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 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “tool rotation mechanism” in claim 1 and 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Specification page 8, lines 12-14 discloses the tool rotation mechanism 32 includes a holder 321 and two head portion bearing portions 322.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1, line 14-17 recites “the head is joined to the grip such that an angle formed between a rotation axis of the cutting tool and a major axis of a coupling portion of the grip, on a cutting-edge side of the cutting tool, is an obtuse angle”, it is unclear if the angle is formed on the cutting-edge side of the cutting tool, the rotation axis of the cutting tool or a major axis of the cutting tool. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted as the head is joined to the grip such that an angle formed on the cutting-edge side of the cutting tool.
Claims 2-11 are rejected based on claim dependency on claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “the cooling passage extends from the cutting-edge side of the cutting tool to a second side opposite to the cutting-edge side of the cutting tool”, it is unclear what the cooling passage is extending to a second side of, does the cooling passage extend along the cutting tool towards the second side of the cutting tool or a second side of the side wall of the housing as it is recited as formed into the side wall in claim 1. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted as the cooling path extends from a cutting side edge of the cutting tool of the housing to the opposite side of the housing.
Claim 5 recites “a flow rate flowing to a second side opposite to the cutting-edge side of the cutting tool”, it is unclear if this is an additional flow rate unrelated to the first and second air flow rate of previously cited claims or if the flow rate is the same source as the second air flow rates. For the purpose of examination, the flow rate is considered the same as the flow rate of the second air from entrance into the housing to exiting the housing on the side adjacent the cutting edge.
Claim 5 recites “to a second side opposite to the cutting-edge side of the cutting tool”, it is unclear what is considered the second side opposite to the cutting-edge side of the cutting tool, is it the other end of the cutting tool which is positioned within the head or is it the side of the housing adjacent the cutting edge of the cutting tool. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted as the second side of the housing adjacent to the cutting edge of the cutting tool.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the cutting-edge side". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12, line 9-11 recites “the head is joined to the grip such that an angle formed between a rotation axis of the cutting tool and a major axis of a coupling portion of the grip, on a cutting-edge side of the cutting tool, is an obtuse angle”, it is unclear if the angle is formed on the cutting-edge side of the cutting tool, the rotation axis of the cutting tool or a major axis of the cutting tool. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted as the head is joined to the grip such that an angle formed on the cutting-edge side of the cutting tool.
Claim 13-20 are rejected based on claim dependency on claim 12.
Claim 13 recites “the cooling passage extends from the cutting-edge side of the cutting tool to a second side opposite to the cutting-edge side of the cutting tool”, it is unclear what the cooling passage is extending to a second side of, does the cooling passage extend along the cutting tool towards the second side of the cutting tool or a second side of the side wall of the housing as it is recited as formed into the side wall in claim 12. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted as the cooling path extends from a cutting side edge of the cutting tool of the housing to the opposite side of the housing.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the second air". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the cutting-edge side". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites “a flow rate flowing to a second side opposite to the cutting-edge side of the cutting tool”, it is unclear if this is an additional flow rate unrelated to the first and second air flow rate of previously cited claims or if the flow rate is the same source as the second air flow rates. For the purpose of examination, the flow rate is considered the same as the flow rate of the second air from entrance into the housing to exiting the housing on the side adjacent the cutting edge.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6, 12-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KORZENOWSKI et al (US 3,451,134) in view of Gentry (US 4,303,393).
Regarding claim 1, KORZENOWSKI discloses a dental handpiece that cuts and treats a tooth (dental handpiece 10) , the dental handpiece comprising:
a head (11) including:
a holder (cylindrical collet burr 31of collet means 30) configured to hold a cutting tool configured to cut the tooth (col 2, lines 2-3 discloses the collet burr receives a dental tool),
a tool rotation mechanism (rotor means 20 and bearing means 40), configured to rotate the cutting tool (col 2, lines 8-10 disclose the rotor means rotating the collet means with the support of the bearing means relative to the housing, this results in the rotation of the dental tool)
a housing (housing means 15) configured to accommodate the holder and the tool rotation mechanism (see figure 1), and
a cooling passage (air flow passage 54/56) formed in a side wall of the housing (see figure 1-2); and
a grip (handle means 12) including:
a first air supply passage (col 3, lines 10-13 disclose air being supplied to passage 31 by means of a conduit identical to conduit 71, but not visible and is adapted to connect to a suitable source at the base of the handle) configured to supply first air for cooling the tool rotation mechanism (col 2 line 69-col 3, line 15 disclose a cooling manifold being attached to one end of the housing means 15 by press fit adjacent to the rotor means 20/bearing means 40, the gas/air delivering conduit delivers gas to passage 65 which is positioned to direct the gas to the dental tool positioned in collet means 30, therefore the air is supplied to the head 15 and therefore cools the adjacent collet means, rotor means and bearing means), and
a second air supply passage (supply passage 55) connected to the cooling passage (54/56, see figure 1) and configured to supply the head with second air at lower flow rate than supply of the first air (this limitation is considered a functional/intended use of the claimed invention which is achievable by the prior art KORZENOWSKI, in view of the disclosure of the air conduit and supply passage 55 being adapted to connect to a suitable source col 3, lines 13-15 and col 3, lines 40-42, as both supply passages have different sources/connections to an air supply each is functionally capable of having a desired flow rate, which includes the claimed limitation of the second air having a lower flow rate than the first air)
wherein the head (11) is joined to the grip (12) such that an angle formed between a rotation axis of the cutting tool (81) and a major axis of the grip (see figure 1).
KORZENOWSKI fails to disclose the angle formed is between a cutting-edge side of the cutting tool and a coupling portion of the grip, and that this angle is an obtuse angle.
Gentry teaches a head (10) is joined to a grip (handle 2) such that an angle formed between a rotation axis (axis of rotation c) of a cutting tool (54) on the cutting edge side of the cutting tool and a major axis (axis b) of a coupling portion (shank 6) of the grip (2) being an obtuse angle (see figure 1-2; col 5, lines 20-23) for the purpose of comfortably reaching the back of the mouth such as the molars (col 5, lines 27-32).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify KORZENOWSKI to have the angle be obtuse as taught by Gentry for the purpose of comfortably reaching the back of the mouth such as the molars.
Regarding claim 2, KORZENOWSKI discloses wherein the cooling passage (54/56) extends from the cutting-edge side of the cutting tool (near opening 61) to a second side opposite to the cutting-edge side of the cutting tool (near central opening 77, see figure 1).
Regarding claim 3, KORZENOWSKI discloses wherein the housing has a cooling groove (annular chamber 49) in the side wall (see figures 1 and 2), the cooling groove allowing air to pass therethrough (col 3, lines 44-46 discloses the annular chamber 49 allows for fluid flow from the passage 54), and the cooling groove (49) has an opening in communication with the cooling passage (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 4, KORZENOWSKI discloses the head (15) further includes a cap(50) configured to cover a portion of the housing opposite to a side on which the cutting tool is held (see figure 1, where the dental tool is held in the axial opening 61), a ventilation path (from passage 48 to opening 57) in communication with the cooling groove (49) being formed between the side wall and the cap (see figure 1 and col 3, lines 47-49 disclose the gas flowing through passage 48 exhausting through opening 57 on cap 50).
Regarding claim 6,KORZENOWSKI/Gentry disclose the claimed invention as set forth above 1, Gentry discloses an obtuse angle in the range of 120-160 degrees (col 5, lines 20-23), but fails to explicitly disclose the obtuse angle is from 130° to 140°.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the angle from between 120-160 degrees to between 130-140 degrees since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). 6. The dental handpiece according to claim 1, wherein the obtuse angle is from 130° to 140°.
