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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 32 described as a lateral slot. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 31-59 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 31, “Device” should read “A device”.
In claims 32-59, “Device” should read “The device”.
In claim 48, “traction carriage” should read “pulling carriage” for consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means of an actuating element” in claim 31.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 31-59 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.
Claim 31 recites the limitation “wherein the tensioning device can be actuated by means of an actuating element”. It is unclear whether the actuating element is being claimed positively since the limitation is recited functionally. For examining purposes, it was understood that device also comprises an actuating element and the tensioning device is configured to be actuated by the actuating element. Clarification is required.
Claim 33 recites the limitations “the first clutch disc” and “the second clutch disc” and depends from claim 31. There is insufficient antecedent basis for said limitations in claim 31. For examining purposes, it was understood to depend from claim 32.
Claim 37 recites the limitation “in particular on the first section”. The term in particular indicates an option or choice and therefore it renders the claim scope unclear. It was understood to be optional.
Claim 38 recites the limitation “preferably two disc springs are arranged”. The term “preferably” indicates a choice or preference and therefore it renders the scope of the claim unclear. For examining purposes, it was understood as an optional limitation.
Claim 43 recites the limitation “the pulling carriage has at least two, preferably four, blind holes…wherein each of the blind holes has a lateral slot”. It is unclear whether the blind hole and lateral slot recited in claim 43 are included in the at least two blind holes and each of the lateral slots. Additionally, the term “preferably four” indicates a choice/preference and therefore makes it unclear whether the limitation is optional or not. For examining purposes, it is understood that the carriage has at least two blind holes and between each two blind holes there is a lateral slot. Clarification is required.
Claim 44 recites the limitation “preferably four”. It is unclear whether this limitation is optional or not since the term “preferably” indicates a preference or option. Additionally, the claimed limitation “wherein each of the blind holes has a lateral slot pointing towards the distal end of the pulling carriage”. It is unclear how a blind hole would have a lateral slot, such that a hole is open and therefore it’s unclear how it can have a slot. For examining purposes, it was understood that the device has at least two blind holes and between each two holes is a slot connecting them. Clarification is required.
Claim 47 recites the limitation “wherein in particular the pin-like element projects in the longitudinal direction on both sides beyond the partially spherical element”. The term “in particular” indicates a preference or option and therefore renders the claim scope unclear. For examining purposes, it was understood that said limitation is optional. Clarification is required.
Claim 48 recites the limitation “the blind hole closest to the proximal end …has a lateral slot pointing towards the proximal end of the pulling carriage”. Claim 43 does not recite multiple blind holes or a blind hole that is closest to the proximal end and recites a lateral slot pointing towards the distal end and not the proximal end. Therefore, it is unclear what is being claimed with respect to the blind hole and the lateral slot. For examining purposes, it was understood as the same blind hole and lateral slot of claim 43 and that they are near the distal end of the carriage.
Claim 52 recites the limitation “attached to a distal end of the groove and the groove has an opening. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the groove” in claim 31. For examining purposes, it was understood that claim 52 depends from claim 50. Clarification is required.
Claim 53 recites the limitation “in particular distal of the opening”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the opening in claim 31 and it is unclear whether the opening is referring to the through opening or the opening below the deflection part. Additionally, the terms “in particular” and “preferably detachably fastened” indicate a preference or option, rendering the scope of those limitations unclear. For examining purposes, it was understood that the claim depends from claim 52 and that limitations are optional and that the opening is referring to the opening below the deflection part. Clarification is required.
Claim 56 recites the limitation “at least one second support element” and depends from claim 31. There is insufficient antecedent basis in claim 31 for the support element being a second one. Therefore, for examining purposes, it was understood as “at least one support element”. Additionally, the limitations “preferably detachably fastened” and “in particular proximal to the opening” render the claim unclear since the terms “preferably” and “in particular” indicate an optional recitation. Therefore, they were assumed to be optional. Clarification is required.
Claims 58-59 recite the limitation “the support sleeve” and depend from claim 31. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the support sleeve in claim 31. For examining purposes, it was understood that claims 58 and 59 depend from claim 57 instead. Clarification is required.
Claims 32, 34-36, 39-42, 45-46, 49-51, 54-55, 57 are rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 31, 42-43, 45, 47-48, 50-56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Syfrig (WO 2021/190852), translation provided.
