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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A in the reply filed on December 22, 2025 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on August 23, 2023 and January 5, 2026 are noted. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first and second limiting portions must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 Objections
Claims 6-7 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: Each of the claims have been marked up to cross out the claim number. It is believed that this in in error as the claims are provided with the status identifying “Currently Amended” and not “Cancelled”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: reciprocating driving mechanism in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
It is noted that the reciprocating drive mechanism is being interpreted as any of the disclosed mechanisms (see claim 2) or those equivalent thereof.
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 and 19-20 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.
Claim 7 claims “a second limiting portion”, however, it is noted that a first limiting portion has not been claimed. It is unclear how there can be a second limiting portion without a first limiting portion. It is suggested that the applicant amend the claim to clarify what is being claimed. It is noted that for examination purposes, the limitation is being interpreted as a limiting portion and the only limiting portion that has been claimed. It is noted that claim 19 is rejected for depending from claim 7.
With respect to claim 20 it is noted that the applicant has not positively claimed “the annular component” in claim 15, therefore proper antecedent basis is not provided for the limitation. It is noted that since the limitations of claim 15 are claimed in the alternative, the annular component is not positively claimed. It is suggested that the applicant amend claim 2 to positively claimed the annular component to clarify what is being claimed.
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)(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, 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lustig et al. (5,145,369).
With respect to claim 1, Lustig discloses a head of a dental handpiece (see fig. 2 showing the head, see fig. 1 showing the dental tool, see abstract), wherein the head comprises a head housing (the body of the head), wherein a machine core cavity is provided in the head housing (see annotated figure, the cavity contains the gears and other parts); and a rotatable machine core (see annotated figure below, col. 4, ll. 39-49) and a driving gear 46 are provided in the machine core cavity (see fig. 2, annotated figures below); the driving gear is sleeved over one end of the machine core (see fig. 3, such that it is sleeved over portion 30, col. 5, ll. 6-14, 43-46), and the machine core is capable of moving along an axial direction of the driving gear (see fig. 3, such that it is sleeved over portion 30, col. 5, ll. 6-14, 43-46); and a reciprocating driving mechanism is further provided in the machine core cavity (col. 4, ll. 43-47, the cam mechanism being the reciprocating driving mechanism), and the reciprocating driving mechanism is configured to drive the machine core to perform reciprocating movement along an axial direction of the machine core (see abstract, col. 4, ll. 43-47).
PNG
media_image1.png
382
611
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
682
412
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, Lustig further teaches wherein the reciprocating driving mechanism is one of a contactless-driving electromagnetic mechanism, a voice coil motor mechanism and a cam mechanism (see abstract, col. 4, ll. 43-47, such that it is a cam mechanism which meets the claimed limitations since only one of the listed elements is required).
With respect to claim 14, Lustig further teaches where a preload spring 56 is provided in an end of the machine core cavity away from the driving gear (see fig. 2), and the preload spring is configured to press the reciprocating driving mechanism against the driving gear (see fig. 2, such that it presses element 60 which is part of the reciprocating drive mechanism against the driving gear).
With respect to claim 16, Lustig further teaches a dental handpiece comprising the head of the dental handpiece according to claim 1 (see fig. 1 such that the head is provided on a dental handpiece, see abstract).
Claim(s) 1, 8 and 16-17 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shotton et al. (9,833,299).
With respect to claim 1, Shotton discloses a head of a dental handpiece (see fig. 7, such that the head is a head of a dental handpiece, see abstract), wherein the head comprises a head housing (the body of the head, see annotated figure),wherein a machine core cavity 122 is provided in the head housing (see annotated figure); and a rotatable machine core 124 (col. 8, ll. 8-19) and a driving gear 132 are provided in the machine core cavity (see figs. 7-10); the driving gear is sleeved over one end of the machine core, and the machine core is capable of moving along an axial direction of the driving gear (see figs. 7-8, col. 10, ll. 12-20, see fig. 8 and 10 which show the machine core being moved in an axial direction while the gear is not moved, such that the gear 134 contact gear 132 at different heights and the machine core is moved axially) ; and a reciprocating driving mechanism is further provided in the machine core cavity (cam drive 170 and groove 144), and the reciprocating driving mechanism is configured to drive the machine core to perform reciprocating movement along an axial direction of the machine core (see abstract, col. 9, ll. 48-67, col. 10, ll. 1-11).
PNG
media_image3.png
386
604
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 8, Shotton further discloses wherein a cavity for clamping a head of a root canal file is provided inside the machine core, and one end of the machine core extends out of the machine core cavity to insert the head of the root canal file into the machine core (col. 8, ll. 5-19, see fig. 9, see annotated figure above).
With respect to claim 16, Shotton further discloses a dental handpiece comprising the head of the dental handpiece according to claim 1 (see abstract such that it teaches a handpiece).
With respect to claim 17, Shotton further discloses an endo motor, comprising the dental handpiece according to claim 16 (col. 5, ll. 50-52, col. 8, ll. 5-19, such that the tool is an endodontic file, therefore the motor is an endo motor since it is a motor used for an endodontic file).
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, 5-7 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lustig et al. (5,145,369) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakanishi (3,969,823).
Lustig teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including the reciprocating driving mechanism is a cam mechanism (see abstract, col. 4, ll. 43-47), comprising a driving block 62, a driving protrusion 60, and an elastic member 56, wherein the driving block 62 is located at an end of the machine core cavity away form the driving gear (see fig. 2, such that it is at an end and away, i.e. not next to the gear), and a surface of the driving block is provided with a driving surface (see fig. 7A-7C, such that the end surface is the driving surface), the driving protrusion is provided on the machine core (see fig. 2) and protrudes towards the driving surface (see fig. 2, 7A-7C) and the elastic member is configured to keep the driving protrusion abutting against the driving surface (col. 5, ll. 53-62, it urges the shaft upwards, i.e. towards the driving surface). Lustig teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the driving surface is annular and coaxial with the machine core and wherein a distance between the driving surface and the driving gear varies gradually along a circumferential direction of the driving block.
Nakanishi teaches a head of a dental handpiece (see figs. 1, 6), wherein the head comprises a head housing (the body of the housing, 1), wherein a machine core cavity is provided in the head housing, see fig. 2, such that elements 6/2/3 are in the cavity), and a rotatable machine core (see annotated figure below) and a driving gear 3 are provided in the machine core cavity (see figs. 1-2), and a reciprocating driving mechanism is further provided in the machine core cavity (element 6 and 8,and surface in annotated figure below), and the reciprocating driving mechanism is configured to drive the machine core to perform reciprocating movement along an axial direction of the machine core (see fig. 6, col. 2, ll. 53-65). With respect to claim 3, Nakanishi further teaches the reciprocating driving mechanism is a cam mechanism comprising a driving block 6, a driving protrusion (see annaoted figure below) and an elastic member 8, wherein the driving block is located at an end of the machine core cavity away form the driving gear, and an end surface of the driving block close to the driving gear is provided with an annular driving surface which is coaxial to the machine core (see figs 1-2, col. 2, ll. 7-9, 38-45, specifically the bottom face of element 6 being the annular driving member), wherein a distance between the driving surface and the driving gear varies gradually along a circumferential direction of the driving block (see figs. 1-2, such that the driving surface is inclined), the driving protrusion is provide on the machine core and protrudes towards the driving surface (see figs. 1-2, annaoted figure below), and the elastic member 8 is configured to keep the driving protrusion abutting against the driving surface (col. 2, ll. 17-23). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the shape and location of the driving surface on the driving block to be annular and coaxial with the machine core as taught by Nakanishi in order to provide the head with a reduced diameter so that it can fit in the mouth easier. It is noted that by moving the driving block from being next to the machine core to being coaxial with the machine core, the diameter can be reduced.
PNG
media_image4.png
376
372
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 5, Lustig/Nakanishi teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Nakanishi further teaches the driving surface is an included surface (see figs. 1-2, col. 2, ll. 44-45).
With respect to claim 6, Lustig/Nakanishi teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Lustig further teaches a first limiting portion is provided at an end of the driving gear directly opposite the elastic member and configured to limit the elastic member from moving towards the driving gear (see annaoted figure below, such that protrusion 64 is at an end of the driving gear as broadly claimed).
PNG
media_image5.png
382
455
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 7, Lustig/Nakanishi teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Lustig further teaching, as best understood, wherein a second limiting portion is provided on an outer side wall of the machine core, and configured to limit the elastic member from moving toward the driving block (see annaoted figure below).
PNG
media_image6.png
382
455
media_image6.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 18, Lustig/Nakanishi teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Lustig further teaching the first limiting portion is a step surface provided at an end portion of the driving gear (see annaoted figure above with respect to claim 6 and detailed explanation).
With respect to claim 18, Lustig/Nakanishi teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Lustig further teaching wherein the second limiting portion is a protrusion provided on an outside of the machine core (see annaoted figure above, such that portion 64 is a protrusion on the machine core).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art fails to teach with respect to claim 4, the elastic member being held between the driving gear and the machine core. It is noted that Lustig teaches the elastic member 56 sleeved over the machine core, however, it is note between the machine core and gear. The elastic member could not be relocated as claims as it would destroy the functionality of the device since the parts would not be held together to allow the driving surfaces and gears to mesh.
The prior art fails to teach with respect to claim 15, the driving block surrounding an end portion of the machine core or a components formed by arranging an annular flange on a plate shaped component. It is noted that the closed prior art of Nakanishi teaches the driving block 6 being an annular member, however, it does not surround the machine core and it would destroy the function of the device since the driving block interacted with the included surface of the protrusion (i.e. the portion extending from the gear upwards of element 2) to provide the reciprocating movement. Such as modification would destroy the invention of Nakanishi as it would prevent the included surfaces from interacting and providing the axial movement.
Claim 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at 571-270-5614. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HEIDI M EIDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772 1/29/2026