DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(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 1-5, 7-20, 22-27 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 1 and 25 recite the broad recitation “a notch formed in only one of the first and second pads”, and the claim also recites “the notch formed in the first pad” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the handle portion of the first pad extends through the notch”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the handle portion being of the first pad. For examining purposes, it was understood as “the handle portion of the first wedge”.
Claims 2-5, 7-16, 18-20, 22-24, 26-27 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of dependency.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bertolotti (US 2011/0311945 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bertolotti teaches a dental separator ring for use in a dental restoration procedure in a mouth of a patient (see abstract and Figures), the dental separator ring comprising:
a first arm (see annotated Fig. below);
a second arm (see annotated Fig. below);
a central portion coupled to both the first arm and the second arm (see annotated Fig. below);
a first pad (26) coupled to the first arm (see Fig. 1), the first pad adapted to be positioned on a buccal side of adjacent teeth in the mouth of the patient (see Figure 6; the first pad is fully capable of being positioned on a buccal side of the teeth);
a second pad coupled to the second arm, the second pad adapted to be positioned on a lingual side of the adjacent teeth in the mouth of the patient (see Figure 6; the second pad is fully capable of being positioned on a lingual side of the teeth); and
a notch (39) formed in only one of the first and second pads ([0090] and see Figure 26), the notch formed in the first pad ([0090] and see Figure 26),
wherein the first pad has a first profile and the second pad has a second profile different from the first profile ([0090] and see Figure 26; only one tine has the notch and therefore the profile of each of the first and second tines/pads are different), and
wherein when the dental separator ring is in use, the second pad is spaced apart from the notch of the first pad (see Figures 6, 8, 28).
PNG
media_image1.png
381
606
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Bertolotti teaches the dental separator ring of claim 1 (see rejection above). Bertolotti teaches only one pad may have a notch ([0090]) and therefore the two pads have different shapes, and wherein the first pad has a first size and wherein the second pad has a second size different from the first size (such that only one of the pads comprises a notch, then the pads will have different sizes as there is more or less surface area depending on the shape of the other pad).
Regarding claim 12, Bertolotti teaches the dental separator ring of claim 1 (see rejection above), wherein the first pad is non-rotatably coupled to the first arm and the second pad is non-rotatably coupled to the second arm (see Figures).
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) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertolotti (US 2011/0311945 A1), in view of Hugo (US 6,206,697 B1).
Regarding claim 3, Bertolotti teaches the dental separator ring of claim 1 (see rejection above), and the pads retain a matrix/shield ([0095] and see Figures 6, 8, 28), but is silent to it explicitly comprising a matrix band stabilizer carried by the first pad.
Hugo teaches a dental separator in the same field of endeavor. Hugo teaches the dental separator comprises pads (36) having rubber segments (48) on an air cushion (46) that acts upon matrix (47) directly (Col. 3 l. 63-66) as to allow the clamp to tightly and form fittingly adapt the thin matrix foil to the tooth (Col. 4 l. 1-11). Figure 6 of Hugo shows the rubber segments (48) are positioned at the top of the pad.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device to have the pad include rubber segments at the top of the pad, as taught by Hugo, as it would provide gripping and stabilizing elements that allow achieving a better fit between the matrix band and the tooth.
Regarding claim 4, Bertolotti teaches the dental separator ring of claim 2 (see rejection above), but is silent to the matrix band stabilizer being disposed proximate a top of the first pad.
Hugo teaches a dental separator in the same field of endeavor. Hugo teaches the dental separator comprises pads (36) having rubber segments (48) on an air cushion (46) that acts upon matrix (47) directly (Col. 3 l. 63-66) as to allow the clamp to tightly and form fittingly adapt the thin matrix foil to the tooth (Col. 4 l. 1-11). Figure 6 of Hugo shows the rubber segments (48) are positioned at the top of the pad.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device to have the pad include rubber segments at the top of the pad, as taught by Hugo, as it would provide gripping and stabilizing elements that allow achieving a better fit between the matrix band and the tooth.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertolotti (US 2011/0311945 A1), Hugo (US 6,206,697 B1), and further in view of Doenges et al. (US 2009/0208901 A1) and further in view of Hugo (US 6,206,697 B1).
