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 Species B in the reply filed on 1/14/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no search burden between the species. This is not found persuasive because the species are directed to vastly different embodiments of the tools with different types of connections. For example, species A encompasses a detailed plug in connection as shown in Figs. 2-5, while species B shows a completely different connection type and location as shown in Figs. 7-9. According, searching for each species creates a serious search burden as the search would require searching different classes/subclasses and electronic resources or employing different search queries to address all structures of the various connections.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 3-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 1/14/26.
The Examiner notes that claims 3 and 5-8 were withdrawn by Applicant. However, regarding claim 4, upon review of the instant disclosure and figures, the recited anti-skid pattern (202c) formed of bosses (202b) is only shown and described in regards to species A. The anti-skid pattern is not shown or described in the elected embodiment, and accordingly the claim has been withdrawn by the Examiner being directed to the non-elected species.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 1-6 have several lightly shaded and/or broken lines. Drawings are required to be formed with solid dark lines. 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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because there are several grammatical errors throughout the abstract. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification is replete with grammatical errors which should be corrected.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2 and 9-10 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 1, the preamble of the claim recites “An extractor, wherein, comprising”. It is unclear if a typographical error has occurred and there should be additional language following the term “wherein” or if the presence of the term “wherein” is a grammatical error and should be deleted. As best understood by the Examiner, it appears that the term should be deleted and will be interpreted as such. Clarification is required. All other claims not specifically addressed above are rejected based on their dependency on claim 1.
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) 1-2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yao (CN 204863518-U; see attached Machine Translation).
Regarding the above claims, Yao discloses an extractor (see Figs. 1-2), wherein, comprising: a grip hook (A, below); a dismounting hook (B), which comprises a hook-shaped member (C) and an elongated member (D), one end of the elongated member is connected to the grip hook, the other end of the elongated member is connected to the hook-shaped member, the hook-shaped member is used for hooking a brace, so as to separate the brace from teeth (capable of being used as such). Yao further discloses wherein the hook-shaped member comprises a pointed portion (E, see pointed edge in Figs) and a spherical portion (F; interpreted as spherical as the arc shape is spherical as it is “of or relating to a sphere” as it corresponds to and relates to an outer portion of a hypothetical sphere; e.g. a segment or arc thereof, see broadest reasonable interpretation at dictionary.com), the spherical portion is connected to the pointed portion and the elongated member respectively (see Figs), the pointed portion and the grip hook are located on two sides of the elongated member, and the pointed portion is inclined towards the grip hook (see Figs; per claim 2); and wherein, an end of the grip hook away from the dismounting hook is arranged with a misbite portion (G), and the misbite portion is used for correcting the misbite of upper and lower teeth (capable of being used as such; per claim 10).
PNG
media_image1.png
477
836
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao in view of Li et al (US 2008/0160473 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Yao does not teach wherein the extractor further comprises a chew gum layer, and the chew gum layer is wound around the grip hook, part of the chew gum layer is arranged on two opposite side surfaces of the grip hook, and the chew gum layer is used for correcting the brace as required.
Li et al, however, teaches a similar dental tool (see Figs. 2-8) wherein a chew gum layer (e.g. softer rubber material, see [0037]) is wound around the entire device, including a hook part and grip part as required, covering all surfaces (see [0037]). 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 Yao to include Li’s teaching of covering the tool with a chew gum layer, as such modification would improve user comfort and provide improved protection to the user and patient. The Examiner notes that should the device of Yao be modified with the teachings of Li, as combined above, the chew gum layer would be wound around the entire device, including the grip hook, wherein part of the chew gum layer would be on to opposite sides surfaces of the grip hook (e.g. any two opposite side surfaces of grip hook part as entire device would be covered), and the chew gum layer would be capable of correcting the brace as required.
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