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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 2/10/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Senia does not disclose detecting a distance between a reference point and part of a tooth. This is not found persuasive because Senia explicitly discloses continuously monitoring (detecting/measuring) the distance the device is inserted into the canal. Specifically, see [0065]-[0068]. In other words the depth is a distance between a top of the tooth (reference point) and a part of the tooth (e.g. the location where the tool is located in the tooth). According, the Examiner maintains Senia discloses such limitations.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 18 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2/10/26.
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 10-17 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.
Regarding claim 10, the term “producing a database linking each data item acquired” is indefinite as it is unclear what the step of “linking” specifically encompasses. For example, merely placing the data in the database is linking them together in the database. It is unclear what, if any, further limitations the term imparts to the claim. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 13, the term “the instrument dynamic” is indefinite as the term lacks antecedent basis in the claims and as it is unclear what specifically is or is not considered instrument dynamic. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 14, the term “such as the state of activation or inactivation of the irrigation” is indefinite as it is unclear whether to term is intended to be positively recited. Specifically, and as written, the term is written in an optional an exemplary fashion; meaning that additional data, which could or could not include the state of activation of the irrigation, is also recorded within the database, and will be interpreted as such for claim interpretation. Should Applicant intend for the term to be limited to activation or inactivation of irrigation, the term “such as” should be removed. Additionally, the term “the irrigation” lacks antecedent basis in the claims, and it is unclear what said “irrigation” (e.g. of what, or to where) the term corresponds to. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 15, the term “wherein the additional data comprise information about the breakage or otherwise” is indefinite for the same reasons as explained above. Specifically it is unclear whether the “additional data” corresponds to the data recited in claim 15, the irrigation data recited in claim 14, or some other data (“or otherwise”). Additionally it is unclear what data the term “or otherwise” refers too. Still further it is unclear what data “information about the breakage” actually refers too (e.g. stress, strain, usage time, cracking, etc.). As best understood by the Examiner, any additional data would read on the term under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “or otherwise”. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 16, the claim as a whole is indefinite for several reasons. First the term “a complete torsor at a given point of the stress experienced by the instrument” is indefinite as it is unclear what the intended definition of the term “torsor” refers too. The specification does not provide any guidance thereto. Additionally, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term based on its plain meaning does not appear to be relevant in the instant wording. As such it is unclear what Applicant intends for a “torsor” to refer to. Further, the term “by measuring the stress according to three axes of an orthonormal reference point” is indefinite for several reasons. First, it is unclear what an “orthonormal” reference point refers to, where it is located and what it is orthogonal and/or normal to. Further, it is unclear what three axes the term intends to describe and specifically the stress is measured in the three axes. Further, it is unclear whether the term intends to state that stress is measured with vectors in 3 axes, or if merely the stress is considered relative to movement in the axes (e.g. according to” to the axes). As nest understood by the Examiner, so long as a prior art device considers stresses as a result of movement in three dimensions, it will be interpreted as meeting the claimed language. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 17, the claims as a whole is indefinite as it is unclear how, specifically the local stresses are determined based on a finite element calculation as required. Specifically, although a calculation is recited, the specification provides no guidance to any specific calculation, and/or how said local stresses are determined based thereon. There is no algorithm or any explanation as how such data is weighted, factored and/or quantitatively used in making said determination. It is unclear how a shape of a root canal or a shape of the instrument is or can be quantified and used in a finite element calculation. Still further, the claim states that the calculation is based on “the stress” among other factors. The Examiner notes that “the stress” is in fact dependent on the other factors, including the shape of the canal, the depth of the instrument and the shape and mechanical properties of the instrument. It is unclear how “the stress” can be considered in a finite element calculation with the other factors, when “the stress” directly depends thereon. Still further, it is unclear how or if “the stress” is different or the same compared to “the local stresses” determined. As best understood by the Examiner “the local stresses” appear to refer to the same “stress” in the tool at the given interval. Clarification is required.
