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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 10/21/2025, have been fully considered. Applicant’s arguments against the rejections in view of the prior art of record have been fully considered, but are not persuasive as they do not address the new grounds of rejection and/or interpretation below necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim 41 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 41 reads “the shoulder”, it should read “the internal shoulder”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 34-35 and 37-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 34 recites “said connecting element”, “internal site” and “coupling portion”, there is a lack of antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 35 recites “said central opening”, there is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 37 recites “said connection element” and “said internal site”, there is a lack of antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claims 38 and 39 are rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 34.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 26, 29-31 and 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jacobsen (US 20180303586 A1).
Regarding claim 26, Jacobsen discloses a dental implant comprising a threaded connector element (300) removably connecting an anchorage body (260) having a head portion (320) to a stem (160), wherein the anchorage body (260) is integral with said head portion (320; see [0039]), and wherein the head portion (320) has a section delimiting an insertion site (360), said insertion site having a first section (390) proximal to an abutment (structure 600), and a second section (280), distal from the abutment (structure 600) and having a smaller section (380) than the first section (290) so as to define an internal shoulder (Annotated Figure below).
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 1. Jacobsen’s Annotated Figure. )]
PNG
media_image1.png
600
546
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 29, Jacobsen discloses wherein said abutment (structures 600) comprises a support element which has, at one end, an internal cavity shaped as a part of sphere (see structure 600 in Figure 5, see how the structure 600 has a shape that is complementary to collet 400, which has a spherical shape, as shown in Figure 4) with a radius equal to or substantially equal to that of said head portion (320; see, in Figure 5, how the structure 600 is mounted in a complementary form over said head portion 320; therefore their radius and diameters are substantially equal) accessible from the outside through a lower circular opening (see Figure 5).
Regarding claim 30, Jacobsen discloses wherein said support element has a central opening which extends through said support element grasping in said internal cavity (see, in Figure 5, the central opening of structure 600 where a screw can pass through).
Regarding claim 31, Jacobsen discloses in which the said central through opening is circular or substantially circular and engages in the said internal site (since said central through opening is a passage for a screw, as shown in Figure 5).
Regarding claim 41, Jacobsen discloses wherein the anchorage body (260) comprises a curved exterior surface (since at least on section of the exterior surface of body 260 is curved; see Figure 3), and wherein the threaded connector element (300) has a width or cross section smaller than the first section (390) of the insertion site (360) and smaller than the second section (280) of the insertion site (360) (see Figure 3).
Regarding claim 42, Jacobsen discloses wherein the connector element (300) comprises an enlarged end (head of the screw) having a width or cross section smaller than the first section (390) of the insertion site (360), but greater than the second section (280) of the insertion site (360), such that during use the stem (160) is extended, during use starting from the insertion site (360), away from the head portion (320), while the enlarged end is in abutment against the internal shoulder (internal shoulder, see the annotated Figure above) (see the claimed arrangement shown in Figure 3).
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C.
103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or
nonobviousness.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 34-35 and 37-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobsen as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Elsner (US 20180140390 A1), as evidenced by Elsner (WO 2014106761 A2), hereafter, Elsner 761.
Regarding claim 34, Jacobsen discloses in which said connecting element (400) comprises a first portion or coupling component, selectively engageable within said internal site (360). However, Jacobsen fails to disclose “a second portion or coupling component connectable to said abutment and a central portion connecting between said first coupling portion and said second coupling portion”.
Elsner discloses a dental implant (e.g. Figures 15 and 49, [0090]; implant system, as best understood by the Examiner) comprising an anchorage body (10), comprising a stem (2) having a thread (e.g. Figures 48-49) engageable in a mandibular or maxillary site (stem 2 is capable of being inserted in a mandibular or maxillary site), and a head portion (7) having an internal site (13) and a central through opening (14) (see Figures 2-6), wherein the internal site (13) is accessible through the central through opening (14); an abutment (21) to which a dental crown is connectable (abutment 21 is capable of connecting with a dental crown [0101]); a connection element (4) having a first coupling portion (8) selectively engageable within said internal site (since as shown in Figure 15, the connection element 4 engages an internal site 13), and a second coupling portion (threaded part of connection element 4, shown in Figure 15, see [0090]) connectable to said abutment (21); and a central portion connecting between said first coupling portion and said second coupling portion (since the connection element 4 has a central portion between the threaded part and the first coupling portion 8, comprising petals/protrusions, as shown in Figures 11 and 15) wherein said anchorage body (10) and said abutment (21) are operatively connected to each other by means of the connection, and wherein at least the first coupling portion (8) of the connection element (4) is insertable into and removable from the central through opening (Figure 15, [0090]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Jacobsen’s connecting element in order to make it comprising the structures disclosed by Elsner (i.e. a first coupling portion selectively engageable within said internal site and second coupling portion connectable to said abutment), since such modification would be a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (e.g. a more secure and selective connection; see MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 35, Jacobsen and Elsner discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Elsner discloses wherein said first portion (8) or coupling component is shaped as a spherical segment (Figure 10) adapted to engage a widening made in said central opening (14), to access said internal site (13) (since first portion 8 of the connecting element 4 is installed between the upper end of the head portion 7, Figure 5, [0096]).
