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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 17 November 2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Examiner suggests amending claim 17 line 30 to “[[the]]a circumferential upper portion”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 17, 20, 22-24, 26, 29, 31, 35-41, 43-47, 49 and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christiansen et al (U.S. 2018/0325631 A1, hereinafter “Christiansen”) in view of Hinds (U.S. Patent No. 5,759,036 A) in view of Fisker et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0025855 A1, hereinafter “Fisker”).
The claimed phrased “produced” and “forming” are being treated as a product by process limitation; that is the product reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 USC 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. MPEP 2113.
PNG
media_image1.png
488
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
488
488
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
462
617
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
311
421
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
708
529
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
527
709
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In regard to claims 17, Christiansen discloses a healing element (Figs. 6A-6E, para, 0122) wherein
the healing element (272 in Fig. 6D) is a single piece made of a single material (para. 0145), the healing element having a first end (1st end in annotated Fig. 6B) and a second end (2nd end in annotated Fig. 6B) opposed to the first end along a main longitudinal axis (1st axis in annotated Fig. 6B) of the healing element (Fig. 6B),
the healing element comprises:
a fixing device (fixing device in annotated Fig. 6B, Figs. 6A and 6B, para. 0122) at the first end (Fig. 6B), wherein the fixing device is capable of positioning the healing element on an implant (para. 0122) so that the main longitudinal axis of the healing element is perpendicular to a juxta-gingival plane (annotated Fig. 6b),
a continuous circumferential side surface (285 in Fig. 6B) capable of being integrated within a gum in order to shape the gum during healing of the gum (paras. 0110 and 0122, side surface can be adapted to guide soft tissue growth), and
a continuous end surface (end surface in annotated Fig. 6B) at the second end (Fig. 6B), the end surface substantially covering an end face of the healing element at the second end (annotated Fig. 6b),
in a continuity of a circumferential upper portion of the side surface (annotated Fig. 6b), the end surface and at least the circumferential upper portion of the side surface forming an emergent surface (emergent surface in annotated Fig. 6B) which is capable of remaining outside the gum (Abstract) and which is asymmetrical with respect to at least one perpendicular median plane (1st plane in annotated Fig. 6C), wherein the perpendicular median plane comprises the main longitudinal axis (annotated Fig. 6C),
wherein the emergent surface consists a first portion (portion 1 in annotated Fig. 6B) which is a lingual portion (lingual in annotated Fig. 6B) on a lingual side (side 1 in annotated Fig. 6C) of the emergent surface relative to the perpendicular median plane (Figs. 6B, 6C) and a second portion (portion 2 in annotated Fig. 6B) which is a vestibular portion on a vestibular side (side 2 in annotated Fig. 6C) of the emergent surface relative to the perpendicular median plane (Figs. 6B, 6C), the end surface comprising a through-opening (278 in Fig. 6E) for passage of a screw, (para. 0122, 0044-0045, Fig. 4B),
the continuous circumferential side surface being perpendicular to the juxta-gingival plane (Fig. 6B),
wherein the continuous circumferential side surface includes:
a circumferential upper portion (upper portion in annotated Fig. 6B) which is capable of remaining outside the gum (paras. 0110 and 0122, side surface can be adapted to extend above gum tissue), and
a circumferential lower portion (lower portion in annotated Fig. 6B) which is capable of being integrated within the gum in order to shape the gum during healing of the gum (paras. 0110 and 0122, side surface can be adapted to guide soft tissue growth).
Christiansen does not disclose wherein the lingual portion of the emergent surface extends farther from the first end along a direction of the main longitudinal axis than the vestibular portion of the emergent surface, the end surface having overall a substantially constant inclination in a direction from the lingual side to the vestibular side toward the juxta-gingival plane, the end surface having a continuously convex shape except for the through-opening, the continuous circumferential side surface including substantially flat side surface portions, wherein the substantially flat side surface portions extend into the upper portion and into the lower portion of the side surface.