All other claims not specifically addressed above are rejected based on their dependency on a previously rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) steps acquiring data relating to the shape of a root canal, acquiring data relating to the working depth, and acquiring data relating to stress undergone by the instrument, all of which can be performed mentally. For example, a dental practitioner may observe a tooth to be treated and determine the shape of the canal (to some degree) by virtue of the type of tooth (e.g. molar vs incisor). Additionally, when a file with depth markings is inserted into the tooth, the practitioner may observe the markings to determine a particular depth. Still further, when an instrument is bent or heavily used the practitioner may observer such wear and tear and/or strain to determine a high stress applied thereto. Accordingly, all of the above recited steps are directed to mental processes (e.g. observing and analyzing). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because no specific steps or components are recited which are required to integrate the steps into a practical application (e.g. the steps can be performed mentally). The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the step of “producing a database linking each data item required” is extra solution activity, which can merely be performed by writing said observations down onto paper.
Claims 11-12, and 16 merely further describe the abstract idea (mental processes) of acquiring the data above (e.g. observing at regular intervals, observing the tooth in 3D, and observing strain in three dimensions).
Claims 13-15 recite the steps of recording additional data including instrument dynamic, additional data, and “otherwise” which additionally can be observed by the practitioner and recorded as explained above (e.g. whether an instrument is or is not in use, for example).
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites the additional step of calculating the local stresses via a finite element calculation, which is directed to an additional abstract idea of simply implementing a mathematical calculation, without integration into a practical application and which does not include significantly more (no other features or components are recited).
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.
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(s) 10-11 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senia (US 2011/0039229 A1) in view of Heraud (US 2008/0254404 A1), as best understood by the Examiner.
Regarding claim 10, Senia discloses a method for collecting usage data of an endodontic instrument (see abstract, [0036], [0043], [0065]-[0069], [0074]), remarkable in that it comprises the following steps: acquiring data relating to the shape of a root canal to be treated (see [0074], [0076], [0078], [0112]); acquiring data relating to the working depth of the instrument in the root canal over time (e.g. continuous monitoring of depth/travel, see [0071], [0075], [0101], [0103], [0109] and [0066]-[0068]); acquiring data relating to stress undergone by the instrument during use over time (e.g. continuous monitoring of torque/forces on tool; see citations above); and producing a database linking each data item acquired (see [0065] and [0118], claim 17 and Fig. 17). Senia further discloses wherein data of the instrument dynamic are also recorded within the database (e.g. physical properties of instrument [0074], speed, rotations, data uses [0066], [0069]; per claim 13); wherein additional data are also recorded (the Examiner choses the option of the additional data to not comprise the state of activation, see above; see additional data as cited above; per claim 14); wherein the additional data comprises information about the breakage or otherwise of the instrument during the treatment (e.g. “or otherwise” corresponding to any of the parameters discussed as cited above; per claim 15); and wherein the data relating to stress are a complete torsor at a given point of the stress experienced by the instrument, obtained by measuring the stress according to three axes of an orthonormal reference point (e.g. as best understood by the Examiner (see above), stress is measured in 3 dimensional space, including compression, tension and torque, which would be effected by axial, rotary and radial/lateral forces on the tool in reference to the reference point, where the tool is held in the handpiece; per claim 16; as best understood by the Examiner). Senia, although disclosing monitoring data continuously, does not specifically teach measuring at regular intervals of a predefined duration as required.
Heraud, however, teaches constant monitoring of parameters of an endodontic system by taking measurements at regular intervals of a predefined duration (e.g. 20 ms; see [0083]; per claims 1 and 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the method of Senia to include Heraud’s monitoring at regular intervals of a predefined duration, as such modification would optimize resource/memory efficiency of the computer system while still allowing for continuous monitoring of the parameters.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senia et al in view of Heraud, as combined above, further in view of Nakai (US 2019/0254774 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Senia/Heraud, as combined above, does not explicitly discloses wherein the shape data of the canal is a three dimensional acquisition as required.
Nakai, however, teaches a similar method of collecting usage data and monitoring an endodontic instrument, which relies on acquiring 3D imaging data (e.g. CT or OCT data, see [0038], [0067], [0087]. [0132]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the method of Senia/Heraud, as combined above, to include Nakai’s teaching of using and acquiring 3D imaging data, as such modification would improve the accuracy of the image, thereby providing more detailed data to the system for improved calculations and monitoring based on the specific shape of the canal.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached PTO892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD MORAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 AM-4 PM EST.
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.
/EDWARD MORAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights