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 against the prior art of record, see Remarks filed on 09/16/2025, have been considered, but are not persuasive as they do not address the new grounds of rejection and/or interpretation below necessitated by Applicant’s arguments and clarifications.
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) 1-6 and 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sapian (US 7300282 B2), in view of Jung (KR 20160113424 A).
PNG
media_image1.png
595
1087
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 1. Annotated Figure 11. )]
Regarding claim 1, Sapian discloses an abutment arrangement (abutment 102, Figure 11) for connecting a dental restoration to a dental implant (crown to implant, see col 8, lines 25-44), comprising: a post body (102); and a screw element (118), wherein the post body (102) has an axial passage (111) extending between an apical aperture and an occlusal aperture (see apertures at the top and bottom openings of the cavity 111 in Figure 11), the passage of the post body has a head socket and a press section at an apical end side of the head socket (Annotated Figure 11, above), the screw element comprises a head section (122) and a fastening thread section (120) axially distant from the head section (122), the screw element (118) is designed to be arranged in the passage (111) of the post body (102) so that the head section (122) is positioned in the head socket abutting the press section (since as shown in Figure 10, the head section of the screw abuts the press section and vice versa), and so that the screw element extends through the apical aperture whereby the fastening thread section (120) of the screw element (118) at least partially is positioned out of the post body (102) (see Figure 10), the post body has a mounting portion (Annotated Figure 11, above) positioned at an occlusal side of the head socket and which is flexible between an expanded position and a constricted position (since they are part of a plurality of flexible splines, see col 8, line 28), and which has an inner face radially limiting the passage (as shown in Figure 11), the screw element has a first locking section (126) and the inner face of the mounting portion has a second locking section (106), when the screw element is arranged in the passage (111) of the post body (102), the first locking section (126) of the screw element (118) is positioned adjacent to the second locking section of the mounting portion of the post body (102), and the first locking section of the screw element and the second locking section of the inner face of the mounting portion are configured such that the mounting portion of the post body is locked in the expanded position (since the head 122 of the screw 118 will ride over the sloping ridges 106 and apply a pushing force against the flexible splines 104 of post body 102. The receipt of the flats 126 against ridges 106 will cause the flexible splines 104 to bend or rotate outwardly towards the elastomeric cap 114, see col 9, line 27-32; see also that 104 has a spring-like memory, col 8, line 29). However, Sapian fails to specifically disclose “and the first locking section of the screw element and the second locking section of the inner face of the mounting portion are configured to plastically deform the screw element, the post body or the screw element and the post body”.
Jung discloses an abutment arrangement (abutment 30, Figure 4) for connecting a dental restoration to a dental implant (since it is an assembly for artificial teeth, see the Abstract), comprising: a post body (30); and a screw element (40); and the first locking section (51) of the screw element (10) and the second locking section (35) of the inner face of the mounting portion (30) are configured to plastically deform the screw element, the post body or the screw element and the post body (page 5, paragraph 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Sapian’s abutment arrangement, to make the screw element and the inner face of the mounting portion configured to plastically deform, since such modification would increase the adhesion with the abutment upon plastic deformation (page 5, paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 2, Sapian and Jung, as combined above in the rejection of claim 1, discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Sapian discloses wherein the first locking section (126) of the screw element (118) is embodied as a displacing section, wherein the displacing section of the screw element is configured to deform the material of the mounting portion of the post body such that a shape of the inner face of the mounting portion of the post body is changed (col 8, line 65 to col 9, line 30).
Regarding claim 3, Sapian and Jung, as combined above in the rejection of claim 1, discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Sapian discloses wherein the inner face of the mounting portion of the post body has a projection configured to be reshaped when being pressed by the first locking section of the screw element (col 9, lines 27-32).
Regarding claim 4, Sapian and Jung, as combined above in the rejection of claim 1, discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Sapian discloses wherein the first locking section of the screw element is an invading section (since is it is formed by angled flats 126 carried by the tapered head 122 of the screw 118, which ride over the sloping ridges 106 and apply a pushing force against the flexible splines 104 of the post body 102, causing the flexible splines 104 to bend or rotate outwardly, col 9, lines 27-32).
Regarding claim 5, Sapian and Jung, as combined above in the rejection of claim 1, fails to specifically disclose “wherein the invading section of the screw element comprises an invading rib”.
However, Jung further discloses the screw element comprises an invading rib (51) (see Figure 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Sapian’s abutment arrangement, to make the screw element comprises an invading rib, since such modification would allow the abutment arrangement to increase the adhesion upon plastic deformation.