Hinds teaches an apparatus (Figs. 12-27) comprising a continuous circumferential side surface (side surface in annotated Fig. 14) being perpendicular to the juxta-gingival plane (juxta-gingival plane in annotated Fig. 14) including substantially flat side surface portions (sides in annotated Fig. 16, Abstract, col. 5 lines 16-19), wherein the substantially flat side surface portions extend into an upper portion (upper portion in annotated Fig. 14) and into a lower portion (lower portion in annotated Fig. 14) of the side surface (col. 10 lines 27-29 and 37-40).
The embodiment of Fig. 6b of Fisker teaches a similar apparatus (Fig. 6b, Abstract, para. 0308) having a first end (first end in annotated Fig. 6b) and a second end (second end in annotated Fig. 6b) opposed to the first end along a main longitudinal axis (main axis in annotated Fig. 6b) of the healing element (601 in Fig. 6b),
the healing element comprises:
a continuous circumferential side surface (side surface in annotated Fig. 6b) capable of being integrated within a gum in order to shape the gum during healing of the gum (para. 0308, Fig. 6b), and
a continuous end surface (end surface in annotated Fig. 6b) at the second end,
the end surface substantially covering an end face of the healing element at the second end (Fig. 6b), in a continuity of a circumferential upper portion of the side surface (Fig. 6b), the end surface and at least the circumferential upper portion of the side surface forming an emergent surface (emergent surface in annotated Fig. 6b) which is capable of remaining outside the gum (para. 00308) and which is asymmetrical with respect to at least one perpendicular median plane (perpendicular median plane in annotated Fig. 6b), wherein the perpendicular median plane comprises the main longitudinal axis (Fig. 6b),
wherein the emergent surface consists of a first portion (first portion in annotated Fig. 6b) which is a lingual portion on a lingual side (first side in annotated Fig. 6b) of the emergent surface relative to the perpendicular median plane and a second portion (second portion in annotated Fig. 6b) which is a vestibular portion on a vestibular side (second side in annotated Fig. 6b) of the emergent surface relative to the perpendicular median plane (Fig. 6b), wherein the lingual portion of the emergent surface extends farther from the first end along a direction of the main longitudinal axis than the vestibular portion of the emergent surface (Fig. 6b), the end surface having overall a substantially constant inclination in a direction from the lingual side to the vestibular side (annotated Fig. 6b) with respect to the juxta-gingival plane (Fig. 6b), the end surface comprising a through-opening for passage of a screw (para. 0020).
The embodiment of Fig. 2c of Fisker teaches a similar apparatus (Fig. 2c, Abstract, paras. 0292 and 0294) teaches a similar apparatus wherein an end surface (Fig. 2c) has overall a substantially constant inclination with respect to the juxta-gingival plane (Fig. 2c), the end surface comprising a through-opening for passage of a screw (para. 0020), the end surface having a continuously convex shape (Fig. 2c) except for the through opening (para. 0020).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dental healing abutments.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added substantially flat side surface portions to the continuous circumferential side surface wherein the substantially flat side surface portions extend into an upper portion and into a lower portion of the side surface as taught by Hinds in order to allow for the healing element to have a shape specific to the type of tooth being removed (Hinds col. 10 line 38).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lingual and vestibular portions of the emergent surface of Christiansen in view of Hinds so that the lingual portion extends farther from the first end along a direction of the main longitudinal axis than the vestibular portion, the end surface having a substantially constant inclination in a direction from the lingual side to the vestibular side with respect to the juxta-gingival plane as taught by the embodiment of Fig. 6b of Fisker in order to allow for the healing element to be customized to the patient (Fisker para. 0308).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the end surface of Christiansen in view of Hinds in view of Fisker so that the end surface has a continuously convex shape except for the through opening as taught by the embodiment of Fig. 2c of Fisker in order to allow for the healing element to be customized to the patient (Fisker para. 0292).
In regard to claim 20, Christiansen in view of Hinds in view of Fisker discloses the invention of claim 17. Christiansen further discloses wherein the single material is a polymer material (para. 0145).
In regard to claim 21, Christiansen in view of Hinds in view of Fisker discloses the invention of claim 17. Christiansen does not disclose wherein a projection of the emergent surface of the healing element in a plane parallel to the juxta-gingival plane is asymmetrical with respect to a line where the plane parallel to the juxta-gingival plane intersects the perpendicular median plane
Hinds further teaches wherein a projection of the emergent surface (emergent surface in annotated Fig. 14) of the healing element (101 in Fig. 14) in a plane (2nd plane in annotated Fig. 27) parallel to the juxta-gingival plane (annotated Fig. 14) is asymmetrical with respect to a line where the plane parallel to the juxta-gingival plane intersects the perpendicular median plane (perp. median plane in annotated Figs. 16 and 27).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dental healing abutments. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shape of the healing element of Christiansen in view of Hinds in view of Fisker so that a projection of the emergent surface of the healing element in a plane parallel to the juxta-gingival plane is asymmetrical with respect to a line where the plane parallel to the juxta-gingival plane intersects the perpendicular median plane as taught by Hinds in order to allow for the healing element to have a shape specific to the type of tooth being removed (Hinds col. 10 line 38).
In regard to claim 22, Christiansen in view of Hinds in view of Fisker discloses the invention of claim 17. Christiansen further discloses wherein the healing element (272 in Fig. 6D) comprises an anti-rotation element (279 in Fig. 6A) capable of cooperating with an anti-rotation element of an implant and for ensuring fixation of the healing element in a single orientation (paras. 0108 and 0122), without rotation relative to the implant (paras. 0108 and 0122).
In regard to claim 23, Christiansen in view of Hinds in view of Fisker discloses the invention of claim 21. Christiansen does not disclose wherein a length of a lingual side of the end surface along a direction tangent to the gum is substantially shorter than a length of a vestibular side of the end surface.
Hinds further discloses wherein a length of a lingual side (length 1 in annotated Fig. 27) of the end surface along a direction tangent to the gum is substantially shorter than a length of a vestibular side (length 2 in annotated Fig. 27) of the end surface (Fig. 27).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dental healing abutments. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lengths of the sides of the healing element of Christiansen in view of Hinds in view of Fisher so that a length of a lingual side of the end surface along a direction tangent to the gum is substantially shorter than a length of a vestibular side of the end surface as taught by Hinds in order to allow for the healing element to have a shape specific to the type of tooth being removed (Hinds col. 10 line 38).
In regard to claim 24, Christiansen in view of Hinds in view of Fisker discloses the invention of claim 17. Christiansen does not disclose wherein a section transverse to the side surface of the healing element or a projection on a parallel plane of the emergent surface of the healing element has: a substantially trapezoidal shape or a substantially polygonal or triangular or square or rectangular or ovoid shape, or a substantially polygonal shape with rounded corners; and/or a part intended for a positioning oriented toward an outside of a mouth of a patient, of larger dimension than a part intended for a positioning oriented toward an inside of the mouth of the patient.
Hinds further discloses wherein a projection on a parallel plane (2nd plane in annotated Fig. 3) of the emergent surface (emergent surface in annotated Fig. 14) of the healing element has: a substantially triangular shape (Figs. 16 and 27, col. 5 lines 16-19).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dental healing abutments. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shape of the healing element of Christiansen in view of Hinds in view of Fisker so that a projection on a parallel plane of the emergent surface of the healing element has a substantially triangular shape as taught by Hinds in order to allow for the healing element to have a shape specific to the type of tooth being removed (Hinds col. 10 line 38).
In regard to claim 26, Christiansen in view of Hinds in view of Fisker discloses the invention of claim 17. Christiansen in view of Hinds in view of Fisker does not explicitly disclose wherein the emergent surface is dimensioned so that the end surface is capable of being positioned at most 2 mm above the juxta-gingival plane of the gum. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Christiansen in view of Hinds in view of Fisker to have the emergent surface dimensioned so that the end surface is adapted to be positioned at most 2 mm above the juxta-gingival plane of the gum since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Christiansen in view of Hinds in view of Fisker would not operate differently with the claimed emergent surface dimensioned so that the end surface is adapted to be positioned at most 2 mm above the juxta-gingival plane of the gum and since Christiansen discloses that the emergent surface (emergent surface in annotated Fig. 6B) is dimensioned so that it can be adapted to guide soft tissue growth during a healing period and/or extend above the gum tissue depending upon the patient's anatomy (paras. 0122 and 0110), the emergent surface of Christiansen in view of Hinds in view of Fisker would function appropriately with the claimed values.
