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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/31/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/31/26 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 relied on does not teach the newly added limitations to the claims or that the stopper is slidable along the post by pushing the second end through the stopper as required, however the Examiner does not find such arguments persuasive. First, the Examiner points to the amended interpretation below which clarifies that the stopper is removable from the first and second section. Additionally, the Examiner notes that the stopper can be removed from the first section via the second section; e.g. indirectly. The claims do not specifically exclude such interpretation. Regarding the arguments to sliding and pushing, the Examiner notes that the claim does not specify a particular direction that the stopper is pushed. In the combination relied on the stopper is rotationally pushed such that it slides along the threads in order to be removed; meeting the limitations of the claims. Further, the stopper can be completely unthreaded and thereby removed from the post, first unthreaded off the first section (below) and then off the second. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Note: the Examiner suggests pursuing the method claims in a divisional application to move the subject matter of the invention forward.
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). 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 form 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached PTO892 form.
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