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 are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
Reference number “660” has been used to designate both the kick plate and a counter portion of a bottom cabinet in Figure 7A.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
316A in Figure 3D
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 17 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Examiner suggests amending claim 17 line 1 to “[[the]]an electrical connection system”.
Examiner suggests amending claim 19 line 1 to “[[the]]a body of [[the]]a connection plate”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 14 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.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "wherein the movement arm and the connection arm are configured to allow the delivery portion to translate horizontally along an axis without rotating relative to the mount" in lines 1-3. This limitation is unclear as it is unclear if “without rotating relative to the mount” refers to the movement arm and the connection arm, or to the delivery portion. For purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret the limitation “without rotating relative to the mount” as referring to the delivery portion and suggests Applicant amend to clarify.
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 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).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borgelt in view of Melvin and Smith and Siemens (FR 2268436 A7, see translated PDF).
In regard to claim 17, Borgelt in view of Melvin and Smith discloses the invention of claim 15. Borgelt does not disclose wherein an 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 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 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borgelt in view of Melvin and Smith and Siemens and Benfield.
In regard to claim 19, Borgelt in view of Melvin and Smith and Siemens discloses the invention of claim 17. Borgelt does not disclose wherein a body of a connection plate 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 body of a connection plate (25 in Fig. 1) 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 Melvin and Smith and Siemens 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 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_image6.png
258
669
media_image6.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).
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.
Conclusion
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