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.
Rejections based on Prior Art
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 1-4, 6-8, 13-17 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aspel (US 5,538,421) in view of Hannula et al (US 4,776,791).
In regard to claims 1 and 17, Aspel discloses a dental device for removing a dental auxiliary from a tooth (column 2, lines 42-49) comprised of a first elongated member 20, 16 (Figure 3) and a second elongated member 22, 18 pivotably 24 connected to the first elongated member 20, 16. The second elongated member 22, 18 includes a scraper 28, 29 at the distal end for removing a dental auxiliary (column 4, lines 18-22). The first elongate member 20, 16 includes a platform 26 at the distal end for supporting the tooth 34 while the scraper 28, 29 applies force to the auxiliary/attachment being removed (note Figure 8). Aspel does not disclose the “pair of sidewalls configured to capture debris” as required in claim 1. Hannula et al, however, for a similar orthodontic appliance removing device teach the use of shield 10 having a pair of sidewalls 14, 16 that is attached to the device “to enclose the bracket during removal so that any pieces which may break from the bracket will be contained” (column 1, lines 29-32). To have provided the Aspel auxiliary removal device with a shield as taught by Hannula et al in order to contain debris from the removal process would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In regard to claims 2-4, Hannula et al further teach the use of a recess 52 (column 2, lines 24-27) in forming an angled scraper portion of the elongated member that helps to direct debris and aid in the removal of the auxiliary attachment. To have formed the Aspel scraper with a hollow recess portion as taught by Hannula et al in order to aid in the removal of an auxiliary/attachment 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 6, the Hannula et al shield sidewalls 14, 16 when used on the Aspel device would be proximal the platform 16. In regard to claims 7 and 8, Aspel discloses forming the platform as a discrete member (Figure 10) of a second material. In regard to claim 13, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the two-piece Aspel/Hannula et al device as a single integral device as a matter of convenience to the practitioner. In regard to claims 14 and 20, the Hannula et al shield includes a removable sleeve defined by 26, 28 and 32 (see Figure 5). In regard to claim 15, Hannula et al teach curving the distal ends of the elongated members, to have curved the ends of the Aspel elongated members as taught by Hannula et al would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 9-12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aspel (US 5,538,421) in view of Hannula et al (US 4,776,791) as applied above and in further view of
Hsien (US 2006/0230886).
Aspel as modified by Hannula et al above fails to teach the claimed “rotatable assembly pivotally coupled to the distal ends of the first and second elongate members.” Hsien, however, for similar such pliers teaches that it is desirable to provide a pivot so that the jaws of the pliers may be rotated with respect to the handles (note Figures 4 and 5) so that the user may more easily grasp and manipulate the handles in order to operate the pliers (note paragraph [0002]. To have provided the Aspel/Hannula et al pliers with a pivot so that the jaw members may be rotated with respect to the handle grips in order to aid the user in the manipulation of the pliers as taught by Hsien would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. In regard to claims 10-12 Hsien further teaches providing the rotatable connection with a detent mechanism 25, 22, 24 in order to control and lock the angle of rotation of the jaws with respect to the handles.
Applicant’s Response
The examiner is in agreement with applicant the amended claims requiring the “platform to extend distally beyond the scraper” distinguishes the claimed invention from Cusato where the upper and lower jaw portions are substantially identical or mirror images of each other (column 3, lines 33-35). The examiner notes, however, that other prior art references such as Aspel as applied above disclose the feature.
Action Made Final
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 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
Prosecution Insights