23/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 .
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 1-10 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a hole” in line 1 and “an inclined hole” in line 12. Based on the Specification, they appear to be referencing the same hole. It is unclear if both holes are the same in this claim.
Claims 2-10 are similarly rejected by virtue of their dependency upon claim 1
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mosavi et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6252195), hereinafter Mosavi, and further in view of Yared et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. 20170258552), hereinafter Yared.
Regarding claim 1, Mosavi discloses a manufacturing method for a needle tip (claim 1), wherein a hole (hole 198) is punched on the irrigation needle tip through a laser apparatus (laser drilling system, see claim 1; see FIG. 5), and a pointed portion of the irrigation needle tip is a closed end (see FIG. 5); and the method comprises:
step a: setting a laser parameter of the laser apparatus (“modulator parameters”, Col 2 Lines 8-9), wherein the laser parameter comprises a repetition frequency, single pulse energy, and a focal spot size (“The duration of these short pulses and their frequencies are controlled by the modulator parameters.”, Col 2 Lines 7-9; “The optics assembly functions to focus the laser light energy into a small spot.”, Col 5 Lines 40-41);
step b: setting a diameter parameter of a laser machining trajectory (“The beam expander functions to expand the diameter of the laser beam while at the same time collimating the laser beam.”, Col 5 Lines 34-36);
step c: adjusting a laser beam for aiming to a designated portion of the irrigation needle tip to be machined (“ Beam 160 is then directed at the proximal end face 195 of the surgical needle 190 to form blind hole 198.”, Col 3 Lines 50-52), and;
step d: activating the laser apparatus (“A solid state power supply (not shown in FIG. 5) drives the laser diode arrays for different powers, frequencies and pulse widths.”, Col 3 Lines 60-63), and forming hole towards the closed end on a pipe wall of the irrigation needle tip.
However, Mosavi does not expressly state a backflow type irrigation needle, adjusting a direction of the laser beam and an axial direction of the irrigation needle tip to form an angle, wherein a range of the angle α is 10°≤ α<90°, and forming an inclined hole.
Yared teaches a device for irrigating a canal during a root canal treatment (Abstract) comprising a backflow type irrigation needle (needle 30), and forming an inclined hole (orifices 40c; see FIG. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the needle and hole of Mosavi to be a backflow type irrigation needle and inclined hole. Doing so allows the irrigant egressing from the needle acts tangentially against the needle wall of the device, rather than radially, as taught by Yared (see [0037]).
Mosavi and Yared do not expressly state adjusting a direction of the laser beam and an axial direction of the irrigation needle tip to form an angle, wherein a range of the angle α is 10°≤ α<90°.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to adjust a direction of the laser beam and an axial direction of the irrigation needle tip to form an angle, wherein a range of the angle α is 10°≤ α<90°, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 2, Mosavi in view of Yared teaches the claimed invention as discussed above concerning the rejection of claim 1, and Mosavi further teaches that the laser apparatus (laser drilling system, see claim 1; see FIG. 5) comprises a laser (laser diode arrays 220 and beam expander 300), an optical path reflection mirror (mirrors 210, 250, and 260), and a machining head (assembly 310).
Regarding claim 8, Mosavi discloses a needle tip, manufactured through the manufacturing method according to claim 1 (see claim 1), wherein a pointed portion of the needle tip is a closed end (needle 190; see FIG. 1), a hole (hole 198) towards the closed end is formed on a pipe wall of the irrigation needle tip (see FIG. 1).
However, Mosavi does not expressly state wherein the needle is a backflow type irrigation needle, wherein the hole is an inclined hole, and a range of an included angle α between a hole forming direction of the inclined hole, i.e. a direction of a laser beam and an axial direction of the needle tip is 10°≤ α<90°.
Yared teaches a device for irrigating a canal during a root canal treatment (Abstract) wherein the needle is a backflow type irrigation needle (needle 30), wherein the hole is an inclined hole (orifices 40c; see FIG. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the needle and hole of Mosavi to be a backflow type irrigation needle and inclined hole. Doing so allows the irrigant egressing from the needle acts tangentially against the needle wall of the device, rather than radially, as taught by Yared (see [0037]).
Mosavi and Yared do not expressly state wherein a range of an included angle α between a hole forming direction of the inclined hole, i.e. a direction of a laser beam and an axial direction of the needle tip is 10°≤ α<90°.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to have a range of an included angle α between a hole forming direction of the inclined hole, i.e. a direction of a laser beam and an axial direction of the needle tip be 10°≤ α<90°. since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 9, Mosavi in view of Yared teaches the claimed invention as discussed above concerning the rejection of claim 8, and Mosavi further teaches wherein the included angle α between the hole forming direction of the inclined hole and the axial direction of the needle tip is 45° (see Examiner annotated FIG, 5 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
254
262
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Mosavi in view of Yared teaches the claimed invention as discussed above concerning the rejection of claim 8, and Yared further teaches 1-6 inclined holes (orifices 40c) are provided (see FIG. 5).
However, Mosavi in view of Yared does not expressly state wherein a distance from the inclined hole to the pointed portion of the irrigation needle tip is 0.07 millimeter-16 millimeters.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to adjust a distance from the inclined hole to the pointed portion of the irrigation needle tip to be 0.07 millimeter-16 millimeters, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mosavi et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6252195), hereinafter Mosavi, and further in view of Yared et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. 20170258552), hereinafter Yared, and further in view of Hara et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. 20190176270), hereinafter Hara.
Regarding claim 3, Mosavi in view of Yared in view teaches the claimed invention as discussed above concerning the rejection of claim 2, however, Mosavi in view of Yared does not expressly state wherein the laser and the machining head are controlled through a computer.
Hara teaches a laser cutting and machining method for plated steel (Abstract) wherein the laser and the machining head are controlled through a computer (“The laser cutting and machining apparatus 1 also has a control device 31. The control device 31 is a computer having a function of controlling the moving and positioning of the laser machining head 5”, [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the laser and the machining head of Mosavi in view of Yared to be controlled by a computer. Doing so allows the data for the cutting conditions to be stored in a controller device, as taught by Hara (see [0110]).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mosavi et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6252195), hereinafter Mosavi, and further in view of Yared et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. 20170258552), hereinafter Yared, and further in view of Hara et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. 20190176270), hereinafter Hara, and further in view of Numata et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. 20090127239), hereinafter Numata.
Regarding claim 4, Mosavi in view of Yared in view of Hara teaches the claimed invention as discussed above concerning the rejection of claim 3, however, Mosavi in view of Yared in view of Hara does not expressly state wherein the laser machining trajectory is circular and has a diameter of 90 microns-400 microns.
Numata teaches a processing apparatus providing a laser beam irradiated onto a processing portion of a workpiece (Abstract) wherein the laser machining (laser torch 2) trajectory is circular (trajectory 71).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the trajectory of Mosavi in view of Yared in view of Hara to be circular. Doing so allows for a desired orbital trajectory from a desired movement of the laser torch for cutting a workpiece, as taught by Numata (see [0296]).
Mosavi and Yared and Hara do not expressly state the trajectory has a diameter of 90 microns-400 microns. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to adjust a trajectory of the laser beam to have a diameter of 90 microns-400 microns, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 5, Mosavi in view of Yared in view of Hara in view of Numata teaches the claimed invention as discussed above concerning the rejection of claim 4, however, Mosavi in view of Yared in view of Hara in view of Numata does not expressly state wherein a distance from the designated portion to the pointed portion of the irrigation needle tip is 0.07 millimeter-16 millimeters.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the distance from the designated portion to the pointed portion of the irrigation needle tip to be 0.07 millimeter-16 millimeters, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 6, Mosavi in view of Yared in view of Hara teaches the claimed invention as discussed above concerning the rejection of claim 5, however, Mosavi in view of Yared in view of Hara in view of Numata does not expressly state wherein the range of the angle α is 40°≤α≤70°.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the angle to be in the range of the angle α is 40°≤α≤70°., since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mosavi et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6252195), hereinafter Mosavi, and further in view of Yared et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. 20170258552), hereinafter Yared, and further in view of Fiechter et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. 20050049639), hereinafter Fiechter.
Regarding claim 7, Mosavi in view of Yared teaches the claimed invention as discussed above concerning the rejection of claim 1, however, Mosavi in view of Yared does not expressly state wherein the irrigation needle tip is fixed to an auxiliary workpiece of a workbench, and a desired angle α is acquired by adjusting an angle between a surface of the auxiliary workpiece and a horizontal plane.
Fiechter teaches a method for manufacturing a needle formed by a pulsed laser weld (Abstract) wherein the irrigation needle tip (needle 1) is fixed to an auxiliary workpiece (holder 34) of a workbench (work table 30), and a desired angle α is acquired by adjusting an angle between a surface of the auxiliary workpiece and a horizontal plane (see [0045]; see FIG. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the needle tip of Mosavi in view of Yared to be fixed to an auxiliary workpiece of a workbench, and a desired angle α is acquired by adjusting an angle between a surface of the auxiliary workpiece and a horizontal plane. Doing so allows user to adjust the angle of incidence of the laser beam on the weld region if necessary, as taught by Fiechter (see [0045]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NELSON ALVARADO whose telephone number is (703) 756-5301. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chelsea Stinson can be reached on (571) 270-1744. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)-273-8300. 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. 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Nelson Alvarado/
Junior Examiner , Art Unit 3783
09/19/2026
/CHELSEA E STINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights