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 were received on March 16, 2026. These drawings are accepted and entered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The specification does not address figures 5-5c, 6a-6b and 7a-7d.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benzon et al. (2010/0297583) in view of Burley et al. (2013/0261628) in view of Hirshman (WO 2008/024597) as evidence by White (2007/0161427).
With respect to claim 1, Benzon a shaft for a dental screwdriver configured to be inserted into a bore cavity of a dental prosthetic (see fig. 6a, par. 28-30), the shaft comprising a drive tip 65 for driving a dental screw used to fix the dental prosthetic to the dental implant when the shaft is inserted into the bore cavity of the dental prosthetic (see fig. 6, par. 28), an axial shaft portion 62 made of a flexible material (par. 28, i.e. it is flexible/bendable), the axial shaft portion being configured to elastically bend from an original shape to a bent shape along the axial shaft portion without imparting a bending action along the drive tip when the dental screwdriver is inserted into the bore cavity of the dental prosthetic (see fig. 6). It is further noted that this limitation and depending on the shape of the bore and how the shaft is inserted in the bore and how the tool is then used, it is capable of functioning as claimed. It is noted that the drive tip of Benzon is made of a material having different material characteristics, such that it is solid and not disclosed as bendable, therefore, the structure would function as claimed and not impart a bending action along the drive tip. Benzon teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including the shaft having different properties than the drive tip so that the bending is limited to the shaft (see par. 28 such that only the shaft is flexible) however, does not specifically teach the shaft and drive tip being made of a shape memory material and the drive tip being made of a shape memory smart alloy and the shape memory smart alloy of the axial shaft has different material characteristics than the shape of the shape memory smart alloy of the drive tip.
Burley teaches a shaft for a medical device configured to be inserted into a bore cavity, the shaft comprising a drive tip 20 (such that it is a tip that provides a drive force) made of a shape memory alloy (see pars. 48-52, 54, such that the device is a unibody and does not have joints, therefore, the tip is made of a shape memory alloy) and an axial shaft portion 15 made of a shape memory smart alloy (par. 48-50), the axial shaft portion 15 being configured to elastically bend form an original shape to a bent shape along the axial shaft portion without imparting a bending action and torqueing forces along the drive tip 20 when the shaft is being rotated (see pars. 16, 48-52, 54). It is noted that the shaft is designed to be flexible by providing the shaft having a smaller diameter than the diameter of the working tip which is sufficiently rigid (see par. 54), therefore, Burley teaches the shaft and the working tip having different material characteristics, specifically bending characteristics (i.e. the shaft being flexible and the driving tip being rigid) such that the structure would function as claimed such that when the axial shaft is in a bent shape it would not impart a bending action and torqueing forces along the working tip. Such that working tip is integral with the shaft and substantially rigid and delivers a torquing force to a material (see pars. 16, 49, 54). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the shaft and driving tip made of different materials and having a mechanical joint between the two taught by Benzon with the unibody construction of the shaft and working tip having different characteristics due to the different diameters as taught by Burley in order to eliminate a possible point of failure (see par. 49 of Burley) while still providing a shaft strong enough to transmit a torsional force in a bent configuration (see par 16 of Burley). It is noted that the shaft and working tip of Burley are directed towards a drill, however, is analogous art as evidenced by White which teaches several instrument with the shaft made of a shape memory alloy with different working ends including a drill (see fig. 1) and a screw driver (see figs. 11-12). It is noted that both a drill and a screw driver is rotated and the working tip is rotated in order to deliver a torquing force to another element. Benzon/Burley teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including the shaft and the drive tip having different bending characteristics (see detailed rejection above), however, does not specifically teach the shape memory smart alloy of the axial shaft has different material characteristics than the shape memory smart alloy of the drive tip.
Hirshman teaches a surgical tool comprising a flexible shaft (which can be a drive shaft, pg. 4, I. 13) made of nickel titanium, wherein the characteristics of the nickel titanium along the shaft are changed to provide desired different flexibilities along the shaft (see pg. 4, Il. 24-27, Il. 32-33, pg. 7, Il. 1-2, pg. 8, Il. 7-16, pg. 10, Il. 8-14, pg. 16, Il. 31-34, pg. 17, Il. 1-3, pg. 22, Il. 17-22, pg. 24, Il. 1-4, pg. 25, Il. 10-27). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the screwdriver having different regions of flexibility as taught by Benzon/Burley with the regions all being made of nickel titanium but with different material characteristics, such as the different flexibilities, in order to provide the screw driver with the desired flexibilities and torque abilities in the desired areas along the shaft (see pg. 27, Il. 32-33, pg. 28, Il. 1-2 of Hirshman) while providing a constant diameter device so that the screw driver can be used in smaller spaces as needed. It is noted that Hirshman teaches changing the flexibilities by also changing the diameters (see pg. 17, Il. 4-17), therefore, it is noted that Hirshman teaches the two different ways of changing the flexibly of the instrument are known equivalents.
With respect to claim 2, Benzon/Burley/Hirshman teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including Burley further teaches the shape memory smart alloy of each of the axial shaft portion and the drive tip is nickel titanium (pars. 49-50, see detailed rejection above).
With respect to claim 3, Benzon/Burley/Hirshman teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including Burley further teaching the axial shaft portion is formed in one piece with the working tip (pars. 49).
With respect to claim 4, Benzon/Burley/Hirshman teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including Benzon further teaching wherein the axial shaft portion and the drive tip are configured to travel through curved and straight spaces in the bore cavity of the dental prosthetic to reach the dental screw used to fix the dental prosthetic to the dental implant (see par. 28-30).
With respect to claim 5, Benzon/Burley/Hirshman teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including Benzon further teaching, wherein the axial shaft portion is further configured to elastically return to the original shape from the bent shape (pars. 28-30). It is noted that the shaft is made of a flexible/bendable material, that is capable of functioning as claimed.
With respect to claim 6, Benzon/Burley/Hirshman teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including Benzon further teaching a dental screwdriver having the shaft of claim 1 (see fig. 6a, pars. 28-30).
With respect to claim 7 Benzon/Burley/Hirshman teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including Burley further teaches the shape memory smart alloy of each of the axial shaft portion and the drive tip is nickel titanium (pars. 49-50, see detailed rejection above).
With respect to claim 8, Benzon teaches shaft for a dental screwdriver configured to be inserted into a bore cavity of a dental prosthetic (pars. 28-30, fig. 6a), the shaft comprising a front end portion 62 (see fig. 6a); a rear end portion 63 opposite the front end portion (see fig. 6a), an axial shaft portion 62 made of a flexible material (see pars. 28-29), the axial shaft portion being configured to elastically bend from an original shape to a bent shape along the axial shaft portion when the dental screwdriver is inserted into the bore cavity of the dental prosthetic (see pars. 28-30); and a drive tip 65 disposed at the front-end portion for driving a dental screw used to fix the dental prosthetic to a dental implant when the dental screwdriver is inserted into the bore cavity of the dental prosthetic pars. 28-30). Benzon teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the shaft and drive tip are made of a shape memory alloy, drive tip being made of a shape memory smart alloy with different material characteristics than the shape memory smart alloy of the axial shaft portion and the axial shaft portion being configured to elastically bend from an original shape to a bent shape along the axial shaft portion without imparting a bending action and torqueing forces along the front and rear end portion of the dental screw driver.
Burley teaches a shaft for a medical device configured to be inserted into a bore cavity, the shaft comprising a front end 30, a rear end portion 10 opposite the front end portion, an axial shaft portion 15 made of a shape memory alloy (see pars. 48-52) and disposed between the front and rear end portion, the axial shaft portion being configured to elastically bend from an original shape to a bent shape along the axial shaft portion without imparting a bending action and torqueing forces along the font and rear end portion when the tool is inserted into a bore cavity (pars. 16, 49-51, 52-54). ). It is noted that the shaft is designed to be flexible by providing the shaft having a smaller diameter than the diameter of the working tip which is sufficiently rigid (see par. 54), therefore, Burley teaches the shaft and the working tip having different bending characteristics (i.e. the shaft being flexible and the driving tip being rigid) such that the structure would function as claimed such that when the axial shaft is in a bent shape it would not impart a bending action and torqueing forces as claimed. Burley further teaches a drive tip 20 (such that it is a tip the provides a drive force) disposed at the front end portion, the drive tip being made of a shape memory smart alloy with a different bending characteristic than the shape memory alloy of the axial shaft portion (see pars. 16, 48-52, 54). It is noted that the shaft is designed to be flexible by providing the shaft having a smaller diameter than the diameter of the working tip which is sufficiently rigid (see par. 54), therefore, Burley teaches the shaft and the working tip having different bending characteristics (i.e. the shaft being flexible and the driving tip being rigid). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the shaft and driving tip made of different materials and having a mechanical joint between the two taught by Benzon with the unibody construction of the shaft and working tip having different characteristics due to the different diameters as taught by Burley in order to eliminate a possible point of failure (see par. 49 of Burley) while still providing a shaft strong enough to transmit a torsional force in a bent configuration (see par 16 of Burley) while still providing a shaft strong enough to transmit a torsional force in a bent configuration (see par 16 of Burley). It is noted that the shaft and working tip of Burley are directed towards a drill, however, is analogous art as evidenced by White which teaches several instrument with the shaft made of a shape memory alloy with different working ends including a drill (see fig. 1) and a screw driver (see figs. 11-12). It is noted that both a drill and a screw driver is rotated and the working tip is rotated in order to deliver a torquing force to another element. Benzon/Burley teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including the shaft and the drive tip having different bending characteristics (see detailed rejection above), however, does not specifically teach the shape memory smart alloy of the axial shaft has different material characteristics than the shape memory smart alloy of the drive tip.
Hirshman teaches a surgical tool comprising a flexible shaft (which can be a drive shaft, pg. 4, I. 13) made of nickel titanium, wherein the characteristics of the nickel titanium along the shaft are changed to provide desired different flexibilities along the shaft (see pg. 4, Il. 24-27, Il. 32-33, pg. 7, Il. 1-2, pg. 8, Il. 7-16, pg. 10, Il. 8-14, pg. 16, Il. 31-34, pg. 17, Il. 1-3, pg. 22, Il. 17-22, pg. 24, Il. 1-4, pg. 25, Il. 10-27). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the screwdriver having different regions of flexibility as taught by Benzon/Burley with the regions all being made of nickel titanium but with different material characteristics, such as the different flexibilities, in order to provide the screw driver with the desired flexibilities and torque abilities in the desired areas along the shaft (see pg. 27, Il. 32-33, pg. 28, Il. 1-2 of Hirshman) while providing a constant diameter device so that the screw driver can be used in smaller spaces as needed. It is noted that Hirshman teaches changing the flexibilities by also changing the diameters (see pg. 17, Il. 4-17), therefore, it is noted that Hirshman teaches the two different ways of changing the flexibly of the instrument are known equivalents.
With respect to claim 9, Benzon/Burley/Hirshman teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including Benzon further teaching, wherein the axial shaft portion is further configured to elastically return to the original shape from the bent shape (pars. 28-30). It is noted that the shaft is made of a flexible/bendable material, that is capable of functioning as claimed.
With respect to claim 10, Benzon/Burley/Hirshman teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including Benzon further teaching wherein the shaft is configured such that a substantially linear curvature is maintained near and along the front end portion when the axial shaft portion elastically bends from the original shape to the bent shape and elastically returns towards the original shape from the bent shape to allow coupling of the drive tip to the dental screw when the shaft is inserted into the bore cavity of the dental prosthetic (pars. 28-30, fig. 6, such that the drive tip is disclosed as being not bendable, therefore, it would function as claimed). Further Burley further teaches wherein the shaft is configured such that a substantially linear curvature is maintained near and along the front end portion when the axial shaft portion elastically bends from the original shape to the bent shape and elastically returns towards the original shape from the bent shape to allow coupling of the drive tip to the material when the shaft is inserted into the bore cavity (par. 56, fig. 6, such that the front end is substantially rigid and does not bend when inserted in a bore and the drive tip is perpendicular to the surface to which it is to deliver a torque force to).
With respect to claim 11, Benzon/Burley/Hirshman teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including Burley further teaching wherein the front-end portion is less elastic than the axial shaft portion (par. 49-54, detailed rejection above).
With respect to claim 12, Benzon/Burley/Hirshman teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including Burley further teaching the axial shaft portion is formed in one piece with the drive tip (par. 49).
With respect to claim 13, Benzon/Burley/Hirshman teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including Benzon further teaching wherein the axial shaft portion and the drive tip are configured to travel through curved and straight spaces in the bore cavity of the dental prosthetic to reach the dental screw used to fix the dental prosthetic to the dental implant (pars. 28-30).
With respect to claim 14, Benzon/Burley/Hirshman teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including Burley further teaches the shape memory smart alloy of each of the axial shaft portion and the drive tip is nickel titanium (pars. 49-50, see detailed rejection above).
With respect to claim 15, Benzon/Burley/Hirshman teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including Benzon further teaching a dental screwdriver having the shaft of claim 1 (pars. 28-30).
With respect to claim 16, Benzon/Burley/Hirshman teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including Benzon further teaching a dental screwdriver having the shaft of claim 1 (pars. 28-30).
With respect to claim 17, Benzon/Burley/Hirshman teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including Benzon teaching the axial shaft portion is formed of a non-segmented structure configured to bend in an arch-forming region located along a central portion of the axial shaft portion (such that the shaft portion 62 is configured to bend along all portions, including the central portion), and wherein the axial shaft portion is further configured such that a substantially linear alignment is maintained along the drive tip 65 during bending of the arch forming region to transmit a radial torqueing force to the dental screw, however, does not specifically teach the shaft is formed as a homogenous non-segmented structure. Burley further teaches the shaft portion is formed as a homogenous non-segmented structure (pars. 48-49, such that it is a unibody) configured to bend in an arch-forming region 15 located along a central portion of the axial shaft portion, and wherein the axial shaft portion is further configured such that a substantially linear alignment is maintained along the drive tip 20 during bending of the arch forming region to transmit a radial torqueing force to the desired surface (par. 54, such that it is substantially rigid and would function as claimed, see fig. 6).
With respect to claim 18, Benzon/Burley/Hirshman teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including Benzon teaching the axial shaft portion is configured to bend along a central arch-forming region of the axial shaft portion (such that the shaft portion 62 is configured to bend along all portions, including the central portion), while the front end portion 65 remains substantially linear during bending such that torque applied to the shaft is transmitted to the drive tip as a substantially radial torquing force and wherein the shaft is formed as a non-segmented structure (see fig. 6), however, does not specifically teach the shaft is a homogenous non-segmented structure. Burley further teaches the axial shaft portion is configured to bend along a central arch-forming region 15 of the axial shaft portion, while the front end portion 20 remains substantially linear during bending such that torque applied to the shaft is transmitted to the drive tip as a substantially radial torquing force (pars.16, 48-49, 54, such that is it to drill a straight hole, therefore, substantially a radial torque force) and wherein the shaft is formed as a non-segmented structure (pars. 48-49, unibody).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benzon et al. (2010/0297583) in view of Burley et al. (2013/0261628)
Benzon teaches with respect to claim 19, a shaft 62/65 for a dental screwdriver configured to be inserted into a bore cavity of a dental prosthetic (pars. 28-30), the shaft comprising a rear end portion 63 configured to couple to a handle 61 or torque-measuring tool; a front end portion 64 opposite the rear end portion; a drive tip 65 disposed at the front end portion for engaging a dental screw used to secure the dental prosthetic to a dental implant; and an axial shaft 62 extending between the rear end portion and the drive tip (see fig. 6a), the axial shaft being formed as a non-segmented structure (see fig. 6a), the axial shaft including a central arch-forming bending region (such that portion 62 is the central bending region) configured to elastically bend from an original shape to a bent shape while transmitting torque applied at the rear end portion to the drive tip (pars.. 28-30), wherein bending of the arch-forming bending region isolates non-radial forces from the drive tip such that torque applied to the shaft is transmitted to the dental screw substantially as a radial torqueing force (such that the device is capable of functioning as claimed, such that when aligned properly with the screw, it will function as claimed), and wherein the drive tip is configured to maintain substantially linear alignment during bending of the arch-forming bending region while traveling through curved and straight spaces of the bore cavity to reach the dental screw (see fig. 6a, pars. 28-30, such that the tip 65 does not bend and therefore would be configured to maintain a substantially linear arrangement. Benzon teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the shaft is a homogeneous non-segments structure made of a shape-memory smart alloy.