Further, Applicant places no criticality on the range of positioned at most 2 mm above the juxta-gingival plane of the gum claimed, indicating simply that the value may be within the claimed ranges (p. 15 line 5).
In regard to claims 29, Christiansen in view of Hinds in view of Fisker discloses a dental restoration method (Fig. 12, para. 0143) comprising: providing the healing element of claim 17 (see claim 17 rejection above). Christiansen further discloses the method comprising determining a positioning of a dental implant (paras. 0123, 0147) integrated in a bone structure of a mouth of an individual (para. 0143) from an identification and positioning of the healing element (para. 0143), the healing element being fixed in the implant (para. 0143).
In regard to claim 31, Christiansen in view of Hinds in view of Fisker discloses the invention of claim 29. Christiansen does not disclose further comprising fixing the healing element on the implant by a screw that cooperates with the through-opening of the healing element and a threaded opening of the implant.
Hind teaches further comprising fixing the healing element (101 in Fig. 14) on the implant (45 in Fig. 14) by a screw (104 in Fig. 14) that cooperates with the through-opening (109 in Fig. 14) of the healing element and a threaded opening (55 in Fig. 14) of the implant (col. 10 lines 27-31).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dental healing abutments. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Christiansen in view of Hinds in view of Fisher to further comprise fixing the healing element on the implant by a screw that cooperates with the through-opening of the healing element and a threaded opening of the implant as taught by Hinds in order to allow for the securing of the healing element directly to the implant while allowing for different desired positions to be achieved (Hinds col. 10 lines 27-31 and col. 11 lines 8-17).
In regard to claim 35, Christiansen in view of Hinds in view of Fisker discloses the invention of claim 29. Christiansen further discloses wherein the healing element is produced from a polymer material (Christiansen para. 0145).
In regard to claim 36, Christiansen in view of Hinds in view of Fisker discloses the invention of claim 29. Christiansen further discloses wherein the healing element is produced by molding (Christiansen para. 0145).
In regard to claim 37, Christiansen in view of Hinds in view of Fisker discloses the invention of claim 29. Christian further discloses wherein the determining of the positioning of the implant comprises:
-taking a manual or digital impression of an oral space comprising the healing element fixed on the implant (para. 0143) and automatically detecting the positioning of the implant by identifying at least one of the following:
-an orientation of the implant from an orientation of the surface emergent from the gum (paras. 0123, 0143, 0147).
In regard to claim 38, Lee Christiansen in view of Hinds in view of Fisker discloses the invention of claim 29. Christiansen does not disclose wherein a length of a lingual side of the end surface along a direction tangent to the gum is substantially shorter than a length of a vestibular side of the end surface
Hinds further discloses wherein a length of a lingual side (length 1 in annotated Fig. 27) of the end surface along a direction tangent to the gum is substantially shorter than a length of a vestibular side (length 2 in annotated Fig. 27) of the end surface (Fig. 27).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dental healing abutments. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lengths of the sides of the healing element of Christiansen in view of Hinds in view of Fisher so that a length of a lingual side of the end surface along a direction tangent to the gum is substantially shorter than a length of a vestibular side of the end surface as taught by Hinds in order to allow for the healing element to have a shape specific to the type of tooth being removed (Hinds col. 10 line 38).
In regard to claim 39, Christiansen in view of Hinds in view of Fisker discloses the invention of claim 29. Christiansen further discloses wherein the healing element (272 in Fig. 6D) comprises an anti-rotation element (279 in Fig. 6A) cooperating with an anti-rotation element of the implant and ensuring fixation of the healing element in a single orientation (paras. 0108 and 0122), without rotation relative to the implant (paras. 0108 and 0122).
In regard to claim 40, Christiansen in view of Hinds in view of Fisker discloses the invention of claim 29. Christiansen does not disclose wherein parts of the emergent surface of the healing element that are intended for a positioning oriented toward an inside and an outside, respectively, of the mouth have a different shape.
Hinds further teaches wherein parts of the emergent surface (emergent surface in annotated Fig. 14) of the healing element that are intended for a positioning oriented toward an inside (part 1 in annotated Fig. 27) and an outside (part 2 in annotated Fig. 27), respectively, of the mouth have a different shape (Figures 16 and 27).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dental healing abutments. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the emergent surface of Christiansen in view of Hinds in view of Fisher so parts of the emergent surface of the healing element that are intended for a positioning oriented toward an inside and an outside, respectively, of the mouth have a different shape as taught by Hinds in order to allow for the healing element to have a shape specific to the type of tooth being removed (Hinds col. 10 line 38).
In regard to claim 41, Christiansen in view of Hinds in view of Fisker discloses the invention of claim 38. Christiansen does not disclose wherein a section transverse to the side surface of the healing element or a projection on a parallel plane of the emergent surface of the healing element has a substantially trapezoidal shape or a substantially polygonal or triangular or square or rectangular or ovoid shape, or a substantially polygonal shape with rounded corners.
Hinds further discloses wherein a projection on a parallel plane (2nd plane in annotated Fig. 3) of the emergent surface (emergent surface in annotated Fig. 14) of the healing element has: a substantially triangular shape (Figs. 16 and 27, col. 5 lines 16-19).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dental healing abutments. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shape of the healing element of Christiansen in view of Hinds in view of Fisker so that a projection on a parallel plane of the emergent surface of the healing element has a substantially triangular shape as taught by Hinds in order to allow for the healing element to have a shape specific to the type of tooth being removed (Hinds col. 10 line 38).
In regard to claim 43, Christiansen in view of Hinds in view of Fisker discloses the invention of claim 29. Christiansen further discloses that the healing element is made of one piece (para. 0145). Christiansen does not disclose further comprising selecting the healing element from a series of at least two healing elements of different shapes capable of being fixed to the same dental implant.
Hinds further teaches selecting the healing element from a series of at least two healing elements of different shapes capable of being fixed to the same dental implant (Abstract, col. 3 line 66- col. 4 line 11).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dental healing abutments. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Christiansen in view of Hinds in view of Fisker by adding the steps of selecting the healing element from a series of at least two healing elements of different shapes as further taught by Hinds in order to enable the surrounding tissues to only need to heal once while enabling control over the size and shape of the material introduced into the patient’s tissue (Hinds Abstract, Abstract, col. 3 line 66- col. 4 line 11).
In regard to claim 44, Christiansen in view of Hinds in view of Fisker discloses implementing the dental restoration method as claimed in claim 29 (see rejection of claim 29 above). Christiansen further discloses a method (Fig. 12, para. 0143) for producing a dental restoration abutment (para. 0143, “base part”) intended to be fixed to a dental implant at a first end (para. 0122, paras. 0044-0045, 0108-0109, Fig. 4B) and to receive a prosthesis at its second end (para. 0143, “final restorations”), the method comprising: and producing a prosthesis (paras. 0016, 0143).
In regard to claim 45, Christiansen in view of Hinds in view of Fisker discloses the invention of claim 17. Christiansen does not disclose wherein the perpendicular median plane is parallel to a tangent to the gum.
Hinds further teaches wherein the perpendicular median plane (perp. median plane in annotated Fig. 27) is parallel to a tangent to the gum (gum tangent in annotated Fig. 27).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dental healing abutments. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specified the perpendicular median plane of Christiansen in view of Hinds in view of Fisker is parallel to a tangent to the gum as taught by Hinds in order to allow for the alignment of the healing element which has a shape specific to the type of tooth being removed (Hinds col. 10 line 38).
In regard to claim 46, Christiansen in view of Hinds in view of Fisker discloses the invention of claim 29. Christiansen further teaches wherein the method comprises automatically detecting that the first portion of the emergent surface extends substantially farther from the first end along a direction of the main longitudinal axis than the second portion of the emergent surface (para. 0123, 0143, 0147).
Christiansen does not disclose wherein the perpendicular median plane is parallel to a tangent to the gum.
Hinds further teaches wherein the perpendicular median plane (perp. median plane in annotated Fig. 27) is parallel to a tangent to the gum (gum tangent in annotated Fig. 27).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dental healing abutments. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specified the perpendicular median plane of Christiansen in view of Hinds in view of Fisker is parallel to a tangent to the gum as taught by Hinds in order to allow for the alignment of the healing element which has a shape specific to the type of tooth being removed (Hinds col. 10 line 38).
