DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/02/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
4. Claims 29-32 and 46-50 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Halldin et al. (2003/0082499) in view of Niznick (2006/0003290), and further in view of Amber et al. (US 2008/0233537).
Regarding claim 29, Halldin et al. discloses an abutment system 1/201 (Figs. 2-7, 10A-10B) for attachment to a dental implant having a threaded bore and for engaging the surrounding gingival tissue. Note that the dental implant is not positively claimed as an element of the invention; therefore, the dental implant and any limitation thereof are not given patentable weight. Nonetheless, note that Halldin et al. discloses the abutment system for attachment to a dental implant 401 having a threaded bore (Fig. 10B). Halldin et al. discloses abutment system comprising a base 1 (Figs. 2a-2b) including a lower region 2 and an upper region 3 (Fig. 2b). The lower region 2 includes an anti- rotational feature 21 for non-rotationally mating with the dental implant (Fig. 2b; paragraph 98 “hexagonal locking structure 21 for rotational lock to an implant”). The upper region 3 includes a first anti-rotational structure 15 (Fig. 2a-2b; paragraph 81 “rotational locking means 15 is made out of a flat part”) and a first axial retention structure 9 that is positioned between the first anti-rotational structure 15 and the lower region 2 (Fig. 2a-2b; paragraph 79 “the component engagement means 9 is provided at the transition between said shoulder portion 4 and post portion 5”).
The abutment system further comprises: an abutment cap 201 having a second anti-rotational structure 215 for mating with the first anti- rotational structure 15 and a second axial retention structure 209 for mating with the first axial retention structure9 (Figs. 7a-7f; paragraphs 129-131).
Regarding the recited feature(s) “first axial retention…”, Halldin et al. shows the first axial-retention structure 9 which is a groove that circumnavigates the base (Fig. 2a). However, Halldin et al. shows the groove 9 being interrupted at surface 15 (Fig. 1a). Therefore Halldin et al. fails to disclose “first axial retention structure that completely and without interruption circumnavigates the base” as claimed (claim 29 lines 5-6).
Niznick discloses an abutment 13/12 having a first axial retention structure (groove 150) that completely and without interruption circumnavigates the abutment base 12 (Figs. 1, 1A-1B). The groove 150 is complementary to projections or protrusion 153 in abutment cap 152 so as to axially retain the cap 152 on abutment 13/12 (paragraph 41). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Halldin et al. by making the first axial-retention structure, i.e. Halldin’s groove 9, being completely and without interruption circumnavigating the abutment base as taught by Niznick’s groove 150, in order to providing an effective axial retention mechanism at all points along the circumference thereof the base.
In claim 29, regarding the claimed feature(s) “a variety of abutment caps in a shape of differently anatomically”, Halldin discloses it is well known for such abutment cap to function as a prosthesis coping wherein an artificial tooth is to be built upon the abutment cap; as such the abutment cap would have the shape of a natural tooth. However, Halldin/Niznick fails to explicitly discloses “a variety of abutment caps in a shape of differently anatomically shaped teeth” (as recited in claim 29).
Amber et al. discloses a variety of such abutment caps (healing abutments 10) in a shape of differently anatomically shaped teeth as claimed (see Amber [0073] “the set of healing abutments could include components shaped like the various teeth… For example, a set may include four types of molar-shaped healing abutments, four types of bicuspid-shaped healing abutments…”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Halldin/Niznick by providing a variety of abutment caps in a shape of differently anatomically shaped teeth as taught by Amber in order to provide an aesthetic and natural look similar to natural teeth.
In claims 29-32, regarding the limitation(s) “at least one information marker”, Halldin/Niznick discloses the abutment cap as claimed except for at least one information marker on an upper surface (as recited in claim 29) and the various claimed features of the information markers (as recited in claims 30-32).
Per claim 29, Amber et al. discloses an abutment cap (healing abutment 10 capping abutment portion of implant 70); the abutment cap 10 comprises a top surface 29 including one or more information markers 20 providing information concerning the abutment 10 and the underlying implant as well as an angle that the dental implant rests with respect to a jawbone (Figs. 1-2 and 9-10 ; paragraph [0042] “healing abutment 10 has positive information markers 20… “; [0076]-[0078] “when scanning techniques are used to learn of the information on the top of the healing abutment, the computer software is able to determine the position and orientation of the implant 900 relative to the adjacent teeth. The position of the implant 900 is defined in a Cartesian coordinate system having "X," "Y," and "Z" axes. The common point is at the intersection of the centerline of the implant and a plane 920 representing the seating surface 925 of the implant 900”).
Amber et al. further discloses:
Per claim 30: the information being the location of a table of the implant ([0066] “the location of the implant’s seating surface”).
Per claim 31: the information concerning the orientation of an implant anti-rotational feature (hexagonal boss on the implant) that mates with the anti-rotational feature of the base ([0045]-[0047] “information regarding the underlying implant seating surface diameter and implant hex angulation…The positive information markers 220 also define a corresponding one of the six flat surfaces of an underlying hex 225… information markers 220 indicates the orientation of the hex 225 that is the orientation of the hexagonal boss on the implant”).
Per claim 32: the information concerning the width of the abutment cap and the height of the abutment cap ([0070] “information markers… indicative of a healing abutment height… and a seating surface diameter”), or the identity of the implant and its manufacturer ([0071] “manufacturer of the implant could be noted”); wherein the information markers 20 being located in discrete/distinct information marker locations (see Fig. 1B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Halldin/Niznick to include at least one information marker at the top surface thereof the abutment cap, the markers providing information concerning the abutment cap and the underlying implant including information such as angle that the dental implant rests with respect to jawbone of a patent, the location of the table of the implant, the orientation of the implant’s anti-rotational feature, or the width and height of the abutment cap, or the implant’s identity and manufacturer, as taught by Amber et al., in order to readily and effectively provide a dental practitioner with information pertaining to the implant system present in a particular patient.
As to claim 46-49, Halldin et al. shows the base 1 having a flange 7/13 (Figs. 2a-2b), the first anti-rotational structure 15 and the first axial retention structure 9 being located above the flange 7/13; the outer surface of the flange 7/13 is tapered (Figs. 2a-2b). As to claim 50, Halldin et al. shows the first axial retention structure 9 comprising a single retention groove 9 (Figs. 2a-2b).
5. Claims 34-42 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Halldin et al. in view of Niznick and Amber et al., and further in view of Hurson (2002/0106610).
As to claim 34, Halldin/Niznick/Amber discloses the invention substantially as claimed according to claim 29 as detailed above, except for the abutment cap being polymeric. Hurson discloses abutment caps 210 and 214 being made from polymeric material (Fig. 16; paragraph 76 “healing cap 76 may be made of a synthetic polymer…”; paragraph 88 “cap 120 comprises a body 122… preferably made of resilient moldable plastic and/or polymer). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Halldin/Niznick/Amber by making the abutment cap from polymeric material as taught by Hurson to be suitable alternative material to form such abutment cap yielding the same and/or predictable results.
As to claims 35-36, Halldin/Niznick fails to disclose information markers providing information concerning the abutment and the underlying implant.
Amber et al. discloses: the information marker indicates the identity of the implant and its manufacturer ([0071] “manufacturer of the implant could be noted”); and wherein the information markers 20 being located in discrete/distinct information marker locations (see Fig. 1B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Halldin/Niznick to include at least one information marker at the top surface thereof the abutment cap, the markers providing information concerning the abutment cap and the underlying implant, information such as the location of the table of the implant, the orientation of the implant’s anti-rotational feature, or the width and height of the abutment cap, or the implant’s identity and manufacturer, as taught by Amber et al., in order to readily and effectively provide a dental practitioner with information pertaining to the implant system present in a particular patient.
Regarding claim 37, Halldin/Niznick/Amber discloses the invention substantially as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 29. Particularly to claim 37, note that Halldin et al. discloses a screw that extends through a through-bore 17 of the base 1 and engages the thread bore of the dental implant, the screw holding the base on the dental implant (Fig. 2b; paragraphs [0098], [0123] “a screw may be inserted in the through bore 17… for connection of the abutment 1 to an implant”).
Further particularly to claim 37, Halldin/Niznick/Amber fails to further disclose the plurality abutment caps being polymeric. Hurson discloses abutment caps 210 and 214 being made from polymeric material (Fig. 16; paragraphs 76 and 88). Note that Hurson also discloses the plurality of abutment caps 210 and 214 having different geometric dimension. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Halldin/Niznick/Amber’s abutment caps being made from polymeric material as taught by Hurson to be suitable alternative material to form such abutment cap yielding the same and/or predictable results.
As to claim 38, Halldin et al. shows the base 1 having a flange 7/13 (Figs. 2a-2b), the first anti-rotational structure 15 and the first axial retention structure 9being located above the flange 7/13 (Figs. 2a-2b).
As to claims 39-41, Halldin/Niznick discloses the abutment cap as claimed except for a unique code providing particular information as recited in claims 39-41.
Amber et al. discloses the unique code providing:
Per claim 39: the information being the location of a table of the implant (“the location of the implant’s seating surface” -paragraph 66).
Per claim 40: the information concerning the orientation of an implant anti-rotational feature that mates with the anti-rotational feature of the base (paragraph 18).
Per claim 41: the information concerning the width of the abutment cap and the height of the abutment cap (paragraphs 15-20, 70), and the identity of the implant and its manufacturer (paragraph 71).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Halldin/Niznick to include at least one unique code at the top surface thereof the abutment cap, the markers providing information concerning the abutment cap and the underlying implant, information such as the location of the table of the implant, the orientation of the implant’s anti-rotational feature, or the width and height of the abutment cap, or the implant’s identity and manufacturer, as taught by Amber et al., in order to readily and effectively provide a dental practitioner with information pertaining to the implant system present in a particular patient.
As to claim 42, Halldin discloses the implant 401 and a screw (paragraph 98) that extends through a through-bore 17 of the base 1 (Fig. 2b) and engages the thread bore of the dental implant, the screw holding the base on the dental implant 401. Hurson discloses abutment caps 210 and 214, wherein the abutment healing cap 210 covers the screw that attach the abutment to the implant. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Halldin/Niznick/Amber by including a plurality of caps wherein a cap is configured to cover the screw during the healing period in order to prevent disturbance to the implant and abutment during the healing period.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s arguments regarding the newly recited limitation(s) have been fully considered but are not found persuasive as having overcome the ground(s) of rejection under Halldin/Niznick/Amber.
Applicant argues that Halldin discloses impression copings and there is no concern in Halldin to track or provide information concerning an angle between a dental implant and an anatomy of a patient. Such arguments are not persuasive because Halldin is clearly concerned about information at the implantation site, including an angle between the dental implant and the patient’s anatomy in order to make the final prosthesis with an optimum fit (see Halldin [0002]-[0005] “The final prosthesis must be sized and configured so as to naturally fit with the remaining teeth of the patient, both for functionality and aesthetics”).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Halldin, Niznick, and Amber all are directed and motivated to obtain an effective information transfer system at the implantation site in order to form an optimum final prosthesis functionally and aesthetically. Halldin is directed to impression copings/caps; Niznick is directed to transfer caps; and Amber is directed to transfer caps via digital scanning. All are analogous to Applicant’s field of Applicant’s endeavor, i.e. information transfer of the implantation site in order to form an optimum final prosthesis.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAO D MAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3002. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:00-4:30. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eric Rosen can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HAO D MAI/
Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights