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)(4) because reference character “19” has been used to designate both second arcs and first circumference in page 16, lines 6 and 11 of the specification received on 25 July 2025. 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 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 1-6 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.
Regarding claim 1, the use of the term “third circumference” is indefinite. The use of the term “third” implies that a first circumference and a second circumference are described in the claim, where only the “third circumference” is found. It is not understood if the intention is to describe that the tightening tool includes three different circumferences or that the tool only has one circumference called “third circumference”. Furthermore, it is not understood if said “circumference” is a reference circle or a physical structural circle. For examination purposes, the term will be interpreted as that the third circumference is a reference circle where the center of the radius of each lobe recedes to form the claimed equilateral triangle.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "first circumference" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 2, the use of the term “ideally” in lines 2, 5 and 8 is indefinite. By definition of the term means in the best condition, or as a perfect outcome. Therefore, it is not understood if the claim aims to a diameter ratio between the circumferences that is wanted but not achieved, or the ratio described is a tangible, physical relation between the diameters of the circumferences. For examination purposes, the term will be interpreted as the applicant aims to have ratios claimed are best condition, in which are close to the values described but not necessary achieved.
Regarding claim 2, the use of the term “larger area” in line 5 is indefinite. It is not understood what structure is the claimed “larger area”. For examination purposes, the term will be interpreted as the transverse cross section in which it is measured the radius and the diameter is the one providing the larger cross-sectional area.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "second circumferences" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2 uses the term “prosthetic screw housing”. Even when the Office understands that said structure is in the dental prosthetic screw, it is suggested to refers to the term as “a[the] prosthetic screw housing”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 5 uses the term “lobes”. Even when the Office understands that the term refers to the “three lobes” described in line 4, it is suggested to maintain the same nomenclature across the claims, e.g. “the transverse cross section of each of the three lobes…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 7 uses the term “outer archs”. Even when the Office understands that the term refers to the “at least one first outer arch” described in line 5, it is suggested to maintain the same nomenclature across the claims, e.g. “the joining of the centres of the radii of Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3-4 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims use the term “three first arcs” in line 2 and 1 respectively. Even when the Office understands that the term refers to the term refers that each lobe determines at least one fist outer arch in a transverse cross section, and due to the tip includes three lobes, the tool includes also three first arcs referring one arch per lobe. In order to maintain continuity of the terms it is suggested to maintain the same nomenclature across the claims, e.g. but not limited to “three first outer arcs”.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1 uses the recitation of “the transverse cross section of its tip”. The Office understands that said tip refers to the “action tip” of the “tightening tool” described in claim 1. For that reason, it is suggested to amend the recitation to “the transverse cross section of the tip”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 9 uses the term “three first arcs”, while in line 8 uses “three outer first arcs”. Even when the Office understands that both terms refer to the same limitations, it is suggested to maintain the same nomenclature across the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claims 2-3 and 6, the reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description and the drawings may be used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims. However, the use of reference characters is to be considered as having no effect on the scope of the claims. (See MPEP 608.01(m) - Form of Claims [R-07.2015])
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kloack (US 3213719 A).
[AltContent: textbox (Tightening tool)][AltContent: textbox (Action tip)]
[AltContent: textbox (Outer arc in the longitudinal cross section)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Handle)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
114
426
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Three lobes)]
PNG
media_image2.png
184
202
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
258
126
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: ][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Three lobes)][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image4.png
176
176
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Fig. 2 zoomed portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Each Lobe determining one outer arch in the transverse cross-section)]
PNG
media_image5.png
46
54
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Kloack discloses a tightening tool (see Fig. 1 above), for acting in the hollow of a dental prosthetic screw, having an action tip (18), intended to be inserted in the prosthetic screw housing, at one end and a handle (14) at the end opposite to that of the tip (18), wherein the tip (18) includes:
only three projections that determine three lobes (see annotated fig. 2 and 7 above),
the transverse cross section of the lobes determining at least one first outer arc in each lobe (see annotated Fig. 2 zoomed portion – where each of the three lobes is formed by one outer arch),
the joining of the centres of the radii of said outer arcs which are placed in a third circumference, determining an equilateral triangle (see Fig. 7 above and col. 2, lines 40-45 – due to the tip forms an equilateral triangle, the center of the radius for each arc fall in the same circle), and
the longitudinal cross section of the projection or lobe of the screwdriver tip also determines an outer arc (see annotated Fig. 1 above).
However, Kloack does not disclose that the tightening tool is intended to be used with a dental prosthetic screw.