In regard to claim 47, Christiansen in view of Hinds in view of Fisker discloses the invention of claim 29. Christiansen further discloses wherein the method comprises automatically detecting that the first portion of the emergent surface extends substantially farther from the first end along a direction of the main longitudinal axis than the second portion of the emergent surface (para. 0123, 0143, 0147, Fig. 6b).
In regard to claim 49, Christiansen in view of Hinds in view of Fisker discloses the invention of claim 41. Christiansen further discloses wherein the method comprises automatically detecting an asymmetry of the section transverse to the side surface of the healing element (Christiansen paras. 0123, 0143, 0147).
In regard to claim 51, Christiansen in view of Hinds in view of Fisker discloses the invention of claim 17. Christiansen does not disclose wherein an extremity of the end surface farthest from the first end along the direction of the main longitudinal axis is substantially linear.
Fisker further teaches wherein an extremity of the end surface farthest from the first end (first end in annotated Fig. 6b) along the direction of the main longitudinal axis is substantially linear (Fig. 6b). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specified the end surface of Christiansen in view of Hinds in view of Fisker has an extremity farthest from the first end along the direction of the main longitudinal axis which is substantially linear as taught by Fisker in order to allow for the healing element to be customized to the patient (Fisker para. 0308).
Claims 19, 33, and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christiansen in view of Hinds in view of Fisker in view of Daftary (U.S. Patent No. 5,431,567 A).
In regard to claim 19, Christiansen in view of Hinds in view of Fisker discloses the invention of claim 17. Christiansen does not disclose that at the through-opening, at least one thread suitable for cooperating with a threaded part of a screw is provided in order to prevent separation of the screw and the healing element by a simple translational movement.
Daftary teaches a similar apparatus wherein a healing element (204 in Figs. 6-9, 11-13) comprises, at the through-opening (250 in Fig. 7), at least one thread (256 in Fig. 7, col. 11 line 11) suitable for cooperating with a threaded part of the screw (230 in col. 10 line 60) provided in order to prevent separation of the screw and the healing element by a simple translational movement (col. 10 lines 60-63, col. 11 lines 9-13).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dental healing abutments. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the through-opening of Christiansen in view of Hinds in view of Fisker by adding at least one thread suitable for cooperating with a threaded part of the screw in order to prevent separation as taught by Daftary in order to allow for the healing abutment to be handled as a unit with the screw, which reduces the possibility of dropping or losing the screw (Daftary col. 11 lines 47-51, 59-64).
In regard to claim 33, Christiansen in view of Hinds in view of Fisker discloses the invention of claim 31. Christiansen does not disclose wherein the healing element comprises, at the through-opening of the healing element, at least one thread cooperating with a threaded part of the screw in order to prevent separation of the screw and the healing element by a simple translational movement.
Daftary teaches a similar apparatus wherein a healing element (204 in Figs. 6-9, 11-13) comprises, at the through-opening (250 in Fig. 7) of the healing element, at least one thread (256 in Fig. 7) cooperating with a threaded part of the screw (230 in col. 10 line 60) in order to prevent separation of the screw and the healing element by a simple translational movement (col. 10 lines 60-63, col. 11 lines 9-13).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dental healing abutments. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the through-opening of Christiansen in view of Hinds in view of Fisker by adding at least one thread cooperating with a threaded part of the screw in order to prevent separation as taught by Daftary in order to allow for the healing abutment to be handled as a unit with the screw, which reduces the possibility of dropping or losing the screw (Daftary col. 11 lines 47-51, 59-64).
In regard to claim 50, Christiansen in view of Hinds in view of Fisker in view of Daftary discloses the invention of claim 19. Christiansen further discloses wherein the end surface (end surface in annotated Fig. 6B) has a continuous surface without reliefs and without hollows except at the through-opening (Figs. 6B, 6C, 6E),
Claims 25 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christiansen in view of Hinds in view of Fisker in view of Poole (U.S. 8,739,444 B2).
PNG
media_image7.png
389
334
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 25, Christiansen in view of Hinds in view of Fisker discloses the invention of claim 17. Christiansen further discloses wherein the healing element further comprises a screw (74 in Fig. 4B) positioned in the healing element (paras. 0044-0045 and 0122). Christiansen does not disclose that an end surface of a screw positioned in the healing element comprises an indicator for indicating a height, and the indicator of the end surface of the screw comprises a color and/or a laser marking and/or one or more barcodes and/or data matrix codes for indicating the height.
Poole teaches a screw (24 in Fig. 5a) wherein an end surface of the screw comprises an indicator for indicating a size of the screw (Abstract, Fig. 5A, col. 3 lines 48-51), and the indicator (50d in Fig. 5A) of the end surface of the screw (Fig. 5A) comprises a color for indicating the size (col. 5 lines 50-51, col. 5 line 67-col. 6 line 3, col. 6 lines 53-59).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fastening systems. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the screw of Christiansen in view of Hinds in view of Fisker by adding an indicator comprising a color to the end surface of the screw which indicates a size, such as a height, as taught by Poole in order to allow for the elimination of haphazard searching for cooperating sizes of parts, and allow quicker and easier identification of the sizes of parts (Poole col. 3 lines 35-39)
In regard to claim 42, Christiansen in view of Hinds in view of Fisker discloses the invention of claim 29. Christiansen further discloses wherein the healing element further comprises a screw (74 in Fig. 4B) capable of fixing the healing element on the implant (Fig. 4B, paras. 0044-0045 and 0122). Christiansen does not disclose that an end surface of the screw comprises an indicator for indicating a height, and the indicator on the end surface of the screw comprises a color and/or a laser marking and/or one or more barcodes and/or data matrix codes for indicating the height.
Poole teaches a screw (24 in Fig. 5a) wherein an end surface of the screw comprises an indicator for indicating a size of the screw (Abstract, Fig. 5A, col. 3 lines 48-51), and the indicator (50d in Fig. 5A) of the end surface of the screw (Fig. 5A) comprises a color for indicating the size (col. 5 lines 50-51, col. 5 line 67-col. 6 line 3, col. 6 lines 53-59).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fastening systems. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the screw of Christiansen in view of Hinds in view of Fisker by adding an indicator comprising a color to the end surface of the screw which indicates a size, such as a height, as taught by Poole in order to allow for the elimination of haphazard searching for cooperating sizes of parts, and allow quicker and easier identification of the sizes of parts (Poole col. 3 lines 35-39)
Claims 27 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christiansen in view of Hinds in view of Fisker in view of Lee et al (KR 10-2014-0145014 A and translated PDF, hereinafter “Lee”).
PNG
media_image8.png
601
623
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
698
759
media_image9.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 27, Christiansen in view of Hinds in view of Fisker discloses the invention of claim 17. Christiansen does not disclose wherein the healing element further comprises, between the fixing device and the side surface, a frustoconical or substantially frustoconical portion adapted to cooperate with a bearing surface of the implant to prevent translational play between the healing element and the implant along a longitudinal axis of the healing element.
Lee teaches wherein the healing element (20 in Figs. 1-5b) further comprises, between the fixing device (fixing device in annotated Fig. 4) and the side surface (31, 32, 33 in Fig. 5a, Figs. 4-5b), a substantially frustoconical portion (42 in Figs. 4-5b) capable of cooperating with a bearing surface of the implant (10 in Fig. 5a, para. 0046) to prevent translational play between the healing element and the implant along a longitudinal axis (axis 1 in annotated Fig. 5a) of the healing element (Fig. 5a).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dental healing abutments. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the healing element of Christiansen in view of Hinds in view of Fisker by adding between the fixing device and the side surface, a substantially frustoconical portion capable of cooperating with a bearing surface of the implant to prevent translational play between the healing element and the implant along a longitudinal axis of the healing element as taught by Lee in order to allow for additional prevention of rotation of the healing element due to friction (Lee paras. 0045 and 0046).
In regard to claim 34, Christiansen in view of Hinds in view of Fisker discloses the invention of claim 29. Christiansen does not disclose wherein a frustoconical portion of the healing element cooperates with a conical bearing surface of the implant in order to seal an interface between the implant and the healing element and to eliminate any translational play between the healing element and the implant.
Lee teaches wherein a frustoconical portion (42 in Figs. 4, 5a-5b) cooperates with a conical bearing surface of the implant (10 in Fig. 5a, para. 0046) in order to seal an interface between the implant and the healing element (20 in Figs. 1-5b) and to eliminate any translational play between the healing element and the implant (Fig. 5a).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dental healing abutments. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the healing element of Christiansen in view of Hinds in view of Fisker by adding a frustoconical portion of the healing element which cooperates with a conical bearing surface of the implant in order to seal an interface between the implant and the healing element and to eliminate any translational play between the healing element and the implant as taught by Lee in order to allow for additional prevention of rotation of the healing element due to friction (Lee paras. 0045 and 0046).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christiansen in view of Hinds in view of Fisker in view of Kim (KR 101472570 B1 and translated PDF).
PNG
media_image10.png
496
355
media_image10.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 32, Christiansen in view of Hinds in view of Fisker discloses the invention of claim 31. Christiansen does not disclose that the healing element comprises a conical bearing surface at the second end cooperating with a conical portion of a head of the screw in order to seal an interface between the screw and the healing element.
Kim teaches a similar apparatus (Fig. 5) comprising a first end (first end in annotated Fig. 5) and a second end (second end in annotated Fig. 5), wherein the healing element comprises a conical bearing surface (bearing surface in annotated Fig. 5) at the second end cooperating with a conical portion of a head of the screw (conical portion in annotated Fig. 5) in order to seal an interface between the screw and the healing element (p. 4 lines 15-19).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dental healing abutments. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specified the healing element of Christiansen in view of Hinds in view of Fisker comprises a conical bearing surface at the second end cooperating with a conical portion of a head of the screw as taught by Kim in order to seat the screw in the healing element while maintaining a rounded end surface without sharp edges which can irritate the mouth (Kim p. 4 lines 25-28).
Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christiansen in view of Hinds in view of Fisker in view of Holzner et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0176188 A1, hereinafter “Holzner”).
In regard to claim 48, Christiansen in view of Hinds in view of Fisker discloses the dental restoration method as claimed in claim 38. Christiansen does not disclose that the method comprises automatically detecting an asymmetry between the length of the lingual side of the end surface along the direction tangent to the gum and the length of the vestibular side of the end surface.
Holzer discloses a similar method of determining the position and orientation of an implant in the jaw (Abstract, Fig. 1a) wherein the dimensions of the sides of the member attached to the implant vary intentionally (para. 0025, 0036, 0038, Fig. 1a) and scanning a jaw or jaw impression with the scan members attached (Abstract, paras. 0007-0013, 0052-0054) to determine position and orientation of implants (para. 0053).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dental implants. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Christiansen in view of Hinds in view of Fisker by adding the steps of automatically detecting an asymmetry between the length of one side of the end surface, such as the lingual side, and the length of another side of the end surface, such as the vestibular side, as taught by Holzer in order to allow for an element which has sides of different lengths which is less expensive to produce than one with exactly the same side lengths (Holzer para. 0037-0038) which allow for the identification of the position and orientation of an implant in the jaw (Holzer Abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 17 November 2025 with respect to the rejections of the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Examiner notes that in the above rejection, amended claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christiansen in view of Hinds in view of Fisker. New prior art Hinds teaches an apparatus (Figs. 12-27) comprising a continuous circumferential side surface being perpendicular to the juxta-gingival plane including substantially flat side surface portions (Figs. 14 and 16, Abstract, col. 5 lines 16-19), wherein the substantially flat side surface portions extend into an upper portion and into a lower portion (lower portion in annotated Fig. 14) of the side surface (col. 10 lines 27-29 and 37-40). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have modified Christiansen by the teachings of Hinds in order to allow for the healing element to have a shape specific to the type of tooth being removed (Hinds col. 10 line 38).
Applicant is directed to the rejections in view of the amendments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY N HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-7219. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-5:00PM (EST) flex, 2nd Friday off.
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.
/COURTNEY N HUYNH/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/EDELMIRA BOSQUES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772