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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 21 May 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed.
Examiner notes that while English translations are provided for the Foreign Patent Documents Cite. No. 34-42 and 51-52, no copies of the original Foreign Patent Documents for these documents are provided. Examiner suggests providing copies of the original Foreign Patent Documents for the Foreign Patent Documents Cite. No. 34-42 and 51-52.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 28 April 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 10, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borgelt et al (U.S. Patent No. 3,986,263 A, hereinafter “Borgelt”) in view of Melvin (U.S. Patent No. 3,316,043 A).
PNG
media_image1.png
480
838
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
389
602
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 1, Borgelt discloses a delivery system (Figs. 1-7), comprising:
a mount (17 in Fig. 1);
a movement arm (19 in Fig. 1) rotationally connected to the mount at a first connection point of the movement arm (col. 2 line 67- col. 3 line 4), the movement arm capable of rotating relative to the mount about a first axis of rotation (1st axis in annotated Fig. 1, col. 3 lines 2-4);
a delivery portion (delivery potion in annotated Fig. 1);
and a connection arm (22 in Fig. 1) rotationally connected to the movement arm at a second connection point (24 in Fig. 1) of the movement arm different than the first connection point (col. 3 lines 8-12), the connection arm capable of rotating relative to the movement arm about a second axis of rotation (2nd axis in annotated Fig. 1) different than the first axis of rotation (col. 3 lines 8-12), the connection arm capable of supporting the delivery portion and connecting the delivery portion to the movement arm (Figs. 1 and 2),
wherein the movement arm and the connection arm are each capable of being disposed at least a predetermined minimum height (min height in annotated Fig. 1) or greater above a ground level (note that the ground level as claimed may be a ground level lower than the level at which the device is located) at a location of the second axis (Figs. 1-2).
Borgelt does not disclose wherein the predetermined minimum height is greater than a user forefoot clearance height such that the delivery system is configured to allow a user forefoot to be disposed beneath the connection arm and the movement arm at the second axis.
Melvin teaches an apparatus (Figs. 9-12) comprising a delivery portion (10 in Fig. 2) wherein the arm portion (arm portion in annotated Fig. 10) is capable of being disposed at least a predetermined minimum height or greater above a ground level at a location (col. 2 lines 40-44), wherein the predetermined minimum height is greater than a user forefoot clearance height such that the delivery system is capable of allowing a user forefoot to be disposed beneath the arm portion (Fig. 10, col. 2 lines 40-44).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dental delivery systems. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the movement arm and connection arm of Borgelt by specifying the predetermined minimum height is greater than a user forefoot clearance height such that the delivery system is configured to allow a user forefoot to be disposed beneath the arm portion as taught by Melvin in order to ensure the parts of the device do not interfere with the feet and legs of a user (Melvin col. 2 lines 40-44).
The device made obvious by the combination would be such that the delivery system is capable of allowing a user forefoot to be disposed beneath the connection arm and the movement arm at the second axis.
In regard to claim 3, Borgelt in view of Melvin discloses the invention of claim 1. Borgelt further discloses wherein the movement arm (19 in Fig. 1) and the connection arm (22 in Fig. 1) are each capable of being disposed at least the predetermined minimum height or greater above the ground level at a location of the first axis (Figs. 1 and 2; and see above explanation).
In regard to claim 4, Borgelt in view of Melvin discloses the invention of claim 1. Borgelt further discloses further comprising a connection plate (41 in Fig. 1) disposed between the connection arm (22 in Fig. 1) and the delivery portion (delivery portion in annotated Fig. 1), wherein the connection plate is capable of supporting the delivery portion at an upper side thereof (Figs. 1-2, col. 3 lines 40-42), wherein the connection plate is capable of being supported by the connection arm at a lower side thereof (Figs. 1-2, col. 3 lines 40-42), and wherein the connection plate further defines at least one connector (connector in annotated Fig. 1) capable of engaging a tool arm (Figs. 1-2 and 4, col. 3 lines 40-44).
In regard to claim 5, Borgelt in view of Melvin discloses the invention of claim 1. Borgelt does not explicitly disclose wherein a horizontal extent of the movement arm is less than a horizontal extent of the connection arm.
However, at the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the horizontal extent of the movement arm be less than a horizontal extent of the connection arm for the purpose of having the arms at desired horizontal extents, since applicant has not disclosed that having the horizontal extent of the movement arm be less than a horizontal extent of the connection arm provides an advantage, solves any stated problem, or is used for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs.