Regarding claim 12, KORZENOWSKI disclose a dental handpiece that cuts and treats a tooth (dental handpiece 10), the dental handpiece (10) comprising:
a head (11) including:
a holder (cylindrical collet burr 31of collet means 30) configured to hold a cutting tool configured to cut the tooth (col 2, lines 2-3 discloses the collet burr receives a dental tool),
a tool rotation mechanism (rotor means 20 and bearing means 40), configured to rotate the cutting tool (col 2, lines 8-10 disclose the rotor means rotating the collet means with the support of the bearing means relative to the housing, this results in the rotation of the dental tool),
a housing (housing means 15) configured to accommodate the holder and the tool rotation mechanism (see figure 1), and
a cooling passage (air flow passage 54/56) formed in a side wall of the housing (see figure 1-2),
wherein the head (11) is joined to a grip (handle means 12) such that an angle formed between a rotation axis of the cutting tool and a major axis of a coupling portion of the grip (see figure 1), on a cutting edge side of the cutting tool, is an obtuse angle,
wherein the coupling portion is coupled to the head,
wherein the grip (12) includes air supply passages (supply passage 55 and passage 31) supplying air for cooling at different flow rates (this limitation is considered a functional/intended use of the claimed invention which is achievable by the prior art KORZENOWSKI, in view of the disclosure of the air conduit and supply passage 55 being adapted to connect to a suitable source col 3, lines 13-15 and col 3, lines 40-42, as both supply passages have different sources/connections to an air supply each is functionally capable of having air for cooling at different flow rates)
KORZENOWSKI fails to disclose the angle formed is between a cutting-edge side of the cutting tool and a coupling portion of the grip, and that this angle is an obtuse angle.
Gentry teaches a head (10) is joined to a grip (handle 2) such that an angle formed between a rotation axis (axis of rotation c) of a cutting tool (54) on the cutting edge side of the cutting tool and a major axis (axis b) of a coupling portion (shank 6) of the grip (2) being an obtuse angle (see figure 1-2; col 5, lines 20-23) for the purpose of comfortably reaching the back of the mouth such as the molars (col 5, lines 27-32).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify KORZENOWSKI to have the angle be obtuse as taught by Gentry for the purpose of comfortably reaching the back of the mouth such as the molars.
Regarding claim 13, KORZENOWSKI discloses wherein the cooling passage (54/56) extends from the cutting-edge side of the cutting tool (near opening 61) to a second side opposite to the cutting-edge side of the cutting tool (near central opening 77, see figure 1).
Regarding claim 14, KORZENOWSKI discloses wherein the housing has a cooling groove (annular chamber 49) in the side wall (see figures 1 and 2), the cooling groove allowing air to pass therethrough (col 3, lines 44-46 discloses the annular chamber 49 allows for fluid flow from the passage 54), and the cooling groove (49) has an opening in communication with the cooling passage (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 15, KORZENOWSKI discloses the head (15) further includes a cap(50) configured to cover a portion of the housing opposite to a side on which the cutting tool is held (see figure 1, where the dental tool is held in the axial opening 61), a ventilation path (from passage 48 to opening 57) in communication with the cooling groove (49) being formed between the side wall and the cap (see figure 1 and col 3, lines 47-49 disclose the gas flowing through passage 48 exhausting through opening 57 on cap 50).
Regarding claim 17, KORZENOWSKI/Gentry disclose the claimed invention as set forth above 1, Gentry discloses an obtuse angle in the range of 120-160 degrees (col 5, lines 20-23), but fails to explicitly disclose the obtuse angle is from 130° to 140°.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the angle from between 120-160 degrees to between 130-140 degrees since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KORZENOWSKI et al in view of Gentry as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bailey et al (US 6,579,093).
KORZENOWSKI/Gentry fail to disclose a rotation speed of the cutting tool is 5 to 450,000 rpm.
However, Bailey teaches a high-speed medical/dental handpiece operating a cutting tool at a rotation speed of 5-450,000 rpm (col 2, lines 55-59 disclose the bur of the handpiece operating between 100,000 and 300,000 rpm) for the purpose of performing drilling operation of the patient’s teeth (col 2, lines 3-5).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the rotation speed of the cutting tool being between 100,000 and 300,000 rpm as taught by Bailey for the purpose of performing drilling operation of the patient’s teeth.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KORZENOWSKI et al in view of Gentry as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Buist (US 2020/0060788).
Regarding claim 10, KORZENOWSKI/Gentry disclose the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 1, but fails to disclose a 45-degree handpiece.
Buist teaches a handpiece that is at an angle of 45 degrees (par 39) to allow the tool to be operated in a desired manner (par 41).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify KORZENOWSKI/Gentry the angle of the dental handpiece of 45 degrees as taught by Buist for the purpose of operating the dental handpiece in a desired position or manner.
Regarding claim 11, KORZENOWSKI/Gentry disclose the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 1. KORZENOWSKI discloses the dental handpiece is contra-angled (figure 1), but fails to disclose a 45-degree handpiece.
Buist teaches a handpiece that is at an angle of 45 degrees (par 39) to allow the tool to be operated in a desired manner (par 41).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify KORZENOWSKI/Gentry the angle of the contra-angled dental handpiece of 45 degrees as taught by Buist for the purpose of operating the dental handpiece in a desired position or manner.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 12, 14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leiter (WO 94/22387) in view of Gentry
Regarding claim 1, Leiter discloses a dental handpiece (figure 1)that cuts and treats a tooth (par 3 of translation), the dental handpiece comprising:
a head (3) including:
a holder (sleeve 28) configured to hold a cutting tool configured to cut the tooth (par 46 discloses the sleeve 28 is connected to the tool 29) ,
a tool rotation mechanism (collet/clamping jaw 6, ball bearing 7, wedge shapes sleeve 8, ball bearing 9, gear wheel 11; see figure 1 and par 42 of translation discloses how the provides parts rotate when craven by a shaft 10) ,configured to rotate the cutting tool (the tool rotates with the collet 6),
a housing (1) configured to accommodate the holder and the tool rotation mechanism (see figure 1), and
a cooling passage (supply line 45a) formed in a side wall of the housing (see figure 1); and
a grip (par 43 discloses shaft 13 which inserts into a not shown but corresponding handle) including:
a first air supply passage (14, which is disclosed as traveling along the length of the shaft which corresponds with a handle par 43) configured to supply first air for cooling the tool rotation mechanism (where the air supply passes through 14a into the annular channel 19, branch lines 20 and the chamber 23 and provides a coolant to the sleeve 28 see par 47, par 23 discloses that compressed air can be coolant), and
a second air supply passage (45, which is disclosed as traveling along the length of the shaft which corresponds with a handle par 43) connected to the cooling passage (supply line 45a) and configured to supply the head with second air at lower flow rate than supply of the first air (this limitation is considered a functional/intended use of the claimed invention which is achievable by the prior art Leiter, in view of the disclosure of par 43 that both lines 14 and 45 are separate and running lengthwise of the shaft, as lines have different sources/connections to an air supply each is functionally capable of having a desired flow rate, which includes the claimed limitation of the second air having a lower flow rate than the first air)
wherein the head is joined to the grip (par 43 discloses the shaft is inserted into the angled piece of a corresponding handle),
Leiter fails to disclose the head join to the grip such that an angle formed between a rotation axis of the cutting tool and a major axis of a coupling portion of the grip, on a cutting edge side of the cutting tool, is an obtuse angle, and wherein the coupling portion is coupled to the head.
Gentry teaches a head (10) is joined to a grip (handle 2) such that an angle formed between a rotation axis (axis of rotation c) of a cutting tool (54) on the cutting edge side of the cutting tool and a major axis (axis b) of a coupling portion (shank 6) of the grip (2) being an obtuse angle (see figure 1-2; col 5, lines 20-23), wherein the coupling portion is coupled to the head (see figure 2) for the purpose of comfortably reaching the back of the mouth such as the molars (col 5, lines 27-32).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Leiter to have the head join to the grip such that an angle formed between a rotation axis of the cutting tool and a major axis of a coupling portion of the grip, on a cutting edge side of the cutting tool, is an obtuse angle, and wherein the coupling portion is coupled to the head as taught by Gentry for the purpose of comfortably reaching the back of the mouth such as the molars.
Regarding claim 3, Leiter comprises the housing (3) has a cooling groove (annular channel 31) in the side wall (see figure 1), the cooling groove (31) allowing air to pass therethrough (see par 49), and
the cooling groove has an opening in communication with the cooling passage (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 5, Leiter discloses wherein of a flow rate of the second air (air along 45), a flow rate flowing to the cutting edge side of the cutting tool (interpreted as the side with the nozzles 32 opening to the tool 29) is lower than a flow rate flowing to a second side opposite to the cutting edge side of the cutting tool (side of 32 opening to the annular channel 31, the air flowing into the nozzle 32 out of the annular channel 31 would be higher rate than the air flowing out of the nozzle).
Regarding claim 6, Leiter/Gentry disclose the claimed invention as set forth above 1, Gentry discloses an obtuse angle in the range of 120-160 degrees (col 5, lines 20-23), but fails to explicitly disclose the obtuse angle is from 130° to 140°.
Regarding claim 12, Leiter discloses a dental handpiece (figure 1) that cuts and treats a tooth (par 3 of translation), the dental handpiece comprising:
a head (3) including:
a holder (sleeve 28) configured to hold a cutting tool configured to cut the tooth (par 46 discloses the sleeve 28 is connected to the tool 29),
a tool rotation mechanism configured to rotate the cutting tool (collet/clamping jaw 6, ball bearing 7, wedge shapes sleeve 8, ball bearing 9, gear wheel 11; see figure 1 and par 42 of translation discloses how the provides parts rotate when craven by a shaft 10),
a housing (1) configured to accommodate the holder and the tool rotation mechanism (the tool rotates with the collet 6), and
a cooling passage (supply line 45a) formed in a side wall of the housing (see figure 1),
wherein the head is joined to a grip (par 43 discloses the shaft is inserted into the angled piece of a corresponding handle)
wherein the grip includes air supply passages supplying air for cooling at different flow rates (45, which is disclosed as traveling along the length of the shaft which corresponds with a handle par 43 and 14, which is disclosed as traveling along the length of the shaft which corresponds with a handle par 43, this limitation is considered a functional/intended use of the claimed invention which is achievable by the prior art Leiter, in view of the disclosure of par 43 that both lines 14 and 45 are separate and running lengthwise of the shaft, as lines have different sources/connections to an air supply each is functionally capable of cooling at different flow rates, which includes the claimed limitation of the second air having a lower flow rate than the first air).
Leiter fails to disclose the head join to the grip such that an angle formed between a rotation axis of the cutting tool and a major axis of a coupling portion of the grip, on a cutting-edge side of the cutting tool, is an obtuse angle, and wherein the coupling portion is coupled to the head.
Gentry teaches a head (10) is joined to a grip (handle 2) such that an angle formed between a rotation axis (axis of rotation c) of a cutting tool (54) on the cutting edge side of the cutting tool and a major axis (axis b) of a coupling portion (shank 6) of the grip (2) being an obtuse angle (see figure 1-2; col 5, lines 20-23), wherein the coupling portion is coupled to the head (see figure 2) for the purpose of comfortably reaching the back of the mouth such as the molars (col 5, lines 27-32).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Leiter to have the head join to the grip such that an angle formed between a rotation axis of the cutting tool and a major axis of a coupling portion of the grip, on a cutting edge side of the cutting tool, is an obtuse angle, and wherein the coupling portion is coupled to the head as taught by Gentry for the purpose of comfortably reaching the back of the mouth such as the molars.
Regarding claim 14, Leiter comprises the housing (3) has a cooling groove (annular channel 31) in the side wall (see figure 1), the cooling groove (31) allowing air to pass therethrough (see par 49), and
the cooling groove has an opening in communication with the cooling passage (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 16, Leiter discloses wherein of a flow rate of the second air (air along 45), a flow rate flowing to the cutting edge side of the cutting tool (interpreted as the side with the nozzles 32 opening to the tool 29) is lower than a flow rate flowing to a second side opposite to the cutting edge side of the cutting tool (side of 32 opening to the annular channel 31, the air flowing into the nozzle 32 out of the annular channel 31 would be higher rate than the air flowing out of the nozzle).
Regarding claim 17, Leiter/Gentry disclose the claimed invention as set forth above 1, Gentry discloses an obtuse angle in the range of 120-160 degrees (col 5, lines 20-23), but fails to explicitly disclose the obtuse angle is from 130° to 140°.
Claims 7-9 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leiter et al in view of Gentry as applied to claim 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Lieb et al (US 2013/0203014).
Regarding claim 7, Leiter/Gentry fail to disclose a rotation speed of the cutting tool is 5 to 450,000 rpm.
Lieb teaches wherein a rotation speed of the cutting tool is 5 to 450,000 rpm (70-220,000 RPM, par 106) for the purpose of providing sufficient cutting tool speed to perform a dental procedures (par 17)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Leiter/Gentry to have a rotation speed of the cutting tool is 5 to 450,000 rpm as taught by Lieb for the purpose of providing sufficient cutting tool speed to perform a dental procedures.
Regarding claims 8, Leiter discloses the grip including a drive mechanism (10, see figure 1), wherein the drive mechanism is configured to transmit rotative power to the cutting tool (see par 42). Leiter/Gentry fail to disclose the drive mechanism connects to an electric motor and transmit rotative power of the electric motor to the tool rotation mechanism to rotate the cutting tool.
Lieb teaches a grip (49) includes a drive mechanism (motor shaft 76) connected to an electric motor (par 60 discloses the connection of the shaft to the bearing of the motor) , and the drive mechanism is configured to transmit rotative power of the electric motor to the tool rotation mechanism to rotate the cutting tool (par 62 discloses the shaft driving the spindle gear which rotates the cutting tool).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to modify Leiter to have the drive mechanism connects to an electric motor and transmit rotative power of the electric motor to the tool rotation mechanism to rotate the cutting tool as taught by Lieb for the purpose of efficiently driving a cutting tool.
Regarding claim 9, Leiter/Gentry fail to disclose a rotation speed of the electric motor is 100 to 40,000 rpm, and a rotation speed of the cutting tool is 5 to 300,000 rpm.
However, Lieb teaches a rotation speed of the electric motor is 100 to 40,000 rpm (par 106 discloses a maximum motor speed of 40,000 rpm), and a rotation speed of the cutting tool is 5 to 300,000 rpm (par 107 discloses a speed of 70,000-220,000 rpm for the cutting tool) for the purpose of providing sufficient cutting tool speed to perform a dental procedures (par 17).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, modify Leiter to have a rotation speed of the electric motor is 100 to 40,000 rpm, and a rotation speed of the cutting tool is 5 to 300,000 rpm as taught by Lieb for the purpose of providing sufficient cutting tool speed to perform a dental procedures.
Regarding claim 18, Leiter/Gentry fail to disclose a rotation speed of the cutting tool is 5 to 450,000 rpm.
Lieb teaches wherein a rotation speed of the cutting tool is 5 to 450,000 rpm (70-220,000 RPM, par 106) for the purpose of providing sufficient cutting tool speed to perform a dental procedures (par 17)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Leiter/Gentry to have a rotation speed of the cutting tool is 5 to 450,000 rpm as taught by Lieb for the purpose of providing sufficient cutting tool speed to perform a dental procedures.
Regarding claims 19, Leiter discloses the grip including a drive mechanism (10, see figure 1), wherein the drive mechanism is configured to transmit rotative power to the cutting tool (see par 42). Leiter/Gentry fail to disclose the drive mechanism connects to an electric motor and transmit rotative power of the electric motor to the tool rotation mechanism to rotate the cutting tool.
Lieb teaches a grip (49) includes a drive mechanism (motor shaft 76) connected to an electric motor (par 60 discloses the connection of the shaft to the bearing of the motor) , and the drive mechanism is configured to transmit rotative power of the electric motor to the tool rotation mechanism to rotate the cutting tool (par 62 discloses the shaft driving the spindle gear which rotates the cutting tool).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to modify Leiter to have the drive mechanism connects to an electric motor and transmit rotative power of the electric motor to the tool rotation mechanism to rotate the cutting tool as taught by Lieb for the purpose of efficiently driving a cutting tool.
