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. 202420269861.9, filed on February 2, 2024.
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.
Claim(s) 1,4,8,9, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Besek et al (US 20050130099 ) herein after Besek.
Regarding claim 1, Besek discloses a sculpting and shaping tool for dental resin, comprising: a handle (18), a rotating assembly (30), and a sculpting and shaping tip (20), wherein one end of the sculpting and shaping tip is coaxially and rotatably connected to one end of the handle through the rotating assembly (page 2, paragraph [0012], lines 15-18).
Regarding claim 4, Besek discloses the sculpting and shaping tool of claim 1, wherein the sculpting and shaping tip is in a shape of a cylinder (page 2, paragraph [0012], lines 22-23).
Regarding claim 8, Besek discloses he sculpting and shaping tool of claim 1,
wherein the rotating assembly (Fig 2A, 30) includes a rotating shaft (39), a plurality of rollers (36), and a rotating shaft sleeve (38); the plurality of rollers are coaxially sleeved onto the rotating shaft; a rotating shaft extension hole (Fig. 2A, element 38 shaft leaves the element 22 outer cap portion, through an opening then connect to the handle) is arranged on an end surface of one end of the rotating shaft sleeve; the rotating shaft is coaxially arranged in the rotating shaft sleeve (page 2, paragraph [0012], lines 18-20), one end of the rotating shaft (39) extends through the rotating shaft extension hole on the rotating shaft sleeve (38) and is fixedly connected (the rolling assembly connected into the tip 20, Fig 2A) to the one end of the sculpting and shaping tip (20); and another end of the rotating shaft sleeve (38) is fixedly connected to the one end of the handle (part 12 connecting to 18, Figure 2A).
Regarding claim 9, Besek discloses a sculpting and shaping tool of claim 8, wherein the plurality of rollers include at least two rollers (36, Fig 2A)
Regarding claim 12, Besek discloses the sculpting and shaping tool of claim 1, wherein the one end of the handle is arranged perpendicular to another end of the handle (Figure 1, Page 1, paragraph [0011], lines 17-20).
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(s) 5-7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Besek et al (US20050130099) herein after Besek.
Regarding claim 5, Besek teaches a sculpting and shaping tool of claim 4 which consist a cylindrical tip (20). However, does not teach a specific length or diameter for the cylindrical tip.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the length and diameter of tip would result in a difference in function of the device of Besek. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the cylindrical tip of Besek, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed dimensions. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, indicating that the dimensions “may” be within the claimed range, and offering other acceptable ranges (specification at para. [0056,0057]) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cylindrical tip of Besek to have a length between 3-10mm and a diameter of the cylinder is in a range of 1 mm to 2 mm as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 6, Besek teaches a sculpting and shaping tool of claim 1 which consist of a cylindrical tip (20). The main embodiment of Besek does not teach other tip shapes such s semi-ellipsoidal shape. Another embodiment of Besek teaches tips consisting shapes such as drop shaped roller tips (Fig 4a,b,c, page 3, paragraph [0022], lines 4-13). The drop shaped geometry of Besek characterized by broad base tapering asymmetrically to a smooth rounded distal end, which corresponds to the “semi-ellipsoidal” sculpturing and shaping tip recited in claim, which is similarly characterized by a broader base surface opposite the handle tapering to a rounded distal end. The drop shaped tips corresponding to the semi-ellipsoidal shape taught by Besek’s second embodiment can be implemented in tip of Besek’s main embodiment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make above modifications in order to have desired working ends with more suitable shapes for particular teeth surfaces.
Regarding claim 7, Besek teaches a sculpting and shaping tool of claim 6 which consist a tip (20), The main embodiment of Besek does not teach other tip shapes such as semi-ellipsoidal shape. Another embodiment of Besek teaches tips consisting shapes such as drop shaped roller tips (Fig 4a,b,c, page 3, paragraph [0022], lines 4-13). The drop shaped geometry of Besek characterized by broad base tapering asymmetrically to a smooth rounded distal end, which corresponds to the “semi-ellipsoidal” sculpturing and shaping tip recited in claim, which is similarly characterized by a broader base surface opposite the handle tapering to a rounded distal end. The drop shaped tips corresponding to the semi-ellipsoidal shape taught by Besek’s second embodiment can be implemented in tip of Besek’s main embodiment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make above modifications in order to have desired working ends with more suitable shapes for particular teeth surfaces.
