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 12/5/25.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/5/25 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.
Applicant provides several arguments against the prior art of Loddeke does not teach various features of the claimed invention. However, such arguments do not address the Examiner’s interpretation of the claims, including the detailed explanation and annotated figures below, and instead provide mere statements that Loddeke does not each several of such structures.
Applicant does argue that Loddeke does not teach the limiting groove and corresponding limiting member and limiting boss as claimed, stating that Loddeke does not teach the groove and does not state the boss engages the groove as required. However, the Examiner does not find such arguments persuasive, as Loddeke, as explained below, clearly teaches a groove 37 where the taper of the internal cavity stops as clearly shown in Figs. 1-2. Similarly, Loddeke teaches the limiting member and boss engaging the groove, with the prongs of boss engaged thereto, in Fig. 1. The Examiner notes that no other particular structure is recited regarding the groove, member or boss, and as such there is no structure that prohibits the relied on interpretation.
Regarding the arguments to the inclusion of Butler, the Examiner notes that the arguments are based on Applicant’s own claim mapping, which is not relied on in the instant rejection. The arguments and mapping do not address the Examiner’s mapping which is not excluded or prohibited by the claim language. Please see below. Additionally, Applicant’s statement that Loddeke could only be modified with the teachings of Butler as Applicant contemplates (and not the Examiner’s combination), is not persuasive as no specific reasons or evidence is provided, and instead appears to be based on opinion, which the Examiner respectfully disagrees with.
Finally, the Examiner notes that the arguments and description of the function of the components and further structure not listed in the claims has been considered but is not persuasive, as it is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. 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 § 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.
Claims 1 and 6 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 1, the claim has been amended to recite that the second gear is arranged between the first gear and the second limiting member. However, upon review of the original figures, the second gear (204) appears to be above the first gear (203) and the second limiting member(4), with only potentially a gear tooth therebetween. Although rotational would be transmitted first to the first gear, then the second gear, then the second limiting member, it is otherwise unclear how the second gear is between the first gear and second limiting member. It is unclear if Applicant intended to recite that the first gear is between the second gear and second limiting member or if Applicant intends for the second gear to be interpreted between the first and second limiting member in another manner. Clarification is required.
Claim 6 is rejected based on its dependency on claim 1.
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 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loddeke et al (US 5964590) in view of Butler (US 5120220).
Regarding claim 1, Loddeke et al discloses a dental prophy angle (see Figs. 1-2), comprising a housing (3), a driving assembly (50/60/11), a first limiting member (15), a second limiting member (70), and a prophy cup (see col 3, lines 35-40), wherein the driving assembly comprises a first driving shaft (11) and a second driving shaft (50); the second driving shaft comprises one end connected to the first driving shaft by a gearing connection (e.g. at 59/60; via 60), and the other end provided with the prophy cup (at 51); the gearing connection between the one end of the first driving shaft and the second driving shaft is achieved by a first gear (17/24) on the one end of the first driving shaft and a second gear (59) on the second driving shaft which are engaged with each other (see Fig. 1 and col 5, lines 37-42); the first limiting member (15) is sleeved on the first driving shaft and located between the first driving shaft and an inner wall of the housing (see Fig. 1); and the second limiting member (70) is sleeved on the second driving shaft and located between the second driving shaft and the inner wall of the housing (see Fig. 1), and the second gear is arranged between the first gear and the second limiting member (at least in part, as shown in Fig. 1, as best understood by the Examiner); the inner wall of the housing forms a first mounting chamber (A, below) for holding the first driving shaft (at least in part) and a second mounting chamber (B) for holding the second driving shaft; the first mounting chamber comprises a first limiting segment (C) and a second limiting segment (D); and the first limiting member (15) is located in the second limiting segment (at least in part), a limiting groove (37) is provided on the second limiting segment, and a limiting boss (33) corresponding to the limiting groove is provided on the first limiting member, and the limiting boss snaps into the limiting groove (see col 4, lines 52-64), a first limiting ring (25a) and a second limiting ring (25b) are provided on the first driving shaft, the first limiting ring and the second limiting ring are respectively located at two ends of the first limiting segment (see below), and the first limiting member abuts against the second limiting ring (see Fig. 1). Loddeke et al further discloses wherein the first and second gears are bevel gears (see Fig. 2, col 4, line 35 and col 5, line 38), and are located in the second mounting chamber (see below; per claim 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
468
1014
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Loddeke et al, does not teach wherein an end of the first limiting segment close to the second mounting chamber is provided with a boss, and the first limiting ring abuts against the boss as required.
Butler, however, teaches a similar dental prophy angle (see Figs. 1 and 7) with a housing having a first limiting segment (E) and a second limiting segment (F), wherein an end of the first limiting segment close to a second mounting chamber (G) is provided with a boss (e.g. ledges/edges forming 54), and a drive shaft (13) having a first limiting ring (20 and 24/26) at an end of the first limiting segment and abutting against the boss (via 24/26). 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 Loddeke to include Butler’s boss at the end of the first limiting segment close to the second mounting chamber and first limiting ring abutting against the boss, as such modification would provide additional axial, rotational and radial stability at the distal end of the first shaft within the housing, thereby reducing wear, vibration and unintended movement of the shaft.
PNG
media_image2.png
640
1034
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
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