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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 1/16/26.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and additionally do not address the new grounds of rejection and/or interpretation below necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Regarding the newly added limitations the claims, the Examiner notes that such limitations are functional recitations. Specifically, the claims state that the claimed tool comprises….”a tooth extraction tool having an engagement portion guided to a gap between the second auxiliary substrate and the tooth and engaging with the second auxiliary substrate, in a state where the first auxiliary substrate is fixed within the recessed portion formed in the tooth with a hot melt adhesive”. Specifically, the positively recited structure of the tool with an engagement portion is then functionally described to be capable of being guided to a gap when the first substrate is fixed within the tooth with hot melt adhesive. Accordingly, the tool must only be capable of being guided as required, and the first auxiliary substrate must only be capable of being fixed with a hot melt adhesive. In both primary prior art references relied on, the first substrate is inserted into the root canal of the tooth, and accordingly, the canal is capable of being filled with a hot melt adhesive prior to insertion of the first substrate, if so desired, and as such both references are capable of being used as claimed.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
The Examiner notes that the hot melt adhesive or use thereof could be positively recited in a system or method claim, respectively, in a continuing application.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive and additionally do not address the new grounds of rejection and/or interpretation below necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoke, III (US 8439679 B2) in view of Nishio (US 2020/0275990 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Hoke, III discloses a tooth extraction tool (see Fig. 5), comprising a tooth extraction auxiliary tool (103/119) comprising: a first auxiliary substrate (105) adapted to be inserted into a recessed portion formed in a tooth; a second auxiliary substrate (121); a connection portion (123) that connects the first auxiliary substrate and the second auxiliary substrate (via interval adjustment mechanism); an interval adjustment mechanism (107) for adjusting an interval between the first auxiliary substrate and the second auxiliary substrate via the connection portion, and a tooth extraction tool (111/155) having an engagement portion (115) guided to a gap between the second auxiliary substrate and the tooth and engaging with the second auxiliary substrate, in a state where the first auxiliary substrate is fixed within the recessed portion in the tooth with a hot melt adhesive (see Fig. 5 and col 3, lines 9-13; capable of being fixed with a holt melt adhesive if so desired; e.g. hot melt adhesive can be placed into tooth root canal prior to insertion of first substrate), and wherein the interval adjustment mechanism adjusts the distance between the first auxiliary substrate and the second auxiliary substrate so that the engagement portion is engaged with the second auxiliary substrate (e.g. via interaction with connection portion; see citations above); wherein the interval adjustment mechanism includes a structure in which the length of the connection portion can be changed and fixed in a slidable manner (e.g. connection portion length can be changed by screwing (sliding on threads) into and out of interval adjustment mechanism); and the tooth extraction auxiliary tool (111/155) is configured to be removed together with the tooth when the tooth is extracted from the gum by a movement of the tooth extraction tool in a direction away from the gum (e.g. configured to be used as such, 111/155 can be removed in an upward direction with the tooth by grasping the handle 155 thereof and pulling upwards; at least in instances with extremely loose teeth or in final removal of the device from the mouth; the Examiner notes that the extraction tools have all requisite structure required to be configured to be used as such). Hoke, III, additionally discloses wherein the extraction tool includes a first substrate (155) extending in a longitudinal direction and a second substrate (111) connected to one end portion of the first substrate in the longitudinal direction and adapted to be inserted into an oral cavity of a patient, but does not teach an engagement cutout portion that divides a tip portion of the second substrate is formed in the second substrate as the engagement portion, such that the engagement portion is configured to be hooked onto the second auxiliary substrate as required.
Nishio, however, teaches a similar tooth extraction set including a tool (10/20) having an engagement cutout portion that divides a tip portion of a second substrate to form an engagement portion to hook onto a tooth extraction pin (see Figs. 1 and 2a-b; area 12/12a). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Hoke to include Nishio’s teaching of an engagement cutout portion that divides the tip, the engagement portion thereby being configured to hook onto the extraction tool/pin, a such modification would allow easier insertion and/or removal of the tool on the extraction pin/tool, and allow the force to be applied at different angles.
Regarding claim 5, Hoke/Nishio, as combined above, further discloses wherein the second substrate of the tooth extraction tool (Hoke 111) is formed in a convex curved surface shape (see circular hole 115 and convex cross section thereof in Fig. 5 Hole; convex at least in part; as modified hole would be at least semicircular; e.g. at least partially open for slot as taught by Nishio), and a bottom portion of the second substrate is formed in a flat shape (e.g. see bottom flat rim of 111 as shown in Fig. 5, Hoke).
Claim(s) 1 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (WO 2020/175713) in view of Hoke, III et al.
Regarding the above claims, Suzuki discloses a tooth extraction tool set (see Figs. 11-12), comprising a tooth extraction tool (8) comprising: a first auxiliary substrate (portion of 8 inserted in tooth as shown) adapted to be inserted into a recessed portion formed in a tooth; a second auxiliary substrate (head of 8 engaged with tool 6; 81); a connection portion (e.g. neck of 8 between inserted portion and handle) that connects the first auxiliary substrate and the second auxiliary substrate; a tooth extraction tool (6) having an engagement portion (63) guided to a gap between the second auxiliary substrate and the tooth and engaging with the second auxiliary substrate, in a state where the first auxiliary substrate is fixed within the recessed portion formed in the tooth with a hot melt adhesive (capable of being fixed with a holt melt adhesive if so desired; e.g. hot melt adhesive can be placed into tooth root canal prior to insertion of first substrate therein), wherein the engagement portion is hooked onto the second auxiliary substrate (see Figs. 11-12 and Machine Translation page 6, paragraphs 3-4), and wherein the tooth extraction auxiliary tool is configured to be removed together with the tooth when the tooth is extracted from the gum by a movement of the tooth extraction tool in a direction away from the gum (e.g. configured to be used as such, extraction tool can be removed in an upward direction with the tooth by grasping the handle thereof and pulling upwards; at least in instances with extremely loose teeth or in final removal of the device from the mouth; the Examiner notes that the extraction tool has all requisite structure required to be configured to be used as such). Suzuki further discloses wherein the tooth extraction tool includes a first substrate (60) extending in a longitudinal direction and a second substrate (61) connected to one end portion of the first substrate in the longitudinal direction and adapted to be inserted into an oral cavity (see Fig. 12), and an engagement cutout portion (63) that divides a tip portion of the second substrate as the engagement portion (see Figs. 11-12); and wherein the second substrate is formed in a convex curved surface shape (see Figs. 11-12), and a bottom portion (62) of the second substrate is formed in a convex curved surface shape having a smaller curvature than a periphery of the bottom portion (see citations above and Figs. 11-12; as shown in Fig. 12, front of bottom surface has a smaller curvature than at a periphery of the bottom, for example, where bottom curves vertically to top surface and/or to handle). Suzuki, however, does not teach the tooth extraction tool comprising an interval adjustment mechanism as required.
Hoke, III et al, however, teaches a tooth extraction tool (103/119) comprising: a first auxiliary substrate (105) adapted to be inserted into a recessed portion formed in a tooth; a second auxiliary substrate (121); a connection portion (107) that connects the first auxiliary substrate and the second auxiliary substrate; and an interval adjustment mechanism (109/123) for adjusting an interval between the first auxiliary substrate and the second auxiliary substrate via the connection portion (see Fig. 5 and col 3, lines 9-13). Hoke et al further discloses wherein the interval adjustment mechanism includes a male screw portion (123) formed in the second auxiliary substrate and a female screw portion (109) formed in the connection portion, and the two portions configured to be screwed together to adjust the distance between the first and second auxiliary substrates so that an engagement portion of a tooth extraction tool (111) is retained on the auxiliary substrate as required. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Suzuki to include Hoke’s interval adjustment mechanism, as explained above, as such modification would provide for selective tightening of the play between the tool and auxiliary tool connection, allow more force to be more quickly applied to the tooth, reduce slippage of the tool with the auxiliary tool and allow customization of the direction of the force applied as desired.
Additionally, as noted above, Suzuki/Hoke discloses wherein the interval adjustment mechanism is configured to include a male screw portion (123) formed in the second auxiliary substrate and a female screw portion (109) formed in the connection portion, and the two portions configured to be screwed together (see Hoke), but does not teach the reverse configuration with the male screw portion formed in the connection portion and the female screw portion formed in the second auxiliary substrate as required. However, such modification would merely involve a reversal of known parts of the device (e.g. the location of the male and female threads), which has been held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Suzuki/Hoke, as combined above, to provide the male screw portion on the connection portion and the female screw portion in the second auxiliary substrate, as such modification would merely involve a reversal of known parts of the device, which has been held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(A)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached PTO892 form.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 EDWARD MORAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 AM-4 PM EST.
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.
/EDWARD MORAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772