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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “first locking mechanism”, “second locking mechanism” and “movable actuating element” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Par 9 of the patent publication US 2025/0288479 of the current application discloses the first locking mechanism “has a latching mechanism, which preferably comprises a spring-loaded torsion cam with a latching nose, and a latching notch on the handle shaft”. Par 13 of the patent publication of the current application discloses the second locking mechanism “has also latching mechanism, which preferably comprises a bending element with a latching nose, and a latching notch on the instrument tray”. Par 65 of the patent publication discloses the movable actuating element “rotatable lever”.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 7 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 7 recites the limitation "the handle shaft". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1, 6-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bierbaum et al (US 5,332,392) in view of Castellini (EP 1177783 A2).
Regarding claim 1, Bierbaum discloses a dental treatment unit comprising:
at least one handle (handle 15) for moving a dentist element (base member 6, where the handle 15 is functionally capable of being grasped and moving the base member in a desired way);
a removable instrument tray (cover part 7, see figure 2 which shoes the cover part disengaged from the base member; see col 3, lines 3-5 which discloses the cover part/member being separated or detached) for depositing instruments (via holder means 2 and deposit surface 1), the instrument tray (7) has one or more claws (holding means 2) for respectively depositing one or more instruments (see figure 3);
a second locking mechanism for locking/unlocking the instrument tray (the functional equivalent being the catch hook 13, groove recess 41, spring elements 11, and ledge 10; which cooperate to lock the cover part to the base member, see col 3, lines 10-17 and 25-30)
wherein in the unlocked state, the instrument tray including the claws is removable from the dentist element (see figure 2 which shows the instrument tray in an unlocked state and includes the holding means 2);
-wherein the dentist element comprises a movable actuating element (the functional equivalent being compression spring 14 and handle 15, which operates by moving the locking part 13 into the recess 41 using the extending portion of the handle 15) which can be moved in a predetermined direction to individually actuate the second unlocking mechanism in order to unlock the instrument tray for removal (see figure 5; see col 3, lines 19-32).
Bierbaum fails to disclose the at least one handle being removable, a first locking mechanism for locking/unlocking the handle wherein, in the unlocked state, the handle is removable from the dentist element, and the movable actuating element that moves in an opposite predetermined direction to individually actuate the first locking mechanism in order to unlock the handle for removal.
However, Castellini teaches at least one handle (grip element 6) being removable attached to a dentist element (par 16 discloses the grip element being removably connected to a single support element of the central body 2), a first locking mechanism for locking/unlocking the handle (removable connecting means 7, see par 20, which discloses the connecting means 7 being used to attach the rod to the arms of the handle which enables the rotary release of the grip elements) for the purpose of providing a secure and practical holder for the dental instrument that enables overall hygiene (par 9).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bierbaum to have at least one handle be removable from the dentist element and have a first locking mechanism for locking/unlocking the handle wherein, in the unlocked state, the handle is removable from the dentist element as taught by Castellini for the purpose of providing a secure and practical holder for the dental instrument that enables overall hygiene.
As set forth above, Bierbaum discloses the movable actuating element (spring compression 14/handle 15) that when moved in a predetermined direction disengages a second locking mechanism in order to remove the instrument tray (see figure 5 and col 3, lines 19-32) the motivation being to ergonomically remove parts of the instrument table/unit to be sterilized washed or disinfected (col 2, lines 1-15). Bierbaum further discloses the need to make various parts of the structural unit removable to keep the regions hygienically clean within the framework of time available (col 2, lines 19-24). Furthermore, modification of Castellini adds at least one removable handle (6) which is attached by a locking mechanism (7), for the purpose of providing a replaceable secure holder that improves overall hygiene (par 20). As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention to modify the movable actuating element to move in an opposite predetermined direction to individually actuate the first locking mechanism in order to unlock the handle for removal, specifically pushing inward to disengage the locking mechanism that attaches the handle, as there is only a finite number of ways to remove the handle, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143
Regarding claim 6, Bierbaum discloses the second locking mechanism has a spring element (11) that pushes the instrument tray to the unlocking position to eject the instrument tray when unlocked (col 3, lines 14-18 discloses the spring elements push against the underside of the cover part creating an ejecting force when unlocked).
Regarding claim 7, Bierbaum discloses the handle shaft (length of 15) has a projection (end which in the locked state of the handle, is form-fittingly seated on a corresponding counter0wall part in the dentist element (see figure 5, where the end including the spring 14 has a stop that fits within a slot of the base member 6).
Regarding claim 9, Bierbaum discloses the actuating element is arranged on the underside of the dentist element facing away from the handle (see figure 5).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bierbaum in view of Castellini as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Young (US 5,322,439).
Bierbaum/Castellini fail to disclose the movable actuating element is provided separately from the handle and has either a form of a rotatable lever or has the form of a back-and-forth movable slider.
Young teaches a movable actuator (45) that is separate from the removable handle (handles 13) in the form of a back-and-forth movable slider (see figure 5 and col 3, lines 24-26 discloses the lever being on a pivot pin that positions the pin in an unlocked and locked position and col 2, lines 1-6) for the purpose of enabling a simple finger actuated release mechanism for the handle (col 2, lines 1-2).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bierbaum/Castellini to have the movable actuating element is provided separately from the handle and has either a form of a rotatable lever or has the form of a back-and-forth movable slider as taught by Young for the purpose of providing an accessible finger actuated release for the movable actuating element.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 and 8 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 2, the prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious a first locking mechanism that comprises a spring-loaded torsion came with a latching nose, and a latching notch on a handle shaft, wherein the actuating element is arranged to rotate the torsion cam upon actuation along the predetermined direction (P) so that the latching nose thereof is disengaged from the latching notch of the handle shaft in combination with all additionally recited claim limitations. Claims 3, 5, and 8 are indicated allowable subject matter based on claim dependency on claim 2.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious the second locking mechanism comprises a bending element with a latching nose, and a latching opening on the instrument tray, wherein the actuating element is arranged, when actuated along the direction opposite to the predetermined direction, to stretch the bending element so that the latching nose thereof is disengaged from the latching opening of the instrument tray in combination with all additionally recited claim limitations. Applicant discloses criticality to these feature in par 12-14 of the patent publication, specifically the latching mechanism which comprises the spring-loaded torsion cam with a latching nose, and a latching notch on the handle shaft provides a self-reinforcing effect, tolerance compensation and play reducing effect.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached references cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANNEL N BELK whose telephone number is (571)272-9671. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. -Fri. 11:30 am - 3:30 pm.
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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at (571) 270-5614. 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.
/S.N.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/EDELMIRA BOSQUES/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772