However, both Besek embodiments does not teach the tip to have a length between 3-10mm and diameter of bottom between 1-2mm.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the length and diameter of tip would result in a difference in function of the device of Besek. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the tip of Besek would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed dimensions. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, indicating that the dimensions “may” be within the claimed range, and offering other acceptable ranges (specification at para. [0058]) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tip of Besek to have a length between 3-10mm and diameter of bottom between 1-2mm as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 10, Besek teaches a sculpting and shaping tool of claim 8, wherein the plurality of rollers (36) are arranged in the rotating shaft sleeve (38), However, Besek does not explicitly teach a diameter of each of the plurality of rollers matches an inner diameter of the rotating shaft sleeve. Furthermore, the specification of the original application states at paragraph [0072] that some embodiments the diameter of the rollers may match the inner diameter of the sleeve, confirming the applicant has placed no criticality on this dimensional relationship. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Besek to have the rollers as same diameter as the rotating shaft where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device" see MPEP 2144.04 IV. In the instant case, modifying the device of Besek to have the claimed diameters would not adversely affect the function of the device.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Besek et al (US20050130099) herein after Besek in the view of Wong et al (EP2377492) hererin after Wong.
Regarding claim 2, Besek teaches a sculpting and shaping tool of claim 1, however does not teach that the tip is a cone / conical shape. Wong teaches a dental sculpting tool where the tip can be a shape of a cone (Figure 12, 145, page 8, lines 31-32), and a bottom surface of the conical tip (which can be attached to the ‘105’ cylinder as a tip) is opposite to the handle (60). The conical tip (145) taught by Wong can be implemented on the tip portion (20) of Besek. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before filling date of the application to make above modification in order to have desired working ends with more suitable shapes for particular teeth surfaces.
Regarding claim 3, Besek teaches a sculpting and shaping tool of claim 2, however does not teach a conical tip. Wong teaches a conical tip (145) as taught in claim 2. The conical tip (145) taught by Wong can be implemented on the tip portion (20) of Besek. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before filling date of the application to make above modification in order to have desired working ends with more suitable shapes for particular teeth surfaces.
However, both Besek and Wong does not teach that the length of the cone is in a range of 3 mm to 10 mm, and a diameter of the bottom surface of the cone is in a range of 1 mm to 2 mm.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the length and diameter of tip would result in a difference in function of the device taught by Besek in view of Wong. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the tip of Besek in view of Wong would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed dimensions. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, indicating that the dimensions “may” be within the claimed range, and offering other acceptable ranges (specification at para. [0052]) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the conical tip of Besek in view of Wong to have a length between 3-10mm and diameter of bottom between 1-2mm as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Besek et al (US20050130099) herein after Besek in the view of Holms et al (US6322362) hererin after Holms.
Regarding claim 11, Besek teaches a sculpting and shaping toot of claim 8, however does not teach threaded connections. Holms teaches both internal (84) and external threaded (83) connections (column 6, lines 36-37). Where the internal threaded connections (84) and external threaded connections (83) taught by Holms can be implemented on the rotating shaft (39) and handle portion of Besek, so that the handle and the rotating shaft can be connected together by a threaded connection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make above modification in order to have better connection mechanism between the handle and the rotating shaft.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Besek et al (US20050130099) herein after Besek in the view of Kameli et al (US20050100860) hererin after Kameli.
Regarding claim 13, Besek teaches a sculpting and shaping tool of claim 1, however, does not explicitly teach a cutter tip on the other end of the handle.
Kameli teaches a cutting tip (carver, 28, page 2, paragraph [0026], lines 1-3) that is at the other end of the tool. The cutting tip (28) taught by Kameli can be implemented on one end of the handle (18) of the device of Besek. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make above modification in order to allow the dentist to both cut and sculpt without switching instruments thereby improving process efficiency.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Besek et al (US20050130099) herein after Besek in the view of Fishman et al (US20090078280) hererin after Fishman.
Regarding claim 14, Besek teaches a sculpting and shaping tool of claim 10, however, does not teach further comprising cap covers. Fishman teaches a dental device with cap covers (12) at the tips (Figure 4). The cap covers (12) taught by Fishman can be implemented at the tips (20) on both ends of the Besek’s device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make above modification in order to keep the tips covered to prevent contamination during storage.
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 8.00 am- 4:00 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