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.
Objection to the Drawings
The drawings (Figures 1D and 1E, filed October 17, 2024) are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84 (b)(1) because black and white photographs are not ordinarily permitted in utility applications because they reproduce poorly. Conventional drawings are a practical medium for illustrating the claimed invention.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
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 1-4 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)as being anticipated by Hannula et al (US 4,776,791).
Hannula et al disclose a device 12 for removing a dental auxiliary 1 from a tooth 2, the device comprising: a first elongate member 44 comprising a proximal end and a distal end 42; a second elongate member 48 comprising a proximal end and a distal end 46, wherein the first
and second elongate members are pivotally coupled 40 to each other; a scraper 50 at the distal end 46 of the second elongate member 48, wherein the scraper 50 is configured to apply force to the dental auxiliary 1 to remove the dental auxiliary 1 from the tooth 2; and
a pair of sidewalls 14, 16 configured to capture debris resulting from the removal of the dental
auxiliary 1 from the tooth 2. Note annotated Figures 8 and 1 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
334
591
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
444
531
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 2, note the hollow structure 52, as well as, that formed by the shield 10 (“pair of walls” 14, 15). In regard to claim 3. Note the lower surface formed at the tip 50 (Figures 8, 9 and 12). In regard to claim 4, note Figure 9. In regard to claim 14 the Hannula et al removable shield 10 meets the “sleeve” limitation. In regard to claim 16, note Figure 1.
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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hannula et al (US 4,776,791).
In Hannula et al the shield 10/”sidewalls” 14, 16 is formed as a separate piece from the orthodontic pliers, rather than “integrally” as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention would have found it obvious as a matter of routine practice to have formed the two separate pies as an integral piece in order to prevent an inadvertent separation between the two.
Claims 5-8, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hannula et al (US 4,776,791) in view of Cusato (US 3,986,265).
In regard to claims 5-8, Hannula et al discloses that both distal ends of the elongate members are used to scrape the dental auxiliary 1 from the tooth 2 as illustrated in Figure 2. Cusato, however, teaches as an alternative to using both orthodontic plier jaw to remove an orthodontic bracket 20 (“dental auxiliary”) from a tooth 90 (See Figure 2), that it is desirable to provide one jaw member with a plastic cap 50 (“platform”) so that the one jaw member may be supported on the occlusal surface of the tooth in order to provide leverage for the second jaw member removing/scraping the orthodontic tooth from the tooth (See Figure 3). To have provided one of the Hannula et al jaw members (e.g. 42 of Figure 2) with a plastic cap member to be used as a “platform” in order to provide leverage in scraping an orthodontic bracket from a patient’s tooth would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image3.png
290
478
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regard to method claims 17, 19 and 20, Hannula et al disclose a method for removing a dental auxiliary 1 from a tooth 2, wherein the method comprises positioning a first distal end 42, 46 of a dental auxiliary removal device 12 proximate to a dental auxiliary 1 on a tooth 2 of a patient (see Figure 1), wherein the first distal end 46 comprises or is coupled to a scraper 50; positioning a second distal end 42 of the dental auxiliary removal device 12 proximate to the tooth 2 (See Figure 1, 2), applying a force against the dental auxiliary using the scraper and directing debris generated by the removal of the dental auxiliary between a pair of sidewalls proximate to the distal ends of the dental auxiliary removal device (see Figure 2). Hannula et al fail to disclose the claim limitation requiring the “second distal end 42 comprises or is coupled to a platform” and “applying a force against the dental auxiliary using the scraper while the tooth is supported by the platform.” Cusato, however, for a very similar method of removing orthodontic brackets from a patient’s tooth teaches that as an alternative to using both orthodontic plier jaw to remove an orthodontic bracket 20 (“dental auxiliary”) from a tooth 90 (See Figure 2), that it is desirable to provide one jaw member with a plastic cap 50 (“platform”) so that the one jaw member may be supported on the occlusal surface of the tooth in order to provide leverage for the second jaw member removing/scraping the orthodontic tooth from the tooth (See Figure 3). To have provided one of the Hannula et al jaw members (e.g. 42 of Figure 2) with a plastic cap member to be used as a “platform” in order to provide leverage in scraping an orthodontic bracket from a patient’s tooth would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Additionally. in regard to claims 19 and 20, the shield 10 and walls 14, 16 of Hannula et al is part of the removal device and meets the “sleeve” limitation.
Claims 9-12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hannula et al (US 4,776,791) and Cusato (US 3,986,265), as applied above, and in further view of Hsien (US 2006/0230886).
Hannula et al as modified by Cusato 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 Hannula et/Cusato 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.
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