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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/5/26 has been entered.
All previous claim interpretation under 35 USC 112, F is maintained herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/5/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and additionally do not address the new grounds of rejection below necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments to the rejections under 35 USC 112, B, the Examiner notes that the cited paragraphs do not provide clarification to the issues at hand, as explained below.
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 1-18 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 claims 1 and 10, the claims are indefinite for several reasons. First, the term “a previously determined amount” in step b is indefinite as it is unclear whether the “amount” refers to that measured in step a, or another threshold amount. Additionally, the “previously determined amount” in step c is indefinite for the same reasons, and additionally as it is unclear if it refers back to the amount recited in step a, or not. Clarification is required.
Second, in step b of both claims, the paragraph first recites “using the torque measurement in step a to determine and apply a second sequence according to a predetermined continuous torque dependent function” but then recites that the parameters are decreased according to g(T) and h(T) which are continuous mathematical functions of measured torque. It is unclear if the functions g(T) and h(T) refer to the previously recited predetermined continuous torque dependent function (since they are continuous mathematical functions of measured torque) or a different function. Further it is unclear if the step in step b is repeated; in other words, as best understood by the Examiner, the step of using the torque measurement in step a to determine and apply a second sequence according to a predetermined continuous torque dependent function, refers to the step recited at the end of the paragraph. Clarification is required.
Third, still in step b, the Examiner notes that the method appears incomplete. For example, while the claim recites a path for progressing the method forward “if the torque measurement is greater than a previously determined amount”, it does not provide any statement regarding how the method should proceed should the measured torque be equal or less than a previously determined amount. Clarification is required.
Fourth, still in step b, the term “of the predetermined parameters” is indefinite, as it appears a typographical error has occurred and the term “of” should be deleted.
Fifth, still in step b, the continuous mathematical functions of measured torque g(T) and h(T), are themselves indefinite. Specifically, the measured torque depends on several factors, including the parameters listed in the claim, but also size and shape of the tool, the curves of the canal, the material of the tool, etc. The claim, and the specification, provide no guidance as to how these continuous mathematical functions are determined, what specific equation they are, and/or what variables are considered or factored in the equation. The claims and specification are completely silent as to how the continuous mathematical functions of measured torque are determined. In the specification, [0009] recites variables of the torque dependent function, but no function is explicitly disclosed nor is any guidance provided as to how the function is established. Clarification is required.
Sixth, moving to step c, the term “from an immediate previous sequence” is indefinite, as it is unclear if the term attempts to refer back to any and all sequences, including step b, or if it refers to some other sequence. The claim does not refer back to step b at all, however, as best understood by the Examiner, the claim is intended to refer to the torque measured in step b, and the method is repeated in step d. It is further unclear whether step c encompasses substantial overlap of the subject matter of step b, and if the first option recited in step c (e.g. if measured torque is greater, decreasing the parameters), is the same or different than in step b. As step c provides complete options of the method (e.g. providing damping factors if measured torque is the less than or equal to), it appears this may be the case. Clarification is required.
Seventh, in step c, the “predetermined continuous torque dependent function” remains indefinite for the same reasons as explained above. Clarification is required.
Eighth, in step c, the term “a previously determined amount” is indefinite as it is unclear whether the term refers back to the previously recited “previously determined amount” or another amount, such as the torque measured in the previous step. If it refers back to the “previously determined amount” the term is indefinite for the same reasons as explained above. Clarification is required.
Ninth, in step c, the term “in a predetermined fashion” is indefinite, as it is unclear what specifically the term comprises. For example, it is unclear if the parameters are lowered based on the “predetermined continuous torque dependent function”, g(T), h(T) or some other means which are not described. Clarification is required.
Tenth, in step c, the term “filtered” is indefinite as it is unclear what specifically is meant by the term. Specifically there does not appear to be any filtering recited by the claim, the parameters instead being modified or adjusted based on the damping factor, and will be interpreted as such. Clarification is required.
Eleventh, in step c, the predetermined damping factor, d=f(T), which appears to be based on a function, is indefinite as the particular function f(T) is not described in the claims or specification. For example, as explained above with g(T) and h(T), such a function is dependent on a plurality of variables, however, it is unclear what said variables are. Further, it is unclear where or how said function is acquired, and how it is calculated. The claim, and the specification, provide no guidance as to how the function f(T) is determined, what specific equation it is, and/or what variables are considered or factored in the equation. The claims and specification are completely silent as to how the damping factor function f(T) is determined. Clarification is required.
Regarding claims 2 and 11, the claims are indefinite for several reasons. First, the claims refer back to the “predetermined continuous torque dependent function”, however it is unclear which function the claims refer too. Second, the claims recite that the progression angle is decreased thereby. However, claim 1 and 10 do not positively require the progression angle as one of the variables. For example, they only require one of progression angle, speed, and frequency, and it is unclear how the step of claims 2 and 11 proceed when progression angle is not chosen as a parameter. Third, the claims only state how the method proceeds when the torque is greater than previously determined, however, are completely silent as to how the method proceeds if it is not. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 3, the claim is indefinite for the same reasons regarding the term “progression angle” as explained above in regards to claim 2. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites that the reverse angle remains constant, however, it is unclear how the reverse angle remains constant when claim 1 states that all parameters are modified based on measured torque (either by lowering according to the function or by applying a damping factor. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites that the forward angle remains constant, however, it is unclear how the forward angle remains constant when claim 1 states that all parameters are modified based on measured torque (either by lowering according to the function or by applying a damping factor. Clarification is required.
Regarding claims 8 and 17, the claims as a whole are indefinite. First, it is unclear whether the claims refer to the steps recited in step (c) of claims 1 and 10, or another instance thereof. As best understood by the Examiner, as claims 1 and 10 recite that the damping factor is applied when torque decreases, as is the case in the instant claims, it appears to refer to the same step. It is unclear if the instant claims further limit the parent claims. The claim limitations herein appear to overlap substantially with those of the independent claims. Second, the term “filtered” is indefinite for the same reasons as explained above. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is indefinite as it is unclear how the method proceeds when the “progression angle” is not one of the chosen parameters. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites that the reverse angle remains constant, however, it is unclear how the reverse angle remains constant when claim 10 states that all parameters are modified based on measured torque (either by lowering according to the function or by applying a damping factor. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites that the forward angle remains constant, however, it is unclear how the forward angle remains constant when claim 10 states that all parameters are modified based on measured torque (either by lowering according to the function or by applying a damping factor. Clarification is required.
All other claims not specifically addressed above are rejected based on their dependency on a previously dependent claim.
Conclusion
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