Furthermore, absent a teaching as to criticality that the horizontal extent of the movement arm be less than a horizontal extent of the connection arm, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
In regard to claim 10, Borgelt in view of Melvin discloses the invention of claim 1. Borgelt further discloses wherein the movement arm (19 in Fig. 1) defines a cavity capable of receiving at least a portion of a cable and/or conduit (col. 3 lines 50-55).
In regard to claim 12, Borgelt in view of Melvin discloses the invention of claim 1. Borgelt further discloses wherein the mount (17 in Fig. 1) comprises a pivot portion (col. 2 line 67- col. 3 line 4, pivot pin not shown) capable of attaching indirectly to a mounting plate (20 in Fig. 1, col. 2 lines 60-63), wherein the pivot portion is capable of engaging the movement arm (col. 2 line 67- col. 3 line 4) and the mounting plate is capable of engaging ground (Fig. 1, col. 2 lines 60-65).
In regard to claim 14, Borgelt in view of Melvin discloses the invention of claim 1. Borgelt further discloses wherein the movement arm (19 in Fig. 1) and the connection arm (22 in Fig. 1) are capable of allowing the delivery portion (delivery potion in annotated Fig. 1) to translate horizontally along an axis without the delivery portion rotating relative to the mount (Figs. 1 and 2, col. 3 lines 2-12).
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borgelt in view of Melvin and Fuchs (U.S. Patent No. 4,443,194 A).
In regard to claim 2, Borgelt in view of Melvin discloses the invention of claim 1. Borgelt does not disclose wherein the delivery portion is configured to rotate relative to the connection arm about a third axis of rotation different than the first axis of rotation and the second axis of rotation.
Fuchs teaches a delivery system (Figs. 1-8) comprising a delivery portion (20 in Fig. 6) wherein the delivery portion is capable of rotating relative to a connection arm (68 in Fig. 6) about a third axis of rotation (axis through pivot 78 in Fig. 6) different than a first axis of rotation (axis through pivot 70 in Fig. 6) and a second axis of rotation (axis through pivot 72 in Fig. 6, col. 4 lines 28-39).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dental delivery systems. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the delivery portion of Borgelt in view of Melvin by adding a pivot so that the delivery portion is configured to rotate relative to the connection arm about a third axis of rotation different than the first axis of rotation and the second axis of rotation as taught by Fuchs in order to allow for movement of the delivery system between left- and right-handed positions (Fuchs col. 5 lines 35-40).
In regard to claim 11, Borgelt in view of Melvin discloses the invention of claim 10. Borgelt further discloses wherein the mount (17 in Fig. 1) defines an opening capable of receiving at least a second portion of the cable and/or the conduit (col. 3 lines 50-55). Borgelt does not disclose wherein the movement arm is open along a lower side of the cavity such that the portion of the cable and/or the conduit is configured to be inserted into the cavity.
Fuchs teaches a delivery system (Figs. 1-8) comprising a movement arm (66 in Fig. 6) wherein the movement arm is open along a lower side of the cavity (Fig. 7) such that the portion of the cable and/or the conduit is capable of being inserted into the cavity (Fig 7, col. 4 lines 51-67).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dental delivery systems. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the movement arm of Borgelt in view of Melvin by adding openings along a lower side of the cavity such that the portion of the cable and/or the conduit is configured to be inserted into the cavity as taught by Fuchs in order to allow for extra length of the cable and/or conduits to be furnished so that the arms may pivot relative to each other as necessary (Fuchs col. 4 line 65-col, 5 line 5).
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borgelt in view of Melvin and Benfield (U.S. Publication No. 2010/0227292 A1).
In regard to claim 6, Borgelt in view of Melvin discloses the invention of claim 1. Borgelt does not disclose wherein at least a portion of each of the movement arm, the mount, and the connection arm intersects a common horizontal plane.
Benfield teaches a similar apparatus (Figs. 1-5) wherein at least a portion of each of a movement arm (23 in Figs. 1-2), a mount (21 in Figs. 1-2), and a connection arm (25 in Figs. 1-2) intersects a common horizontal plane (Figs. 1-3).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dental delivery systems. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the movement arm, mount, and connection arm of Borgelt in view of Melvin by fabricating at least a portion of each of the movement arm, the mount, and the connection arm to intersect a common horizontal plane as taught by Benfield in order to allow for the delivery system to take up a minimum amount of space (Benfield para. 0019).
Claims 7-9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borgelt in view of Melvin and Smith et al (U.S. Patent No. 8,408,899 B1, hereinafter “Smith”).
