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 .
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 16-21, 23-26, 28, 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwardson (US 4,984,985) in view of Cardarelli (US 6,305,935) and further in view of Darwish (US 2011/0177473).
Edwardson shows a contra-angle dental handpiece attachment for a device for driving an endodontic file and for operating a remote pump (capable of accepting an endodontic file; col. 2, lines 56-68 and Fig. 1-2), the contra-angle dental handpiece attachment comprising an elongated housing (Fig. 1 and 2), the elongated housing comprises a generally hollow handle portion (left side of figures), a shank portion being connected to the handle portion (middle of figures), and a head portion being connected to the shank portion (right side of figures), wherein the handle portion is designed to enclose at least partially the device (receives therein, such as shown in Fig. 1 near 2; see also col. 2, lines 56-68 discussing attachment to already existing dental driving equipment) and configured to form a detachable form-fit connection with the device (Fig. 1 in particular); wherein the handle portion is configured to not interfere with electromagnetic components of the device, including a transmitter and/or an antenna and/or an rotatable magnetic holding means of the device (does not occupy the same space and therefore does not interfere; in terms of interference with signals, see the combination below regarding use of plastic/radiolucent components); wherein a drive arrangement is mounted in the shank portion (particularly seen in Fig. 2), the drive arrangement comprising a file shaft for driving the endodontic file (at 9 in Fig. 2 for instance), an eccentric shaft (8 in Fig. 2) being coupled to the file shaft (engages therewith to effect the motion) and a crown gear shaft (left of 8 in Fig. 2) being coupled to the eccentric shaft (near 8 in Fig. 2), wherein a crown gear (far left side of Fig. 2) of the crown gear shaft protrudes in the handle portion and is positioned to rotatably couple to a gear for driving the endodontic file of the device (as in Fig. 1; col. 2, lines 56-68 discuss connection to motor); wherein the head portion comprises a chuck for receiving an endodontic file (interior of 9 for receiving a dental tool; it is noted that the endodontic file itself is not positively recited, and Edwardson’s chuck is capable of use with a conventional endodontic file). With respect to claim 17, wherein the handle portion of the housing has a thickness of at least 2 mm (handle is made to be grasped by the hand and is much thicker than 2 mm). With respect to claim 18, wherein the shank portion of the housing has a thickness of at least 4 mm (similarly dimensioned, must be at least 4 mm for gripping and allowing the drive arrangement therethrough). With respect to claim 19, wherein the crown gear of the crown gear shaft is configured to rotatably couple in a shaft angle between 160 degrees and 180 degrees to the gear for driving the endodontic file (this angle is approximately shown in Fig. 1, however it is noted that the device for driving is not positively recited as part of the attachment, and the crown gear is capable of such coupling angle as claimed). With respect to claim 20, wherein the contra-angle dental handpiece attachment is a single-use contra-angle dental handpiece attachment (any device may be considered single-use, since it may be disposed of after a single use). With respect to claim 21, wherein the drive arrangement is fixed in a sealed manner in the shank portion of the elongated housing (as seen near the middle of Fig. 2 at the O-ring and other engaged structure creating a seal). With respect to claim 24, wherein the handle portion of the housing comprises a solid protrusion on the inside as a stop for positioning the device (shoulder portion within the housing in Fig. 2 aids in positioning of components via providing a stop surface). However, Edwardson fails to show the housing and drive arrangement formed of radiolucent plastic.
Cardarelli similarly teaches a motor driven contra-angle wherein the body and drive arrangement are made of plastic (col. 2, lines 47-48; col. 4, line 56 – col. 5, line 33 more thoroughly discuss each part being made of plastic; cited acetal copolymer of Celcon, also known as polyoxymethylene, is radiolucent). With respect to claim 23, wherein the drive arrangement is made of polyoxymethylene acetal copolymer and/or polyetheretherketone (acetal copolymer/polyoxymethylene as cited above). With respect to claim 26, wherein a part of the handle portion of the elongated housing is designed as an elastic snap element for forming a detachable non- rotatable form-fit connection with the device and wherein said snap element is located opposite to the proximal end of the through-conduit for delivering an irrigation solution to a tooth root canal and the proximal end of the through-conduit for sucking an irrigation solution from a tooth root canal (it is again noted that the device for driving is not positively recited as part of the attachment and therefore the attachment only need be capable of forming a snap fit with another component; being made of the same plastic materials as the invention, similar elastic snap would be expected of the material and could function as such for attachment; it is suggested to claim the exact structure of the attachment that would allow this connection, though it is noted that generic snap fit connections are well known in the art). With respect to claim 28, wherein the housing is made of acrylonitrile butadiene styrene or polycarbonate (col. 56-60 for instance discuss the use of polycarbonate for the housing). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Edwardson’s device by utilizing plastic as the material for the components as taught by Cardarelli in order to utilize known alternative contra-angle materials and to reduce the danger from incomplete sterilization, whereby the bacteria and infection are then transferred from one patient to another through disposability (col. 1, lines 35-40). However, Edwardson/Caradarelli fails to show wherein the elongated housing further comprises a through-conduit for delivering an irrigation solution to a tooth root canal, the through-conduit having a proximal end extending beyond the handle portion that is configured to establish a fluid communication with a reservoir and a distal end at the head portion where the endodontic file is placed; wherein the elongated housing further comprises a through-conduit for sucking an irrigation solution from a tooth root canal, the through-conduit having a proximal end extending beyond the handle portion that is configured to establish a fluid communication with a remote pump remotely operated by the device and a distal end at the head portion configured for establishing a fluid communication with an area of the tooth root canal from which the irrigation solution may be removed.
Darwish similarly teaches a dental handpiece attachment that also includes a through-conduit for delivering an irrigation solution to a tooth root canal (“compressed air passageway” or “water passageway”; [0028]), the through-conduit having a proximal end extending beyond the handle portion that is configured to establish a fluid communication with a reservoir (left side of Fig. 1 near 118) and a distal end at the head portion where the endodontic file is placed (as seen particularly in Fig. 4-5); wherein the elongated housing further comprises a through-conduit for sucking an irrigation solution from a tooth root canal (“passageway for a vacuum source”; [0028]), the through-conduit having a proximal end extending beyond the handle portion that is configured to establish a fluid communication with a remote pump remotely operated by the device (left side of Fig. 1 near 118) and a distal end at the head portion configured for establishing a fluid communication with an area of the tooth root canal from which the irrigation solution may be removed (as seen particularly in Fig. 4-5). With respect to claim 25, wherein the through-conduit for delivering an irrigation solution to a tooth root canal and the through-conduit for sucking an irrigation solution from a tooth root canal are arranged parallel and adjacent to each other (Fig. 4-5 for instance show the parallel and adjacent position). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Edwardson/Cardarelli’s device by including liquid and vacuum passageways in order to provide additional function such as rinsing and evacuation of saliva.
Apparatus claim 30 is rejected similarly to the above and additionally a device attached to said contra-angle dental handpiece attachment (such as the drive/motor device or dental tool of Edwardson).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwardson/Cardarelli/Darwish as applied to claims above, and further in view of Postal (US 6,409,507).
Edwardson/Cardarelli/Darwish discloses the device as previously described above, but fails to show with respect to claim 22, wherein the drive arrangement is fixed in the shank portion by a radial fastening projection and an elastic V-ring having an elastically enlarged diameter, wherein the elastic V-ring is positioned adjacent to the radial fastening projection and the drive arrangement is fixed by said radial fastening projection at a part of the inner wall of the shank portion that is tapered towards the handle portion.
Postal similarly teaches a dental handpiece wherein the drive arrangement comprises a radial fastening projection (at 1563 in Fig. 35-36) and an elastic V-ring having an elastically enlarged diameter (from which 1563 extends radially in Fig. 35-36; V-shape shown in cross section of Fig. 35 and ring shaped as seen in Fig. 36; the v-ring is made of plastic that requires some elasticity in order to allow for the snap-fit connection with 1559), wherein the elastic V-ring is positioned adjacent to the radial fastening projection (projection extends therefrom) and the drive arrangement is fixed by said radial fastening projection at a part of the inner wall of the shank portion that is tapered towards the handle portion (see fixed state in Fig. 36 with the outer taper towards the left side of the shank). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Edwardson/Cardarelli/Darwish’s drive arrangement by including the coupling element as taught by Postal in order to promotes a snug fit without being overly tight while simultaneously reducing the contact surface area with drive arrangement (col. 14, lines 23-43 in particular).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwardson/Cardarelli/Darwish as applied to claims above, and further in view of Boinot (US 2008/0187884).
Edwardson/Cardarelli/Darwish discloses the device as previously described above, but fails to show with respect to claim 27, wherein the head portion further comprises a push-button for dismounting the endodontic file.
Boinot similarly teaches a dental handpiece wherein the head portion further comprises a push-button for dismounting the endodontic file. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Edwardson/Cardarelli/Darwish to have a push button release as taught by Boinot in order to improve the ease of use and speed when switching dental tools.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwardson/Cardarelli/Darwish as applied to claims above, and further in view of Richard (US 6,942,485).
Edwardson/Cardarelli/Darwish discloses the device as previously described above, but fails to show with respect to claim 29, wherein the drive arrangement comprises a clutch mechanism, which disables a reciprocating movement of the endodontic file when the movement of the endodontic file is restricted by contact with a tooth root canal wall or a tooth root end.
Richard similarly shows a dental handpiece wherein a clutch is provided which disables a reciprocating movement of the endodontic file when the movement of the endodontic file is restricted by contact with a tooth root canal wall or a tooth root end (contact with these materials will require increased torque; col. 5, lines 51-64 for instance; see also col. 1 going over solutions to when the tool digs into the material of the tooth). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Edwardson/Cardarelli/Darwish’s device by including the clutch mechanism as taught by Richard in order to stop the tool from digging into tooth material or becoming wedged in the root canal during use (col. 1 for instance).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the references are combined by impermissible hindsight, however motivation has been provided from each additional reference for why one would include their recited features. Applicant goes on to argue a coordinated solution involving many features that are presently not in the claims (i.e. electromagnetic components of a device and a remote pump remotely operated by a device). At present the claims are in fact only directed to a plastic dental attachment with fluid passages since that is the resulting structure of the apparatus claims. What it is used with and how it is used is not presently at issue. Claim 30 only incorporates a generic device for shaping, flushing and suctioning (with no recited corresponding structure)
Applicant also argues that the use of plastic materials is specific to receive a reusable control device that wirelessly operates a remote pump, however this language is again not currently in the claims and therefore not at issue. It also is not at issue the specific reason why a plastic would be selected if the references have that plastic (with a corresponding motivation not required to be the same as that of Applicant).
Arguments with respect to the V-ring and projection arrangement are addressed with a new reference due to the newly amended limitations.
Applicant argues with respect to the push-button release not having a reason for combination, however motivation was provided in the combination, including ease of use and speed when switching dental tools. It is additionally noted that push button releases are widespread and very well known, particularly in the handpiece art.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the Lustig reference are persuasive in view of the newly amended claim language, and a new reference has been provided showing a handpiece clutch system for arresting the tool.
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 MATTHEW NELSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5898. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm EDT.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Eric Rosen, 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW M NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