Regarding claim 6, Sapian and Jung, as combined above in the rejection of claim 1, discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Jung discloses wherein the first locking section of the screw element has a projection (rib 51) configured to be reshaped when being pressed by the second locking section of the inner face of the mounting portion of the post body (since it increases the adhesion with the abutment upon plastic deformation; see page 5, paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 8, Sapian and Jung, as combined above in the rejection of claim 1, discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Sapian discloses wherein the mounting portion of the post body (102) comprises flexible lamellas (since the mounting portion comprises flexible lamellas/splines 104, Figure 11 and col o, lines 28-29).
Regarding claim 9, Sapian and Jung, as combined above in the rejection of claim 1, discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Sapian discloses wherein the mounting portion of the post body is configured for a snap-fit connection to the dental restoration (since the post body comprises locking grooves that secure the post body to the dental restoration, Figure 12 and col lines 31-33).
Regarding claim 10, Sapian and Jung, as combined above in the rejection of claim 1, discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Sapian discloses wherein the mounting portion of the post body has a neck section and a bulge section radially protruding the neck section when the mounting portion is in the expanded position (Annotated Figure 12).
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 2. Annotated Figure 12. )]
PNG
media_image2.png
621
1055
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Sapian and Jung, as combined above in the rejection of claim 1, discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Sapian discloses wherein the neck section of the mounting portion of the post body is located apically offset of the bulge section of the mounting portion of the post body (Annotated Figure 12).
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sapian and Jung, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bolleter (US 20180147030 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Sapian and Jung fails to disclose the projection of the first locking section of the screw element spirally extends along an outer face of the screw element.
Bolleter discloses an abutment arrangement for connecting a dental restoration to a dental implant (Figure 7a-b, Abstract), comprising: a post body (5); and a screw element (7), wherein the inner face of the mounting portion (Annotated Figure 7, below) of the post body (5) has a projection (grooves 61’) configured to be reshaped when being pressed by the first locking section of the screw element. The Examiner notes that both the post body (5) and a screw element (7) are formed of one piece from fibre-reinforced thermoplastic (PEEK, claim 11 and 14); therefore; the projections (grooves 61’) are configured to be reshaped when being pressed by the first locking section of the screw element due to the flexibility of this material [0088].
Bolleter teaches wherein the projection of the first locking section of the screw element spirally extends along an outer face of the screw element (see helical ribs Figure 7 and [0087]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Sapian/Jung’s first locking section of the screw element to make it helical ribs on the outer peripheral surface of the screw head, since as a result of this profile, the screw automatically tightens further when the dental system is subjected to tensile stress ([0087]).
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sapian and Jung, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suttin (US 20140080095 A1), as evidenced by Mielecke (US 20150351875 A1).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Sapian and Jung, as combined above in the rejection of claim 1, discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Sapian discloses wherein the post body (102) has an occlusal part having the occlusal aperture of the passage and an apical part having the apical aperture of the passage (see apertures at the top and bottom openings of the cavity 111 in Figure 11), the occlusal part of the post body is made of flexible material to change between the expanded position and the constricted position and to connect to the dental restoration (col 9, lines 30-32). However, Sapian is silent to the material types of the abutment; therefore, fails to disclose “the apical part of the post body is made of a first material, and the rigidity of the first material is substantially equal to a rigidity of the dental implant, and the occlusal part of the post body is made of a second material providing flexibility to change between the expanded position and the constricted position and to connect to the dental restoration” and “wherein the first material of the apical part of the post body is titanium and/or the second material of the occlusal part of the post body is PEEK, PMMA, Polycarbonate, Nylon, Silicone or a combination thereof”.
Suttin discloses an abutment arrangement for connecting a dental restoration to a dental implant (Figure 1, Abstract), comprising: a post body (721a); the apical part of the post body is made of a first material, and the rigidity of the first material is substantially equal to a rigidity of the dental implant (The Examiner notes that the dental implant is not positively recited as part of the abutment arrangement and that said claim abutment arrangement is for connecting to a dental restoration to a dental implant, as claimed in claim 1. Therefore, Suttin’s abutment arrangement has all the necessary structures/properties to be configured to have the apical part of the post body having the same rigidity of any appropriately sized and shaped the dental implant), and the occlusal part of the post body is made of a second material providing flexibility to change between the expanded position and the constricted position and to connect to the dental restoration and wherein the first material of the apical part of the post body is titanium and/or the second material of the occlusal part of the post body is PEEK, PMMA, Polycarbonate, Nylon, Silicone or a combination thereof (since post body 721a can be made of titanium, gold, ceramic, PEEK, acrylic, or other metals, plastics, and/or composites, or any combination thereof [0078]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Sapian’s abutment arrangement in order to make the apical part of the post body of titanium and the occlusal part of the post body of PEEK; since it is well known that titanium is highly suitable for use in dental prosthetics in the human body, particularly in combination with PEEK, as evidenced by Mielecke [0018].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS MIGUEL RUIZ MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)270-0839. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 Am - 5 PM (EST).
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 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 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.
/LUIS RUIZ MARTIN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/ERIC J ROSEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772