Status under America Invents Act
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Interpretation
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.
In the present application the “clamping means”; “diving means” and “biasing means” limitations of claim 1 are interpreted as being directed to the clamping means element 13, driving means element 32 and biasing means element 11 disclosed in the application and equivalents thereof.
Rejections based on Prior Art
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 1-13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ertugrul et al (US 2018/0355914).
In regard to Claims 1 and 2, as annotated below in Ertugrul et al Figure 4, Ertugrul et al disclose a dental handpiece comprising a head 1, 10 and a clamping means/member 3 (note Fig 1) for clamping a dental drill 2 (illustrated in phantom Fig 1) wherein the clamping means/member 3 is rotatably arranged within bearing 7 having inner race 7.1 and outer race 7.4 that is fixed to the housing 10 of the head. The Ertugrul et al handpiece further includes a driving means (drive shaft 22, Fig 1) for driving the clamping means/member 3 about an axial direction of the drill axis 6; a push button (identified in the annotated Figure below) movable in an axial direction 6 against the spring biasing means (identified in the annotated Figure below) for releasing the drill from the clamping means 3. Further in regard to claims 1, 6 and 7, as identified in the annotated Figure below, Ertugrul et al a radial inner surface of the push button that contacts and slides over the radial outer surface of the bearing outer race which serves as a guide for the push button and wherein a radial clearance is provided between a radial inner surface of the housing and a radial outer surface of the push button. Additionally, it is noted than an annotated copy of applicant’s disclosed invention (Figure 2a) has been provided for comparing applicant’s disclosed and claimed elements with those of the prior art.
PNG
media_image1.png
482
787
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 3, note the identified bearing inner 7.1 and outer 7.2 races identified above in Ertugrul et al Figure 4 above. In regard to claim 4, the bearing inner race 7.1 is fixed about the clamping member 3. In regard to claim 5, the bearing outer race 7.2 is fixed to the head housing. In regard to claims 6 and 7, note the identified elements in the annotated Figure and the remarks above. In regard to claim 8, the identified push button of Ertugrul et al contacts and slides over the radial outer surface of the bearing outer race which serves as a guide for the push button. In regard to claims 9 and 10, note the identified biasing means in Ertugrul et al which is illustrated as a cone shaped spring. In regard to claim 11, the Ertugrul et al clamping member is a chuck illustrated with resilient arms for clamping a dental drill (note the similarity to applicant’s own clamping member/means). In regard to claims 12 and 13, Ertugrul et al illustrates a hollow shaft 4 (note Figure 1) that receives the chuck 3 and which rotates within the head (via the drive means/shaft 22). With regard to claim 18 the identified push button of Ertugrul et al above is a “single piece.”
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.
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ertugrul et al (US 2018/0355914) in view of Mosimann (US 4,773,856).
As set forth above Ertugrul et al disclose all of the limitations of the parent claims. In regard to the limitations of dependent claims 14, 16 and 17 requiring that the clamping member include an axially movable ball in the hollow shaft, that is in direct contact with the arms of the chuck, and protrudes from an upper end of the hollow shaft; Ertugrul et al discloses a cone shaped wedge member that is axially movable within the shaft, is in direct contact with the arms of the chuck, and protrudes from the hollow shaft upper end (see Figure 4) rather than the claimed ball. Mosimann, however, teaches the use of a ball 21 protruding from the upper end of a hollow shaft 9 in a push button release for a dental hand piece that helps to reduce wear and overheating of the push button mechanism (note particularly column 3, lines 8-15). To have replaced the cone shaped wedge member of Ertugrul et al with a ball member 21 as taught by Mosimann in order to reduce wear and overheating would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. In regard to claim 15 requiring the ball to be made of a ceramic material, Mosimann discloses that the ball is made of ceramic (column 3, line 47).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ertugrul et al (US 2018/0355914)(hereinafter Ertugrul et al ‘914) in view of Ertugrul et al (US 2022/007710)(hereinafter Ertugrul et al ‘710).
As set forth above Ertugrul et al ‘914 disclose all of the limitations of parent claim 2. In regard to two-piece push button limitations where one piece is a cap and the other a hat-shaped flange in dependent claims 19 and 20, Ertugrul et al ‘710 for a very similar dental handpiece push button release teaches forming the push button of two pieces including an outer cap 42 and a hat shaped flange 54 (note particularly Figures 3 and 4) for the purpose helping to prevent excessive heat on the outer surface of the push button (note particularly paragraphs [0010] and [0027]). To have formed the Ertugrul et al ‘914 push button (annotated Figure 4 above) as an outer cap and inner hat shaped flange collar as taught by Ertugrul et al ‘710 in order to reduce heat build up on the outer surface of the button as taught by Ertugrul et al ‘914 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ralph Lewis whose telephone number is (571)272-4712. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9AM-4PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Edelmira Bosques 571 270-5614. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
/RALPH A LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772 (571) 272-4712
/EDELMIRA BOSQUES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772