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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 27th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s amendment to further define that their rotary instrument is configured for use in dental implantology and/or endodontics is not found persuasive to overcome the prior art of record. The distal part of Berthusen et al. identified as element 52 has a respective bayonet catch connects to a crossbar of a working tool. Element 52 can couple to a crossbar of any type of tool/implement including a dental implantology and/or endodontics instrument. The same rationale applies to the distal part (84) of Cohen and the distal part (4) of Hayes. As a result, Applicant’s arguments and remarks are not found persuasive to overcome the prior art and rejections of record.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Berthusen et al. (US 7,503,921).
Regarding claim 1, Berthusen et al. disclose a rotary instrument capable of use for dental implantology and/or endodontics, comprising a proximal part (see figure below) configured to be connected to a rotational drive (column 3, lines 24-25), a distal part (52) having a working end whose shape is configured for use in dental implantology and/or endodontics (if one so chooses to couple a dental implant tool and/or endodontics head to the distal part), and flexible means (38, 56) for allowing flexibility of said rotary instrument (column 3, line 56 – column 4, line 5, figures 5-6) for dental implantology and/or endodontics, said flexible means providing a rigidity in flexion and sufficient rigidity in torsion for use of the rotary instrument for dental implantology and/or endodontics (if one so chooses to use the tool in dental applications).
Regarding claim 2, Berthusen et al. disclose that the flexible means have two states, a flexible state (when the recesses and projections are disengaged to position the head at the correct angle, aka biases away from reamer 14, column 3, line 56 - column 4, line 5) and a rigid state (“fixed angle orientation” when the recesses and projections are engaged, column 3, line 56 - column 4, line 5).
Regarding claim 3, Berthusen et al. disclose the flexible means are located on the proximal part of the instrument (figure 3).
Regarding claim 5, Berthusen et al. disclose the flexible means (38, 56) are located between the proximal part and the means for connection to the drive means (26, figures 2-3). Regarding claim 10, Berthusen et al. disclose the flexible means comprise a spiral spring (38, figure 3/56, figure 3).
Regarding claim 11, Berthusen et al. disclose the flexible means comprise a wire-shaped spring (38, figure 3/56, figure 3).
Regarding claim 12, Berthusen et al. disclose the proximal part comprises a plurality of flexible means (56, 38).
Regarding claim 13, Berthusen et al. disclose said instrument being a drill, a reamer, a tap, an implant holder, a screwdriver, a file, an adapter or an extension piece that can be connected to one or more other instruments (Abstract, Figure 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
531
764
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1, 4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cohen (US 2014/0274425). Regarding claim 1, Cohen discloses a rotary instrument capable of use for dental implantology or endodontics, comprising at least a proximal part (82) configured to be connected to a rotational drive means (if one so chooses), a distal part (84) whose shape is determined by the use of the instrument, characterized in that the instrument comprises flexible means (10, figure 3) allowing flexibility of said instrument (¶37-38).
Regarding claim 4, Cohen discloses that the flexible means are located between the proximal part and the distal part of the instrument (figures 3-4).
Regarding claim 6, Cohen discloses that the flexible means comprise an articulation (10, figures 3-4).
Regarding claim 7, Cohen discloses that the articulation comprises a universal joint (10, figures 3-4, ¶35) comprising two forks (82, 84) and a central yoke (15) of substantially spherical shape (¶41).
Regarding claim 8, Cohen discloses that the universal joint comprises a pin (20, figures 3-4) and a pair of half-pins (30, 40, figures 3-4), and the central yoke (15) is traversed by two perpendicular passages (91, 92") dimensioned so as to receive the pin and the pair of half-pins (figures 3-4).
Claim 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayes (US 3,522,713).
Regarding claim 1, Hayes disclose a rotary instrument capable of use for dental implantology and/or endodontics, comprising a proximal part (2) configured to be connected to a rotational drive (the wrench can be coupled to a rotational drive at its left end), a distal part (4) having a working end whose shape is configured for use in dental implantology and/or endodontics (if one so chooses to couple a dental implant tool and/or endodontics head to the distal part), and flexible means (42) for allowing flexibility of said rotary instrument for dental implantology and/or endodontics (column 2, line 66 – column 3, lines 20), said flexible means providing a rigidity in flexion and sufficient rigidity in torsion for use of the rotary instrument for dental implantology and/or endodontics (if one so chooses to use the tool in dental applications).
Regarding claim 14, Hayes discloses a rotary instrument for dental implantology and/or endodontics, comprising a proximal part (2) configured to be rotationally driven (the wrench can be coupled to a rotational drive at its left end or rotationally driven by a user’s hand); a distal part (4) having a work end whose shape is configured for use in dental implantology and/or endodontics ((if one so chooses to couple a dental implant tool and/or endodontics head to the distal part), and a structure (figure 2), comprising a spring (42), forks (12’s) and a central yoke (14), configured to allow flexibility of said rotary instrument for dental implantology and/or endodontics (column 2, line 66 – column 3, lines 20) and to provide rigidity in flexion and sufficient rigidity in torsion for use of the rotary instrument for dental implantology and/or endodontics (if one so chooses to use the tool in dental applications).
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen (US 2014/0274425) in view of Zhao et al. (US 2012/0135811). Regarding claim 9, Cohen discloses the claimed invention except for the central yoke comprises two perpendicular groove, and the forks comprise guides configured to slide in said grooves. Regarding claim 9, Zhao et al. disclose a central yoke (10) comprises two perpendicular grooves (15’s, ¶9), and forks (315’s) comprise guides (315/317) dimensioned so as to slide in said grooves (¶14) as it is a known configuration for creating a universal joint and the universal joint has a simpler structure and improved performance. As the two connecting assemblies are rotatably assembled together by the pivotal member, to replace the typical conventional cross axle, the contact areas between the two connecting assemblies and the pivotal member are increased, such that, the two connecting assemblies can steadily rotate with each other. In addition, the two connecting assemblies of the universal joint can be rotated to form a plurality of different angles and be timely stopped at a preset position, during usage, by the pivotal member (¶15).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have constructed the central yoke comprises two perpendicular groove, and the forks comprise guides configured to slide in said grooves as taught by Zhao et al. as it is a known configuration for creating a universal joint and the universal joint has a simpler structure and improved performance. As the two connecting assemblies are rotatably assembled together by the pivotal member, to replace the typical conventional cross axle, the contact areas between the two connecting assemblies and the pivotal member are increased, such that, the two connecting assemblies can steadily rotate with each other. In addition, the two connecting assemblies of the universal joint can be rotated to form a plurality of different angles and be timely stopped at a preset position, during usage, by the pivotal member.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MATTHEW JAMES LAWSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7375. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 6:30-3:00. 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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/MATTHEW J LAWSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights