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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 3 and 19 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitations "the ring" in the second line of the claim, “the finger” in the third line of the claim, and “the in-use position” in the fourth line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 is rejected due to its dependence on claim 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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, 4-5, 7, 9, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tinnin (US 20030186188 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tinnin teaches a device for cleaning dental, medical, or surgical instruments comprising an active part (device for cleaning endodontic files, abstract), said device comprising: a support (Figure 2 bottom wall “22”); a receptacle mounted on the support and intended to receive at least the active part of a dental, medical, or surgical instrument (Figure 2 foam core “10”) and a cover arranged to be removably mounted on one end of the receptable (Figure 2 covering “30” protecting the top surface “12” of the foam core “10”) and wherein the cover comprises at least one slot, said slot being arranged such that at least the active part of the instrument can be inserted into the receptacle and removed from the receptacle through the slot (file is inserted into the device through the covering overlaying the core and method involves the steps of inserting a file and withdrawing the file, abstract), the friction between the active part of the instrument and at least one wall of the slot when said instrument passes through said slot allowing said active part to be mechanically cleaned by retaining solid or liquid dirt and deposits (core cooperates with the covering to clean the file by loosening and removing debris from the bit as the file moves into and out of the device, paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 4, Tinnin teaches wherein the support base intended to be placed on a substantially planar surface (Figure 2 bottom wall “22” of planar shape).
Regarding claim 5, Tinnin teaches wherein the cover is formed of several pieces (housing around foam core “10” consists of side walls “21” and top covering “30”).
Regarding claim 7, Tinnin teaches wherein the slot is also shaped so as to hold the instrument and be used as a support therefore when the active part is inserted into the receptacle through the slot (pressing the body through the covering until the flutes are substantially contained and the handle of the file is proximate to the upper side of the device, paragraph [0054]), a force exerted on the instrument being necessary to cause said instrument to pass through the slot (filed is pressed into the device for the rip to pass through the covering, paragraph [0048]).
Regarding claim 9, Tinnin teaches wherein the receptacle is at least partially closed at its end opposite that receiving the cover (foam core is made of polystyrene cellular foam, paragraph [0037], and bottom cover is made of stuff material that is resistant to file penetration such as cardboard, paragraph [0037]).
Regarding claim 13, Tinnin teaches wherein the cover is flexible and elastic (covering includes pliable sheets of fabric, paragraph [0035]).
Regarding claim 20, Tinnin teaches wherein the cover is formed of several pieces (housing around foam core “10” consists of side walls “21” and top covering “30”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2, 11-12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tinnin in view of Johnsen (US 9066776 B2).
Regarding claim 2, Tinnin teaches all aspects of the current invention as discussed above except wherein the support is a ring intended to receive a finger of a user, the ring being open or closed or having an adjustable size. However, Johnsen teaches wherein the support is a ring intended to receive a finger of a user, the ring being open or closed or having an adjustable size (Finger mount allows the system to be positioned on an individual’s forefinger, column 3 lines 15-16).
Tinnin and Johnsen are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of instrument cleaning devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the cleaning device taught by Tinnin with the ring support taught by Johnsen because Johnsen teaches such a design will not interfere with the use of the wearer’s hand, column 3 lines 22-24).
Regarding claim 11, Tinnin teaches all aspects of the current invention as discussed above except wherein a ruler is mounted on the receptacle or the support and comprises a graduation. However, Johnsen teaches a ruler is mounted on the receptacle or the support and comprises a graduation (Figure 1 scale “40” etched onto shelf “36” with depth markers “38”).
Tinnin and Johnsen are considered analogous to the current invention as discussed above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the cleaning device taught by Tinnin with the ruler taught by Johnsen because Johnsen teaches such a configuration will allows for the accurate positioning of depth markers on the file, column 3 lines 32-33).
Regarding claim 12, Tinnin teaches all aspects of the current invention as discussed above except wherein the cover comprises several slots which can be arranged to form sectors or groups making it possible to classify or sort several instruments according to set criteria. However, Johnsen teaches wherein the cover comprises several slots which can be arranged to form sectors or groups (socket-forming member by define a plurality of distinct regions, column 2 lines 61-62) making it possible to classify or sort several instruments according to set criteria (system may be used to sort files of predetermined size or style, column 3 lines 1-4).
Tinnin and Johnsen are considered analogous to the current invention as discussed above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the cleaning device with the organized sectors as taught by Johnsen because Johnsen teaches the plurality of distinct regions allow for the accommodation of different servicing operations (column 2 lines 62-63).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Tinnin and Johnsen teaches all aspects of the current invention including wherein the cover is formed of several pieces (housing around foam core “10” consists of side walls “21” and top covering “30”, Tinnin).
Claims 3, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tinnin in view of Boehm (GB 2462578 A).
Regarding claim 3, Tinnin teaches all aspects of the current invention as discussed above except wherein an extension fixedly attached to the ring is arranged to come to bear against the finger adjacent to the finger passing through the ring when the device is in place so as to prevent the ring and the device from turning in the in-use position of the device. However, Boehm teaches wherein an extension fixedly attached to the ring is arranged to come to bear against the finger adjacent to the finger passing through the ring when the device is in place so as to prevent the ring and the device from turning in the in-use position of the device (device clamped at the user’s finger is retained against twisting on the finger, page 4 lines 27-28, and Figure 7 extension of base “212” shown on finger in Figure 9).
Tinnin and Boehm are considered analogous to the current invention a because all are in the field of instrument cleaning devices. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the cleaning device taught by Tinnin with the position retention taught by Boehm because Boehm teaches that the base construction allows for the dental material to be retained in the container when the device is placed in various positions (page 5 lines 25-26).
Regarding claim 15, Tinnin teaches all aspects of the current invention except wherein the support, the receptacle, the ruler, and/or the extension are made from a single piece to form a main body. However, Boehm teaches wherein the support, the receptacle, the ruler, and/or the extension are made from a single piece to form a main body (a single structure may be used to provide a use of the device, page 3 lines 11-12, and Figure 7 shows device “210” as single structure).
Tinnin and Boehm are considered analogous to the current invention as discussed above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the cleaning device taught by Tinnin with the singular structure taught by Boehm because Boehm teaches that a singular structure allows for the use of the device in multiple modes of operation (page 3 lines 12-14).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Tinnin and Boehm teaches all aspects of the current invention including wherein the cover is formed of several pieces (housing around foam core “10” consists of side walls “21” and top covering “30”, Tinnin).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tinnin in view of Seitz (US 20150068939 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Tinnin teaches all aspects of the current invention except wherein at least one piece of the cover has the form of a seal made from a thin foam, said seal having said at least one slot. However, Seitz teaches wherein at least one piece of the cover has the form of a seal made from a thin foam, said seal having said at least one slot (closure retainer may be a soft foam sleeve, and interior opening of closure retainer sleeve allows for insertion of medical probe tip (paragraph [0090]).
Tinnin and Seitz are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of instrument cleaning devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the cleaning device cause by Tinnin with the foam cover taught by Seitz because Seitz teaches such a cover allows for the protection of the medical instrument during transportation (paragraph [0090]).
Claims 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tinnin in view of Ferlic (US 20130171030 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Tinnin teaches all aspects of the current invention except wherein the cover further comprises at least one opening communicating with, and being wider than, the slots and through which the instrument can pass without friction and without constraint. However, Ferlic teaches wherein the cover further comprises at least one opening communicating with, and being wider than, the slots and through which the instrument can pass without friction and without constraint (Figure 9 cover “162” creates opening “164” wider than contoured sterilizing element “20”).
Tinnin and Ferlic are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of instrument cleaning devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to combine the cleaning device taught by Tinnin with the cover opening taught by Ferlic because Ferlic teaches it advantageously grants access to the sterilizing element within the cover (paragraph [0086) while protecting the device’s sterility until use (paragraph [0080]).
Regarding claim 14, Tinnin teaches all aspects of the current invention except wherein the cover has a tab making it possible to easily mount and remove said cover an/from the receptacle by deforming said cover. However, Ferlic teaches wherein the cover has a tab making it possible to easily mount and remove said cover an/from the receptacle by deforming said cover (cover can include a tab or tether to pull the cover from the housing, paragraph [0086], and end adapted to be opened using a frangible lid, paragraph [0012]).
Tinnin and Ferlic are considered analogous to the current invention as described above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the cleaning device taught by Tinnin with the tab and deformable cover taught by Ferlic because Ferlic teaches it advantageously grants access to the sterilizing element within the cover (paragraph [0086) while protecting the device’s sterility until use (paragraph [0080]).
Claims 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tinnin in view of Viscomi (US 20080311543 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Tinnin teaches all aspects of the current invention as discussed above except wherein the receptacle contains disinfectant. However, Viscomi teaches wherein the receptacle contains disinfectant (finger mounted device impregnated with an appropriate solution to clean and disinfect an operative instrument, paragraph [0024]).
Tinnin and Viscomi are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of instrument cleaning devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the cleaning device taught by Tinnin with the disinfectant taught by Viscomi because Viscomi teaches the receptacle containing disinfectant advantageously disinfects the working end of the instrument in the operative area (paragraph [0013]).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Tinnin and Viscomi teaches all aspects of the current invention including wherein the disinfectant is a disinfectant solution or a foam imbibed with a disinfectant solution (finger mounted device impregnated with an appropriate solution to clean and disinfect an operative instrument, paragraph [0024], Viscomi).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tinnin and Johnsen in view of Boehm.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Tinnin and Johnsen teaches all aspects of the current invention as discussed above except wherein an extension fixedly attached to the ring is arranged to come to bear against the finger adjacent to the finger passing through the ring when the device is in place so as to prevent the ring and the device from turning in the in-use position of the device. However, Boehm teaches wherein an extension fixedly attached to the ring is arranged to come to bear against the finger adjacent to the finger passing through the ring when the device is in place so as to prevent the ring and the device from turning in the in-use position of the device (device clamped at the user’s finger is retained against twisting on the finger, page 4 lines 27-28, and Figure 7 extension of base “212” shown on finger in Figure 9).
Tinnin, Johnsen, and Boehm are considered analogous to the current invention a because all are in the field of instrument cleaning devices. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the cleaning device taught by Tinnin and Johnsen with the position retention taught by Boehm because Boehm teaches that the base construction allows for the dental material to be retained in the container when the device is placed in various positions (page 5 lines 25-26).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYLA ROSE SARANTAKOS whose telephone number is (703)756-5524. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-4:00.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/K.R.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/DONALD R SPAMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799