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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 10 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DeVengencie et al. (2012/0308956).
With respect to claim 1, DeVengencie discloses a dental tool tip for removable attachment to a vibratory dental handpiece 12, the dental tool tip comprising: a mounting base 26 configured for removable engagement with the vibratory dental handpiece (see fig. 1, pars. 46, 48), the mounting base having an open-ended, internal bore 36/40 extending therethrough and configured for fluid communication with the vibratory dental handpiece (pars. 9, 29, 47-48); a body 28 having a free distal, terminal end (see fig. 1, the distal end tip of element 28, opposite connection 56) and at least a portion of the body having an abrasive coating (pars. 32-33, 61); and a mounting rod 21 proximally extending from the body and at least partially received within the internal bore (see fig. 1, such that portion 42 of the mounting rod is received within the bore at 40), the mounting rod having at least one open-ended passage 44 extending therethrough and in registry and fluid communication with the internal bore (par. 49), thereby being configured to enable at least one of air or water to advance from the vibratory dental handpiece, and flow out onto the body, via the internal bore and the at least one passage (pars. 9, 29, 51).
With respect to claim 2, DeVengencie further discloses wherein the mounting base further includes an externally threaded stud proximally extending form the mounting base, the stud being configured to removably, threadedly engage the vibratory dental handpiece (see par. 56, which teaches specifically, “It will be appreciated that this reversal of male and female threads may be provided at any of the connections described.”, such that bore 34 would be reversed to be a threaded stud).
With respect to claim 3, DeVengencie further discloses wherein the internal bore extends through the mounting base (see fig. 1, such that the interior bore 50 extend entirely through the mounting base, such that it is open at both ends).
With respect to claim 5, DeVengencie further discloses wherein the mounting rod includes a slit receiving a portion of the body therein (see fig. 1, such that the mounting rod has slit 46 which receives portion 56 of the body. It is noted that the opening 46 is a long narrow opening and therefore is a slit).
With respect to claim 10, DeVengencie further discloses the body defines a progressively increasing thickness form a thinnest distal end to a thickest proximal end (see fig. 1, such that end 54 is the thickest and the distal end near reference 48 is the thinnest, the body is tapered such that the increasing thickness is progressive, not that it is not required for it to be constant).
With respect to claim 15, DeVengencie further discloses wherein the mounting rod is non-linear (see figs. 1,2b-2c, such that the ball projection creates a non-linear rod).
With respect to claim 16, DeVengencie further discloses wherein the abrasive coating comprises a diamond coating (par. 61).
With respect to claim 17, DeVengencie further discloses the dental tool tip in combination with the vibratory dental handpiece (see fig. 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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeVengencie et al. (2012/0308956) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Feine (2013/0337404).
DeVengencie teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the body is generally flat and rectangularly shaped.
Feine teaches a dental tool tip for removably attachment to a vibratory dental handpiece, the dental tool tip comprising a mounting base (see fig. 3a, from reference number 14 to end near reference number 12), a body 20 and a mounting rod (portion between the mounting base and body).
With respect to claim 4, Feine further teaches wherein the body is generally flat and rectangularly shaped (see fig. 3A). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify that shape of the body taught by DeVengencie with the flat rectangular shape taught by Feine in order to provide a shape that can easily fit within the gingival sulcus (see par. 38 of Feine).
Claim(s) 9, 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeVengencie et al. (2012/0308956) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gambarini et al. (5,816,808).
DeVengencie teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the body defines a thickness between approximately 0.01 mm and approximately 10 mm, the body defines a height between approximately 0.5 mm and approximately 12.5 mm, wherein the body defines a length between approximately 10 mm and approximately 30 mm, wherein the body defines a length to thickness ratio of between approximately 50:1 and approximately 150:1, and wherein the body defines a length to height ratio of between approximately 4:1 and approximately 10:1.
Gambarini teaches a dental tool tip for removably attachment to a vibratory dental handpiece, the dental tool tip comprising a body having a free distal terminal end and at least a portion of the body having an abrasive coating (see figs. 1-4, abstract).
Gambarini further teaches with respect to claim 9, wherein the body defines a thickness between approximately 0.01 mm and approximately 10 mm (see col. 2, ll. 39-40, such that the thickness is 0.1-3mm which is within the claimed range).
Gambarini further teaches with respect to claim 11, wherein the body defines a height between approximately 0.5mm and approximately 12.5mm (col. 2, l. 40, such that the height is the width when orientated horizontally, which is 0.2-3.5mm which includes 0.5-3.5mm which is within the claimed range).
Gambarini further teaches with respect to claim 12, wherein the body defines a length between approximately 10 mm and approximately 30 mm (see col. 2, ll. 37-39, such that it teaches the range of 12-25mm which is within the claimed range).
Gambarini further teaches with respect to claim 13, wherein the body defines a length to thickness ration of between approximately 50:1 and approximately 150:1 (see col. 2, ll. 36-41, such that a thickness of .3mm is disclosed and a length of 15mm is discloses which is a 50:1 ratio).
Gambarini further teaches with respect to claim 14, wherein the body defines a length to height ratio of between approximately 4:1 and approximately 10:1 (see col. 2, ll. 35-41, such that, the height when the height is 3mm and the length is 12mm it is a 4:1 ratio as claimed).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify DeVengencie with the claimed lengths, thicknesses, heights and ratios as taught by Gambarini since it has been held that were the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routines kill in the art (see MPEP 2144.07).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeVengencie et al. (2012/0308956) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lemon (2007/0275348).
DeVengencie teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including with respect to claim 18, the dental tool tip in combination with the vibratory dental handpiece (see fig. 1), however, does not specifically the vibratory dental handpiece is configured to produce vibration below 20,000Hz.
Lemon teaches a dental tool for removably attachment to a vibratory dental handpiece 6 comprising a mounting base 4 configured to removably engagement with the vibratory dental handpiece 6, a body 2 having a free distal terminal end 16 having an abrasive coating (see par. 40), and a mounting rod 8 proximally extending form the body and at least partially received within an internal bore 12 of the mounting base (see fig. 2a)
Lemon further teaching with respect to claim 18, the dental tool tip in combination with the vibratory dental handpiece 6 (see fig. 2a), wherein the vibratory dental handpiece is configured to produce vibrations below 20,000Hz (see par. 28, such that it is configured to produce vibrations in the range of 5,000 to 20,000Hz, which includes below 20,000 Hz).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The closest prior art of DeVengencie does not teach an upper edge of the body is depressed relative to an upper most periphery of the mounting rod, thereby forming an open-ended channel defined between the upper edge of the body and the uppermost periphery of the mounting rod along a portion of the slit occupied y the body in combination with the other claimed limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-4, filed February 10, 2026, with respect to claims 1, 5-7, 10-12 and 15-18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-18 has been withdrawn.
The applicant’s arguments that the prior art of Buchanan does not teach the claimed limitation of the mounting rod proximally extends from the body and is at least partially received within the internal bore of the mounting base are persuasive. It is noted that the prior art of Buchanan teaches a one-piece integral device including a mounting base, body and mounting rod, however, since the three part are integrally connected, a portion of the mounting rod is not received with the internal bore.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The prior art of Shaw has been cited to teach an interproximal reduction tool.
The prior art of Silver has been cited to teach a rectangular shaped interproximal reduction tool.
The prior art of Hubschmid has been cited to teach a tool with a mounting rod having a channel for fluid.
The prior art of Coss has been cite to teach a mounting base 42 having an internal bore 38, a body 32/48 and a mounting rod 32/34/36 proximally extending form the body and at least partially received within the internal bore (see fig. 2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEIDI MARIE EIDE whose telephone number is (571)270-3081. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-4:00.
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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at 571-270-5614. 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.
/HEIDI M EIDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772 7/6/2026
Prosecution Insights