On the other hand, due to the tightening tool includes all the structural limitations as claimed, a person skill in the art at the time of filing the invention would see it obvious to use tightening tool of Kloack in a prosthetic screw housing, if such housing is shaped accordingly so that the tip of the tightening tool is able to provide the relevant rotations to the dental prosthetic screw.
Regarding claim 2, Kloack discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1.
However, Kloack does not disclose that the diameter of the third circumference of the tool is ideally 1/1.17 times the diameter of the first circumference of the screw, the radius of each lobe of the tool (Red) in its transverse cross section with a larger area is ideally 1/6.4 times the diameter of the first circumference (16) of the screw, and the outer radius of the screwdriver tip H, in the longitudinal cross section of each lobe, is ideally 1/0.87 times the diameter of the first circumference (16) of the screw.
On the other hand, Kloack discloses that the shape of the tip of the tool follows the same general geometry of a cavity at the head of the screw (12) (see Fig. 4, and 7 above). Furthermore, the dimensions and locations of the three lobes of the tip are small enough so that it can enter the cavity of the screw head, and the dimension allows for a small gap between the tip of the tool and the cavity of the screw, in this way the tip of the tool is slightly smaller than the cavity of the head of the screw (see Fig. 7 above and col. 1, line 60 through col. 2, line 14).
However, these ratios are deemed matters of design choice, well within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining the ideal diameter for the third circumference with respect to the first circumference of a screw, the radius of each lobe with respect to the diameter of the first circumference of said screw, and the outer radius of the screwdriver tip with respect to the diameter of the first circumference of said screw, in order to have optimum results.
Regarding claim 4, Kloack discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1, and where Kloack discloses that the three first arcs inscribed in, and tangent to, a second virtual circumference (see Fig. 2 above – where it is shown an end elevation of the tool; said view includes the tip 18 in the first front view; the lobes of the tip forms a equilateral triangle; in this way, all the sides have the same dimensions allowing the three lobes be equidistantly located from each other; if all the lobes are located exquisitely from each other and a virtual circle is placed tangent to each of the lobes, the resulting circle forms a virtual circumference).
Regarding claim 5, Kloack discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1, and where Kloack discloses that the centres of each first arc, equidistant from each other, are located on the third circumference with a diameter concentric to the diameter of the second circumferences (see Fig. 7 above and col. 2, lines 40-45 – due to the tip forms an equilateral triangle, the center of the radius for each arc fall in the same circle, that at the same time the farther point of the external surface on each arc falls in a concentric circle having a diameter).
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Waller (DE 20108605 U1).
[AltContent: textbox (Lobes having at least one first out arch in the transverse view and an outer arch in the longitudinal axis)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Support)][AltContent: textbox (Action tip)][AltContent: ][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Tightening tool)]
PNG
media_image6.png
766
474
media_image6.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Screw longitudinal central hollow with inner walls)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Screw head)][AltContent: ][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Screw)]
PNG
media_image7.png
528
452
media_image7.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Lobe having at least one first out arch in the transverse view and an outer arch in the longitudinal axis)]
PNG
media_image8.png
406
550
media_image8.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Arc of Lobes)]
PNG
media_image9.png
126
352
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Waller discloses a tightening tool (1), for acting in the hollow of a screw (20), having an action tip, intended to be inserted in the screw housing, at one end and a handle or support at the end opposite to that of the tip, wherein the tip includes:
only three projections that determine three lobes (5) (see annotated Fig. 1 and 6 and page 4, last paragraph through page 7, line 6 – where one of the embodiments includes a screwdriver bit having 3 projections/lobes),
the transverse cross section of the lobes determining at least one first outer arc in each lobe (5) (see annotated Fig. 1 above)
the joining of the centres of the radii of said outer arcs which are placed in a third circumference, determining an equilateral triangle (see Fig. 6 above – where it is the embodiment of a screw head representing the configuration of the engagement shape for a particular screw driver having three equidistance lobes), and
the longitudinal cross section of said projection or lobe of the screwdriver tip also determines an outer arc (see annotated Fig. 1 and 4-5 above above).
However, Waller does not disclose that the tightening tool is intended to be used with a dental prosthetic screw.
On the other hand, due to the tightening tool includes all the structural limitations as claimed, a person skill in the art would see it obvious to use tightening tool of Waller in a prosthetic screw housing, if such housing is shaped accordingly so that the tip of the tightening tool is able to provide the relevant rotations to the dental prosthetic screw.