Regarding claim 5, Bertolotti in view of Hugo teaches the dental separator ring of claim 3 (see rejection above). Bertolotti teaches the ring and the tines can be made of different materials (see claim 15). Hugo teaches the matrix stabilizer being made of rubber. However, Bertolotti/Hugo do not teach the matrix band stabilizer being defined by one or more windows formed in the first pad and one or more rubber elements exposed by the one or more windows.
Doenges teaches a dental separator ring having tines/pads and a tine may include a frame or an outer perimeter that may be made of a different material than the inclined surfaces/interior surfaces of the tine, such that the frame/outer perimeter may comprise a rigid material that provides a rigid backdrop and the inclined surfaces may be made of a compressible and flexible material that improves conformity and grip ([0046-0047], [0052-0056] and see Figure 8 showing a perimeter region 57 that encases a softer portion (60a, 60b)). According to the definition of a frame by Oxford Dictionary, a frame is a rigid structure that surrounds of encloses something such as a door or window. Therefore, the frame or outer perimeter region of Doenges creates a window therein that surrounds a softer grip material (e.g. silicone).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the tine of Bertolotti to have a frame/window made of a first rigid material and enclosed therein, a portion made of a second grippy material, as taught by Doenges, because it would provide various properties to the pad allowing rigid regions of the pad to provide stability and softer regions to provide flexibility and grip. It would have further been obvious to select a grippy material like rubber, as taught by Hugo, because it is an alternative soft material that has similar flexibility and grip qualities to provide the same function as silicone.
Claim(s) 7, 9-11, 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertolotti (US 2011/0311945 A1), in view of Doenges et al. (US 2009/0208901 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Bertolotti teaches the dental separator ring of claim 1 (see rejection above), but is silent to wherein the first pad is rotatably coupled to the first arm and the second pad is rotatably coupled to the second arm such that the central portion is rotatable relative to the first and second pads.
Doenges teaches a dental separator ring having tines/pads and in some embodiments, the tines may be able to rotate (or pivot) about an axis defined by the opposing end of the biasing ring ([0045]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the tines/pads to be rotatably coupled to the arms, as taught by Doenges, because it would improve adaptation to the user anatomy and the matrix band as well as allow for placement variation.
Regarding claim 9, Bertolotti in view of Doenges teaches the dental separator ring of claim 7 (see rejection above). Doenges teaches wherein the first and second pads are linked by the central portion such that the central portion is simultaneously rotatable relative to both the first and second pads ([0045]; the pads/tines are each rotatable and therefore each of the first pad, second pad and central portion would rotate relative to each other).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the tines/pads to be rotatably coupled to the arms, as taught by Doenges, because it would improve adaptation to the user anatomy and the matrix band as well as allow for placement variation.
Regarding claim 10, Bertolotti in view of Doenges teaches the dental separator ring of claim 7 (see rejection above). Doenges teaches wherein the first pad is rotatably coupled to the first arm via a first projection (20) that is carried by the first arm and inserted into a first recess (50) formed in the first pad (see Figure 3 and [0045-0046]), and wherein the second pad is rotatably coupled to the second arm via a second projection (22) that is carried by the second arm and inserted into a second recess formed in the second pad (see Figure 3 and [0045-0046]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the tines/pads to be rotatably coupled to the arms, as taught by Doenges, because it would improve adaptation to the user anatomy and the matrix band as well as allow for placement variation.
Regarding claim 11, Bertolotti in view of Doenges teaches the dental separator ring of claim 7 (see rejection above). Doenges teaches wherein the first pad is rotatable independently of the second pad ([0045]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the tines/pads to be rotatably coupled to the arms, as taught by Doenges, because it would improve adaptation to the user anatomy and the matrix band as well as allow for placement variation.
Regarding claim 13, Bertolotti teaches the dental separator ring of claim 1 (see rejection above), wherein the second pad (27) has a base (14) directly connected to the second arm (see Figure 1), wherein the base is adapted to engage the adjacent teeth in the mouth of the patient (see Figures), but does not teach an engagement portion directly connected to the base, wherein the engagement portion is adapted to be positioned in a gingival lingual embrasure between the adjacent teeth, and wherein the base of the second pad is wider than the engagement portion of the second pad.
Doenges teaches a dental separator ring having opposing tines/pads and a tine can include an engagement portion (see Fig. below) connected to the base of the tine and tapering to a smaller width therefrom, and being configured to engage the gum line ([0056]).
PNG
media_image2.png
295
628
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the pad to include an engagement portion capable of engaging the gum line, as taught by Doenges, because it would provide better adaptation of the pad to the patient’s anatomy.
Regarding claim 14, Bertolotti in view of Doenges teaches the dental separator ring of claim 13 (see rejection above). Doenges teaches wherein the engagement portion of the second pad comprises a tip that is flared outward (see annotated Figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
295
628
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the pad to include an engagement portion capable of engaging the gum line, as taught by Doenges, because it would provide better adaptation of the pad to the patient’s anatomy.
Regarding claim 15, Bertolotti in view of Doenges teaches the dental separator ring of claim 13 (see rejection above). Doenges teaches it further comprising a cutout (the valley being a cutout) formed in the engagement portion of the second pad, the cutout being sized to accommodate gingival papilla in the mouth of the patient ([0051-0056]; the cutout/valley is fully capable of accommodating gingival papilla as the edge engages the tooth at the gum line).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the pad to include an engagement portion capable of engaging the gum line, as taught by Doenges, because it would provide better adaptation of the pad to the patient’s anatomy.
Regarding claim 16, Bertolotti in view of Doenges teaches the dental separator ring of claim 13 (see rejection above). Doenges teaches it further comprising one or more recesses formed in the second pad (see Figure below).
PNG
media_image4.png
293
624
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the pad to include an engagement portion capable of engaging the gum line, as taught by Doenges, because it would provide better adaptation of the pad to the patient’s anatomy.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertolotti (US 2011/0311945 A1), in view of Doenges et al. (US 2009/0208901 A1), and further in view of McDonald (US 2015/0216625 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Bertolotti in view of Doenges teaches the dental separator ring of claim 7 (see rejection above), but is silent to wherein the central portion is rotatable approximately 180 degrees relative to the first and second pads.
McDonald teaches a dental separator and matrix band retainer (abstract). McDonald teaches the device (100) comprises a body (101) having arms and a central portion (see Figures 6-7) and being connected to lugs (111). The body and lugs are rotatable relative to each other by less than 180 degrees (see Figure 7 and [0016], [0036-0037]). This allows rotational adjustment of the body’s position during use as to minimize obstruction on the dental professional during the procedure ([0059]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the central portion and pads to be rotatable less than 180 degrees relative to each other, as taught by McDonald, such that the rotation would allow adjusting the body as needed to have proper visibility of the working area during treatment.
Claim(s) 17-19, 23, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertolotti (US 2011/0311945 A1), in view of Gottlieb (US 8,834,160).
Regarding claim 17, Bertolotti teaches the dental separator of claim 1 (see rejection above). Bertolotti teaches a wedge system for use in a dental restoration procedure in a mouth of a patient (see Figures and [0090-0095]) comprising a first wedge (33) adapted to be disposed in an approximal space between a first tooth and a second tooth adjacent the first tooth in the mouth of the patient (see Figure 7). Bertolotti teaches the notch of a tine is for inserting the wedge ([0090]) and the pads are spaced apart from each other on opposite sides of the approximal space (see Figs. 6, 8, 28), but is silent to the wedge system explicitly comprising:
the first wedge including a handle portion, a body portion coupled to and extending outward from the handle portion, a first arm extending from the body portion, away from the handle portion, a second arm extending from the body portion, away from the handle portion, and a gap formed between the first arm and the second arm; and wherein the dental separator ring is removably coupleable to the first wedge, wherein the first pad is configured to engage the handle portion of the first wedge when the first wedge is disposed in the approximal space and the dental separator ring is coupled to the first wedge, and wherein the second pad is configured to be at least partially disposed in the gap of the first wedge when the first wedge is disposed in the approximal space and the dental separator ring is coupled to the first wedge.
Gottlieb et al. teaches a method in the same field of endeavor. Gottlieb teaches a dental separator (66) and a wedge (10A) that are used to separate and clamp a matrix band (60) against a tooth (Col. 5 l. 3-16). Gottlieb teaches the wedge (10a) comprising a handle portion (16), a body portion (26) coupled to the handle portion (see Figure 1) and a first and second arms (12, 14) extending from the body portion and having a gap therebetween (see Figure 1). Gottlieb shows the separator (66) pads engage the gap between the first and second arms of the wedge (see Figure 6). Gottlieb claims a single wedge (See claims) and denotes using a variation of the same but nesting two wedges (see Figure 5 and Col 3 l. 55-57). It should also be seen, that a curve may be formed in the flange or ears of the wedge device of the present invention in order to capture the tip of the elongated member after it passes through space between the teeth. In this manner, the end portion of the wedge gives further support to the matrix band outside the buccal or lingual embrasure. The curvature of the ears of the wedge device also supports the matrix band when the decay region of the tooth extends beyond the teeth contact area i.e. to the lingual or buccal walls thereof. (Col. 2 l. 44-53).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the wedge to have two legs with a gap or space therebetween, as taught by Gottlieb, such that the design allows the wedge to extend to positions beyond the teeth contact area and ensures a proper fit around the teeth. The combination would teach dental ring and the wedge being configured to interact as claimed, such that each pad of the dental separator ring would engage one end of the wedge.
Regarding claim 18, Bertolotti in view of Gottlieb teaches the wedge system of claim 17 (see rejection above). Gottlieb teaches wherein when the first wedge is disposed in the approximal space and the dental separator ring is coupled to the first wedge, the first separator arm and the second separator arm are adapted to be at least partially disposed in the approximal space (when the Y-shaped wedge is inserted into the interproximal space and the ring is clamped around it, one pad engages the gap between the two arms and the other pad engages the handle of the wedge; the arms which carry the wedge would be disposed in the interproximal spaces when the pads are).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the wedge to have two legs with a gap or space therebetween, as taught by Gottlieb, such that the design allows the wedge to extend to positions beyond the teeth contact area and ensures a proper fit around the teeth. The combination would teach dental ring and the wedge being configured to interact as claimed, such that each pad of the dental separator ring would engage one end of the wedge.
Regarding claim 19, Bertolotti in view of Gottlieb teaches the wedge system of claim 17 (see rejection above). The combination Bertolotti/Gottlieb is fully capable of functioning such that a first side of the second pad is configured to contact the first arm to drive the first arm outward, away from the handle portion of the first wedge, and into contact with the first tooth, and wherein a second side of the second pad is configured to contact the second arm to drive the second arm outward, away from the handle portion of the first wedge, and into contact with the second tooth (the pads/tines extend physically from the arms and lead the arms into contact into the interproximal spaces as shown in Figure 10 and therefore are fully capable of engaging the Y-shaped wedge as claimed).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the wedge to have two legs with a gap or space therebetween, as taught by Gottlieb, such that the design allows the wedge to extend to positions beyond the teeth contact area and ensures a proper fit around the teeth. The combination would teach dental ring and the wedge being configured to interact as claimed, such that each pad of the dental separator ring would engage one end of the wedge.
Regarding claim 23, Bertolotti in view of Gottlieb teaches the wedge system of claim 17 (see rejection above). Bertolotti teaches wherein the first pad is non-rotatably coupled to the first separator arm and the second pad is non-rotatably coupled to the second separator arm (see Figures).
Regarding claim 25, Bertolotti teaches a method of preparing a patient for a dental restoration procedure, the method comprising:
providing a first wedge (33) ([0090-0095])
providing a dental separator ring (1), the dental separator ring comprising:
a first separator arm (see annotated Figure below);
a second separator arm (see annotated Figure below);
a central portion coupled to both the first separator arm and the second separator arm (see annotated Figure below);
a first pad (26) coupled to the first arm (see Fig. 1); and
a second pad (27) coupled to the second separator arm (see Fig. 1);
a notch (39) formed in only one of the first and second pads ([0090] and see Figure 26), the notch formed in the first pad ([0090] and see Figure 26); and
coupling the dental separator ring to the first wedge ([0090])
a second pad (27) coupled to the second arm (see Fig. 1), the second pad adapted to be positioned on a lingual side of the adjacent teeth in the mouth of the patient (see Figure 6; the second pad is fully capable of being positioned on a lingual side of the teeth); and
Bertolotti is silent to the wedge including a handle portion, a body portion coupled to the handle portion, a first arm extending from the body portion, away from the handle portion, a second arm extending from the body portion, away from the handle portion, and a gap formed between the first arm and the second arm; and inserting the first wedge into an approximal space between a first tooth and a second tooth adjacent to the first tooth in a mouth of the patient; and the first pad engages the handle portion of the first wedge, the second pad is at least partially disposed in the gap of the first wedge and is spaced apart from the notch of the first pad and the first separator arm and the second separator arm are partially disposed in the approximal space.
Gottlieb et al. teaches a method in the same field of endeavor. Gottlieb teaches a dental separator (66) and a wedge (10A) that are used to separate and clamp a matrix band (60) against a tooth (Col. 5 l. 3-16). Gottlieb teaches the wedge (10a) comprising a handle portion (16), a body portion (26) coupled to the handle portion (see Figure 1) and a first and second arms (12, 14) extending from the body portion and having a gap therebetween (see Figure 1). Gottlieb shows the separator (66) pads engage the gap between the first and second arms of the wedge (see Figure 6). Gottlieb claims a single wedge (See claims) and denotes using a variation of the same but nesting two wedges (see Figure 5 and Col 3 l. 55-57). The It should also be seen, that a curve may be formed in the flange or ears of the wedge device of the present invention in order to capture the tip of the elongated member after it passes through space between the teeth. In this manner, the end portion of the wedge gives further support to the matrix band outside the buccal or lingual embrasure. The curvature of the ears of the wedge device also supports the matrix band when the decay region of the tooth extends beyond the teeth contact area i.e. to the lingual or buccal walls thereof. (Col. 2 l. 44-53).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the wedge to have two legs with a gap or space therebetween, as taught by Gottlieb, such that the design allows the wedge to extend to positions beyond the teeth contact area and ensures a proper fit around the teeth. It would have further been obvious that if a single wedge is inserted between two adjacent teeth, and a dental separator ring is clamped around it, then one of the pads engages the gap between the arms of the wedge and the other pad engages the handle of the wedge. The combination would teach dental ring and the wedge being configured to interact as claimed, such that each pad of the dental separator ring would engage one end of the wedge.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertolotti (US 2011/0311945 A1), in view of Gottlieb (US 8,834,160), and further in view of Ericson et al. (US 2011/0306007 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Bertolotti in view of Gottlieb teaches the wedge system of claim 17 (see rejection above). Bertolotti teaches the separator retains a band or matrix against a tooth undergoing repair ([0094-0096]), and therefore teaches a matrix stabilizer but does not explicitly teach it further comprising: the matrix band coupled to the first wedge, wherein the first arm is adapted to drive the matrix band into contact with the first tooth when the first wedge is disposed in the approximal space; and the stabilizer disposed in the first pad, the stabilizer configured to provide support to the matrix band coupled to the first wedge.
Ericson et al. teaches a device in the same field of endeavor of dental tools (abstract). Ericson teaches the device comprises a wedge (7) that has a matrix band (2) coupled to it (see Figure 1) and when the arm is inserted into an interproximal space, the matrix band is positioned into contact with a tooth (17a) (see Figure 8).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing sate of the invention to modify the wedge to be fixedly attached to the matrix band, as taught by Ericson et al., such that it would facilitate placement of the matrix band into the dental interproximal space as it would be carried by the wedge. The modified system would have the stabilizer of the dental separator retain the matrix band that is fixed to the wedge.
Claim(s) 20, 22, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertolotti (US 2011/0311945 A1), in view of Gottlieb (US 8,834,160), and further in view of McDonald (US 2015/0216625 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Bertolotti in view of Gottlieb teaches the wedge system of claim 17 (see rejection above), but is silent to wherein the first pad is rotatably coupled to the first separator arm and the second pad is rotatably coupled to the second separator arm such that the central portion is rotatable relative to the first and second pads while the dental separator ring is coupled to the first wedge.
McDonald teaches a dental separator and matrix band retainer (abstract). McDonald teaches the device (100) comprises a body (101) having arms and a central portion (see Figures 6-7) and being connected to lugs (111). The body and lugs are rotatable relative to each other by less than 180 degrees (see Figure 7 and [0016], [0036-0037]). This allows rotational adjustment of the body’s position during use as to minimize obstruction on the dental professional during the procedure ([0059]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the central portion and arms to be rotated during use, as taught by McDonald, such that the rotation would allow adjusting the body as needed to have proper visibility of the working area during treatment.
Regarding claim 22, Bertolotti in view of Gottlieb and McDonald teaches the wedge system of claim 20 (see rejection above). McDonald teaches wherein when the dental separator ring is decoupled from the first wedge, the first pad is rotatable independently of the second pad ([0036-0037], [0059]; the lugs are rotatable relative to each other and therefore are fully capable of being rotated independently when the ring is decoupled from the wedge).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the central portion and arms to be rotated during use, as taught by McDonald, such that the rotation would allow adjusting the body as needed to have proper visibility of the working area during treatment.
Regarding claim 26, Bertolotti in view of Gottlieb teaches the method of claim 25 (see rejection above), but is silent to explicitly the method further comprising rotating the central portion relative to the first and second pads while the second pad is at least partially disposed in the gap of the first wedge.
McDonald teaches a dental separator and matrix band retainer (abstract). McDonald teaches the device (100) comprises a body (101) having arms and a central portion (see Figures 6-7) and being connected to lugs (111). The body and lugs are rotatable relative to each other by less than 180 degrees (see Figure 7 and [0016], [0036-0037]). This allows rotational adjustment of the body’s position during use as to minimize obstruction on the dental professional during the procedure ([0059]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the central portion and pads to be rotated during use, as taught by McDonald, such that the rotation would allow adjusting the body as needed to have proper visibility of the working area during treatment.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertolotti (US 2011/0311945 A1), in view of Gottlieb (US 8,834,160), and further in view of Doenges et al. (US 2009/0208901 A1).
Regarding claim 27, Bertolotti in view of Gottlieb teaches the method of claim 25 (see rejection above). Bertolotti teaches the method further comprising: decoupling the dental separator ring from the first wedge (the ring is decoupled after the procedure ends).
Doenges teaches a dental separator ring having tines/pads and in some embodiments, the tines may be able to rotate (or pivot) about an axis defined by the opposing end of the biasing ring ([0045]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the tines/pads to be rotatably coupled to the arm and rotating them, as taught by Doenges, because it would improve adaptability to the user anatomy and the matrix band as well as allow for placement variation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 7-20, 22-27have 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. See PTO-892 attached to this office action.
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 LINA FARAJ whose telephone number is (571)272-4580. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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.
/LINA FARAJ/ Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/HEIDI M EIDE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
3/4/2026