Status under America Invents Act
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Objection to the Drawings
The drawings (Figures 6, 7, 8a and 8b, filed August 21, 2023) are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84 (b)(1), (l), (m) because black and white photographs and solid shading is not ordinarily permitted in utility applications because they reproduce poorly. 37 CFR 1.84(l) requires that every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant has amended the single independent claim (claim 1) to require that “the working channel extends along a direction being angled up to 45° relative to a longitudinal axis of the handpiece.” The limitation finds support at page 5, line 20. The limitation is further explained in line 22 as “it is possible to form a channel, which mainly extends parallel to a row of molar.” Applicant further identifies element 30 as the “working channel.” Accordingly, it is the examiner’s understanding that the following annotated Figure 4 from applicant’s drawings is the subject matter of the amended limitation
PNG
media_image1.png
547
428
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Rejections based on Prior Art
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 1-6, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Durr (DE 20 2010 009 610 U1).
Durr discloses a dental suction device comprised of a handpiece 20 and an attachment 32 mounted on the handpiece. The attachment includes a mounting section, a suction opening and a side wall that extends from the suction opening and forms a working channel as noted in the annotated Figures below.
PNG
media_image2.png
398
776
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regard to the amended limitation requiring that “the working channel extends along a direction being angled up to 45° relative to a longitudinal axis of the handpiece,” attention is directed above to the Office interpretation of the claim language and the annotated Figure 1 of Durr below illustrating the claimed arrangement which is very similar to that disclosed by applicant.
PNG
media_image3.png
345
660
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regard to claims 2 and 3, any arbitrary portion of the identified Durr wall could be defined as a “wall section” that meets the claimed criteria. The “section” language is broad with no defined boundaries. In regard to claim 4, the angle of the Durr attachment is adjustable in the Figure 4 embodiment and is capable of being adjusted within the “mainly parallel” range claimed. In regard to claim 6, note the modulation in Figures 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Durr.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durr (DE 20 2010 009 610 U1) in view of Sidhu (US 2019/0274800).
Sidhu for a similar dental suction tool teaches that it is desirable to provide of a slot/slit 130 in the end attachment “to reduce pressure build-up at a location on the tip portion as the airflow passes through the tip portion” (paragraph [0052]). To have provided the Durr suction device attachment tip with a slot/slit in the wall portion in order to reduce pressure build-up as taught by Sidhu would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 9, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durr (DE 20 2010 009 610 U1).
In regard to claims 9, 10 and 12, constructing the Durr device within the broad range of dimensions claimed would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as such dimensions are dictated by the size of a typical patient’s anatomy.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durr (DE 20 2010 009 610 U1) in view of Riewenherm (US 5,490,780).
Riewenherm teaches providing a suction device having an attachment member 1 with a mirror element 15 in order to improve light and viewing of the patient’s dentition. To have provided the Durr suction device with a mirror element in order to improve the light and viewing angle as taught by Riewenherm would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Response to Applicant’s Amendment/Remarks
Applicant’s amendment and remarks have been carefully considered and have been addressed above in the “Claim Interpretation” remarks and the prior art rejection.
Action Made Final
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ralph Lewis whose telephone number is (571)272-4712. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9AM-4PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Eric Rosen, at (571) 272-4964. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
/RALPH A LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772 (571) 272-4712