Regarding claim 20, Leiter/Gentry fail to disclose a rotation speed of the electric motor is 100 to 40,000 rpm, and a rotation speed of the cutting tool is 5 to 300,000 rpm.
However, Lieb teaches a rotation speed of the electric motor is 100 to 40,000 rpm (par 106 discloses a maximum motor speed of 40,000 rpm), and a rotation speed of the cutting tool is 5 to 300,000 rpm (par 107 discloses a speed of 70,000-220,000 rpm for the cutting tool) for the purpose of providing sufficient cutting tool speed to perform a dental procedures (par 17).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, modify Leiter to have a rotation speed of the electric motor is 100 to 40,000 rpm, and a rotation speed of the cutting tool is 5 to 300,000 rpm as taught by Lieb for the purpose of providing sufficient cutting tool speed to perform a dental procedures.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leiter et al in view of Gentry as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Buist.
Regarding claim 10, Leiter/Gentry disclose the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 1, but fails to disclose a 45-degree handpiece.
Buist teaches a handpiece that is at an angle of 45 degrees (par 39) to allow the tool to be operated in a desired manner (par 41).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Leiter/Gentry the angle of the dental handpiece of 45 degrees as taught by Buist for the purpose of operating the dental handpiece in a desired position or manner.
Regarding claim 11, Leiter/Gentry disclose the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 1. Leiter discloses the dental handpiece is contra-angled (paragraph 3 ), but fails to disclose a 45-degree handpiece.
Buist teaches a handpiece that is at an angle of 45 degrees (par 39) to allow the tool to be operated in a desired manner (par 41).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Leiter/Gentry the angle of the contra-angled dental handpiece of 45 degrees as taught by Buist for the purpose of operating the dental handpiece in a desired position or manner.
Claims 12-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lieb et al in view of Gentry
Regarding claim 12, Lieb discloses dental handpiece that cuts and treats a tooth (par 2 and 15), the dental handpiece (electric handpiece assembly 48) comprising:
a head (50) including:
a holder (collet 100 of the spindle chucking assembly 60) configured to hold a cutting tool (par 83 discloses the collet 100 gripping a desired tool 62) configured to cut the tooth,
a tool rotation mechanism (the spindle chucking assembly 60, see figure 4A) configured to rotate the cutting tool (par 62 discloses the motor shaft 76 rotates the motor gear 74 and is configured to drive a spindle gear 72 of the chuck assembly which holds and rotates the cutting tool),
a housing (pointed out as 50 in figure 4A and 11A) configured to accommodate the holder and the tool rotation mechanism (see figure 4A), and
a cooling passage (spray air distribution chamber inlet hole 158) formed in a side wall of the housing (see figure 10 and 11A, in the side wall of the housing/head 50),
wherein the head (50) is joined to a grip (handle 49) such that an angle formed between a rotation axis of the cutting tool (62) and a major axis of a coupling portion of the grip (upper handle portion 52 of the handle 49, see figure 3), on a cutting-edge side of the cutting tool, is an angle (see figure 5, where the tool 62 is at an angle with the handle 49),
wherein the coupling portion (52)is coupled to the head (50, see figure 3),
wherein the grip (49) includes air supply passages supplying air for cooling at different flow rates (cooling air tube 134 and air spray tube 154, wherein the limitation of supplying different flow rates is considered functional/intended use of the claimed invention which is achievable by the prior art Lieb, which discloses the air inlet flow 168 which passes through cooling air tube 134 having a inlet line 140 in a delivery hose 58 of a dental delivery system 178 in par 70 and spray tube 154 receiving air flow 214 from a separate spray line 184 in the delivery hose 58 of the delivery system 178 in par 95, as such supply passages have different sources/connections to an air supply each is functionally capable of having a desired/different flow rate, which includes the claimed limitation of the second air having a lower flow rate than the first air ).
Lieb fails to disclose the angle is obtuse.
Gentry teaches a head (10) is joined to a grip (handle 2) such that an angle formed between a rotation axis (axis of rotation c) of a cutting tool (54) and a major axis (axis b) of a coupling portion (shank 6) of the grip (2) being an obtuse angle (see figure 1-2; col 5, lines 20-23) for the purpose of comfortably reaching the back of the mouth such as the molars (col 5, lines 27-32).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lieb to have the angle is obtuse as taught by Gentry for the purpose of comfortably reaching the back of the mouth such as the molars.
Regarding claim 13, Lieb discloses the cooling passage (158) extends from the cutting-edge side of the cutting tool (towards the cap 116) to a second side opposite to the cutting-edge side of the cutting tool (the upper side of cap 116, adjacent to 158 , see figures 11-11A and 12).
Regarding claim 14, Lieb discloses the housing has a cooling groove (air spray distribution chamber 128) in the side wall (see figure 11), the cooling groove (128) allowing air to pass therethrough (see figure 11), and the cooling groove (128) has an opening in communication with the cooling passage (158, see figure 11 and par 90-91).
Regarding claim 16, Lieb discloses a flow rate of the second air (spray air flow 214), wherein a flow rate flowing to the cutting-edge side of the cutting tool (out of the spray nozzle holes 269) is lower than a flow rate flowing to a second side opposite to the cutting edge side of the cutting tool (wherein the limitation is interpreted as the flow of air into the cap 116, specifically into the circumferential groove 264, is opposite the side adjacent to or having the cutting edge side, which is out of the spray nozzle hole 269, the air flow entering the cap would be at a higher rate than leaving out of the spray nozzle hole 269 because of change in directions of air flow seen in figure 11/11A).
Regarding claim 17, Lieb/Gentry disclose the claimed invention as set forth above 1, Gentry discloses an obtuse angle in the range of 120-160 degrees (col 5, lines 20-23), but fails to explicitly disclose the obtuse angle is from 130° to 140°.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the angle from between 120-160 degrees to between 130-140 degrees since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 18, Lieb discloses wherein a rotation speed of the cutting tool is 5 to 450,000 rpm (par 106).
Regarding claim 19, Lieb discloses wherein the grip (49) includes a drive mechanism (motor shaft 76) connected to an electric motor (par 60 discloses the connection of the shaft to the bearing of the motor) , and
the drive mechanism is configured to transmit rotative power of the electric motor to the tool rotation mechanism to rotate the cutting tool (par 62 discloses the shaft driving the spindle gear which rotates the cutting tool).
Regarding claim 20, Lieb discloses a rotation speed of the electric motor is 100 to 40,000 rpm (par 106 discloses a maximum motor speed of 40,000 rpm), and
a rotation speed of the cutting tool is 5 to 300,000 rpm (par 107 discloses a speed of 70,000-220,000 rpm for the cutting tool).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lieb et al in view of Gentry as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Buist.
Regarding claim 10, Lieb/Gentry disclose the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 1. Lieb discloses the dental handpiece is angled (figure 5), but fails to disclose a 45-degree handpiece.
Buist teaches a handpiece that is at an angle of 45 degrees (par 39) to allow the tool to be operated in a desired manner (par 41).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lieb/Gentry the angle of the dental handpiece of 45 degrees as taught by Buist for the purpose of operating the dental handpiece in a desired position or manner.
Regarding claim 11, Lieb/Gentry disclose the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 1. Lieb discloses the dental handpiece is contra-angled (figure 5), but fails to disclose a 45-degree handpiece.
Buist teaches a handpiece that is at an angle of 45 degrees (par 39) to allow the tool to be operated in a desired manner (par 41).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lieb/Gentry the angle of the contra-angled dental handpiece of 45 degrees as taught by Buist for the purpose of operating the dental handpiece in a desired position or manner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached references cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANNEL N BELK whose telephone number is (571)272-9671. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. -Fri. 11:30 am - 3:30 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.
/S.N.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/HEIDI M EIDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772 6/4/2026
Prosecution Insights