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 Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1, it appears that –a—should be inserted before “dental”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9 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.
In claim 1, lines 2-6 are unclear. Line 2 recites that the housing is “configured to couple to a power system by an electrical wire” which indicates that the power system and electrical wire are only being recited functionally. However, lines 5 and 6 recite that the electrodes are connected to the power system, which indicates that the power system is being positively recited. It is suggested that in line 2, “configured to couple to” be changed to –coupled to--, to clarify that the power system is being positively recited. For purposes of this action, the claim will be treated as such.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 1,2,4,5,7,10-12,14-17,19,20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)as being anticipated by Aleksandrovskiy et al 7677892.
As an initial matter, the term “brazing” as used throughout the instant claims is considered to be an equivalent to “weld” or “welding”, in view of applicant’s specification (for example, paragraph 30, which uses the terms interchangeably).
With regard to claims 1 and 10, Aleksandrovskiy et al discloses a retrieval tip 19 (see fig. 1 and 2) configured to be inserted into a hole formed into an interior volume of a tooth, the retrieval tip 19 including: a first electrode 3 electrically connected to a first terminal of a charge storage device 29, a second electrode 4; connected to a second terminal of the charge storage device 29 and an insulator 18 disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein the insulator 18 is configured to inhibit a flow of electricity directly between the first electrode 3 and the second electrode 4 and when a distal end of the retrieval tip 19 is positioned in proximity to a conductive object disposed within the interior volume of the tooth, the electrical charge is discharged between the first electrode 3 and the second electrode 4 through the conductive object to cause the conductive object to be affixed to at least one of the first electrode 3 and the second electrode 4 by brazing (see col. 5, lines 55-66), wherein the conductive object includes at least a portion of dental drill bit or a dental file (see col 2 lines 41 -57: the metal instrument disclosed could be used as a dental file).
With further regard to claim 1, note that a housing 13 is disclosed (see fig. 1) and is coupled to a power system by electrical wires 9 and 10. Note how electrodes 3 and 4 are connected to the power system via wires 9 and 10. Furthermore, note how the power system disclosed is configured to deliver an electrical signal of at least 6 volts (see col. 6, lines 26-30 which discloses that the voltage is less than 12 volts, which includes the claimed 6 volts), and at least 6 amps (see claim 3 of the reference, which discloses that the current may be 200 amps or less.
With regard to claims 2 and 11, note that a width of the retrieval tip through the first electrode 3 and the second electrode 4 is less than 0.6 mm. See column 7, lines 32-34).
With regard to claim 12, note that the first electrode 3 includes copper and the second electrode includes copper or nickel titanium. See column 3, lines 65-67.
With regard to claim 14, Aleksandrovskiy et al teaches a method of retrieving a metal object 5 from an interior of a tooth wherein the metal object 5 is disposed with a channel formed into the tooth (see fig. 1) the method comprising: inserting a retrieval tip 19 into the channel (see column 5 Iine 55 to column 6, Iine 8), wherein the retrieval tip 19 includes: a first electrode 3 electrically connected to a first terminal of a charge storage device 29, a second electrode 4 connected to a second terminal of the charge storage device 29, and an insulator 18, wherein the insulator 18 is configured to inhibit a flow of electricity directly between the first electrode 3 and the second electrode 4 (see col. 7, lines 24-30); positioning a distal end of the retrieval tip 19 in proximity to the metal object 5 to cause an electrical charge stored by the charge storage device 29 to be discharged between the first electrode 3 and the second electrode 4 through the metal object 5 to form a weld coupling the metal object 5 to the first electrode 3 and/or the second electrode 4; and withdrawing the retrieval tip 19 and the metal object 5 from the channel.
With regard to claim 15, note that a diameter of the first electrode 3 and the second electrode 4 is less than 0.6 mm (see col. 7, lines 32-34).
With regard to claim 16, Aleksandrovskiy teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the first electrode includes copper and the second electrode includes copper. See col. 4, lines 65-67).
With regard to claims 4 and 17, note that the first electrode 3 may include nickel titanium, in the form of a Ni-Ti alloy base of the electrode; and the second electrode may include copper in the form of copper galvanization layer of the electrode. See column 8, Iines 21-46.
With regard to claims 5 and 19, note that the metal object 5 includes at least a portion of dental drill bit or a dental file. The metal object 5 is disclosed as a metal instrument tool fragment, which is considered to be a “dental file”. See col. 2, lines 41-57.
With regard to claim 7, note that the insulator includes air. This is inherent, as there is clearly a gap between electrodes 3 and 4. See figs. 1 and 2.
With regard to claim 20, note that the first electrode 3 may include nickel titanium, in the form of a Ni-Ti alloy base of the electrode; and the second electrode may include nickel titanium, in the form of a Ni-Ti alloy base of the electrode. See column 8, Iines 21-46.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aleksandrovskiy et al 7677892.
With regard to claim 3, Aleksandrovskiy et al discloses the electrical signal to be a pulse width modulated signal (see col. 9, lines 53-56). However, the reference does not disclose a frequency in a range of 100 Hertz to 200 Hertz, nor a duration of at least 1.5 seconds.
However, it appears that one skilled in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in selecting a frequency and pulse width that fall within the claimed ranges, as it only involves adjusting frequency/pulse width in order to achieve a specific level of stability when heating the metal. See col. 9, lines 57-60. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the electrical signal of Aleksandrovskiy et al to be a pulse width modulated signal with a frequency in a range of 100 Hertz to 200 Hertz and a duration of at least 1.5 seconds as a matter of routine optimization, since it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA1955).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aleksandrovskiy et al 7677892 in view of Goto 6960260.
With regard to claim 6, Aleksandrovskiy et al does not disclose the insulator to include a varnish material.
Goto teaches a device comprising an insulator includes a varnish material (insulating layer P of varnish W, see fig. 1 and 2 as well as column 4, lines 47-56).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to include a varnish as an insulator with the device of Aleksandrovskiy et al, in view of the teaching of Goto that a varnish can be used as an insulator.
Claims 8,9,13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aleksandrovskiy et al 7677892 in view of Edwards 5187343.
With regard to claims 8,9,13, Aleksandrovskiy et al does not disclose that the retrieval tip includes a hose configured to deliver a shielding gas into the interior volume of the tooth.
Edwards teaches a welding device that includes a hose 14 (see fig. 1) configured to deliver a shielding gas of Argon (see col. 3, lines 30-41).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to include a hose that provides a shielding gas of Argon with the device of Aleksandrovskiy et al, if one wished to isolate the welding process of Aleksandrovskiy et al.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aleksandrovskiy et al 7677892 in view of Feine 20040063064.
With regard to claim 18, Aleksandrovskiy et al discloses the charge storage device comprising a capacitor 29 (fig. 5) but does not disclose that the charge storage device includes a plurality of capacitors coupled in parallel between a positive terminal of a power source and a negative terminal of the power source.
Feine teaches a dental device comprising a plurality of capacitors 34 (fig. 1) coupled in parallel between a positive terminal of a power source and a negative terminal of the power source.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to utilize a plurality of capacitors with the charging system of Alexsandrovskiy et al, as taught by Feine, if one wished to increase the charging capacity of the charging system of Aleksandrovskiy et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS D LUCCHESI whose telephone number is (571)272-4977. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 800-430.
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.
/NICHOLAS D LUCCHESI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772