PNG
media_image3.png
373
585
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 7, Borgelt in view of Melvin discloses the invention of claim 1. Borgelt further discloses wherein the movement arm (19 in Fig. 1) and the connection arm (22 in Fig. 1) are each capable of being disposed a predetermined maximum height or less above a ground level at the location of the second axis (2nd axis in annotated Fig. 1), wherein the predetermined maximum height (max height in annotated Fig. 1) is greater than the predetermined minimum height (min height in annotated Fig. 1; also see above regarding interpretation of “ground level”).
Borgelt does not disclose wherein the predetermined maximum height is less than a user knee clearance height, such that the delivery system is configured to allow a user knee to be disposed above the connection arm and the movement arm at the second axis.
Smith teaches an apparatus (Figs. 1-16) wherein the arm (148 in Fig. 5) is capable of being disposed a predetermined maximum height (maxi height in annotated Fig. 5) or less above a ground level (Fig. 5), wherein the predetermined maximum height is less than a user knee clearance height (col. 7 lines 49-53, 159 is the space for the knee and max height is at bottom of 159), such that the delivery system is capable of allowing a user knee to be disposed above arm (col. 7 lines 49-53, col. 9 lines 43-46).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dental delivery systems. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the movement arm and connection arm of Borgelt by specifying the predetermined maximum height is less than a user knee clearance height, such that the delivery system is capable of allowing a user knee to be disposed above the arm as taught by Smith in order to allow the user to freely position their legs without undesirable contact with the components of the delivery system (Smith col. 9 lines 43-46).
The device made obvious by the combination would be such that the delivery system is capable of allowing a user knee to be disposed above the connection arm and the movement arm at the second axis.
In regard to claim 8, Borgelt in view of Smith discloses the invention of claim 7. Borgelt further discloses wherein an entirety of the movement arm (19 in Fig. 1) is disposed below the predetermined maximum height (max height in annotated Fig. 1).
Borgelt does not explicitly disclose wherein the predetermined maximum height is less than a user knee clearance height.
Smith teaches an apparatus (Figs. 1-16) wherein the arm (148 in Fig. 5) is capable of being disposed a predetermined maximum height (maxi height in annotated Fig. 5) which is less than a user knee clearance height (col. 7 lines 49-53, 159 is the space for the knee and max height is at bottom of 159).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dental delivery systems. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the movement arm and connection arm of Borgelt in view of Smith by specifying the predetermined maximum height is less than a user knee clearance height as taught by Smith in order to allow the user to freely position their legs without undesirable contact with the components of the delivery system (Smith col. 9 lines 43-46).
In regard to claim 9, Borgelt in view of Smith discloses the invention of claim 8. Borgelt further discloses wherein each portion of the movement arm (19 in Fig. 1) and the connection arm (22 in Fig. 1) not disposed vertically beneath the delivery portion (Figs. 1 and 2) is disposed below the predetermined maximum height (max height in annotated Fig. 1).
Borgelt does not explicitly disclose wherein the predetermined maximum height is less than a user knee clearance height.
Smith teaches an apparatus (Figs. 1-16) wherein the arm (148 in Fig. 5) is capable of being disposed a predetermined maximum height (maxi height in annotated Fig. 5) which is less than a user knee clearance height (col. 7 lines 49-53, 159 is the space for the knee and max height is at bottom of 159).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dental delivery systems. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the movement arm and connection arm of Borgelt in view of Smith by specifying the predetermined maximum height is less than a user knee clearance height as taught by Smith in order to allow the user to freely position their legs without undesirable contact with the components of the delivery system (Smith col. 9 lines 43-46).
In regard to claim 15, Borgelt in view of Melvin discloses the invention of claim 1. Borgelt does not disclose a storage system comprising at least one cabinet, wherein the mount is attached to the at least one cabinet or to ground at least partially beneath the at least one cabinet, and wherein at least a portion of the mount is disposed above a lowermost edge of at least one cabinet door of the cabinet.
Smith teaches a storage system (Figs. 1-16) comprising at least one cabinet (154 in Fig. 1), wherein the mount (146 in Fig. 2) is attached to the at least one cabinet or to ground at least partially beneath the at least one cabinet (col. 4 lines 65-col. 5 line 12).
Smith does not explicitly teach wherein at least a portion of the mount is disposed above a lowermost edge of at least one cabinet door of the cabinet.
However, at the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have at least a portion of the mount disposed above a lowermost edge of at least one cabinet door of the cabinet for the purpose of having the mount at a desired location, since applicant has not disclosed that having at least a portion of the mount is disposed above a lowermost edge of at least one cabinet door of the cabinet provides an advantage, solves any stated problem, or is used for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs.
Furthermore, absent a teaching as to criticality that at least a portion of the mount is disposed above a lowermost edge of at least one cabinet door of the cabinet, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dental delivery systems. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the delivery system of Borgelt by adding a storage system comprising at least one cabinet, wherein the mount is attached to the at least one cabinet or to ground at least partially beneath the at least one cabinet, and specify that wherein at least a portion of the mount is disposed above a lowermost edge of at least one cabinet door of the cabinet as taught by Smith in order to allow for reducing obstruction of space (Smith col. 2 lines 12-13).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borgelt in view of Melvin and Denison (U.S. Patent No. 533,445 A).
PNG
media_image4.png
640
465
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 13, Borgelt in view of Melvin discloses the invention of claim 1. Borgelt does not disclose wherein the connection arm defines a vertical section at a distal end thereof, and wherein an upper surface of the connection arm is continuously curved in a vertical plane between the second connection point and the vertical section.
Denison teaches wherein an arm (I in Fig. 1, p. 1 lines 64-65) defines a vertical section (vertical section in annotated Fig. 1) at a distal end thereof (Fig. 1), and wherein an upper surface of the arm is continuously curved in a vertical plane between the connection point (connection point in annotated Fig. 1) and the vertical section (Fig. 1).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dental delivery systems. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the connection arm and second connection point of Borgelt in view of Melvin by specifying the arm defines a vertical section at a distal end thereof, and that an upper surface of the arm is continuously curved in a vertical plane between the connection point and the vertical section as taught by Denison in order to allow for the connection arm to be in a shape and position convenient for use by the dentist (Denison p. 3 lines 101-103).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borgelt in view of Melvin and Smith in view of Zhang et al (CN 111938472 A, hereinafter “Zhang”) in view of Adventures in Remodeling (“OK, Now I’m In the Mudroom”, see attached PDF).
PNG
media_image5.png
576
418
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 16, Borgelt in view of Melvin and Smith discloses the invention of claim 15. Borgelt does not disclose the storage system further comprising: an electrical connection system disposed above the at least one cabinet, the electrical connection system defining a channel therein; a charging door connected to a second portion of the electrical connection system via a hinge, the charging door configured to rotate about the hinge to allow the charging door to rotate from a closed configuration to an open configuration relative to the second portion of electrical connection system; and an electrical outlet configured to be disposed behind the charging door in an instance in which the charging door is in the closed configuration, wherein the electrical outlet configured to be angled at a non-perpendicular and non-parallel angle relative to a surface of the at least one cabinet door of the at least one cabinet in a closed configuration, and wherein the charging door comprises a slot configured to allow for electrical cables to pass through the slot and behind or into the at least one cabinet in an instance in which the charging door is in the closed configuration.
Zhang teaches an apparatus (Figs. 1-8) comprising: an electrical connection system (Fig. 1) defining a channel (channel in annotated Fig. 3) therein; a charging door (11 in Figs. 4 and 5) connected to a second portion of the electrical connection system via a hinge (para. 0033), the charging door capable of rotating about the hinge to allow the charging door to rotate from a closed configuration to an open configuration relative to the second portion of electrical connection system (paras. 0033 and 0040, open or closed); and an electrical outlet (8 in Fig. 3, para. 0035) capable of being disposed behind the charging door in an instance in which the charging door is in the closed configuration (Fig. 3), and wherein the charging door comprises a slot (13 in Fig. 5) capable of allowing for electrical cables to pass through the slot and behind or into the at least one cabinet in an instance in which the charging door is in the closed configuration (para. 0041).
Adventures in Remodeling teaches wherein an electrical outlet (Figure of p. 8) is capable of being angled (p. 8) at a non-perpendicular and non-parallel angle relative to a surface of at least one cabinet door of at least one cabinet in a closed configuration (Figure of p. 15).
Zhang, Adventures in Remodeling, Smith and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cabinets. Smith, Melvin, Borgelt and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dental delivery systems.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the dental system of Borgelt in view of Smith by adding an electrical connection system defining a channel therein; a charging door connected to a second portion of the electrical connection system via a hinge, the charging door capable of rotating about the hinge to allow the charging door to rotate from a closed configuration to an open configuration relative to the second portion of electrical connection system; and an electrical outlet capable of being disposed behind the charging door in an instance in which the charging door is in the closed configuration, wherein the charging door comprises a slot capable of allowing for electrical cables to pass through the slot and behind or into the at least one cabinet in an instance in which the charging door is in the closed configuration as taught by Zhang above the at least one cabinet of Borgelt in view of Melvin and Smith in order to allow for additional storage of products (Zhang para. 0039) while having a lightweight and durable construction with clever wiring (Zhang para. 0049).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrical outlet of Borgelt in view of Melvin and Smith in view of Zhang by mounting the electrical outlet so that the outlet is capable of being angled at a non-perpendicular and non-parallel angle relative to a surface of at least one cabinet door of at least one cabinet in a closed configuration as taught by Adventures in Remodeling in order to make it easier to plug in appliances (Adventures in Remodeling p. 8).
In an alternate rejection, Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borgelt in view of Melvin and Smith in view of Siemens (FR 2268436 A7) in view of Velvet (Installation Review of Sealproof 1-Gang Weatherproof in Use Outdoor, https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=bHSXAJyHMHY, see attached PDF) in view of Adventures in Remodeling (“OK, Now I’m In the Mudroom”, see attached PDF)
PNG
media_image6.png
915
1360
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 15, Borgelt in view of Melvin and Smith discloses the invention of claim 15. Borgelt does not disclose the storage system further comprising: an electrical connection system disposed above the at least one cabinet, the electrical connection system defining a channel therein; a charging door connected to a second portion of the electrical connection system via a hinge, the charging door configured to rotate about the hinge to allow the charging door to rotate from a closed configuration to an open configuration relative to the second portion of electrical connection system; and an electrical outlet configured to be disposed behind the charging door in an instance in which the charging door is in the closed configuration, wherein the electrical outlet configured to be angled at a non-perpendicular and non- parallel angle relative to a surface of the at least one cabinet door of the at least one cabinet in a closed configuration, and wherein the charging door comprises a slot configured to allow for electrical cables to pass through the slot and behind or into the at least one cabinet in an instance in which the charging door is in the closed configuration.
Siemens teaches an electrical connection system (13 in Fig. 1, p. 2 para. 0003, outlets can also be mounted to front face 11) disposed above at least one cabinet (Fig. 1).
Velvet teaches an electrical connection system (Fig. A) defining a channel (channel in annotated Fig. A) therein; a charging door (door in annotated Fig. A) connected to a second portion (2nd portion in annotated Fig. A) of the electrical connection system via a hinge (hinge in annotated Fig. A), the charging door capable of rotating about the hinge to allow the charging door to rotate from a closed configuration (see p. 12 of PDF) to an open configuration (Fig. A) relative to the second portion of electrical connection system (Fig. A, see 10:54-44:11 of video); and an electrical outlet (outlet in annotated Fig. A) capable of being disposed behind the charging door in an instance in which the charging door is in the closed configuration (see p. 12 of PDF), and wherein the charging door comprises a slot (see p. 1-6 of PDF and video 10:54-11:11, Velvet removes the tab of the slot in order to open the slot for the wire) capable of allowing for electrical cables to pass through the slot and behind or into at least one cabinet (slot is capable of allowing cables to pass through behind or into a cabinet) in an instance in which the charging door is in the closed configuration (see p. 12 of PDF).
Adventures in Remodeling teaches wherein an electrical outlet (Figure of p. 8) is capable of being angled (p. 8) at a non-perpendicular and non-parallel angle relative to a surface of at least one cabinet door of at least one cabinet in a closed configuration (Figure of p. 15).
Siemens, Adventures in Remodeling, Smith and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cabinets. Smith, Melvin, Borgelt and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dental delivery systems. Velvet, Siemens, and Adventures in Remodeling and the claimed invention are analogous as they are reasonably pertinent to solving the problem of providing an outlet for a system.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the dental system of Borgelt in view of Melvin and Smith by adding an electrical connection system disposed above at least one cabinet as taught by Siemens in order to allow for power of auxiliary dental devices (Siemens para. 0003).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrical connection system of Borgelt in view of Melvin and Smith in view of Siemens by specifying the electrical connection system defines a channel therein and includes a charging door connected to a second portion of the electrical connection system via a hinge, the charging door capable of rotating about the hinge to allow the charging door to rotate from a closed configuration to an open configuration relative to the second portion of electrical connection system; and an electrical outlet capable of being disposed behind the charging door in an instance in which the charging door is in the closed configuration, wherein the charging door comprises a slot capable of allowing for electrical cables to pass through the slot and behind or into at least one cabinet in an instance in which the charging door is in the closed configuration as taught by Velvet in order to allow for the electrical connection system to be protected by a cover (Velvet p. 12) to protect the outlet from the external environment (Velvet p. 1, see video title, “weatherproof”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrical outlet of Borgelt in view of Melvin and Smith in view of Siemens in view of Velvet by mounting the electrical outlet so that the outlet is capable of being angled at a non-perpendicular and non-parallel angle relative to a surface of at least one cabinet door of at least one cabinet in a closed configuration as taught by Adventures in Remodeling in order to make it easier to plug in appliances (Adventures in Remodeling p. 8).