Regarding claim 2, Waller discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1, and where Waller discloses that the diameter of the third circumference (3) of the tool smaller than the diameter of the first circumference of the screw (33) (see Fig. 4-5 above – where the third circumference 3 of the tool is smaller than the circumference 33 of the screw head, in order to provide a gap to allow the tool to tilt with respect to the screw axis).
However, Waller does not disclose that the third circumference of the tool is ideally 1/1.17 times the diameter of the first circumference of the screw , that the radius of each lobe of the tool in its transverse cross section with a larger area is ideally 1/6.4 times the diameter of the first circumference of the screw, and that the outer radius of the screwdriver tip, in the longitudinal cross section of each lobe, is ideally 1/0.87 times the diameter of the first circumference of the screw.
However, these ratios for the claimed diameters are deemed matters of design choice, well within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining the ideal ratios between each diameter between the tip and the screw head opening, in order to have optimum results.
Regarding claim 3, Waller discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1, and where Waller discloses that the transverse cross section of its tip is determined by a first circumference (3) with a first diameter and by the three first arcs (5) that are exterior to the first circumference (3) in each lobe or projection (see Fig. 1 and 6 – where the tool provides for an embodiment with three lobes), the cross section determining a surface with an area greater than the area of a circle having a circumference equal to the first circumference (3) (see Fig. 1 and 6 above – where the lobes projects out from the first circumference, in this way the total transverse cross-section is greater than only the area of the first circumference 3).
However, Waller does not disclose that the length of the first arcs as measured along the arch being shorter than the circumference of half-circle with the same radius as that of the first arcs.
PNG
media_image10.png
610
442
media_image10.png
Greyscale
On the other hand, Waller further discloses another tip of the tool can have various sizes proportional to the number grooves of the screw head (see Fig. 6-9 above and page 5, 1st paragraph).
Due to the prior art of Waller discloses that the size of each lobe can be changed. A person skill in the art would see obvious to modify the size of the circumference of the half-circle of each lobe of Waller, to circumference smaller than the half circle of each lobe as in other embodiments.
Regarding claim 4, Waller discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1, and where Waller discloses that the three first arcs inscribed in, and tangent to, a second virtual circumference (see Fig. 1 and 6 above – in the embodiment including three lobes, each lobe is equidistant from each other, if a virtual circle is placed around and tangent the outer periphery of the three arcs, the resulting circle forms a virtual circumference).
Regarding claim 5, Waller discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1, and where Waller discloses that the centres of each first arc, equidistant from each other, are located on the third circumference with a diameter concentric to the diameter of the second circumferences. see Fig. 1 and 6 above – where the three arcs of the tip will form an equilateral triangle as shown in the corresponding shape in the head of the screw in Fig. 6; therefore, the center of the radius for each arc would fall in the same circle, where the resulting circle is the second circumference).
Regarding claim 6, Waller discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1, and where Waller discloses a coupling system, including:
the screwdriver according claim 1 (see Fig. 1 and 6 above); and
a screw (20) with a head at one end and a thread at the opposite end (due to element 20 in Fig. 2 is a screw it is understood that includes threads in the opposing end of the head), said head having a longitudinal central hollow with inner walls extending along the longitudinal axis of the screw (20) (see annotated Fig. 2 above), a transverse cross section perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of said hollow including:
an opening (34) of the hollow, having a shape determined by a first circumference with a first diameter and only three outer first arcs determining three lobes that increase the transverse area of the opening (see Fig. 6 above and page 5, line 4-5 – where the central bottom 34 of the hollow has a circular peripheral edge), and where three arcs are equidistant from each other.
However, Waller does not disclose that the length of the three first arcs as measured along said arcs being shorter than the circumference of half-circle with the same radius as that of said three first arcs, and the three centres of each first arc located on a same third circumference, concentric to the first circumference.
On the other hand, Waller further discloses another tip of the tool can have various sizes proportional to the number grooves of the screw head (see Fig. 6-9 above and page 5, 1st paragraph).
Due to the prior art of Waller discloses that the size of each lobe can be changed. A person skill in the art would see obvious to modify the size of the circumference of the half-circle of each lobe of Waller, to circumference smaller than the half circle of each lobe as in other embodiments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIRAYDA ARLENE APONTE whose telephone number is (571)270-1933. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eric Rosen can be reached at 571-270-7855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MIRAYDA A APONTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3772 /EDELMIRA BOSQUES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights