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 § 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.
[AltContent: textbox (bend)]Claims 1,3,8,9,10,11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hegde et al 20100049227.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Retaining portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Flexible tip end)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (shank)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
290
763
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claims 1 and 3, Hegde et al discloses a method of manufacturing a dental instrument, the method comprising: providing a flexible tip end 144 having a flat body with opposing planar main surfaces, the flexible tip end 144 including an integral (the term “integral” in its breadth, includes “attached” or “connected” and clearly the flexible tip end 144 is connected to the retaining portion 140 in a proximal end thereof); and forming a shank 166 by at least one of 3D printing or injection molding (injection molding, see paragraph 42) around the retaining portion 140 of the flexible tip end 144, such that a distal portion of the shank is fixedly secured to the retaining portion 140 of the flexible tip end 144, the shank 166 configured to be coupled to a handle 168.
With regard to claim 8, note that the shank 166 is in a bent configuration. See above annotated figure.
With regard to claim 9, note that forming the shank 166 further comprises forming a handle 168 with the shank 166 at one end of the handle 168.
With regard to claim 10, note that providing the flexible tip end 144 comprises providing a foil tip end. Hegde et al refer to tip end 144 as a “flexible” “blade” (see paragraph 47). This can be considered to be a “foil”.
With regard to claim 11, note that the foil tip end 144 comprises providing a Nickel Titanium foil tip end. See paragraph 42 which discloses that the tip end 144 may be formed of Nitinol.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hegde et al 20100049227 in view of Castanon et al 20160249947.
With regard to claim 2, although Hegde et al discloses forming the shank around the retaining portion, Hegde et al do not disclose doing such via 3D printing.
Castanon et al disclose an instrument in which the handle may be formed via 3D printing. See paragraph 179.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to form the shank around the retaining portion of Hegde et al via 3D printing, in view of the teaching of Castanon et al that it is known to form a handheld instrument via 3D printing.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hegde et al 20100049227 in view of Castanon et al 20160249947, and Rahman 20030022130.
With regard to claim 4, although Hegde et al discloses forming the shank around the retaining portion, Hegde et al do not disclose doing such via 3D printing.
Castanon et al disclose an instrument in which the handle may be formed via 3D printing. See paragraph 179.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to form the shank around the retaining portion of Hegde et al via 3D printing, in view of the teaching of Castanon et al that it is known to form a handheld instrument via 3D printing.
Hegde et al/Castanon et al do not disclose forming the 3D printing through one or more apertures extending through the retaining portion, or around one or more protrusions extending outwardly from the retaining portion.
Rahman discloses a handheld instrument in which apertures/protrusions are utilized to secure the handle via a flow of material therethrough. See paragraphs 69 and 82, as well as fig. 10 and 12 as annotated below.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (apertures)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (protrusions)]
PNG
media_image2.png
652
607
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to include apertures or protrusions on the retaining portion of the instrument of Hegde et al/Castanon et al, in view of the teaching of Rahman that apertures/protrusions provide an anti-rotation feature with an assembled shank/handle in a hand-held instrument.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hegde et al 20100049227 in view of Rahman 20030022130.
With regard to claims 5 and 7, although Hegde et al discloses forming the shank around the retaining portion via injection molding, Hegde et al do not disclose forming the injection molding through one or more apertures extending through the retaining portion, or around one or more protrusions extending outwardly from the retaining portion.
Rahman discloses a handheld instrument in which apertures/protrusions are utilized to secure the handle via a flow of material therethrough. See paragraphs 69 and 82, as well as fig. 10 and 12 as annotated above.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to include apertures or protrusions on the retaining portion of Hegde et al during the injection molding process, in view of the teaching of Rahman that apertures/protrusions provide an anti-rotation feature with an assembled shank/handle in a hand-held instrument.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/7/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are drawn to the newly presented claim limitations, which have been addressed with modified grounds of rejection based on a new interpretation of the Hegde et al reference above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the modified 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 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