In regard to claim 17, Borgelt in view of Melvin and Smith in view of Siemens in view of Velvet in view of Adventures in Remodeling discloses the invention of claim 16. Borgelt does not disclose wherein the electrical connection system is disposed on a countertop above the at least one cabinet.
Siemens teaches an apparatus (Figs. 1-2) wherein an electrical connection system (13 in Fig. 1, p. 2 para. 0003, outlets can also be mounted to front face 11) is disposed on a countertop (2 in Fig. 1) above at least one cabinet (Fig. 1).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dental delivery systems. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the dental system of Borgelt in view of Melvin and Smith in view of Siemens in view of Velvet in view of Adventures in Remodeling by adding an electrical connection system disposed on a countertop above the at least one cabinet as taught by Siemens in order to allow for power of auxiliary dental devices (Siemens para. 0003).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borgelt in view of Shevsky (U.S. Patent No. 2,876,542 A) and Hesse (DE 1466999 A1, see translated PDF).
PNG
media_image7.png
258
669
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 18, Borgelt discloses a delivery portion assembly (Figs. 1-7) comprising:
a delivery portion (delivery portion in annotated Fig. 1); and
a connection plate (41 in Fig. 1) comprising:
a body (body in annotated Fig. 1) with an upper side (upper side in annotated Fig. 1) and a lower side (lower side in annotated Fig. 1), the body defining:
a tool arm connector (connector in annotated Fig. 1, Figs. 1-2 and 4, col. 3 lines 40-44);
a connection arm connector (28 in Fig. 2) at the lower side capable of engaging a connection arm of the delivery system (col. 3 lines 13-15).
Borgelt does not disclose wherein the body defines a detachable bottle connector; a delivery portion connector at the upper side capable of engaging a delivery portion of the delivery system; and wherein the delivery portion is configured to rotate relative to the connection plate.
Shevsky teaches a body (10 in Fig. 1) defining a detachable bottle connector (13 in Fig. 1, col. 1 lines 39-41 and col. 2 lines 56-59).
Hesse teaches a similar apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising a connection plate (3 in Fig. 1) comprising a body (body in annotated Fig. 1) with an upper side (upper side in annotated Fig. 1), the body defining a delivery portion connector (41 in Fig. 1) at the upper side capable of engaging a delivery portion (42 in Fig. 1) of a delivery system (Fig. 1, para. 0011); and wherein the delivery portion is capable of rotating relative to a connection plate (para. 0011).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dental delivery systems.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the body of Borgelt by adding a detachable bottle connector as taught by Shevsky in order to allow for supporting articles such as bottles used by the dentist in a convenient place and allowing for cleaning and refilling of those articles (Shevsky col. 1 lines 29-41).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the body of Borgelt by adding a delivery portion connector at the upper side capable of engaging a delivery portion of the delivery system, wherein the delivery portion is capable of rotating relative to the connection plate as taught by Hesse in order to allow for positioning of the assembly with desired radial adjustments (Hesse para. 0006).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borgelt in view of Shevsky and Hesse and Benfield.
In regard to claim 19, Borgelt in view of Shevsky and Hesse discloses the invention of claim 17. Borgelt does not disclose wherein the body further comprises a protrusion on the delivery portion connector or a connector of the delivery portion, and wherein the protrusion is configured to limit rotation of the delivery portion relative to the connection plate.
Benfield teaches wherein a connection plate comprises a body (25 in Fig. 1) which further comprises a protrusion (73 in Fig. 3) on a delivery portion connector (63 in Fig. 3, para. 0024), and wherein the protrusion is capable of limiting rotation of the delivery portion (27 in Fig. 1) relative to the connection plate (para. 0024).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dental delivery systems. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the dental system of Borgelt in view of Shevsky and Hesse by adding a body of a connection plate which further comprises a protrusion on the delivery portion connector or a connector of the delivery portion, and wherein the protrusion is configured to limit rotation of the delivery portion relative to the connection plate as taught by Benfield in order to prevent collisions between the delivery portion and the other parts of the dental system (Benfield para. 0024).
Claims 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borgelt in view of Shevsky and Hesse and Melvin.
In regard to claim 20, Borgelt in view of Shevsky and Hesse discloses the delivery portion assembly of claim 18 (see above rejection of claim 18). Borgelt further discloses an assembly (Figs. 1-7) further comprising:
a mount (17 in Fig. 1);
a movement arm (19 in Fig. 1) rotationally connected to the mount at a first connection point of the movement arm (col. 2 line 67- col. 3 line 4), the movement arm capable of rotating relative to the mount about a first axis of rotation (1st axis in annotated Fig. 1, col. 3 lines 2-4); and
a connection arm (22 in Fig. 1) rotationally connected to the movement arm at a second connection point (24 in Fig. 1) of the movement arm different than the first connection point (col. 3 lines 8-12), the connection arm capable of rotating relative to the movement arm about a second axis of rotation (2nd axis in annotated Fig. 1) different than the first axis of rotation (col. 3 lines 8-12), the connection arm capable of supporting the delivery portion and connecting the delivery portion to the movement arm (Figs. 1 and 2),
wherein the movement arm and the connection arm are each capable of being disposed at least a predetermined minimum height (min height in annotated Fig. 1) or greater above a ground level at a location of the second axis (Figs. 1-2).
Melvin teaches an apparatus (Figs. 9-12) comprising a delivery portion (10 in Fig. 2) wherein the arm portion (arm portion in annotated Fig. 10) is capable of being disposed at least a predetermined minimum height or greater above a ground level at a location (col. 2 lines 40-44), wherein the predetermined minimum height is greater than a user forefoot clearance height such that the delivery system is capable of allowing a user forefoot to be disposed beneath the arm portion (Fig. 10, col. 2 lines 40-44).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dental delivery systems. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the movement arm and connection arm of Borgelt in view of Shevsky and Hesse by specifying the predetermined minimum height is greater than a user forefoot clearance height such that the delivery system is configured to allow a user forefoot to be disposed beneath the arm portion as taught by Melvin in order to ensure the parts of the device do not interfere with the feet and legs of a user (Melvin col. 2 lines 40-44).
The device made obvious by the combination would be such that the delivery system is capable of allowing a user forefoot to be disposed beneath the connection arm and the movement arm at the second axis.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 28 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious in view of Borgelt in view of Melvin, Applicant argues that the annotated "arm portion" of Melvin is not an arm, and that it is not capable of rotating or having any of the attributes of an arm required by Applicant's claims. Applicant argues that there are no parallels between the structure or operation of Borgelt and Melvin that would suggest such a combination or modification of Borgelt by the teachings of Melvin so that Borgelt's arms are at the required height. Applicant argues that the cabinets of Melvin are not arms, do not move in the same manner as arms, and are not in the same location relative to the chair as the alleged "arms" of Borgelt, and that the cabinet of Melvin would provide no suggestion about the clearances needed for or beneficial to the alleged "arms" of Borgelt. Applicant argues that the "second axis" of Borgelt is shown below the height of the chair and behind the chair, so that it is not in the same location as the cabinets of Melvin, leaving no motivation to modify Borgelt, and argues that Borgelt's structure has its own clearance concerns for the chair itself (e.g., remaining below the chair, whereas Melvin's side cabinet structure does not pass below the chair) that would teach away from raising the alleged second axis a "considerable distance off the floor B" as taught by Melvin. Applicant argues that there is no motivation to combine Borgelt and Melvin in the manner suggested in the Office Action and no reasonable expectation of success in the combination.
Melvin is not cited to teach an arm but instead cited to teach that one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Borgelt to have all parts of the device raised as claimed. Examiner also notes that the annotated Fig. 10 of Melvin, the annotated arm portion is an arm, as an arm is defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary to be “a narrow extension of a larger area, mass or group” (definition 4, p. 1 of attached PDF). Examiner notes that in the above rejection, the annotated arm portion of Melvin is not used to read on the claim limitations regarding the movement of the arms and are not used to teach a different location of the arms than Borgelt. In the above rejection, Melvin and Borgelt are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dental delivery systems, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have modified Borgelt by the teachings of Melvin in order to ensure the parts of the device do not interfere with the feet and legs of a user (Melvin col. 2 lines 40-44). Examiner further notes that Borgelt and Melvin do not appear to teach away from each other as Borgelt also discloses that the “swivel legs do not interfere with the doctor’s or the assistant’s feet or legs” (col. 4 lines 34-37). Applicant is directed to the rejections in view of the amendments.
