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 § 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 5 is 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.
Regarding Claim 5, it is unclear how the “outflow speed forms a second angle.” As a speed is measured in one unit of measurement (m/s in the present case) and an angle is measured in a different unit of measurement (degrees in the present case), it is unclear how a speed can form an angle.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by O’Callaghan et. al. (US 2022/0248946, hereinafter “O’Callaghan”).
Regarding Claim 1, O’Callaghan discloses a handpiece (abstract) capable of being used for dental applications including a handle (Figure 2, 9), a housing (described in [0014] but not specifically labeled) comprising an optical emission source (5) comprising at least one light-emitting diode (Figure 9a, 42) connected to an electric power supply (power lines 15 connect to axis pins 16 as described in [0291]), an optical sensor (Figure 9a, 37) adapted to be connected to visualization devices, where the housing comprises a transparent shielding window (44, described in [0044] as part of the housing) adapted to shield the optical sensor, the dental handpiece additionally comprises a device for supplying compressed air on the transparent shielding window ([0331], airflow generated by the vibration of the focusing lens), the housing additionally comprises an aperture (Figure 15c, vents 100 or Figure 15d, holes 101) for supplying compressed air to the transparent shielding window, the aperture being connected to the device for supplying compressed air (the device being the vibration of the focusing lens), and a diffuser (outer lens 44 also serves as a diffuser as described in [0331-0332] and is located in the aperture, the diffuser being designed so as to generate an air jet which forms an air curtain in front of the transparent shielding window (described in [0332]).
Regarding Claim 2, O’Callaghan discloses the dental handpiece according to claim 1, and further discloses that the diffuser is located from a working end of the housing (as seen in Figures 1-9a), and where the diffuser is designed so as to direct the air jet away from the working end of the housing longitudinally towards the handle (as seen in Figures 10-14, the outer lens can be directed in many directions including toward the handle as seen in Figure 12, which would direct the air jet away from the working end of the handle).
Regarding Claim 3, O’Callaghan discloses the dental handpiece according to claim 1, and further discloses that the diffuser is located from a working end of the housing (as seen in Figures 1-9a), the diffuser is designed
Regarding Claim 4, O’Callaghan discloses the dental handpiece according to claim 1, and further discloses that the diffuser can be oriented perpendicularly to the handle (as seen in Figure 11 where the image sensor/diffuser is rotated to 45 degrees), the diffuser is designed to direct the air jet sideways from the handle (as would be the case when rotated to 45 degrees), the housing comprises a protrusion located from the working end (visualizer 3 as seen in Figures 1a and 1b), and the protrusion has a surface shape which turns the air jet outgoing from the diffuser to a the first angle in a first range of from 120° to 140° (as seen in Figures 1a-1b and 10-14, visualizer is rotatable in a range including 120° as seen in Figure 12).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Callaghan in view of Poll et al. (US 2008/0319266 A1, hereinafter “Poll”).
Regarding Claim 5, O’Callaghan discloses the invention according to claim 1 substantially as described above but does not disclose that the diffuser is designed to generate the air jet with an outflow speed in a range of from 6 m/s to 50 m/s, and the outflow speed forms a second angle with a plane of the transparent shielding window, the second angle being in a second range of from 0 to 15.
In the similar art of surgical scopes (handpieces), Poll teaches a gas flow state that delivers a flow of gas across a lens at a flow rate of 6 m/s to 50 m/s ([0090]), and the outflow speed forms a second angle with a plane of the transparent shielding window, the second angle being in a second range of from 0 to 15. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the device of O’Callaghan with a flow rate as taught by Poll in order to provide a flow rate adequate to keep the window clean during use.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE L NELSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5368. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 7:30-4:30 PT.
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.
/CHRISTINE L NELSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/EDWARD MORAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772