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 without traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 1/9/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 2, 11-12 and 18-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/9/26.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 7 and 17 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: Regarding claims 3 and 13, the prior art, either alone or in proper combination fails to teach a pressing elastic member which is matched with the shell and the instrument rod, respectively, to press the step positioning segment against an end of the first amplitude change pole, in combination with all other features of claims 1, 3 and 13.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, the prior art, either alone or in proper combination, fails to teach a notch disposed at one end of the hollow locking rod, and one end of the center hole is continuous with the notch, and wherein a first flange (of the change pole) is disposed within the notch at one end of the change pole, and the first flange is rigidly connected to the hollow locking rod, in combination with all other features of claim 1.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the locking nut (52) as described in the original disclosure is not shown and/or identified in the drawings. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “rotation transmission assembly” in claim 1; “pressing elastic member” in claims 2 and 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 7, 14-15 and 17 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 7 and 17, the term “a first flange is disposed within the notch” is indefinite as it is unclear what structure the first flange corresponds too. As best understood by the Examiner the flange is part of the first amplitude change pole and positioned at one of its end, the flange then seating in the notch of the hollow locking rod (and will be interpreted as such), however, the claim is unclear as to whether the flange is connected and/or part of the change pole. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 14, the term “the pressing elastic member” lacks antecedent basis in the claims and it is unclear what specifically the term corresponds too. For example, a pressing elastic member is described in claim 13, but the claim does not depend therefrom, and as such it is unclear if the claim should depend from claim 13 or if a different member is described in claim 14. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 15, the term “the pre-tightening cover” lacks antecedent basis in the claims and it is unclear what specifically the term corresponds too. For example, a pre-tightening cover is described in claim 14, but the claim does not depend therefrom, and as such it is unclear if the claim should depend from claim 14 or if a different cover is described in claim 15. Clarification is required.
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) 1, 6, 8-10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (CN 113057744 A) in view of Wu et al (CN 214682735) in view of Bin et al (CN 102151867).
Regarding claim 1, Wang et al discloses a rotatable ultrasonic vibration device (see Figs. 3-5b) comprising: a shell (A1/A2) with a mounting cavity in the shell (cavity in A1), a handle connecting portion on the shell (e.g. where it connects with 2), and a mounting hole (exit of cavity inside A1 where it exits shell) communicating with the mounting cavity; a hollow locking rod (B1) mounted in the mounting cavity, with one end of the hollow locking rod in a length direction thereof facing the mounting hole (see Fig. 4), and having a center hole (where tool 1 is located) in the length direction; a vibration generation means (B3) mounted in the mounting cavity and surrounding the hollow locking rod (see Figs. 4 and 5b), with the hollow locking rod fixing the vibration generation means within the shell (via B5); an instrument rod (portion of instrument of Fig. 1 positioned in handpiece), with an instrument working portion located outside the shell and connected to the instrument rod (portion of instrument of Fig. 1 outside the shell), and the instrument rod being rotatably connected relative to the locking rod; and a rotation transmission assembly (C1-6) rotatably mounted on the shell, matched with the instrument rod to transmit rotation torque to the instrument rod (see connection of rod with locking rod, Fig. 4).
Wang further discloses wherein the rotation transmission assembly comprises a first gear (gear teeth under flange of locking rod, B1, see Fig. 4 and 5b), which is mounted on the hollow locking rod via a first support bearing (B6; at least in part); and wherein the segment of the instrument rod distant from the instrument working portion serves as is a transmission segment, a central transmission hole of the first gear (hole in B1 at gear) is provided to engage with the transmission segment (see Fig. 4), and the transmission hole is a non-circular hole (at least in part in order to retain tool and upper most end, see Fig. 4; per claim 8); wherein the handle connecting portion is provided with an accommodating groove (where C1-6 is located), and the ultrasonic vibration device further comprises a torque input shaft (shaft of C1-6); and wherein the rotation transmission assembly further comprises a second gear (gear of C1-6; see Fig. 4) connected to the torque input shaft, and the second gear is supported by a second support bearing within the accommodating groove (see structure keeping shaft of C1-6 in position in Fig. 4), and meshes with the first gear (see Fig. 4, in order to provide rotation; per claim 9); wherein axes of the first gear and the second gear are perpendicular to each other (see Fig. 4); and an outer periphery of the first gear surrounds a radial outer side of the hollow locking rod (gear teeth surround radial outer side of lower portion of rod), and the first support bearing is located between the outer edge of the first gear and the hollow locking rod (radially, see Fig. 4; per claim 10).
Wang et al, however, does not teach wherein the vibration generation means is a piezoelectric transducer, or wherein the device comprises a first amplitude-change pole mounted in the center hole, fixedly connected to the hollow locking rod at one end of the first amplitude-change pole in a length direction thereof, and with at least a portion of the length of the first amplitude-change pole located in the space surrounded by the piezoelectric transducer as required.
Wu et al, however, teaches a similar ultrasonic vibration device comprising a piezoelectric transducer (501) mounted in a cavity (of 502), and surrounding a hollow locking rod (504) which fixes the transducer in place (see Fig. 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the vibration generation means of Wang to include Wu’s piezoelectric transducer, as such modification would merely involve the simple substitution of one known element for another which has been held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan, and would allow vibrations to be generated while providing reduced weight and complexity of the device.
Bin et al additionally discloses a rotatable ultrasonic vibration device, comprising a means for rotation (via 16), vibration generation components (18 and 19) and a first amplitude change pole (9) mounted and fixed in a center hole of a locking rod (17 and cavity therein), fixedly connected to the hollow locking rod at one end of the change pole in a length direction thereof (e.g. portion internal to locking rod), and an instrument rod (6) directly or indirectly connected to the other end of the first amplitude change pole in the length direction, and being rotatably connected to the first amplitude change pole (see Fig. 11). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Wang/Wu, as combined above, to include an amplitude change pole as taught by Bin, as such modification would allow for amplification, control and/or customization of the vibrations generated by the transducer. The Examiner notes that should the device of Wang/Wu be modified with the inclusion of an amplitude change pole, as taught by Bin, the pole would be mounted in the center hole (see Bin), fixedly connected to the hollow locking rod at one end of the pole (e.g. the portion held therein), and with at least a portion of the length of the pole located in the space surrounded by the transducer (Wang/Wu, as combined above), and wherein the instrument rod (Wang/Wu) being directly or indirectly connected to the other end of the pole and rotatably connected thereto (e.g. implicitly in order for the vibration and rotation to be transmitted to the tool).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Wang/Wu/Bin, as combined above, further discloses wherein the instrument rod (Fig. 1 and 4 Wang), further comprises an instrument amplitude change pole segment located outside the first amplitude change pole (e.g. portion of tool shaft outside change pole and above working portion; amplitude of vibrations would be changed at least to some degree before, during or after passage through said section), and wherein the instrument working portion (e.g. bottom of tool of Fig. 1 Wang) is rigidly connected to the instrument amplitude change pole segment (see Wang, Fig. 1).
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