In regard to the rejection of Claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious in view of Borgelt in view of Shevsky and further in view of Hesse, Applicant argues that the tray 10 of Shevsky is just a sub-portion of the main dental tray 11 with no relative movement, and therefore does not resolve the faults of Borgelt, and argues that the arm 3 of Hesse is an arm that does not have any of the connection points required by the claim or any function that would be applicable to the tray/base of Borgelt or Shevsky. Applicant argues that Hesse also has a delivery portion 42 with a tray that is distinct from the arm 3 and argues that there is no rational basis for modifying the "base" of Borgelt, which is an entirely different component, fulfilling a different purpose, with a different structure, in a different location, using the generic "arm" of Hesse to allegedly reach Applicant's claimed feature in hindsight. Applicant argues that there is no motivation for such a modification to convert the "base" of Borgelt's tray with the "arm" taught by Hesse, nor any reasonable expectation of success in attempting to do so and argues that all of the alleged modifications are the result of impermissible hindsight.
Examiner notes that in the above rejection, Shevsky is not used to read on the limitation of the movement of the connection plate and instead, in the above rejection, teaches a body defining a detachable bottle connector (Fig. 1, col. 1 lines 39-41 and col. 2 lines 56-59). Examiner notes that in regard to Hesse, Applicant’s arguments are narrower than the claim limitations, as Hesse discloses a connection plate (3 in Fig. 1) comprising a body with an upper side (annotated Fig. 1), the body defining a delivery portion connector (41 in Fig. 1) at the upper side capable of engaging a delivery portion (42 in Fig. 1) of a delivery system (Fig. 1, para. 0011); and wherein the delivery portion is capable of rotating relative to a connection plate (para. 0011), as claimed. Examiner notes that the combination is not impermissible hindsight as Shevsky, Hesse, and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dental delivery systems, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have modified Borgelt by the teachings of Hesse in order to allow for positioning of the assembly with desired radial adjustments (Hesse para. 0006). Applicant is directed to the rejections in view of the amendments.
In regard to the rejections of the Dependent Claims 7-8 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious in view of Borgelt in view of Melvin and further in view of Smith, Applicant argues that the dependent claims give more specific structural distinctions that are not disclosed by the combination of references cited against them, for example, by also requiring the arms to be lower than a user's knee clearance. Applicant argues that though the Office Action argues that the cabinets of Melvin and the arms of Smith would each be combinable to modify Borgelt to disclose precisely the clearance windows in Applicant's claims, these teachings are inconsistent and incompatible. Applicant argues that because Melvin requires the cabinets to be above the user's 'feet and legs", it is not obvious to use Melvin only for "feet" clearance but then ignore the "legs" clearance requirement disclosed by the same structure to try to reconstruct Applicant's claim language in hindsight. Applicant argues that thus, there is no motivation or reasonable expectation of success in modifying Borgelt in view of Melvin to include the cited features of Smith.
Examiner notes that in the above rejection, though Melvin does teach that the bottoms of the cabinets are raised so that they will not interfere with the feet and legs of a dentist, Examiner notes that the legs of the dentist does not necessarily include the section above the knee. Examiner notes that “legs” are defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary as a limb of an animal used especially for supporting the body and for walking: such as a(2) the part of such a limb between the knee and foot” (p. 1 of attached PDF). Therefore, the rejection of claims 7-8 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious in view of Borgelt in view of Melvin and further in view of Smith is not hindsight. of Examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have modified the invention of Borgelt by the teachings of Smith in order to allow the user to freely position their legs without undesirable contact with the components of the delivery system (Smith col. 9 lines 43-46). Applicant is directed to the rejections in view of the amendments.
It is further noted that “configured to be disposed” in the claims does not require any relative distances between specific positively claimed parts of the system. Instead, this is interpreted as requiring the system to be of a structure that would allow it to be disposed as claimed. This could, for example, include disposing the system on a chosen surface which may raise or lower the system as needed. Once again, the claim does not require any positively claimed parts to be spaced a certain distance from each other. The cited references are cited to teach that it is known in the art to allow various parts of a delivery system to be spaced to allow various body parts to fit above or below the parts depending on desires of the user. Any relocation of the claimed parts higher or lower is deemed to be obvious in view of these references.
Conclusion
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 COURTNEY N HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-7219. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-5:00PM (EST) flex, 2nd Friday off.
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, Eric Rosen can be reached at (571) 270-7855. 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.
/COURTNEY N HUYNH/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights