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 1A, 1B, 9, 13 - filed September 22, 2023) are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84 (b)(1) because black and white photographs are not ordinarily permitted in utility applications because they reproduce poorly. Conventional drawings are a practical medium for illustrating the claimed invention.
The drawings (Figures 3, 4 7 and 8 - filed September 22, 2023) are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(m) because solid shading is not permitted.
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.
Rejections based on 35 U.S.C. 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.
Claim 31 is 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.
In claim 31, there is no antecedent basis for “the bending rod.” It appears as thoughthe claim should depend from claim 30.
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 21-25, 28, 29, 34-38 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rubbert et al (US 2006/0107720).
In regard to claim 21, Rubbert et al disclose an orthodontic wire bending device in Figure 14 comprising: a wire guiding unit (58) comprising a convoying system for driving the wire (65) and an exit (right end of 58) for delivering the wire a first direction along a longitudinal axis through the exit (22), and a wire bending unit (59) fed by the wire delivered from the exit of guiding unit (58). The bending unit (59) comprising at least one wire bending member (61) wherein the at least one wire bending member (61) is able to turn around a center of rotation in a first plane including the longitudinal axis, such that, when the wire comes out of the exit of guiding unit (58), a rotation of the at least one bending member (61) around the center of rotation (C) results in the bending of the wire (65) proximate to the exit of the guiding unit (58) wherein the is located, along the first direction, beyond the center of rotation (C).
In regard to claim 22, note the Rubbert et al nozzle shaped end at the end of guiding unit 58. In regard to claim 23, the Rubbert et al wire bending unit is capable of bending the wire to the desired angle. In regard to claim 24, the conveying system 58 is capable of rotating about the longitudinal axis via bearing 56. In regard to claim 25, the Rubbert et al guiding unit 58 conveying the wire is tubular. In regard to claim 28, note rotating plate 62 from which bending member 61, 66 protrudes. In regard to claim 29, note the hollow body of guiding unit 58. In claims 33, 34 and 36, note the Rubbert et al bending members 66. In regard to claims 35 and 37, note the rotation about bearing 56. In regard to claim 38, note paragraph [0069] of Rubbert et al.
Claims 21, 23, 24, 25, 28-38 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suto et al (US 11,007,563).
Suto et al disclose an orthodontic wire bending device comprised of a wire guiding unit 120 (see Figure 1A) for conveying and driving wire 102 longitudinally through an exit at 114. The Suto et al wire bending device further includes a wire bending unit 110 comprised of at least one wire bending member 116 (including 214) being able to turn around a center of rotation in a first plane including the longitudinal axis.
In regard to claim 23, the Suto et al wire bending unit is capable of bending the wire to the desired angle. In regard to claim 24, note column 6, lines 29-26. In regard to claims 25 and 29, note guide tube 1276 (Figure 12B). In regard to claims 28, 30, 31 and 33-37, note the plate 1281 having at least bending members (rods) 1204, 1263, 1264 in Figure 12C. In regard to claim 32, note cutting edge 1212 (Figure 12C). In regard to claim 38, Suto et al disclose the computer control of the wire bending device (e.g. column 15, lines 62-67).
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.
Claims 26, 27, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubbert et al (US 2006/0107720).
In regard to claim 26, merely providing an external cover and inner sheath for the Rubbert et al guiding unit tube 58 in order to provide general protection to the guiding unit tube 58 would have been obvious as matter of routine practice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In regard to claim 27, to have merely provided for a rounded opening for the wire exiting the guiding Rubbert et al unit tube 58 in order to provide for a smooth exit of the wire would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In regard to claim 39, Rubbert et al disclose that sensors are used through the bending device (note last sentence of paragraph [0071]). To have used conventional sensors to sense the present of the wire for bending in the computer controlled bending device of Rubbert et al would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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, Edelmira Bosques 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 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