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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/19/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 11/19/2025, have been fully considered and reviewed by the examiner. The examiner notes the amendment to claim 1 and the addition of new claims 17-20. Claims 1-2, 6-7, 12-13, 15, 17-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as they are directed to newly added claim requirements that are specifically addressed below in the prior art rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-2, 6-7, 12-13, 15, 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 8671572 by Schlottig et al. with US Patent Application Publication 20100010632 by Bourges, US Patent Application Publication 20180339082 by Ryu et al., and US Patent Application Publication 20090115084 by Moon et al. alone or further with JP 2893253, hereinafter JP 253 and US Patent Application Publication 20180243096 by Ryd et al.
Claim 1: Schlottig discloses a method of manufacturing a dental implant (title), the method comprising by the steps of: a) provision of a dental implant base body (ceramic, see column 2, lines 6-10) and drying/burnout/debindering/coking (i.e. presintering) for a oxide green ceramic body as claimed (see column 4, lines 32-58, see examples regarding zirconia, i.e. oxide); b) abrasive blasting of at least one surface portion, which is to be configured with a surface that promotes bone growth, and at least regional application of abrasive blasting agent to the surface portion (column 4, lines 53-603); and c)removal of abrasive particles d) sintering of the dental implant base body together with the abrasive blasting agent remaining on the surface portion (see column 8, lines 45-55, stating “surfaces produced . . . may contain partially incorporated components of the blasting agents used”). Schlottig discloses blasting agents include calcium phosphates (column 4, lines 58-65 “Ca-phosphates”). As for the roughness, Schlottig discloses a roughness that is within the claimed range and thus makes obvious the claimed range (column 9, lines 1-5).
Schlottig discloses calcium phosphate as the blasting agent and using a mixture of blasting agents; however, fails to disclose the combination of HA and tricalcium phosphate or them individually as claimed, the examiner cites here Bourges, which discloses preparation of biocompatible implants is sand-blasted with Ca phosphates “favouring the osteoconduction and osteointegration thereof “ and discloses “[t]he sand-blasting medium may advantageously consist of different calcium phosphate particles obtained naturally or by sintering, selected in the list comprising hydroxyapatite (Ca.sub.10(PO.sub.4).sub.6(OH).sub.2, tricalcium beta-phosphate (.beta.-Ca.sub.3(PO.sub.4).sub.2), tricalcium alpha-phosphate (.alpha.-Ca.sub.3(PO.sub.4).sub.2), tetracalcium phosphate (Ca.sub.3(PO.sub.4).sub.2O.sub.2), octacalcium phosphate (Ca.sub.8H.sub.2(PO.sub.4).sub.6.5H.sub.2O) as well as their mixtures.” Therefore, taking the references collectively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified Schlottig to use the known implant Ca blasting agents as Schlottig discloses Ca phosphate blasting of Zirconia implants and Bourges discloses Ca phosphate blasting agents for implants to provide favoring the osteoconduction and osteointegration thereof and one taking the references collectively would have found it desireable to provide the favoring the osteoconduction and osteointegration benefit to the implant of Schlottig.
Schlottig discloses incorporated blasting agent and also removal; however, fails to explicitly disclose partial removal. However, Ryu discloses a calcium phosphates particle spraying technique, using a pressure of 2 bar to 4 bar, similar to that as taught by Schlottig, to coat an implant, and Ryu discloses after spray coating, washing for the purpose of removing loose particles that are not sufficiently attached to the implant (0014, 0022, 0024). Therefore, taking the references collectively and all that is known to one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified Schlottig to provide a cleaning step after blasting the particles to reap the benefits as outlined by Ryu, that is to remove those particles that are loosely attached to the surface.
Examiner notes that Schlottig discloses general presintering the zirconia and therefore fails to disclose presintering from 700-900C as claimed. However, Moon, in the art forming zirconia for dental application (abstract) discloses presintering the zirconia at a temperature from 850-1200C (see e.g. claims 1, 8 and 9). Therefore, taking the references collectively using a sintering temperature within the claimed range, such as 850, would have been obvious as Moon discloses presintering the zirconia at 850-1200C is known and therefore using a known and suitable temperature, including those as claimed, for presintering would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. A predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions to achieve a predictable result is prima facie obvious. See KSR Int’l Inc. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 2, 12 and 13: Schlottig discloses 0.2-7 bar (column 5, lines 15-166, lines 3-20), overlapping the ranges as claimed and thus makes obvious such.
Claim 6 and 15: Schlottig discloses sintering; however, fails to disclose the claimed temperature. However, the sintering temperature is a result effective variable, directly affecting the sintering process, too low of a temperature will result in improper sintering and too high of a temperature will result in detriment to the substrate or and therefore determination of the optimal sintering temperature would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the sintered zirconia implant.
Claim 17-19: Bourges discloses the sandblasting agent is selected from the group including hydroxyapatite (Ca.sub.10(PO.sub.4).sub.6(OH).sub.2, tricalcium beta-phosphate (.beta.-Ca.sub.3(PO.sub.4).sub.2), tricalcium alpha-phosphate (.alpha.-Ca.sub.3(PO.sub.4).sub.2) . . . or mixtures thereof and therefore using the disclosed particles individually or in combination would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide predictable results.
Additionally, while the examiner maintains the position as set forth above regarding the blasting agent remains on the dental implant, the examiner cites here JP 253 and Ryd. JP 253, which in the art of implants and using a calcium phosphate particles composed of a mixture of HA and tricalcium phosphate to form a surface of the implant with the calcium phosphate particles (0005, 0007, 0008). Therefore, as HA with tricalcium phosphate are known to be applied to implants to provide roughness, it would have been obvious to have using the known blasting for implants with a reasonable expected of predictable results and because the dental implant as taught by JP 253 includes the HA and tricalcium phosphate with osteoconductive ability to promote benefit and using those on the surface of the implant. Additionally, Ryd discloses applying a coating onto an implant and discloses a coating comprising HA and tricalcium phosphate (0106) and therefore using a coating of HA and tricalcium phosphate on the surface of the implant would have been obvious as predictable.
Claim(s) 6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlottig with Bourges, Ryu et al., and Moon et al. alone or further with JP 253 and Ryd et al. as applied above and further with Pardun (Characterization of Wet Powder-Sprayed Zirconia/Calcium Phosphate Coating for Dental Implants).
While the examiner maintains the position as set forth above, the examiner cites here Pardun, which discloses a Zirconia dental implant. Pardun discloses sintering the presintered zirconia at a temperature of 1500C (WPS “sintereted at 1,500oC”) and therefore taking the references collectively and all that is known to one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious to have used the known sintering temperature for a zirconia dental implant as both Schlottig and Pardun disclose zirconia dental implants and sintering of such.
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlottig with Bourges, Ryu et al., and Moon et al. alone or further with JP 253 and Ryd et al. as applied above and further with Talib AbdulQader et al. (A simple pathway in preparation of controlled porosity of biphasic calcium phosphate scaffold for dentin regeneration)
While the examiner maintains the position as set forth above, the Examiner Talib AbdulQader, also in the art of scaffolds for dentin tissue regeneration (Introduction) and discloses the selection of the blasting agent will have specific benefits, biphasic calcium phosphate, or a mixture of HA and TCP with varying ratios as well as individual HA or TCP. Talib AbdulQader discloses HA is known to be bioactive and TCP is resorbable (introduction). BCP of HA/TCP of 20/80 is known ratio to provide bone tissue engineering and is more efficient than pure HA or TCP alone (Introduction). Therefore, taking the references collectively using a combination of HA/TCP in a ratio of 20/80 or them individually, which is known, would have been obvious to provide the benefits as taught by Talib AbdulQader. Additionally, and at the very least, Talib AbdulQader explicitly discloses the individual HA or TCP or mixture for efficient tissue engineering and that HA is known to be bioactive and TCP is resorbable (introduction) and thus each has a result effectiveness and determination of the proportion of each (whether individually or a mixture) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value for the TCP and HA ratio to reap the benefits of the individual inclusion and to provide the desired tissue engineering, balancing bioactivity of HA with resorbability of TCP. Additionally, using a combination of HA with TCP would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as CP of HA/TCP of 20/80 is known ratio to provide bone tissue engineering and is more efficient than pure HA or TCP alone (Introduction).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P TUROCY whose telephone number is (571)272-2940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached on 571-272-5166. 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.
/DAVID P TUROCY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718