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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 7/28/26.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/28/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and additionally do not address the new grounds of rejection and/or interpretation below necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant argues that the prior art combination of Saffro/Otsuka, as combined below, is not configured to perform the newly added functional limitations in the claim, specifically that the shell is configured to permit insertion of the second section prior to puncturing and configured to prevent adhesive cement from entering the internal canal prior to puncturing as required. However, the Examiner notes that such limitations are functional, that is the prior art device, as modified, must only be configured to perform the recited functions in order to meet the limitations of the claims. The Examiner notes that Applicant has not provided any evidence or arguments as to why the prior art device, as modified, would not be configured to be used as such (only that it allegedly cannot). Further, Applicant has not identified or claimed, any particular structure that the claimed invention possess in order to make it specifically configured to perform the operative language as such; or a particular structure in the prior art device which makes it specifically not configured to be used as such. Specifically, the Examiner first notes that second section of the shell/post is configured to be inserted into an appropriately shaped and/or sized tooth, or an appropriately shaped and/or sized hole in the tooth and/or position of the adjustable stopper, for a particularly sized and shaped device, prior to puncturing of the shell. For example, the second section and shell can be loosely inserted into a larger hole, prior to puncturing the shell. Saffro discloses that the post is separately provided (see citations below). The Examiner notes there are no reasons provided as to why it could not be used as such; e.g. with the stopper first inserted, and then the file inserted and pushed therethrough. Second, the Examiner notes that shell/file is configured to prevent adhesive cement from entering the internal central canal prior to puncturing, as explained above, and additionally with the use, volume and/or viscosity of a particular cement which would allow the cement to flow, and provide a low pressure on the post. For example, the device is configured to perform the operative language as explained above in regards to the size of the tooth/hole, and also including a particular type, volume and/or viscosity of the cement such that the cement does not exert sufficient pressure to rupture the post and/or is caused to flow around the post and out of the tooth, at least to some extent. Finally, Applicant argues that the prior art device does not remain in place in the tooth, however the Examiner notes that such limitation is a further functional recitation, which the instant device appears to be configured to be used as such, if so desired, at least for some time, and further, such arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive and additionally do not address the new grounds of rejection and/or interpretation below necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saffro (US 3781996) in view of Otsuka et al (US 2022/0079711 A1).
Regarding the above claims, Saffro discloses a dental post kit (see Fig. 1), comprising: at least one post (Fig. 2) comprising a first section (A, below) and a second section (B), the first section having a first end (e.g. top end of post) terminating with a first opening (e.g. top of Fig. 2) formed therein, the second section having a second end therein (e.g. where 34 is located), wherein the second end is covered by a shell (34), wherein an internal central canal extends from the first opening to the second end (e.g. internal passage in 26, see Fig. 2), and wherein the at least one post is configured to be inserted into at least one root canal of a tooth of a patient (e.g. configured to be used as such, at least in part, either with a) an appropriately sized hole and/or widened canal opening or b) a smaller sized device used in a larger tooth; see previous response to arguments 3/20/25); a stopper (C, 32) mounted on the at least one post (connected thereto), and at least one endodontic file (14) configured to be inserted into the internal central canal through the first opening and pass through the second end by puncturing the shell, thereby forming a second opening for the second section (configured to be used as such; see abstract, col 2, line 21 through col 3, line 20 and col 4, lines 1-31); and wherein the shell is configured to permit insertion of the second section into the at least one root canal prior to puncturing by the at least one endodontic file (post configured to be placed prior to puncturing if so desired, in an appropriately sized/shaped canal, see explanation above in Response to Arguments) and configured to prevent adhesive cement from entering the internal central canal prior to puncturing of the shell by the at least one endodontic file (post configured to prevent cement from entering the internal canal when used with an appropriately sized/shaped canal and particular cement with particular amount and/or viscosity; see explanation above in Response to Arguments). Additionally the Examiner notes the col 3, lines 7-10, Saffro discloses that the post and file are initially separately provided. Accordingly, the initially separately provided post is configured to be inserted as desired, including prior to puncturing and to prevent cement from entering the canal as required. Regarding claims 8-9, Saffro further discloses wherein the central canal is a straight passage (e.g. within 26, shown to be straight, at least in part in Fig. 2; per claim 8); and wherein the internal central canal is a tapered passage (e.g. once puncture through shell is formed, passage tapers from being greater than width of file (see col 2, lines 55-58) to precisely the width of file due to puncture hole; per claim 9). Saffro, however, does not teach wherein the stopper is removable from both the first and second sections and slidably mounted on the at least one post such that the stopper is slidable along said at least one post by pushing said second section of the post through the stopper, thereby positioning said stopper between the first section and said second section of the at least one post as required.
PNG
media_image1.png
540
474
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Otsuka et al, however, teaches a similar post device (2/20/21/22; Fig. 1) comprising a first section (D) and a second section (E), and a stopper (22) located between the first and second sections, removable from the first and second sections (capable of being unthreaded completely; see also Figs. 4-5 and Fig. below; capable of being unthreaded from the first section, then the second section as it moves axially downward) and slidably mounted on the post such that stopper is slidable along the post by pushing the second section of the at least one post through the stopper (e.g. pushing by twisting rotationally) thereby positioning the stopper between the first and second sections of the post (the stopper is slidable along the threads and thereby along the post, by pushing the second section rotationally, such that the pushing force moves it through the stopper, positioning the stopper as desired). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Saffro to include Otsuka’s teaching of providing a slidable and removable stopper, as such modification would allow for fine-tuned and specific adjustment of the stopping distance provided by the stopper, thereby providing customized adjustment to the device, reducing the risk of inadvertent insertion depth. Further, the Examiner notes that such modification would merely involve making a formerly integral structure into separable components, which has been held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Saffro to make the stopper removable and slidable, as taught by Otsuka, as such modification would merely involve making a formerly integral structure into separable components, which has been held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan (see MPEP 2144.04(V)(C)). The Examiner notes that should the device of Saffro be modified with the adjustable stopper as taught by Otsuka, the stopper would be adjustably (capable of being) positioned between the first and second section and capable of being removed from both the first and second sections as required.
PNG
media_image2.png
850
736
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Saffro/Otsuka, as combined above, discloses wherein the first section comprises a coronal part (e.g. upper, see Fig. 2, Saffro) with a coronal width (see col 4, lines 1-31, Saffro), but does not specifically teach wherein the width is about 1.3 to about 1.9 mm. However, the Examiner notes that the specific coronal width is a result effective variable dependent on the tooth size and/or number of canals to be treated (see citations above). Additionally, Saffro notes that the particular dimensions of the device are exemplary and do not have any particular criticality (see citations above and col 3, lines 1-5), as does the instant specification (see [0008]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device Saffro/Otsuka, as combined above, to include a coronal width of 1.3 to about 1.9 mm, as such modification would merely involve the optimization of a result effective variable, which has been held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results (see MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)).
Regarding claim 3, Saffro/Otsuka, as combined above, discloses wherein the second section comprises an apical tip (e.g. lower width, see Fig. 2, Saffro) with a width (see col 4, lines 1-31), but does not specifically teach wherein the width is about 0.7 to about 1 mm. However, the Examiner notes that the specific apical width is a result effective variable dependent on the tooth size and/or number of canals to be treated (see citations above). Additionally, Saffro notes that the particular dimensions of the device are exemplary and do not have any particular criticality (see citations above and col 3, lines 1-5), as does the instant specification (see [0008]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device Saffro/Otsuka, as combined above, to include an apical width of 0.7 to about 1.0 mm, as such modification would merely involve the optimization of a result effective variable, which has been held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results (see MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)).
Regarding claim 4, Saffro/Otsuka, as combined above, discloses wherein a diameter of the internal central canal is a proportion of a diameter of the post (see Fig. 2 and col 4, lines 1-31, particularly discussing the wall thickness of the tool, Saffro), but does not specifically teach wherein the ratio is about 1/10 to about 1/3 as required. However, the Examiner notes that the specific ratio of the internal diameter to diameter of the post is a result effective variable dependent on the tooth size and/or number of canals to be treated, and the particular size of the file used therefor (see citations above). Additionally, Saffro notes that the particular dimensions of the device are exemplary and do not have any particular criticality (see citations above and col 3, lines 1-5), as does the instant specification (see [0008]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device Saffro/Otsuka, as combined above, to include an inner/outer diameter ratio of 1/10 to 1/3, as such modification would merely involve the optimization of a result effective variable, which has been held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results (see MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)).
Claim(s) 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saffro in view of Otsuka, as combined above, further in view of Barbe et al (FR 2588181), as evidenced by its Machine Translation.
Regarding claims 5-7, Saffro/Otsuka, as combined above, does not teach wherein the at least one post comprises a mixture of glass or carbon fiber and epoxy resin as required.
Barbe, however, teaches endodontic components which are formed from a mixture of glass or carbon fiber and epoxy resin (see abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Saffro/Otsuka, as combined above, to include the use of Barbe’s fiber and epoxy resin material, as such modification would make use of an old and well known material in endodontics, providing improved strength, flexibility, thermal stability and reduced risks associated with the use of metal in the mouth (see Barbe, abstract).
Claim(s) 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saffro in view of Otsuka, as combined above, further in view of Goodis (US 2005/0282108 A1).
Regarding claims 11-12, Saffro/Otsuka, as combined above, discloses wherein the file comprises a first (upper) and second (distal tip, Saffro) ends, but does not teach wherein the second end has a fixed taper of about 7% or wherein the file has a length of about 16 mm as required.
Goodis, however, teaches the use of endodontic files having a working length of about 16 mm (see [0032] and claim 12) and a tip (second) end with a fixed taper of about 7% (see [0031] and claim 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the file of Saffro/Otsuka, as combined above, to include Goodis’ teaching of providing a file with a length of about 16 mm and a fixed taper at the tip (second) end of about 7%, as such modification would make use of an old and well known size and taper of endodontic files, providing optimized cutting areas for a particular root of a particular tooth, as needed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 EDWARD MORAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 AM-4 PM EST.
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.
/EDWARD MORAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights