattani in order to reduce overheating of the motor and to reduce dispensing of materials as desired.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheetham as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Koering (5,451,105).
Cheetham discloses the invention substantially as claimed except a spring loaded cam on a front face supporting the chamber so that the when the chamber is rotated the spring loaded cam imparts a rapid back and forth vibration to the chamber such that mixing of the powder and liquid into the paste occurs as claimed; however,
Koering discloses a device (figures 1-3) including a spring loaded cam on a front face supporting the chamber so that the when the chamber is rotated the spring loaded cam imparts a rapid back and forth vibration to the chamber as claimed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the handpiece by providing the spring loaded cam as claimed as taught by Koering in order to agitate the mixture thus allowing proper mixing of powder and liquid.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Patel Yogesh whose telephone number is (571) 270-3646. The examiner can normally be reached between 9 AM – 5:30 PM on Monday, Thursday and Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, SPE Bosques Edelmira, at (571) 270-5614.
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.
/YOGESH P PATEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772