Regarding claim 31, Syfrig teaches a device (10) for tooth extraction, comprising a base element (12) with a longitudinal axis (L; see annotated Fig. below),
a distal end and a proximal end (see annotated Fig. below), and a pulling carriage (19) which can be moved relative to the base element (12) and has a distal end and a proximal end (i.e., the opposite ends of 19), and
comprising a pulling element (15) having a first end and a second end (i.e., the opposite ends of 15), wherein a first fastening device (15’) for fastening to the tooth or a fastening body fastened to the tooth is arranged at the first end (see Figures 1-2), and
a second fastening device (14) for fastening to the pulling carriage (19) is arranged at the second end (see Fig. 1),
wherein the pulling element (15) is guided via a deflection part (angled contour of 14) arranged on the base element (12),
wherein a tensioning device (20; tensioning mechanism) for generating a tensile force is arranged on the pulling carriage (19) (see page 1), wherein the tensioning device (20) can be actuated by means of an actuating element (21; rotary motor) which is rotatable about the longitudinal axis (L), characterized in that the actuating element (21) comprises a torque limiting device and that the actuating element is manually operable and the torque limiting device is designed as a mechanical torque limiting device (see page 3 paragraphs 2 and 4; such that the torque generated by the rotary motor 21 is controlled and adjustable).
PNG
media_image1.png
500
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 42, Syfrig teaches the device according to claim 31 (see rejection above), characterized in that the pulling element (15) is designed as a wire, a rope or a string (see Figures).
Regarding claim 43, Syfrig teaches the device according to claim 31 (see rejection above), characterized in that the second fastening device comprises a partially spherical element (see annotated Fig. below) with a diameter (DK) which is greater than the diameter of the pulling element (see Figs. 1-2; such that it surrounds and is larger than the pulling element),
wherein in particular a longitudinal axis of the pulling element is arranged coaxially to an axis of symmetry of the partially spherical element (see Figs. 1-2), and wherein the pulling carriage (19) has at least one blind hole which has a lateral slot pointing towards the distal end of the pulling carriage (see annotated Fig. below).
PNG
media_image2.png
414
366
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
346
506
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 45, Syfrig teaches the device according to claim 43 (see rejection above), characterized in that the second fastening device comprises a pin-like element (see annotated Fig. below) with a diameter which is greater than the diameter of the pulling element (see Figs. 1-2) and with a longitudinal axis which is arranged parallel to the longitudinal axis of the pulling element (see Figs. 1-2), wherein the partially spherical element is arranged on the pin-like element (such that it is connected to its end), and the diameter of the partially spherical element is greater than the diameter of the pin-like element (see annotated Fig. below).
PNG
media_image4.png
560
422
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 47, Syfrig teaches the device according to claim 45 (see rejection above), characterized in that the pin-like element has a length which is greater than the length of the partially spherical element (see annotated Fig. below), wherein in particular the pin-like element projects in the longitudinal direction on both sides beyond the partially spherical element.
Regarding claim 48, Syfrig teaches the device according to claim 43 (see rejection above), characterized in that the blind hole closest to the distal end of the traction carriage has the lateral slot pointing towards the distal end of the pulling carriage.
PNG
media_image3.png
346
506
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 50, Syfrig teaches the device according to claim 31 (see rejection above), characterized in that the base element (12) is open in a first section to an upper side and has a groove running in the longitudinal direction, wherein the pulling carriage (19) is arranged to be longitudinally displaceable in the groove (see annotated Figure below).
PNG
media_image5.png
932
620
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 51, Syfrig teaches the device according to claim 50 (see rejection above), characterized in that the base element, starting from the proximal end, has a second section in which the base element is tubular with an axial through-opening, wherein the through-opening merges into the groove of the first section, and the pulling carriage is arranged to be longitudinally displaceable in the groove and the through-opening (see annotated Fig. below).
PNG
media_image6.png
423
504
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 52, Syfrig teaches the device according to claim 50 (see rejection above), characterized in that the deflection part is attached to a distal end of the groove and the groove has an opening below the deflection part (see annotated Fig. below).
PNG
media_image7.png
447
620
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 53, Syfrig teaches the device according to claim 31 (see rejection above), characterized in that at the distal end of the base element on an underside of the base element, in particular distal of the opening below the deflection part, a first support element (16) is arranged (see Figs. 1-2), preferably detachably fastened, which has a positioning contour for aligning the pulling element (see Figures and page 2 paragraph 12; such that the support jaw 16 can be adjusted to adjust the direction of the pulling element 15, so that no lateral friction forces arise due to a deviated pulling direction).
Regarding claims 54-55, Syfrig teaches the device according to claim 53 (see rejection above), characterized in that the positioning contour is concave or characterized in that the positioning contour is V- shaped (see annotated Fig. below).
PNG
media_image8.png
416
256
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 56, Syfrig teaches the device according to claim 31 (see rejection above), characterized in that at least one support element (18) is arranged, preferably detachably fastened, on an underside of the base element (see Figs. 1-2), in particular proximal to the opening (see Figs. 1-2).
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) 32-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Syfrig (WO 2021/190852), in view of Haerther (US2,727,372).
Regarding claims 32-36, Syfrig teaches the device according to claim 31 (see rejection above), but is silent to the torque limiting device comprises a first clutch disc and a second clutch disc which can be connected by friction and the actuating element has a torque shaft which can be connected to the tensioning device and on which the first clutch disc is arranged in a rotationally fixed manner, and in that the actuating element has a first housing part on which the second clutch disc is arranged in a rotationally fixed manner, wherein the first housing part is arranged so as to be rotatable relative to the torque shaft, and the torque shaft has at least one longitudinal groove at least in sections, and wherein the first clutch disc has on its inner edge a projection engaging in the longitudinal groove, or the first housing part has a cylindrical wall, wherein at least one longitudinal groove is arranged in the wall, and wherein the second clutch disc has on its outer edge a projection engaging in the longitudinal groove, or the first housing part has a bottom surface, wherein an opening is arranged in the bottom surface through which the torque shaft is guided with a first section into the first housing part, wherein a contact surface for the first housing part is arranged on the torque shaft.
Haerther teaches a torque limiting device comprising a first clutch disc (38) and a second clutch disc (34) that are fully capable of being connected by friction. Haerther teaches a torque shaft (10+27) on which the first clutch disc (38) is engaged with (see Figures and Col. 2 lines 6-36). Haerther further teaches a first housing part (31) on which the second clutch disc (34) is arranged in (see Figures and Col. 2 lines 26-34) and the first housing part being rotatable relative to the torque shaft (see Col. 2 lines 17-30). It further teaches the shaft (10+27) having at least one longitudinal groove (27) that are configured to engage with inner edge projections (39) of the first clutch disc (see Figures and Col. 2 lines 29-34). Haerther further teaches the first housing part (31) comprises at least one longitudinal groove (indentations between projections 33) and configured to receive a splined periphery of the second clutch disc (34) (see Figs. and Col. 2 lines 26-34). The first housing comprises an opening that receives and houses the shaft and other components (see Figs.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the torque limiting device of Syfrig to include the components and arrangement of the torque limiting device of Hearther, because it is a known suitable configuration for a torque limiter for a device where rotational force is intended to be limited.
Regarding claims 37-39, Syfrig in view of Haerther teaches the device according to claim 34 (see rejection above). Haerther further teaches the torque limiter having an external thread (16) is arranged on the torque shaft (see Figs.), in particular on the first section, onto which an adjusting nut (14) can be screwed (see Figures and Col. 2 lines 6-14 and col. 3 lines 20-25), wherein the first clutch disc (38) and the second clutch disc (34) are arranged between the bottom surface of the first housing part and the adjusting nut (See Figures, such that the nut 14 and the housing 31 are each on an opposite end with all of the components sandwiched therebetween). Haerther further teaches at least one disc spring (18) is arranged between the bottom surface of the first housing part and the adjusting nut (see Figures) and at least one spacer disk (46) is arranged between the bottom surface of the first housing part and the first clutch disk (38) (see Figures).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the torque limiting device of Syfrig to include the components and arrangement of the torque limiting device of Hearther, because it is a known suitable configuration for a torque limiter for a device where rotational force is intended to be limited.
Claim(s) 40-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Syfrig (WO 2021/190852), in view of Haerther (US2,727,372), and further in view of Na (KR101764394 B1).
Regarding claims 40-41, Syfrig in view of Hearther teaches the device according to claim 34, characterized in that a second housing part can be screwed onto the first housing part or characterized in that a sealing ring is arranged between the first housing part and the torque shaft and/or between the second housing part and the torque shaft.
Na teaches a clutch-type torque limiting device comprising a first housing (10) configured to receive a shaft case (80) and a shaft therebetween (20). Na teaches an O-ring positioned between the shaft and the shaft case and the housing such that it forms a sealed connection (see Figures and at least [0016], [0019], [0054-0055]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the torque limiter to include a second housing part that can be screwed into the first housing part and including an o-ring, as taught by Na, because it would provide a sealed arrangement that would protect the components housed in the device.