Regarding claim 37, Jacobsen discloses wherein said connection element (400) has a first portion or coupling component with a central section with two, three, four or more projecting sections or petals (570) protruding from the latter (Figure 4, [0041]). However, Jacobsen fails to disclose while said internal site has instead a central through opening and two, three, four or more slots in recess with respect to the central through opening and angularly spaced from the same angle or distance of the projecting sections or petals.
Elsner discloses wherein said connection element (4) has a first portion or coupling component with a central section with two, three, four or more projecting sections or petals protruding from the latter (Protrusions shown in Elsner’s Annotated Figures 5-6 and 10), while said internal site (13) has instead a central through opening (14) and two, three, four or more slots (Elsner’s Annotated Figures 5-6 and 10) in recess with respect to the central through opening and angularly spaced from the same angle or distance of the projecting sections or petals (since connection element 4 with two, three, four or more projecting petals (Annotated Figures) engages internal site 13 having two, three, four or more slots (Annotated Figures), as described in [0096] and claim 1). Therefore, the slots are angularly spaced from the same angle or distance as the petals. The Examiner notes that the structures described in Elsner 761 are incorporated by reference in the disclosure of Elsner ([0096]). Elsner 761 provides evidence that the connection element (4) has a first portion or coupling component with a central section with two, three, four or more projecting sections or petals protruding from the latter while said internal site (13) has instead a central through opening and two, three, four or more slots in recess with respect to the central through opening and angularly spaced from the same angle or distance of the projecting sections or petals (please see Elsner 761: page 14, lines 20-26). Since there is a hemispherical portion near the threaded part of the connector 4 - is a regular polygon advantageously hexagon that follows the curvature of the sphere. The portion 8 opposite the threaded part of the connection element 4 forms a regular segment of a sphere (Figures 33-37). The inner surface 15 of the head portion 7 is a sphere-like shell whose cross-section perpendicular to the axis of symmetry 25 of the head portion 7 is a regular polygon that follows the curvature of the sphere-like shell, the number of the angles of the polygon equals to the number of the angles of the regular polygon formed at end 8 of the connection element 4 (Figures 29-32); Elsner 761: page 14, lines 20-26. Therefore, there are slots formed where the sides converge in the polygon structure of head 7 and said slots received the petals created by the polygon that surrounds sphere 8, as shown in Elsner’s Annotated Figures 5-6 and 10.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Jacobsen’s connecting element in order to make it comprising the structures disclosed by Elsner (i.e. said connection element has a first portion or coupling component with a central section with two, three, four or more projecting sections or petals protruding from the latter, while said internal site has instead a central through opening and two, three, four or more slots in recess with respect to the central through opening and angularly spaced from the same angle or distance of the projecting sections or petals), since such modification would be a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (e.g. a more secure and selective connection; see MPEP 2143).
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 2. Elsner Annotated Figures.)]
PNG
media_image2.png
551
1522
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 38, Jacobsen and Elsner discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Elsner discloses comprising coupling means (threaded shank of member 4, Figures 15 and 49, [0090]) between said second portion (Elsner’s Annotated Figures 5-6 and 10) or coupling component of said connection element (4) and said abutment (21).
Regarding claim 39, Jacobsen and Elsner, as combined above, discloses wherein said coupling means (Elsner: threaded shank of member 4) comprises an external threaded portion which extends along said second coupling portion (Elsner’s Annotated Figures 5-6 and 10) of said connection element (Elsner: 4), but fails to disclose “a corresponding internal threaded portion which extends inside said abutment”.
Elsner also teaches a corresponding internal threaded portion which extends inside said abutment (21). The Examiner notes that abutment 21 comprises a fixing nut 26 that has corresponding internal threaded portion which extends inside said abutment (21); please see Figure 49, [0096] and claim 1. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Jacobsen/Elsner’s dental implant in order to add the teachings of a corresponding internal threaded portion which extends inside said abutment, since such modification would create a more secure and selective connection.
Regarding claim 40, Jacobsen discloses wherein said support element has an internal cavity shaped as a part of a sphere (see structure 600 in Figure 5, see how the structure 600 has a shape that is complementary to collet 400, which has a spherical shape, as shown in Figure 4) with a diameter equal to or substantially equal to that of said head portion (320; see, in Figure 5, how the structure 600 is mounted in a complementary form over said head portion 320; therefore their radius and diameters are substantially equal); but fails to disclose “wherein said support element has a configuration with a truncated conical shape”.
Elsner discloses wherein said support element has a configuration with a truncated conical shape (see Annotated Figure 42). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Jacobsen’s abutment to make it comprising said support element having a configuration with a truncated conical shape, since such modification would provide a matching stopping structures for the spherical coupling component.
PNG
media_image3.png
633
780
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 3. Elsner's Annotated Figure 42.)]
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS RUIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0839. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 Am - 5 PM (EST). 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).
/Luis Ruiz Martin/
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3772
/ERIC J ROSEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772