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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: beaks 22, 32. 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. 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 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.
Claim(s) 10 – 15 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.
The term “substantially part cylindrical” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially part cylindrical” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “substantially part cylindrical” does not clearly specify whether referring to quarter cylindrical or semicylindrical or three-quarter cylindrical or whether the “partly” qualification is attributed to a solid cylindrical or hollow cylindrical shape, as set forth claim 10.
Claim 10 recites the following limitations;
"the arm" in lines 4, 6 and 11 of the claim,
“the handle” in line 8 of the claim,
“the cylindrical faces” in lines 10 – 11 of the claim,
and “the length” in line 11 of the claim. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim.
Claims 11 – 13 are dependent on claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, thus claims 11 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the cylindrical faces" in lines 1 – 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the cylindrical faces" in lines 1 – 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 14 is dependent on claim 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, thus claims 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claims 15 is dependent on claim 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, thus claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
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(s) 10 – 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller et al. (US 20100092918 A1) in view of Dai et al. (US 20140012314 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Muller et al. discloses a Tweezers (Figs. 1 – 2) for use in conducting root canal therapy including: a pair of elongate arms (1B and2B Figs. 1 - 2); the arms are moveable between a closed condition (see Fig. 2) and an open condition (see Fig. 1) and are biased towards the closed condition (paragraph 0008; …whilst the release of the pressure exerted on said proximal parts results in the automatic closing together of the distal parts and therefore the jaws of the distal parts in a clamping position…); a grasping formation (4 and 5 Figs. 1 – 2 ) is provided at an end of each of the arms (see Figs. 1 – 2 ); the grasping formations have substantially part cylindrical faces (see Fig. 3; paragraph 0027) to grasp opposite sides of the handle of an endodontic file with bidirectional use on both sides of the tweezers (see Fig. 6; elements 4 and 5 grasp the opposite sides of element C); wherein axes of the cylindrical faces are offset from a direction perpendicular to the length of the arms (see Figs. 1 – 3 & 5 – 7 ). Muller et al. is silent claim 10 wherein the axes of the cylindrical faces are offset by between 10 and 30 degrees.
Dai et al. teaches an analogous device wherein the axes (127/133 Fig. 1) of the cylindrical faces (122/128 Fig. 1) are offset between 10 and 30 degrees (see paragraphs 0019 - 20; The first interesting angle 127 and the second intersecting angle 133 may be any angle. The first intersecting angle and the second intersecting angle may be any angle in a range between any two integer values from 0.degree. to 90.degree.. In an embodiment, the first intersecting angle is 15.degree. and the second intersecting angle is 15.degree.. The first intersecting angle and the second intersecting angle may be an angle in range between any two integer angle values from 15.degree. to 52.degree., or .+-.2.degree. of the angle.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Muller et al. to be configured such that the axes of the cylindrical faces are offset by between 10 and 30 degrees in order to allow for ease of accessing difficult positions in the oral cavity during device use, as taught and suggested by Dai et al.
Regarding claim 11, Muller et al. discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 10 above. Muller et al. is silent regarding claim 11 wherein the axes of the cylindrical faces are offset between 15 and 25 degrees.
Dai et al. further teaches an analogous device wherein the axes (127/133 Fig. 1) of the cylindrical faces (122/128 Fig. 1) are offset between 15 and 25 degrees (paragraph 0020; The first interesting angle 127 and the second intersecting angle 133 may be any angle. The first intersecting angle and the second intersecting angle may be any angle in a range between any two integer values from 0.degree. to 90.degree.. In an embodiment, the first intersecting angle is 15.degree. and the second intersecting angle is 15.degree..).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Muller et al. to be configured such that the axes of the cylindrical faces are offset by between 15 and 25 degrees in order to allow for ease of accessing difficult positions in the oral cavity during device use, as taught and suggested by Dai et al.
Regarding claim 12, Muller et al. discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 10 above. Muller et al. is silent regarding claim 11 wherein the axes of the cylindrical faces are offset between 17 and 23 degrees.
Dai et al. further teaches an analogous device wherein the axes (127/133 Fig. 1) of the cylindrical faces (122/128 Fig. 1) are offset between 17 and 23 degrees (paragraph 0020; The first interesting angle 127 and the second intersecting angle 133 may be any angle. The first intersecting angle and the second intersecting angle may be an angle in range between any two integer angle values from 15.degree. to 52.degree., or .+-.2.degree. of the angle. As taught by Dai et al., the angle value of 15±2 degrees includes the claimed angle of 17 degrees as set forth in claim 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Muller et al. to be configured such that the axes of the cylindrical faces are offset by between 17 and 23 degrees in order to allow for ease of accessing difficult positions in the oral cavity during device use, as taught and suggested by Dai et al.
Claim(s) 13 – 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller et al. (US 20100092918 A1) in view of Dai et al. (US 20140012314 A1) and further in view of Bell (US 20040157189 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 13 – 15, Muller et al./Dai et al. discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim(s) 10 - 12 above. Muller et al./Dai et al. further discloses methods of handling and manipulating objects using the disclosed analogous device as taught by Dai et al. (see paragraph 0041), however, Muller et al./Dai et al. is silent regarding said method being a method of conducting root canal therapy. Furthermore, the claimed method as set forth in claim(s) 13 – 15 describes a method of grasping an endodontic file using the claimed device as set forth in claim(s) 10 – 12 without claiming further steps associated with root canal therapy. Therefore, the examiner interprets the claim language to mean any orthodontic treatment that includes grasping dental devices with specialized dental devices for subsequent placement or manipulation within the oral cavity.
Regarding claim 13, Bell teaches an analogous method of conducting root canal therapy including the steps of: providing tweezers according to claim 10; grasping an endodontic file using the tweezers; and using the tweezers and the endodontic file to conduct root canal therapy (see claim 21; Bell discloses a method of retaining a portion of a dental device (an endodontic file is a dental device and it is not a subject of claim of the current application) in a gripping portion of a carrier (including specialized tweezers), the gripping portion conforming to a shape of the portion of the device to be gripped (the gripping portion can be semi-cylindrical to fit opposite sides of the dental device to be gripped)… manipulating the carrier to place the dental device in a desired location relative to the tooth (performance of an orthodontic treatment)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Muller et al./Dai et al. to include grasping an endodontic file using the tweezers of Muller et al./Dai et al. and using the tweezers and the endodontic file to conduct root canal therapy, in order to place the endodontic file in a desired location relative to the tooth thus improving the process of root canal therapy, as taught and suggested by Bell.
Regarding claim 14, Bell further teaches a method of conducting root canal therapy including the steps of: providing tweezers according to claim 11; grasping an endodontic file using the tweezers; and using the tweezers and the endodontic file to conduct root canal therapy (see claim 21; Bell discloses a method of retaining a portion of a dental device (an endodontic file is a dental device and it is not a subject of claim of the current application) in a gripping portion of a carrier (including specialized tweezers), the gripping portion conforming to a shape of the portion of the device to be gripped (the gripping portion can be semi-cylindrical to fit opposite sides of the dental device to be gripped)… manipulating the carrier to place the dental device in a desired location relative to the tooth (performance of an orthodontic treatment)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Muller et al./Dai et al. to include grasping an endodontic file using the tweezers of Muller et al./Dai et al. and using the tweezers and the endodontic file to conduct root canal therapy, in order to place the endodontic file in a desired location relative to the tooth thus improving the process of root canal therapy, as taught and suggested by Bell.
Regarding claim 15, Bell further teaches a method of conducting root canal therapy including the steps of: providing tweezers according to claim 12; grasping an endodontic file using the tweezers; and using the tweezers and the endodontic file to conduct root canal therapy (see claim 21; Bell discloses a method of retaining a portion of a dental device (an endodontic file is a dental device and it is not a subject of claim of the current application) in a gripping portion of a carrier (including specialized tweezers), the gripping portion conforming to a shape of the portion of the device to be gripped (the gripping portion can be semi-cylindrical to fit opposite sides of the dental device to be gripped)… manipulating the carrier to place the dental device in a desired location relative to the tooth (performance of an orthodontic treatment)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Muller et al./Dai et al. to include grasping an endodontic file using the tweezers of Muller et al./Dai et al. and using the tweezers and the endodontic file to conduct root canal therapy, in order to place the endodontic file in a desired location relative to the tooth thus improving the process of root canal therapy, as taught and suggested by Bell.
Re. claims 13-15, Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIEMERIE C AZUBUOGU whose telephone number is (571)272-0664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00 AM - 6:00PM.
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.
/C.A./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772 /ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772