Claim(s) 44, 57-59 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Syfrig (WO 2021/190852), in view of Tsai (TWI697322B), translation provided.
Regarding claim 44, Syfrig teaches the device according to claim 43 (see rejection above), but does not teach the pulling carriage (19) has at least two, preferably four, blind holes lying next to each other in the longitudinal direction wherein each of the blind holes has a lateral slot pointing towards the distal end of the pulling carriage.
Tsai teaches a device for pulling a tooth comprising a pulling carriage (12) and a support sleeve (11) and between them. Tsai teaches the housing comprises a plurality of card slots (21) and a running slot running between them (see Figures), and that the slots provide different positions/intervals to adjust the urgency of the pulling element during extraction, which improves convenience (see at least page 4 paragraph 7 and page 3 paragraph 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device to comprise a plurality of grooves/slots, as taught by Tsai, because it would provide multiple predetermined and registerable positions for the pulling element, thereby improving convenience.
Regarding claim 57, Syfrig teaches the device according to claim 31 (see rejection above), characterized in that the tensioning device (20) comprises a threaded rod (26) arranged at the proximal end (see Fig. 1) of the pulling carriage (19) (see Fig. 1 at 19’), which is led out of the base element through a support sleeve (11) arranged at the proximal end of the base element (see Figs. 1-2),
wherein the actuating element (21) is screwed onto the threaded rod (26) with an internal thread see at least page 2 paras. 13-15; such that shaft 24 of the rotary motor 21 is connected to the threaded sleeve 24 via coupling member 27) and is arranged so as to be axially supported on the support sleeve in order to generate the tensile force (see at least page 2 paras. 13-15).
Syfrig does not teach between the pulling carriage and the support sleeve a spring element is arranged to generate a restoring force.
Tsai teaches a device for pulling a tooth comprising a pulling carriage (12) and a support sleeve (11) and between them, an elastic spring (25) around a threaded section (22), such that together they from a tight contact that improve smoothness of tooth extraction (see page 5 paragraph 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device to include a spring around the threaded section, as taught by Tsai, because it would improve the fit and enhance the smoothness of the device.
Regarding claim 58, Syfrig in view of Tsai teaches the device according to claim 57 (see rejection above). Syfrig teaches the support sleeve (11) is screwed onto the proximal end of the base element (12) by means of a threaded connection (see page 3 para. 5; the support and the housing portion 11 can be plugged into one another in a rotationally fixed manner).
Regarding claim 59, Syfrig in view of Tsai teaches the device according to claim 57 (see rejection above). Syfrig teaches the actuating element (21) has an inner contour which can be placed in a form-fitting manner on an outer contour of the support sleeve (11) (see Figures 1-2 and page 2 paras. 13-15; such that the housing 11 is dimensioned to fit rotary motor 21 and is provided with non-slip material to enable good grip therein).
Claim(s) 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Syfrig (WO 2021/190852), in view of Lu (CN109223204A), translation provided.
Regarding claim 46, Syfrig teaches the device according to claim 45 characterized in that the pin-like element is designed as a bushing into which the pulling element is held (see Figs. 1-2).
However, it does not teach the bushing being a press bushing that presses on the pulling element. Lu teaches a spiral tooth extraction device a pulling element (3) held in a pressure rope taper sleeve (9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the bushing to be a pressure sleeve that presses onto the pulling element, as taught by Lu, because it would hold it securely and prevent undesired slipping/sliding when pulling forces are applied.
Claim(s) 49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Syfrig (WO 2021/190852), in view of Syfrig (US 7,435,087 B2), henceforth referred to as Syfrig 2.
Regarding claim 49, Syfrig teaches the device according to claim 31 (see rejection above), but does not explicitly teach the base element (12) has a measurement standard and a marking for interacting with the measurement standard is arranged on the pulling carriage.
Syfrig 2 teaches a device for pulling a tooth comprising a base element (10) comprising a tensioning device (4) and pulling element (3) and a plurality of hook-shaped recesses (23) that extend above the base element (see Figures 1-2) and being used to hook to control the tensioning of the pulling element (see at least Col. 2 lines 32-41, Col. 3 lines 4-16).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device to include a measurement device and indicators, as taught by Syfrig 2, because it would allow a visible scale of the tensioning of the pulley.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 attached to this office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINA FARAJ whose telephone number is (571)272-4580. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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.
/LINA FARAJ/ Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/HEIDI M EIDE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
8/24/2026
Prosecution Insights