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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 22187241.9, filed on 07/27/2022.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 10 and 12 include limitations written in means function format and are interpreted in accordance with 35 U.S.C § 112(f). In particular, the ‘biasing means’ of claims 1, 10 and 12 corresponds to the spring element disclosed in the specification. The ‘clamping means’ of claim 4 corresponds to the chuck and housing structure disclosed in specification. The ‘driving means’ of claim 5 corresponds to the motor and driving shaft disclosed in the specification.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-10, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quinn et al (WO 97/42905 A1) herein after Quinn in view of Mosimann et al (EP 0245692 A2) herein after Mosimann.
Regarding claim 1, Quinn teaches a dental handpiece (1) comprising:
a head (7, Figure 1);
a rotatable hollow shaft (41, Figure 8) which is rotatably arranged inside the head (page 3, line 5); a driving means (47, Figure 2) for rotating the hollow shaft (page 6, lines 9-10); a chuck (13) having resilient arms (61) for releasably clamping a dental drill (15), wherein the chuck is fixed into the hollow shaft so as to rotate with same (page 6, lines 8-10);
a push button (95) which is arranged in the head and configured to contact, when pushed this flex the resilient arms radially outwards and release the dental drill (page 16, lines 20-25).
Quinn does not teach a ball plunger and relevant movements of the ball plunger when the push button is pressed.
Mosimann teaches a ball (21) which is axially movably arranged inside the rotatable hollow shaft (8) and in direct contact with the resilient arms (9) (Figure1, page 3, lines 9-11), a push button (5) which is arranged in the head and configured to contact.
when pressed by a user, the partly protruding ball (Figure1) and move the ball downwardly in between the resilient arms, wherein the resilient arms (9) bias the ball inside the rotatable hollow shaft towards the opening; and a biasing means (spring 6) to move the push button (5) away from the ball, wherein the push button is not in contact with the ball when it is released (page3, lines 29-30). wherein the ball (21) partly protrudes through an opening on the upper end of the hollow shaft (figure 1), and wherein the opening is smaller than the size of the ball (can be seen in Figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the application to incorporate the ball plunger (21) taught by Mosimann in the top section of the shaft (41) of Quinn, in order to increase the surface area of the push surface on the dental drill making it easier to release when push button is pressed.
Regarding claim 2, Quinn teaches a dental handpiece (1) according to claim 1, however does not teach a ceramic plunger ball. Mosimann teaches a ceramic plunger ball (page 3, lines 25-26).
Regarding claim 12, Quinn teaches a dental handpiece (1) comprising: a head (7, Figure 1);
a rotatable hollow shaft (41, Figure 8) which is rotatably arranged inside the head (page 3, line 5); a driving means (47, Figure 2) for rotating the hollow shaft (page 6, lines 9-10); a chuck (13) for releasably clamping a dental drill (17), wherein the chuck is fixed into the hollow shaft so as to rotate with same (page 6, lines 8-10); a push button (95) which is arranged in the head and configured to contact, when pushed this flex the resilient arms radially outwards and release the dental drill (page 16, lines 20-25).
Quinn does not teach a ball plunger and relevant movements of the ball plunger when the push button is pressed.
Mosimann teaches a ball (21) which is axially movably arranged inside the rotatable hollow shaft (8) and in direct contact with the resilient arms (9) (Figure1, page 3, lines 9-11), a push button (5) which is arranged in the head and configured to contact.
when pressed by a user, the partly protruding ball (Figure1) and move the ball downwardly in between the resilient arms, wherein the resilient arms (9) bias the ball inside the rotatable hollow shaft towards the opening; and a biasing means (spring 6) to move the push button (5) away from the ball, wherein the push button is not in contact with the ball when it is released (page3, lines 29-30). wherein the ball (21) partly protrudes through an opening on the upper end of the hollow shaft (figure 1), and wherein the opening is smaller than the size of the ball (can be seen in Figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the application to incorporate the ball plunger taught by Mosimann into the dental handpiece taught by Quinn, in order to increase the surface area of the push surface on the dental drill making it easier to release when push button is pressed.
Regarding claim 14, Quinn teaches a dental handpiece according to claim 13 contains resilient arms (61) and the chuck (13), however does not teach a ball plunger. Mosimann teaches a ball plunger (21) at the top of the dental drill that is located between the arms. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the application to incorporate the ball plunger taught by Mosimann into the dental handpiece taught by Quinn, in order to increase the surface area of the push surface on the dental drill making it easier to release when push button is pressed.
Regarding claim 15, Quinn teaches a dental handpiece according to claim 12, however does not teach a ball plunger that is larger than the opening of the shaft.
Mosimann teaches a ball plunger (21) which is retained at the shaft opening and does not pass-through during operation, therefore, the shaft opening is necessarily smaller than the ball plunger (shown in Figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the application to incorporate the ball plunger larger than the shaft taught by Mosimann into the dental handpiece taught by Quinn, in order to retain the ball without passing through during operation of device.
Regarding claim 3, Quinn teaches a dental handpiece according to claim 1, wherein the head includes a housing (23) which accommodates a clamping means (abstract lines 2-3).
Regarding claim 4, Quinn teaches a dental handpiece according to claim 3, wherein the clamping means includes the chuck (13) and the resilient arms (61).
Regarding claim 5, Quinn teaches a dental handpiece according to claim 1, wherein the driving means comprises a motor (page 1, lines9-10).
Regarding claim 6, Quinn teaches a dental handpiece according to claim 1, wherein the driving means is coupled to a driving shaft (driving member 9) that is rotatably held through a bearing (hollow sleeve 5, page 5, lines 21-23).
Regarding claim 8, Quinn teaches a dental handpiece according to claim 7, wherein an end of the driving shaft (9) includes a crown gear (11).
Regarding claim 9, Quinn teaches a dental handpiece according to claim 8, wherein the crown gear (11) meshes with a gear on the hollow shaft (47 gear mounted to hollow shaft 41, page 6 lines 9-10).
Regarding claim 10, Quinn teaches a dental handpiece according to claim 1, wherein the biasing means comprises a spring (94, Figure 5, Page 8, lines 12-13).
Regarding claim 13, Quinn teaches a dental handpiece according to claim 12, wherein the chuck (13) includes resilient arms (61).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quinn in the view of Weickgenannt et al (US3530586A) herein after Weickgenannt.
Regarding claim 7, Quinn teaches a dental handpiece according to claim 6. However, Quinn does not explicitly teach the components of a bearing assembly.
Weickgenannt teaches a bearing assembly (61,62) which includes an outer race (66), and inner race (68), multiple balls (82), and a retainer (84). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the application to implement such a bearing assembly (61,62) taught by Weickgenannt fixed to the rotatable shaft (41) of the dental handpiece device of Quinn as a conventional manner of supporting the rotatable shaft (41), since bearings are used for this purpose in dental handpieces.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quinn in the view of Soma et al (US20120153580A1) herein after Soma.
Regarding claim 11, Quinn teaches a dental handpiece according to claim 10, consist of a spring (94) however does not teach that the spring is a cone shaped spring. Soma teaches a cone shaped spring used in dental handpieces (page3, paragraph [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the application to incorporate cone shaped spring taught by Soma to the dental handpiece of Quinn, in order to achieve a higher biasing force for a shorter compression distance in dental handpiece devices.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARA N. SAMARASEKARA whose telephone number is (571)272-9653. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9.00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at 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 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.
/SARA N SAMARASEKARA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/EDELMIRA BOSQUES/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772