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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed September 11, 2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein in the crossed-out references has not been considered.
The information disclosure statement filed September 11, 2023 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the crossed out US references are improperly listed as foreign patent documents. The applicant should provide and IDS with the references listed as U.S. patents to have them properly considered. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Priority
Acknowledgment of applicant mentioning foreign priority in the specification is noted, however, it is noted the applicant has not properly filed the application to obtain foreign priority. Therefore, the effective filling date of the application is 9/11/2023 and any prior art by the same inventor published a year before the effective filling date constitutes are proper prior art.
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 7 15-20 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.
With respect to claim 7, it is noted that the claims are directed towards a protective apparatus. Therefore, the claimed printer in claim 7 is unclear. It is noted that for examination purposes, the limitation is being interpreted as part of the product by process limitation of claim 6, such that the actual printer is NOT claimed. With respect to claim 6, the limitation “is printed with a 3D printer” is a product by process limitation and therefore, the limitation of claim 7 is further interpreted as a product by process limitation such as the device is printed with an SLS photopolymer printer, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify what is being claimed.
With respect to claim 15, the applicant claims a channel in the protective apparatus” in line 7 and further claims “an internal channel” in line 12. It is unclear if the channel and internal channel are the same channel or different channels. It is noted that for examination purposes, they are being inserted as the same channel since they both are for accepting the irrigation tube, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarity what is being claimed.
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) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukhamadiev (RU 209974) in view of Sevier (816,685).
With respect to claim 1, Mukhamadiev teaches a protective apparatus for a dental device comprising a large ring 7 with a gap 8, a first longitudinal strip 1 connected to a first side of the gap, a second longitudinal strip 1 connected to a second side of the gap (see fig. 2, par. 15 of translation), a small ring like element 6 connected to the first longitudinal strip and to the second longitudinal strip (see fig. 1), a neck 2 connected to the small ring like element 6 (see fig. 1), neck including a channel 10 and a thrust platform 4 connected to the neck (see fig. 1). Mukhamadiev teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the small ring like element is a ring (i.e. a complete ring without a gap) and both the large and small rings are cone shaped and the channel is an internal channel.
Sevier teaches a protective apparatus comprising a large shape ring with a gap 5, a longitudinal strip (portion connected elements 4 and 5), and a small cone shaped ring , a neck connected to the small cone shaped ring, the neck including an inner channel (portion of channel 11 extending through neck, see annotated figure below). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the rings of Mukhamadiev with a conical shape taught by Sevier in order to provide the rings with a shape to match the shape of a handpiece to which it is being applied. Such that if the user want to apply the device to a handpiece having a conical body, such as taught by Sevier. It is noted that Mukhamadiev in view of Sevier does not specifically teach the large ring being conical, however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to provide both the large and small rings to be conical in the case that the handpiece to which the device is being assembled on has a conical shaped body. Further it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Mukhamadiev with the internal channel as taught by Sevier in order to prevent the irrigation tube from dislodging from the external channel on the neck during use. Further it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the split small ring taught by Mukhamadiev with the small cone shaped ring taught by Sevier in order to provide a more secure connection, such that by having a greater surface area in the connection between the two elements, a more secure connection would be provided.
PNG
media_image1.png
298
557
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, Mukhamadiev/Sevier teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Mukhamadiev further teaching the neck 2 is a half cylinder (see fig. 1).
With respect to claim 3, Mukhamadiev/Sevier teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Sevier teaching the inner channel extends into the small cone-shaped ring (see annotated figure above).
With respect to claim 4, Mukhamadiev/Sevier teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Mukhamadiev teaching the large ring, the first longitudinal strip, the second longitudinal strip, the small ring, the neck and the thrust platform are plastic (see par. 16 of translation).
With respect to claim 5, Mukhamadiev/Sevier teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Mukhamadiev further teaching where the plastic is a single piece (par. 16 of translation, such that the device is made by 3D printing and therefore is a single piece, see fig. 1).
With respect to claims 6-7, Mukhamadiev/Sevier teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Mukhamadiev teaching the plastic is printed with a 3D printer (see par. 16 of translation), but is silent to the printer being an SLS photopolymer printer. The claimed phrase “is printed with a 3D printer” and “the 3D printer is an SLS photopolymer printer” is being treated as a product by process limitation; that is, that the protective apparatus is made by 3D printing on an SLS printer. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP 2113. Thus, even though Mukhamadiev is silent as to the method of printing using an SLS photopolymer printer, it appears that the product in Mukhamadiev would be the same or similar as that claimed; especially since both applicant’s product and the prior art product is constructed from a photopolymer plastic using a 3D printer (see par. 16 of translation).
With respect to claim 8, Mukhamadiev teaches a protective apparatus for a dental device comprising a large ring 7 with a gap 8, a first longitudinal strip 1 connected to a first side of the gap, a second longitudinal strip 1 connected to a second side of the gap (see fig. 2, par. 15 of translation), a small ring like element 6 connected to the first longitudinal strip and to the second longitudinal strip (see fig. 1), a neck 2 connected to the small ring like element 6 (see fig. 1), neck including a channel 10 and a thrust platform 4 connected to the neck (see fig. 1), a handpiece 12 including a rotary motor (pars. 18-19, such that during use a motor is used to rotate the cutter), a case surrounding the rotary motor (see fig. 3, such that the dental handpiece has a body surrounding the motor which is in the tip, i.e. handpiece, see pars. 18-19 of translation), the case partially inserted within the large ring, the first longitudinal strip, the second longitudinal strip, and the small ring (see fig. 3 which shows the case, i.e. body of the handpiece received within all the claimed parts), a shaft connected to one end of the rotary motor and the case (see fig. 3, such that the shaft is the shaft of cutter 13, such that it is connected to the motor in order to set the cutter into motion, see pars. 18-19 of translation), and a disk (see fig. 3, element 13) connected to the shaft, the disk above the thrust platform (see fig 3, such that the disk is above the platform if you start at the platform and move towards the disk). Mukhamadiev teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the small ring like element is a ring (i.e. a complete ring without a gap) and both the large and small rings are cone shaped.
Sevier teaches a protective apparatus comprising a large shape ring with a gap 5, a longitudinal strip (portion connected elements 4 and 5), and a small cone shaped ring , a neck connected to the small cone shaped ring, the neck including an inner channel (portion of channel 11 extending through neck, see annotated figure above with respect to claim 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the rings of Sevier with a conical shape taught by Sevier in order to provide the rings with a shape to match the shape of a handpiece to which it is being applied. Such that if the user want to apply the device to a handpiece having a conical body, such as taught by Sevier. It is noted that Mukhamadiev in view of Sevier does not specifically teach the large ring being conical, however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to provide both the large and small rings to be conical in the case that the handpiece to which the device is being assembled on has a conical shaped body. Further it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Mukhamadiev with the internal channel as taught by Sevier in order to prevent the irrigation tube from dislodging from the external channel on the neck during use. Further it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the split small ring taught by Mukhamadiev with the small cone shaped ring taught by Sevier in order to provide a more secure connection, such that by having a greater surface area in the connection between the two elements, a more secure connection would be provided.
With respect to claim 9, Mukhamadiev/Sevier teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Mukhamadiev teaching the disk is a saw (see pars.15, 18 of translation, fig. 3, such that the disk is a cutter, therefore it is a saw).
With respect to claim 10, Mukhamadiev/Sevier teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Mukhamadiev teaching the thrush platform includes a raised half cylinder 3 extending above the neck 2 (see fig. 1).
With respect to claim 11, Mukhamadiev/Sevier teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Mukhamadiev teaching the disk is on a plane above the thrust platform 4 and below a top of the raised half cylinder (see fig. 3, annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image2.png
429
309
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukhamadiev (RU 209974) in view of Sevier (816,685) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Mukhamadiev (RU 213,284) as evidenced by Densply implants (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRDfEtRDP_0).
Mukhamadiev/Sevier teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the system further comprises an angular handpiece protector including a cylinder segment housing wall, a small ring and a large ring, which are spaced apart and connected by a base wall, the small ring connected to by cylinder segment housing wall, and an end semi-ring with a thrust pad connected to by cylinder segment housing wall.
Mukhamadiev ‘284 teaches an angular handpiece protector including a cylinder segment housing wall 1, a small ring 5 and a large ring 6, which are spaced apart and connected by a base wall 4, the small ring 5 connected to the cylinder segment housing wall 1 (see fig. 1), and an end semi-ring 2 with a thrust pad 3 connected to by cylinder segment housing wall 1 (see fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Mukhamadiev/Sevier which includes a straight handpiece protector to include the angular handpiece protector taught by Mukhamadiev ‘284 in order to be able to safely preform both vertical and horizontal cuts during the procedure as evidenced by Densply implants (see attached screen shots taken at 1:11 and 1:35).
Claim(s) 1-13, 15-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukhamadiev (RU 209974) in view of Condon (3,775,849) in view of Sevier (816,685).
With respect to claim 1, Mukhamadiev teaches a protective apparatus for a dental device comprising a large ring 7 with a gap 8, a first longitudinal strip 1 connected to a first side of the gap, a second longitudinal strip 1 connected to a second side of the gap (see fig. 2, par. 15 of translation), a small ring like element 6 connected to the first longitudinal strip and to the second longitudinal strip (see fig. 1), a neck 2 connected to the small ring like element 6 (see fig. 1), neck including a channel 10 and a thrust platform 4 connected to the neck (see fig. 1). Mukhamadiev teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the small ring like element is a ring (i.e. a complete ring without a gap) and both the large and small rings are cone shaped and the channel is an internal channel.
Condon teaches an apparatus for a dental device comprising a neck 72 including an internal channel 74 (see fig. 2, such that the inner channel accepts tube 60/64). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify external channel on the neck taught by Mukhamadiev with the internal channel taught by Condon in order to provide a more secure connection and prevent accidental detachment of the tube from the apparatus.
Sevier teaches a protective apparatus comprising a large shape ring with a gap 5, a longitudinal strip (portion connected elements 4 and 5), and a small cone shaped ring , a neck connected to the small cone shaped ring, the neck including an inner channel (portion of channel 11 extending through neck, see annotated figure below). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the rings of Mukhamadiev/Condon with a conical shape taught by Sevier in order to provide the rings with a shape to match the shape of a handpiece to which it is being applied. Such that if the user want to apply the device to a handpiece having a conical body, such as taught by Sevier. It is noted that Mukhamadiev/Condon/Sevier does not specifically teach the large ring being conical, however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to provide both the large and small rings to be conical in the case that the handpiece to which the device is being assembled on has a conical shaped body. Further it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the split small ring taught by Mukhamadiev/Condon with the small cone shaped ring taught by Sevier in order to provide a more secure connection, such that by having a greater surface area in the connection between the two elements, a more secure connection would be provided.
PNG
media_image1.png
298
557
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, Mukhamadiev/Condon/Sevier teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Mukhamadiev further teaching the neck 2 is a half cylinder (see fig. 1).
With respect to claim 3, Mukhamadiev/Condon/Sevier teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Condon teaching the inner channel extends into the small ring 71.
With respect to claim 4, Mukhamadiev/Condon/Sevier teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Mukhamadiev teaching the large ring, the first longitudinal strip, the second longitudinal strip, the small ring, the neck and the thrust platform are plastic (see par. 16 of translation).
With respect to claim 5, Mukhamadiev/Condon/Sevier teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Mukhamadiev further teaching where the plastic is a single piece (par. 16 of translation, such that the device is made by 3D printing and therefore is a single piece, see fig. 1).
With respect to claims 6-7, Mukhamadiev/Condon/Sevier teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Mukhamadiev teaching the plastic is printed with a 3D printer (see par. 16 of translation), but is silent to the printer being an SLS photopolymer printer. The claimed phrase “is printed with a 3D printer” and “the 3D printer is an SLS photopolymer printer” is being treated as a product by process limitation; that is, that the protective apparatus is made by 3D printing on an SLS printer. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP 2113. Thus, even though Mukhamadiev is silent as to the method of printing using an SLS photopolymer printer, it appears that the product in Mukhamadiev would be the same or similar as that claimed; especially since both applicant’s product and the prior art product is constructed from a photopolymer plastic using a 3D printer (see par. 16 of translation).
With respect to claim 8, Mukhamadiev teaches a protective apparatus for a dental device comprising a large ring 7 with a gap 8, a first longitudinal strip 1 connected to a first side of the gap, a second longitudinal strip 1 connected to a second side of the gap (see fig. 2, par. 15 of translation), a small ring like element 6 connected to the first longitudinal strip and to the second longitudinal strip (see fig. 1), a neck 2 connected to the small ring like element 6 (see fig. 1), neck including a channel 10 and a thrust platform 4 connected to the neck (see fig. 1), a handpiece 12 including a rotary motor (pars. 18-19, such that during use a motor is used to rotate the cutter), a case surrounding the rotary motor (see fig. 3, such that the dental handpiece has a body surrounding the motor which is in the tip, i.e. handpiece, see pars. 18-19 of translation), the case partially inserted within the large ring, the first longitudinal strip, the second longitudinal strip, and the small ring (see fig. 3 which shows the case, i.e. body of the handpiece received within all the claimed parts), a shaft connected to one end of the rotary motor and the case (see fig. 3, such that the shaft is the shaft of cutter 13, such that it is connected to the motor in order to set the cutter into motion, see pars. 18-19 of translation), and a disk (see fig. 3, element 13) connected to the shaft, the disk above the thrust platform (see fig 3, such that the disk is above the platform if you start at the platform and move towards the disk). Mukhamadiev teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the small ring like element is a ring (i.e. a complete ring without a gap) and both the large and small rings are cone shaped and the channel is an internal channel.
Condon teaches an apparatus for a dental device comprising a neck 72 including an internal channel 74 (see fig. 2, such that the inner channel accepts tube 60/64). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify external channel on the neck taught by Mukhamadiev with the internal channel taught by Condon in order to provide a more secure connection and prevent accidental detachment of the tube from the apparatus.
Sevier teaches a protective apparatus comprising a large shape ring with a gap 5, a longitudinal strip (portion connected elements 4 and 5), and a small cone shaped ring , a neck connected to the small cone shaped ring, the neck including an inner channel (portion of channel 11 extending through neck, see annotated figure above with respect to claim 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the rings of Mukhamadiev/Condon with a conical shape taught by Sevier in order to provide the rings with a shape to match the shape of a handpiece to which it is being applied. Such that if the user want to apply the device to a handpiece having a conical body, such as taught by Sevier. It is noted that Mukhamadiev/Condon/Sevier does not specifically teach the large ring being conical, however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to provide both the large and small rings to be conical in the case that the handpiece to which the device is being assembled on has a conical shaped body. Further it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the split small ring taught by Mukhamadiev/Condon with the small cone shaped ring taught by Sevier in order to provide a more secure connection, such that by having a greater surface area in the connection between the two elements, a more secure connection would be provided.
With respect to claim 9, Mukhamadiev/Condon/Sevier teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Mukhamadiev teaching the disk is a saw (see pars.15, 18 of translation, fig. 3, such that the disk is a cutter, therefore it is a saw).
With respect to claim 10 Mukhamadiev/Condon/Sevier teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Mukhamadiev teaching the thrust platform includes a raised half cylinder 3 extending above the neck 2 (see fig. 1).
With respect to claim 11, Mukhamadiev/Condon/Sevier teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Mukhamadiev teaching the disk is on a plane above the thrust platform 4 and below a top of the raised half cylinder (see fig. 3, annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image2.png
429
309
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 12, Mukhamadiev/Condon/Sevier teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Mukhamadiev further teaching an irrigation tube connected to the case and located in the channel in the neck (see pars. 15, 18-19 of translation, fig. 3) and Condon further teaches the irrigation tube is connected to the case and located in the inner channel (see figs. 1-2, such that the tube is in the inner channel 74).
With respect to claim 13, Mukhamadiev/Condon/Sevier teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above. The combination of Mukhamadiev/Condon/Sevier would teach the inner channel extends into the small cone shaped ring and the irrigation tube continues through the inner channel in the small cone shaped ring. Such the Condon teaches several elements including a ring 71 and neck 72 in which the irrigation tube is in an inner channel (see figs. 1-2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Mukhamadiev to modify the ring to allow for the irrigation tube to continue through the inner channel in the small ring in order to prevent accidental detachment of the tube from the apparatus.
With respect to claim 15, Mukhamadiev teaches a method of using a protected dental surgery system comprising a step of obviously removing a shaft and disk from a handpiece (see par. 18 of translation such that the protective device is placed on the dental handpiece and then the cutter 13, which includes the claimed shaft and disk is installed on the handpiece). It is noted that Mukhamadiev does not specifically teach removing the shaft and disc from the handpiece, but does teach connected it to the handpiece after connection of a protective device and it is well known in the art that cutting instruments are removable from handpieces, therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to remove the shaft and disk form the handpiece if connected in order to attach a protective device to the handpiece before use. Mukhamadiev further teaches the handpiece includes a rotary motor (par. 19 of translation), a case surrounding the rotary motor (see fig. 3, such that the disk 13 is installed in the handpiece and moved with the motor, therefore, the motor is in the case, i.e. housing), the saft connected to one end of the rotary motor and the case (see fig. 3, such that the shaft is the shaft element of 13 which is inserted in the handpiece and moved by the motor and therefore connected, see pars. 18-19 of translation), the disk 13 connected to the shaft (see fig. 3) and an irrigation tube 11, removing the irrigation tube from the handpiece (par. 18 of translation), inserting the irrigation tube in a channel 10 in a protective apparatus (see fig. 3, pars. 15, 18 of translation), the protective apparatus including a large ring 7 with a gap 8, a first longitudinal strip 1 connected to a first side of the gap, a second longitudinal strip 1 connected to a second side of the gap (see fig. 2, par. 15 of translation), a small ring like element 6 connected to the first longitudinal strip and to the second longitudinal strip (see fig. 1), a neck 2 connected to the small ring like element 6 (see fig. 1), neck including the channel 10 and a thrust platform 4 connected to the neck (see fig. 1), inserting the handpiece in the protective apparatus by sliding the one end through the large ring and into the small ring (see fig. 3, par. 18, such that it must be inserted in the large ring 7 before the small ring 6 when slid on), reconnect the irrigation tube to the handpiece (par. 18, such that it is connected to the protection device which is connected to the handpiece and therefore reconnected to the handpiece through the protective device) and inserting the shaft and the disk through the thrust platform and into the one end of the rotary motor and the case (see fig. 3, par. 18 of translation such that the cutter is installed in the handpiece after the protective device is connected to it and therefore, the shaft is inserted through the thrust platform including both elements 3-4). Mukhamadiev teaches the method as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the small ring like element is a ring (i.e. a complete ring without a gap) and both the large and small rings are cone shaped and the channel is an internal channel.
Condon teaches an apparatus for a dental device comprising a neck 72 including an internal channel 74 (see fig. 2, such that the inner channel accepts tube 60/64). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify external channel on the neck taught by Mukhamadiev with the internal channel taught by Condon in order to provide a more secure connection and prevent accidental detachment of the tube from the apparatus.
Sevier teaches a protective apparatus comprising a large shape ring with a gap 5, a longitudinal strip (portion connected elements 4 and 5), and a small cone shaped ring , a neck connected to the small cone shaped ring, the neck including an inner channel (portion of channel 11 extending through neck, see annotated figure above with respect to claim 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the rings of Mukhamadiev/Condon with a conical shape taught by Sevier in order to provide the rings with a shape to match the shape of a handpiece to which it is being applied. Such that if the user want to apply the device to a handpiece having a conical body, such as taught by Sevier. It is noted that Mukhamadiev/Condon/Sevier does not specifically teach the large ring being conical, however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to provide both the large and small rings to be conical in the case that the handpiece to which the device is being assembled on has a conical shaped body. Further it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the split small ring taught by Mukhamadiev/Condon with the small cone shaped ring taught by Sevier in order to provide a more secure connection, such that by having a greater surface area in the connection between the two elements, a more secure connection would be provided.
With respect to claim 16, Mukhamadiev/Condon/Sevier teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Mukhamadiev further teaching placing the handpiece and the protective apparatus in a mouth (see pars.1-2, 11, 14, 19). It is noted that the device is disclosed for use for a dental procedure and protects the patient during use, therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention that the handpiece with the assembled protective device is inserted in the mouth to perform the dental procedure.
With respect to claim 17, Mukhamadiev/Condon/Sevier teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Mukhamadiev further teaching rotating the disk using the rotary motor of the handpiece (see par. 19 of translation).
With respect to claim 18, Mukhamadiev/Condon/Sevier teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Mukhamadiev further teaching comprising cutting bone in the mouth with the disk (see pars.1-2, 11, 14, 19). It is noted that the device is disclosed for use for a dental procedure including cutting bone including the disk being a cutter, therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to in use, disk cuts bone.
With respect to claim 18, Mukhamadiev/Condon/Sevier teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Mukhamadiev further teaching disposing of the protective apparatus after each use (par. 11). Such that Mukhamadiev teaches the device is disposable and it is well known in the art that devices are disposed of after use so as to prevent the spread of diseases by providing a clean device for each individual patient. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to dispose of the disposable device taught by Mukhamadiev after each use in order to prevent the spread of disease.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukhamadiev (RU 209974) in view of Condon (3,775,849) in view of Sevier (816,685) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Mukhamadiev (RU 213,284).
Mukhamadiev/Condon/Sevier teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the disk is a diamond disk.
Mukhamadiev ‘284 teaches a method of using a protected dental surgery system (see fig. 2 )including a disk 3 that is a diamond disk (see pg. 3, par. 7, specifically “diamond disk cutter 9”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the disk of Mukhamadiev/Condon/Sevier to be a diamond disk cutter in order to provide the desired cutting properties.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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, 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.
/HEIDI M EIDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772 8/8/2025