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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 152 for the elastic V-ring. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the elastic V-ring of claim 22 must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 16 recites “an rotatable magnetic holding means” which appears to mean “a rotatable magnetic holding means. Claim 30 recites “a dental device for shaping, flushing and suction a tooth root canal” which appears to mean “a dental device for shaping, flushing and suctioning a tooth root canal”. 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.
Claims 16-30 are 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 16, line 20 recites “wherein the head portion comprises a chuck for receiving an endodontic file”, making it unclear if this is the same endodontic file as discussed in line 2 or if this is an additional/different endodontic file. Claim 16, line 27 recites “a through-conduit for sucking an irrigation solution from a tooth root canal”, but then in the next line refers to “the through-conduit”, which makes it unclear if this is referring to the “through-conduit for delivering an irrigation solution” recited previously, or the “through-conduit for sucking an irrigation solution” recited in line 27. It is suggested to utilize different terminology for the two through-conduits (i.e. first and second through-conduits).
Claim 22 is unclear in regards to how the elastic V-ring interfaces with the other structure of the drive arrangement (only claimed to be adjacent to the radial fastening projection), and the radial fastening projection also lacks description of how it interfaces with the other structure of the drive arrangement. This is also unclear due to the drawing objection above. It is suggested to establish how the radial fastening projection and elastic V-ring are located in the drive arrangement with respect to the other components thereof.
Claim 29 is unclear as to what “when the movement of the endodontic file is restricted”, since this state has not been established in the claims. Therefore it is also unclear when reciprocating movement would be disabled.
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 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 Ertugrul (US 2019/0029774).
Edwardson/Cardarelli/Darwish discloses the device as previously described above, but fails to show with respect to claim 22, wherein the drive arrangement comprises 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.
Ertugrul similarly teaches a dental handpiece wherein the drive arrangement comprises a radial fastening projection (12 or 13 in Fig. 1-2, and especially Fig. 4) and an elastic V-ring having an elastically enlarged diameter (see 112 above; as best understood 7 or 8 in Fig. 4, 5, which are alternate decoupling elements to 6, are V-shaped and wrapped around the radial fastening projection 13; see also [0031] which states the decoupling element is preferably elastic), 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 (Fig. 1-2 in particular). 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 Ertugrul in order to reduce vibrations ([0011] for instance).
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 Lustig (US 4,268,252).
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 (see 112 above).
Lustig 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 (col. 4, line 62-col. 5, line 13). 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 Lustig in order to disengage the shafts when the attachment is removed from the handpiece.
Conclusion
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