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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Figure 3, 328.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halter et al. (US 20200375695, hereinafter Halter) in view of Valade (US 5638830), Bourlion et al. (US 20130226025, hereinafter Bourlion), Jensen (US 20030044755) and Ionescu et al. (US 20180049856, hereinafter Ionescu).
Regarding Claim 1, Halter discloses a system (figure 1) for preventing injury to an inferior alveolar nerve of a patient caused by dental implant drills during a dental implant surgery (paragraphs [0007], [0020], [0035]), the system comprising: a dental implant drill (112; figure 1; paragraph [0022]), the dental implant drill configured to make a hole in a mandible of a patient (via 116; figure 1; paragraph [0022]); an element (134; figure 1; paragraph [0027]) configured to be attached to a lower lip of the patient (paragraph [0010] and [0022] disclose the plate is used to measure impedance, therefore needs to be placed on the body to measure such; The Examiner notes that the electrode being attached to the lip is functional and the device needs to just be capable of being placed there), the element made up of a conductive material (paragraph [0022] discloses measuring the impedance; electrodes are conductive); a meter (130; figure 1; paragraph [0022]) connected to the dental implant drill and the element (figure 1), a first wire (120-126; figure 1) interconnected between the meter and the dental implant drill (figure 1); a second wire (132; figure 1) interconnected between the meter and the clamp (figure 1); and a processor (138; figure 1; paragraph [0022]).
Halter does not disclose the element is a clamp, the clamp made up of copper, iron, gold, aluminum, silver, or a combination thereof; the meter being an ohmmeter, the ohmmeter comprising a display screen, the display screen configured to show the measured electrical resistance between the dental implant drill and the clamp; the ohmmeter configured to measure an electrical resistance between the dental implant drill and the element; a processor configured to: receive the measured electrical resistance between the dental implant drill and the return electrode from the ohmmeter; and turn off the dental implant drill by sending commands associated with turning off the dental implant drill to the dental implant drill responsive to the measured electrical resistance between the dental implant drill and the clamp being less than 400 ohms.
Valade discloses a system (figures 1-3) for a dental surgery, the system comprising: a dental file (4; figure 1; column 3, lines 15-20 discloses it to be a surgical instrument or file); a clamp (17; figure 1; column 3, lines 25-40 discloses it to be a buccal clip) configured to be attached to a lower lip of the patient (column 3, lines 25-40); an ohmmeter (13; figure 1; column 3, lines 22-38) connected to the dental file and the clamp (figure 1), the ohmmeter configured to measure an electrical resistance between the dental file and the clamp (column 3, lines 22-38); a first wire (14; figure 1; column 3, lines 22-38) interconnected between the ohmmeter and the dental file (column 3, lines 22-38); a second wire (15; figure 1; column 3, lines 22-38) interconnected between the ohmmeter and the clamp (column 3, lines 22-38); and a processor (21, 25, 29, 30, 33; figure 1; column 3, lines 22-38), the processor configured to: receive the measured electrical resistance (through 19, 21 receives the measured resistance that ohmmeter finds; figure 1; column 3, lines 42-65) between the dental file and the clamp from the ohmmeter (figure 1; column 3, lines 42-65); and turn off the dental file by sending commands associated with turning off the dental implant file to the dental file responsive to the measured electrical resistance reaches a predetermined threshold (as disclosed in column 3, line 42-column 4, line 3, 21 receives the initial output value from the ohmmeter which sends the value to the smoothing circuit 25 which processes the data from the ohmmeter. The output of that data (27) then creates a curve which is analyzed by 29 that determines the at each instance the progress of the file and the conductance. There the signal is received by 33 which will emit a noise if the limit has been reached or completely stop the devices vibrations if exceeded explained in column 4, lines 4-14) being less than a predetermined threshold (column 4, lines 4-14).
It would have been obvious to none of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the element of Halter to be a clamp as taught by Valade and the meter of Halter to be an ohmmeter, the ohmmeter configured to measure an electrical resistance between the dental implant drill and the element; a processor configured to: receive the measured electrical resistance between the dental implant drill and the return electrode from the ohmmeter; and turn off the dental implant drill by sending commands associated with turning off the dental implant drill to the dental implant drill responsive to the measured electrical resistance between the dental implant drill and the return electrode being less than a predetermined threshold as taught by Valade in order to determine the electrical resistance while the device is in operation.
Bourlion discloses a system comprising a drill (10; figure 2; paragraph [0073]) for measuring resistance to determine the type of bone (paragraph [0115] discloses measuring the resistance/conductivity of the bone structure and the value ranges based on porosity) and controlling the device based upon porosity of the bone structure (paragraph [0138]) and control the electric generator based upon the measurement of the porosity of the bone (paragraph [0118]), and the dental implant drill responsive to the measured electrical resistance between the dental implant drill and the electrode (paragraph [0114]) being less than 400 ohms (paragraph [0117] discloses a measurement of 300 ohms).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the predetermined threshold of Halter/Valade to be less 400 ohm as taught Bourlion in order to be a value selected based upon the bone you want to detect.
Jensen discloses a system (figure 5) for preventing injury to an inferior alveolar nerve of a patient caused by dental implant drills during a dental implant surgery (paragraphs [0022], [0025], [0044]-[0045]), the system comprising: a dental implant drill (50; figures 5-6g), the dental implant drill configured to make a hole in a mandible of a patient (paragraph [0090]); the measuring device (paragraphs [0060], [0075], and [0113]) comprising a display screen (paragraph [0114]), the display screen configured to show the measured electrical resistance between the dental implant drill and the clamp (paragraphs [0113]-[0114]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the meter of Halter have a display screen as taught by Jensen to show the user the amount of resistance imparted to ensure there is no injury to the patient (paragraph [0093]).
Ionescu discloses a system (figure 1) for preventing injury to a patient caused during a dental surgery (figure 1), the system comprising: an electrode (104 and 106; figure 1; paragraph [0085]), the electrode made up of a conductive material (paragraph [0085]), the clamp made up of copper, or silver (paragraph [0085]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the material of the element of Halter to be copper/silver as taught by Ionescu in order to have a high electric conductivity. Additionally, it is well known to those in the art that the material of the electrode is silver/copper as it is a design choice.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halter et al. (US 20200375695, hereinafter Halter) in view of Valade (US 5638830).
Regarding Claim 2, Halter discloses a system (figure 1) for preventing injury to an inferior alveolar nerve of a patient caused by dental implant drills during a dental implant surgery (paragraphs [0007], [0020]), the system comprising: a dental implant drill (112; figure 1; paragraph [0022]), the dental implant drill configured to make a hole in a mandible of a patient (via 116; figure 1; paragraph [0022]); an element (134; figure 1; paragraph [0027]) configured to be attached to a lower lip of the patient (paragraph [0010] and [0022] disclose the plate is used to measure impedance, therefore needs to be placed on the body to measure such; The Examiner notes that the electrode being attached to the lip is functional and the device needs to just be capable of being placed there), the element made up of a conductive material (paragraph [0022] discloses measuring the impedance; electrodes are conductive); a meter (130; figure 1; paragraph [0022]) connected to the dental implant drill and the element (figure 1), a first wire (120-126; figure 1) interconnected between the meter and the dental implant drill (figure 1); a second wire (132; figure 1) interconnected between the meter and the clamp (figure 1); and a processor (138; figure 1; paragraph [0022]).
Halter does not disclose the element is a clamp, the meter being an ohmmeter, the ohmmeter configured to measure an electrical resistance between the dental implant drill and the clamp; a processor configured to: receive the measured electrical resistance between the dental implant drill and the return electrode from the ohmmeter; and turn off the dental implant drill by sending commands associated with turning off the dental implant drill to the dental implant drill responsive to the measured electrical resistance between the dental implant drill and the return electrode being less a predetermined threshold.
Valade discloses a system (figures 1-3) for a dental surgery, the system comprising: a dental file (4; figure 1; column 3, lines 15-20 discloses it to be a surgical instrument or file); a clamp (17; figure 1; column 3, lines 25-40 discloses it to be a buccal clip) configured to be attached to a lower lip of the patient (column 3, lines 25-40); an ohmmeter (13; figure 1; column 3, lines 22-38) connected to the dental file and the clamp (figure 1), the ohmmeter configured to measure an electrical resistance between the dental file and the clamp (column 3, lines 22-38); a first wire (14; figure 1; column 3, lines 22-38) interconnected between the ohmmeter and the dental file (column 3, lines 22-38); a second wire (15; figure 1; column 3, lines 22-38) interconnected between the ohmmeter and the clamp (column 3, lines 22-38); and a processor (21, 25, 29, 30, 33; figure 1; column 3, lines 22-38), the processor configured to: receive the measured electrical resistance (through 19, 21 receives the measured resistance that ohmmeter finds; figure 1; column 3, lines 42-65) between the dental file and the clamp from the ohmmeter (figure 1; column 3, lines 42-65); and turn off the dental file by sending commands associated with turning off the dental implant file to the dental file responsive to the measured electrical resistance reaches a predetermined threshold (as disclosed in column 3, line 42-column 4, line 3, 21 receives the initial output value from the ohmmeter which sends the value to the smoothing circuit 25 which processes the data from the ohmmeter. The output of that data (27) then creates a curve which is analyzed by 29 that determines the at each instance the progress of the file and the conductance. There the signal is received by 33 which will emit a noise if the limit has been reached or completely stop the devices vibrations if exceeded explained in column 4, lines 4-14) being less than a predetermined threshold (the Examiner notes that the limitation is functional and device is capable of determining a threshold value that when equal to the critical value makes the device stop; column 4, lines 4-14).
It would have been obvious to none of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the element of Halter to be a clamp as taught by Valade and the meter of Halter to be an ohmmeter, the ohmmeter configured to measure an electrical resistance between the dental implant drill and the element; a processor configured to: receive the measured electrical resistance between the dental implant drill and the return electrode from the ohmmeter; and turn off the dental implant drill by sending commands associated with turning off the dental implant drill to the dental implant drill responsive to the measured electrical resistance between the dental implant drill and the return electrode being less than a predetermined value as taught by Valade in order to determine the electrical resistance while the device is in operation.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halter et al. (US 20200375695, hereinafter Halter) in view of Valade (US 5638830) further in view of Bourlion et al. (US 20130226025, hereinafter Bourlion).
Regarding Claim 3, Halter as modified by Valade discloses the system of Claim 2. Halter does not disclose the predetermined threshold is 400 ohms.
Bourlion discloses a system comprising a drill (10; figure 2; paragraph [0073]) for measuring resistance to determine the type of bone (paragraph [0115] discloses measuring the resistance/conductivity of the bone structure and the value ranges based on porosity) and controlling the device based upon porosity of the bone structure (paragraph [0138]) and control the electric generator based upon the measurement of the porosity of the bone (paragraph [0118]), and the dental implant drill responsive to the measured electrical resistance between the dental implant drill and the electrode (paragraph [0114]) being less than 400 ohms (paragraph [0117] discloses a measurement of 300 ohms).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the predetermined threshold of Halter/Valade to be less 400 ohm as taught Bourlion in order to be a value selected based upon the bone you want to detect.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halter et al. (US 20200375695, hereinafter Halter) in view of Valade (US 5638830) and Bourlion et al. (US 20130226025, hereinafter Bourlion), further in view of Ionescu et al. (US 20180049856, hereinafter Ionescu).
Regarding Claim 4, Halter as modified by Valade, Bourlion, and Ionescu discloses the system of Claim 3. Halter as modified by Valade discloses the return electrode is a clamp (Valade, figure 1); however halter does not disclose the clamp made up of copper, iron, gold, aluminum, silver, or a combination thereof.
Ionescu discloses a system (figure 1) for preventing injury to a patient caused during a dental surgery (figure 1), the system comprising: an electrode (104 and 106; figure 1; paragraph [0085]), the electrode made up of a conductive material (paragraph [0085]), the clamp made up of copper, or silver (paragraph [0085]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the material of the Clamp of Halter/Valade to be copper/silver as taught by Ionescu in order to have a high electric conductivity. Additionally, it is well known to those in the art that the material of the electrode is silver/copper as it is a design choice.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halter et al. (US 20200375695, hereinafter Halter) in view of Valade (US 5638830), Bourlion et al. (US 20130226025, hereinafter Bourlion), and Ionescu et al. (US 20180049856, hereinafter Ionescu), further in view of Jensen (US 20030044755).
Regarding Claim 5, Halter as modified by Valade, Bourlion, and Ionescu discloses the system of Claim 4. Halter does not disclose the ohmmeter comprises a display screen, the display screen configured to show the measured electrical resistance between the dental implant drill and the clamp.
Jensen discloses the meter (figure 4; paragraph [0087]-[0088]) comprising a display screen (paragraph [0114]), the display screen configured to show the measured electrical resistance between the dental implant drill and the clamp (paragraphs [0113]-[0114]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the ohmmeter of Halter to have a display screen, the display screen configured to show the measured electrical resistance between the dental implant drill and the clamp in order for the user to know the resistance throughout the procedure to ensure they do not drill to deep.
Regarding Claim 6, Halter as modified by Valade, Bourlion, Ionescu, and Jensen discloses the system of Claim 5. Halter discloses an alarm system (paragraph [0021]) connected to the processor (paragraph [0021]), the alarm system configured to make an alert sound responsive to the measured value between the dental implant drill and the clamp being less than the predetermined threshold (paragraph [0021]), the processor configured to send commands associated with making the alert sound to the alarm system responsive to the measured value (paragraph [0021] discloses auditory signals to alter the user to stop) between the dental implant drill and the clamp (Valade, figure 1) being less than the predetermined threshold (paragraph [0021] discloses auditory signals to alter the user to stop).
Halter does not disclose the measured value is a measured electrical resistance.
Valade discloses the system determining a measured electrical resistance (column 3, line 44- column 4, line 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the measured value of Halter to be an electrical resistance as taught by Valade to determine the voltage and the strength of the electrical current when performing surgery as to not cause injury to the patient.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sydney J Pulvidente whose telephone number is (571)272-8066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:30 a.m. - 3:30 p.m..
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.
/SYDNEY J PULVIDENTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3772 /HEIDI M EIDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
9/30/2025