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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 1, 2024 is noted. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 122 and 242. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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.
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 1 and 5-6 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.
With respect to claim 1, it is noted that the preamble is directed towards “An air turbine”, however, in the body of the claim, the applicant seems to try and positively claimed a cutting tool. It is noted that the claim is unclear as to if the applicant is trying to claim the air turbine which is capable of being coupled to a tool or claim the combination of the turbine and tool. It is noted that for examination purposes, the limitation is being interpreted as the combination, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify what is being claimed.
With respect to claims 5-6, the limitations with respect to the specific gravity are unclear. It is noted that in the independent claim, the applicant has claimed that the rotary blade is formed of “ceramics or metal with a specific gravity of 3.0 or more, or a combination of the ceramics and the metal”. Therefore, in claim 5 the claimed limitation of the rotary blade being formed from a blade made of “metal and a ceramics-sprayed film formed on a surface of the blade to have a specific gravity of 3.0 or more” is unclear as to if it is trying to further limit what blade material of the independent claim. It is noted that for examination purposes, the limitations of claim 5 are being interpreted as further limiting the claimed arrangement of the independent claim that the blade is made from a combination of the ceramics and the metal. Such that it is limiting it to specifically be made of the combination of both materials and further limiting it to require the ceramic being a coating on the metal to obtain the specific gravity claimed. With respect to claim 6, it is unclear if the applicant is limiting the blade of the impendent claim to further include a coating so that the portion of the blade without the coating has the specific gravity of the independent claim and the part of the blade with the coating has a higher specific gravity than that of the independent claim. It is noted that since the applicant has claimed that the blade has the specific gravity, claim 6 is being interpreted to further claim that a lower portion of the blade has a coating that has a second specific gravity, different than the first specific gravity of the independent claim, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify what is being claimed.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trott et al. (5,803,733) in view of Gugel et al. (5,836,766).
Trott teaches an air turbine used in a dental handpiece (it is noted that the turbine taught by Trott is capable of being used in a dental handpiece) comprising a rotary blade 502 and a cutting tool 520 which is coaxially coupled to the rotary blade, wherein the rotary blade is formed from a blade made of metal and having a specific gravity of 3.0 or more (see col. 7, ll. 43-48, such that stainless steel has a specific gravity of more than 3 as claimed). Trott teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach a ceramic sprayed film formed on a surface of the blade.
Gugel teaches a dental handpiece comprising a moving element made of metal with a ceramic filmed formed on a surface of the element (see col.1, ll. 43-44, col. 2, ll. 1-6, 30-36). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the metal rotary blade taught by Trott to have a ceramic coating taught by Gugel in order to make it more resistant to wear. It is noted that the limitation “sprayed film” is being treated as product by process limitation; that is, that the coating is made by spraying a film. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP 2113. Thus, even though Gugel is silent as to the process of applying the ceramic coating, it appears that the product in Gugel would be the same or similar as that claimed; especially since both applicant’s product and the prior art product is a ceramic coating on a moving dental element. It is noted that the gravity would be greater than 3.0 as claimed since the blade of Trott is made of stainless steel as discussed above in detail.
Claim(s) 2 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meller (5,334,013) in view of Trott et al. (5,803,733).
Meller teaches a dental handpiece comprising a handle 12, a housing 22, and an air turbine 46, wherein the air turbine includes a rotary blade 50, and a cutting tool 56 which is coaxially coupled to the rotary blade (see figs. 1-2, 6), the air turbine includes the rotary blade housed in an inner space of the housing (see figs, 1-2, 6), and the cutting tool which is coaxially coupled to the rotary blade (see figs 1-2, 6), a tip end portion of the cutting tool protruding downward from the housing through an opening of the housing (see figs. 1-2, 6), and the handpiece includes an air supply passage 55 for supplying compressed air to the inner space of the housing, and an air discharge passage 70 for discharging the compressed air from the inner space of the housing to below the housing and onto the cutting tool (see figs. 2, 6, col. 6, ll. 21-26). Meller teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the rotary blade is formed of ceramics or metal with a specific gravity of 3.0 or more, or a combination of the ceramics and the metal.
Trott teaches a dental handpiece comprising a handle (see fig. 5), a housing 500 and an air turbine 502 including a rotary blade (such that it is a turbine) formed of a metal with a specific gravity of 3.0 or more (see col. 7, ll. 43-48, such that stainless steel has a specific gravity of more than 3 as claimed). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the turbine blade taught by Meller with the turbine blade made of stainless steel taught by Trott since it has been held to be within the general skill or a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07). It is noted that Trott teaches the material of the turbine must has a high enough mass in order to drive the tool.
With respect to claim 7, Meller/Trott teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including Meller further teaches the handle includes a water supply passage 62 which is disposed in the inner space of the housing, the water supply passage being for supplying water to below the housing and the water which is supplied form the water supply passage to below the housing is capable of being micronized or atomized by a shearing force of the compressed air discharged from the air discharge passage to below the housing (see figs. 2,l. col. col. 6, ll. 21-26). Such that it is noted that the air and water mix together and the air hitting the water would micronize or atomize the water, therefore, the structure of Meller is capable of functioning as claimed.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meller (5,334,013) in view of Trott et al. (5,803,733) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Hassard et al. (6,568,181).
Meller/Trott teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach a boost adapter including a three path air passage formed from a first air passage and a second air passage which respectively communicate with a first air supply circuit and a second air supply circuit which are separate air circuits of a chair unit, and a combined air passage which combines with the first air passage and the second air passage to communicate with the air supply passage.
Hassard teaches analogous prior art of boosting a turbine including a boost adapter including a three-path passage formed from a first passage and a second passage which respectively communicate with a first supply and a second supply which are separate and a combined passage which combined the first and second passage to communicate with the turbine 40 (see fig. 4, such that first and second individual passages 30 from source 10 are combined to boost the turbine, see col. 6, ll. 7-10). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Meller/Trott to include a boost adapter as taught by Hassard in order to increase the flow of fluid to the turbine to drive it in an increase manner as desired. It is noted that the limitations of communicating with the air supply circuits of a chair unit are functional.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meller (5,334,013) in view of Trott et al. (5,803,733) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Gugel et al. (5,836,766).
Meller/Trott teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach wherein the rotary blade is formed form a blade made of metal and a ceramic sprayed film formed on a surface of the blade to have a specific gravity of 3.0 or more.
Gugel teaches a dental handpiece comprising a moving element made of metal with a ceramic filmed formed on a surface of the element (see col.1, ll. 43-44, col. 2, ll. 1-6, 30-36). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the metal rotary blade taught by Meller/Trott to have a ceramic coating taught by Gugel in order to make it more resistant to wear. It is noted that the limitation “sprayed film” is being treated as product by process limitation; that is, that the coating is made by spraying a film. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP 2113. Thus, even though Gugel is silent as to the process of applying the ceramic coating, it appears that the product in Gugel would be the same or similar as that claimed; especially since both applicant’s product and the prior art product is a ceramic coating on a moving dental element. It is noted that the gravity would be greater than 3.0 as claimed since the blade of Trott is made of stainless steel as discussed above in detail.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: The prior art fails to teach a dental handpiece comprising a turbine including a rotary blade made of a material with a specific gravity of 3.0 or more and the blade has a ceramic film on only a distal part of the blade such that ta specific gravity of the distal part is locally increase compared to a proximal part of the blade in combination with the other claimed limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEIDI MARIE EIDE whose telephone number is (571)270-3081. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-4:00.
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.
/HEIDI M EIDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772 10/27/2025