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 2 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.
The limitation recited in claim 2 is recited in amended claim 1. Therefore, claim 2 fails to further limit claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 3-8,20 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.
Claim 3 is unclear, as line 2 recites that the blade has a rectangular cross section, while claim 1 recites that the cross section is selected from cylindrical, circular or inverted triangular. For purposes of this claim, it will be assumed that the cross section is selected from the group recited in claim 1.
In claims 4,6 and 8, lines 6 and 7 are unclear and indefinite. Since the hole is only functionally recited, it is unclear how the size of the bur can be compared to the size of the hole, and since the size of the hole is undefined (how big is the hole?) the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. It is suggested that –is adapted to be—be inserted after “bur”.
Claims 4-8 repeat various limitations that were incorporated via amendment into claim 1, and thus these limitations are considered redundant.
In claim 20, line 1, “the asymmetric hole” has no prior antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kumar 20020028422.
[AltContent: textbox (Cutting grooves form rectangular cross section)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Cylindrical shape)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Cutting blade)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Milling blade extends to bottom of supporting rod)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Supporting rod)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Upper part)]
PNG
media_image1.png
516
192
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 1, Kumar discloses a milling bur 10’ (see fig. 7) configured to be (capable of being) used to form a hole for implanting an artificial tooth, the milling bur 10’ comprising:
an upper part (see above annotated figure 7) configured to be fastened to an operating robot and configured to be held by an operator; a supporting rod having a first end connected to an end of the upper part and a second end, the supporting rod having a scale 44’ configured to check a depth of the hole; and a milling blade 24’ installed at the second end of the supporting rod, the milling blade configured to form the hole for implanting the artificial tooth in an alveolar bone for a dental implant surgery, the milling blade 24’ having a cross-sectional shape selected from cylindrical, circular, or inverted triangular, (see above annotated figure 7, milling blade is circular in cross section) wherein the milling blade 24’ has cutting blades and cutting grooves formed on an outer surface thereof and extending to a bottom surface of the milling blade 24’,
With regard to the last 4 lines of claim 1, it is noted that the milling blade 24’ is dimensioned such that, when driven up-and-down and left- and-right in a circular motion by the surgical robot, different portions of the alveolar bone are cut to different extents corresponding to bone density (this inherently occurs when moving the blade 24’, since bone with higher density will not cut as easily as bone with lower density), thereby forming a hole having varying diameters along its depth in accordance with bone density of the alveolar bone.
With regard to claim 2, note that the supporting rod has a scale 44’ formed thereon configured to check a depth of the hole.
With regard to claim 3, note that the milling blade is formed in a cylindrical shape (see the sections between, which appears to be cylindrical) and which has an outer surface on which cutting blades 24’ for cutting (capable of cutting) an alveolar bone, and cutting grooves (the grooves between blades 24’) for discharging cut bone fragments are formed, the cutting blades 24’ and the cutting grooves extend to a bottom of the milling blade. See fig. 7.
With regard to claim 4, note that the milling bur is configured to be mounted on the operating robot (handpiece), and the operating robot (handpiece) is configured to form the hole in an alveolar bone by driving the milling bur up and down, and left and right in a circular shape. With regard to the limitation of the diameter of the milling bur being smaller than a diameter of the hole, this limitation is not given structural weight since the “hole” is not positively claimed. It is therefore held that the milling bur of Kumar is capable of being used with a hole that has a diameter smaller than the bur.
With regard to claims 5 and 7, note that the milling blade has an inverted triangular cross section (3 blades with 3 grooves therebetween, taken from a section formed by a horizontal plane) and which has an outer surface on which cutting blades 24’ for cutting (capable of cutting) an alveolar bone, and cutting grooves (the grooves between blades 24’) for discharging cut bone fragments are formed, the cutting blades 24’ and the cutting grooves extend to a bottom of the milling blade. See fig. 7.
With regard to claims 6 and 8, note that the milling bur is configured to be mounted on the operating robot (handpiece), and the operating robot (handpiece) is configured to form the hole in an alveolar bone by driving the milling bur up and down, and left and right in a circular shape. With regard to the limitation of the diameter of the milling bur being smaller than a diameter of the hole, this limitation is not given structural weight since the “hole” is not positively claimed. It is therefore held that the milling bur of Kumar is capable of being used with a hole that has a diameter smaller than the bur.
With further regard to claim 7, note that an outer surface of the milling blade is flat (see flat outer surface of each blade 24’); and diamond powder for cutting an alveolar bone is fixed on the outer surface. See paragraph 69.
With regard to claim 17, note that the cross-sectional shape of the milling blade is selected to minimize cutting resistance, thereby reducing heat generation during drilling and reducing thermal necrosis of bone tissue.
With regard to claim 18, note that the arrangement of the cutting blades and grooves enables asymmetric cutting of an alveolar bone to provide different contact depths for areas of different bone density. This can be achieved by moving the bur back and forth while moving it up and down, or tilting it slightly, during use.
With regard to claim 19, note that bone fragments generated during cutting are discharged through the grooves to improve cutting efficiency.
With regard to claim 20, note that when an asymmetrical hole is formed by the milling blade (see above rejection of claim 18) it is capable of providing uniform contact force between a screw of an artificial tooth and the alveolar bone.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-16 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/22/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, as these arguments have been addressed via a modified grounds of rejection regarding the additional limitations incorporated into claim 1. See above.
Applicant also states that claims 17-20 are allowable due to their dependence on claim 9, however these claims are dependent on claim 1.
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 NICHOLAS D LUCCHESI whose telephone number is (571)272-4977. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 800-430.
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.
/NICHOLAS D LUCCHESI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772