Burley teaches a shaft configured to be inserted into a bore cavity, the shaft comprising: a rear end portion 10 configured to couple to a handle or torque-measuring tool (par. 53, such that is it capable of being attached as claimed); a front end portion 30 opposite the rear end portion; a drive tip 20 disposed at the front end portion for engaging a working surface; and an axial shaft extending between the rear end portion and the drive tip (see fig. 1), the axial shaft being formed as a homogeneous non-segmented structure made of a shape-memory smart alloy (pars. 48-50), the axial shaft including a central arch-forming bending region 15 configured to elastically bend from an original shape to a bent shape while transmitting torque applied at the rear end portion to the drive tip (pars. 16, 69, 73) wherein bending of the arch-forming bending region isolates non-radial forces from the drive tip such that torque applied to the shaft is transmitted to the working surface substantially as a radial torqueing force (see fig. 6, such that when aligned as desired, the forces are radial torqueing), and wherein the drive tip is configured to maintain substantially linear alignment during bending of the arch-forming bending region while traveling through curved and straight spaces (see fig. 6, par. 54 regarding the tip being substantially rigid). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the shaft and driving tip made of different materials and having a mechanical joint between the two taught by Benzon with the unibody construction of the shaft and working tip having different characteristics due to the different diameters as taught by Burley in order to eliminate a possible point of failure (see par. 49 of Burley) while still providing a shaft strong enough to transmit a torsional force in a bent configuration (see par 16 of Burley).
Benzon/Burley teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Burley further teaches wherein the axial shaft and the drive tip are formed integrally as a single piece of nickel-titanium shape-memory alloy (pars. 48-50); and wherein the drive tip is less elastic than the arch-forming bending region of the axial shaft such that the arch-forming bending region elastically bends while the drive tip remains substantially rigid and maintains linear alignment for engagement with the working surface (pars. 51-54).
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on March 16, 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of 11,779,435 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the prior arts of Burley and Hirshman are not analogous art and therefore do not qualify as prior art.
In response to applicant's argument that Burley is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the applicant argues that the current invention and Burley are directed to two different medical instruments with different purposes and functions. However, it is noted that the prior of Burley is analogous as it is in the same field of the inventor’s endeavor. It is noted that it is a medical device used in a surgical procedure. The applicant’s invention is also a medical device used in a surgical procedure. While it is noted that the surgical procedure is different it is still a surgical procedure and the prior art is in the medical field and therefore the prior art is analogous. Further it is noted that it is analogous art as it is pertinent to the problem the inventor was concerned with. Such that Burley teaches modifying the shaft of a rotary tool such that it is flexible enough to bend in a curved state while being guided through a curved guide and still strong enough to transmit a torsional force. Further Burley is concerted with ensuring that the working end of the tool is sufficiently rigid so that it forms a specific arrangement with the working surface while being guided through a curved bore. It is noted that the current invention and Burley as concerned with having the tip being rigid so that it can properly align, i.e. be perpendicular, to a working surface. Therefore, in view of the above specific reasons outlined above, the prior art of Burley is analogous art and therefore, the rejection is maintained.
It is noted that the applicant further argues the differences between orthopedics and implantology. While it is noted that the areas are different and do have individual differences, they are still analogous for the reasons of prior art in that they are related to medical procedures and have several commonalities between them.
The applicant further argues the prior art of White, however, it is noted that the prior art of White is not being used in the rejection to modify any of the references, but is rather being used as an evidentiary art to show that drill and drivers are known to be designed to have similar characteristics and therefore are analogous.
The applicant further argues that the prior art of Hirshman is not analogous art since it is directed towards a catheter. However, it is noted Hirshman is a medical device and it is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned. It is noted that Hirshman is concerned with modifying a flexible device to have different regions of flexibility. Such that the prior art is concerned with having a shaft with different regions of flexibility. Therefore, it is noted that the prior art of Hirshman is analogous art.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
It is noted that the applicant argues that current invention is directed towards shafts with drive tips that are configured to engage screws while the prior art of Burley is directed towards a drill designed to engage hard tissue. It is noted that the prior art of Benzon has been used to teach the claimed shaft being flexible with the drive tip not being flexible or more rigid than the shaft for engaging a screw and have been modified with Burley to teach the flexible shaft and rigid working end made of a shape memory material, but with different material characteristics.
The same issue applies to the applicants’ arguments that Hirshman does not have a tip for engaging a screw. It is noted that Hirshman has just been used to teach that a shaft can be modified by changing the properties of a shape memory alloy to provide different bending characteristic or by changing the diameter (which is taught by Burley). The prior art of Hirshman has not been used to teach the limitation of a driving tip engaging with a screw.
The applicant further argues that the prior art of Burley and Hirshman do not take in to account operational requirements associated with dental screwdrivers. However, as discussed above, the prior rat of Benzon has been used to teach the dental screwdriver as claimed and is being modified with Burly and Hirshman. It is noted as discussed above in detail, that Burley and Hirshman are analogous art.
The applicant further argues that the prior art of Burley is related to changing the bending properties of the device by changing the geometry and not the material as claimed. However, it is noted that the applicant does not require the part to be different materials, just that they have different material characteristics, which can be argued Burley teaches since the geometry provide the material with different bending characteristics as each of the different regions. Further it is noted that the prior art of Hirshman has been used to teach modifying the specific material to modify the bending characteristics and further it also teaches that these can be modified by changing the geometry. Therefore the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
The applicant argues that the current invention is addressing specific problems in the art including allowing the shaft to bend while still transmitting torque to a retention screw. It is noted that both the prior rat of Benzon and Burley are concerned with this problem. While Burley is not specifically focused on transmitting torque to a retention screw, it is focused on allowing a shaft to bend while still transmitting torque to the working tip to deliver it to a surface. As discussed above in detail, Burley is analogous prior art and therefore, the rejection is maintained.
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 applicant argues that the prior art does not recognize the problem addressed by the present invention not suggest the claimed material configuration. While it is noted that the problem is address in the prior art, specifically allowing a shaft to be flexible to bend while allowing the working end/tip to be more rigid in order to deliver a working force is addressed by Burley. It is noted that Benzon is focused on allowing a bendable shaft with a straight tip to engage with a screw to allow the torque of the shaft to be delivered to the screw. It is further noted that the prior art does not need to address the same issues as the applicants in order to be applied properly as prior art. It is noted that if the prior art is not in the same field as the applicant’s invention, then the art would need to be concerned with solving the same problem as current invention. However, as discussed above in detail, Burley is analogous art and therefore, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s arguments directed towards claim 8, it is noted that they are addressed above.
Further, the applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the limitation of claim 8 including the shaft being “configured to elastically bend without imparting bending action and torqueing forces along the front and rear end portions”. However, as discussed above in detail and in the rejection, Burley specifically teaches this. Such that it teaches the ends of the tool are designed so as to be more rigid than the shaft. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are moot. See above regarding Burley being analogous art and Benzon teaching the shaft being a screw driver.
With respect to the applicants’ arguments to each individual dependent claim, it is noted that they are addressed above in detail regarding the art being analogous art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
It is noted that new claims were presented, which is why a new grounds of rejection was presented. However, it is noted that the new grounds is only for the new claims.
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 4/2/2026