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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 2/11/26.
All previous claim interpretation under 35 USC 112, F is maintained herein.
Note: Newly added claim language should be underlined. In claim 1, the term “wherein adjusted in a smooth manner without sudden drastic motor movement changes” is newly added and should be underlined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and additionally do not address the new grounds of rejection and/or interpretation below necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Briefly, the Examiner notes that the arguments do not address the new interpretation below necessitated by Applicant’s amendments. Additionally, the claim language does not exclude the interpretation relied on, and do not provide any special definition or clarity to the various issues under 35 USC 112, B. Additionally the arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. Still further, the Examiner notes that if changes in values are small, there are no reasons argued as to why such changes could not be considered “smooth” or otherwise not “drastic”. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
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 claims only require the selection of one parameter (e.g. “one or more”), yet then requires both the forward angle and reverse angle to be adjusted. Additionally, the claim requires reciprocating the instrument, which requires forward and reverse rotation. As such it is unclear how only one parameter, currently encompassed by the claim” can be selected. Additionally, several dependent claims require multiple and/or different parameters than those that are required in the newly added text of the claim. As best understood by the Examiner, “one” parameter, is no longer supported, and as such the Examiner suggests amending the claim to remove the term “one or more”. Clarification is required.
Next, in claims 1 and 10, the terms “without sudden drastic motor movement changes” and “smooth manner” are indefinite, as the specific meets and bounds of the term “smooth” and “drastic” are unclear. Specifically, the terms are terms of degree and it is unclear what would or would not specifically be considered “smooth” or “drastic”. What a first user considers as such, may be different than another. Further, the claim requires reciprocation of the file, which by definition, is a drastic, not smooth movement pattern. As such, it is unclear what would or would not specifically be considered “smooth” and not “drastic” in reciprocating file control. As best understood by the Examiner, small changes in angle of rotation (for example 90-180 degrees) are interpreted to provide smooth motion, without drastic changes. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 1, the term “wherein adjusted in a smooth manner” is indefinite as it appears a typographical error has occurred, but it is unclear what the term should read. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 10, the term “evolve with torque as a single variable” is indefinite as it is unclear how multiple variable (forward and reverse rotation) can be evaluated as a single variable. As best understood both values must be adjusted in respective directions by a respective amount. Further the term “evolve” is indefinite as it is unclear what specifically the term encompasses. As best understood by the Examiner the terms is interpreted to mean that the angles are changed by the same amount with the changing torque.
Additionally in claim 10, the term “according to continuous functions” is indefinite as it is unclear whether the term intends to refer back to the previously recited “continuous torque dependent function” or another function(s). Still further, the claim refers to a “single variable” but then refers to multiple functions. It is unclear how the single variable, for multiple parameters (see above), is adjusted according to multiple functions. Clarification is required.
Regarding claims 2-7 and 11-16, the claims require parameters including or in addition to the two required in the newly added text of claims 1 and 10. Accordingly, it is unclear how only one parameter may be required in claim 1. It is unclear if the parameters listed in claims 2-7 and 11-16 are required when one parameter is selected as in the independent claims. The Examiner suggests removing the term “one or more” I the independent claims as stated above. Clarification is required.
Regarding claims 8 and 17, while the clarification of the equation at the end of the claim is definite, use of the term “i.e.” is indefinite as it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the claimed equation to be positively recited and required by the claim, or merely exemplary and optional. The Examiner suggests removing the term “i.e.” from the claim. 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 § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kato et al (US 2017/0265961 A1), as best understood by the Examiner.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Kato discloses a system for endodontic treatment of a root canal (see Fig. 3) and a method of control thereof, the system comprising an endodontic instrument (5), an endodontic handpiece (1) having a drive motor (7) for rotating the instrument releasably attached to the handpiece ([0054]-[0057]); and a control unit (11) for controlling the rotation of the instrument according to one or more predetermined rotational sequences (see Figs. 9-12), the control unit is configured to operate a method for operating the system for the endodontic treatment of a root canal, comprising the steps of: a) reciprocating an endodontic instrument in a first sequence (e.g. M2, for example) which comprises one or more predetermined parameters selected from i) a forward angle aF, ii) a reverse angle aR, iii) a progression angle, iv) speed, and v) frequency, while measuring a torque exerted on the instrument during the first sequence (see steps S141-S142 in Fig. 14; Note: the Examiner relies on the combined embodiment described at [0161] which controls drive sequence switching based on torque and/or location the canal (not shown; Fig 14 used to illustrate steps; see also Figs. 15-16 and [0130]-[0138]); and (b) using the torque measurement in step (a) to determine and apply a second sequence (e.g. M3; see steps S143 and S144 Fig. 14) according to a predetermined continuous torque dependent function (e.g. torque is dependent as a function of location in canal (as shown in Fig. 16) and reduction of torque is dependent as a function of increased reverse rotation and/or decreased progression angle (see M2 vs M3, for example); torque is continuously monitored and sequences continuously adjusted over time in response to the torque, based on the predetermined parameters), a) wherein adjusted in a smooth manner without sudden drastic motor movement changes such that the forward angle and reverse angle are adjusted in a smooth manner without sudden drastic motor movement changes (e.g. as best understood by the Examiner; as the changes in forward and reverse rotation are small (e.g. 90-180 degrees between various sets and sequences) the resultant movement is interpreted as “smooth” changes and without sudden “drastic” changes; as best understood by the Examiner; per claim 1) or b) wherein the forward angle and reverse angle evolve with torque as a single variable according to continuous functions such that the forward angle and reverse angle are adjusted in a smooth manner without sudden drastic motor movement changes (“smooth” and not “drastic” movement adjustment interpreted as explained above; forward angle and reverse angle interpreted as a single variable when changes thereto are the same degree according to the continuous functions/sequences/sets (e.g. see M2, sets 1 and 2 for example; per claim 10); wherein if the torque measurement is greater than a previously determined amount (e.g. switch load S143), one or more of the predetermined parameters in step (a) is decreased in a predetermined fashion (see M3, for example), and wherein a torque exerted on the instrument during the second sequence is measured (S145). The Examiner notes 1) the measured load corresponds to torque on the tool (see [0072]) and 2) that although the citations above refer to the use of drive sequences M2 and M3, any of the drive sequences listed in Figs. 9-12 and Fig. 16 may be used with the relied on combined embodiment, however for simplicity in explanation drive sequences M2 and M3 will be relied on for explanation (see [0110] and [0130]). Finally, as steps C and D are recited as “optional” limitations, the Examiner choses the interpretation where steps C and D are not required and the claims are examined as such.
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Kato discloses wherein the predetermined continuous torque dependent function decreases the progression angle when the torque measurement is greater than the previously determined amount (e.g. when torque is greater than switch load, drive sequence is changed from M2 to M3, which reduces the progression angle between Set 1 and Set 2; compared to M2).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Kato discloses wherein the progression angle is decreased by decreasing the forward angle in a greater amount than the reverse angle (see M3, Set 2; forward angle decreased by 90 degrees while reverse angle is increased by 180 degrees, compared to M2).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Kato discloses wherein the reverse angle remains substantially constant (e.g. at M3, Set 1, the reverse angle remains constant compared to M2, set 1).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Kato discloses wherein the forward angle remains substantially constant (e.g. at M3, Set 1, the forward angle remains constant compared to M2, set 1).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Kato discloses wherein the forward angle is greater than or equal to the reverse angle (e.g. at M3, Set 1 and M2, set 1, the forward angle is greater than or equal to the reverse angle).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Kato discloses wherein the reverse angle is greater than the forward angle (e.g. at M3, Set 2).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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