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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 12 September 2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Examiner suggests amending claim 14 line 2 to “wherein a shape”.
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 1-9 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verma et al (U.S. Patent No. 9,833,300 B2, hereinafter “Verma”) in view of Cottrell (U.S. Publication 2014/0199658 A1) and Eom et al (KR 200327025 Y1, see translated PDF, hereinafter “Eom”).
PNG
media_image1.png
436
520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 1, Verma discloses a dental implant assembly (1 in Fig. 1), the assembly comprising:
a base member (2 in Fig. 2) rotatably insertable into a jaw-bone (col. 12 lines 25-31), wherein the base member is defined by a collar portion (collar portion in annotated Fig. 2), mid-portion (mid-portion in annotated Fig. 2), and an apical region (apical region in annotated Fig. 2), and wherein the base member is defined with a plurality of threaded profiles (7, 8, and 14 in Fig. 2) comprising:
a first thread profile (14 in Fig. 2), defined on the collar portion (Fig. 2); a second thread profile (7 in Fig. 2), defined on the mid-portion (Fig. 2); a third thread profile (8 in Fig. 2), defined on the apical region (Fig. 2) and extending from an end of the second thread profile (Fig. 2, col. 13 lines 7-12 and 18-20), wherein the third thread profile (3) is capable of cutting into the jaw-bone to anchor the base member (col. 6 lines 50-54);
wherein the apical region of the base member is defined with a cut-out (18 in Fig. 2) that is formed over a plurality of threads of the third thread profile (Fig. 2), the cutout is capable of allowing integration of at least one tissue of the jaw-bone into the base member (col. 13 lines 32-39); and
an abutment (3 in Fig. 1) receivable by the base member (Fig. 4), wherein the abutment is secured to the base member through at least one fastener (4 in Fig. 1, col. 12 lines 25-31), and that the cut-out is on the third thread profile (Fig. 2).
Verma does not disclose wherein the first thread profile is defined with a first pitch; the second thread profile extending from an end of the first thread profile, the second thread profile is defined with a second pitch which is greater than the first pitch; the third thread profile is defined with a third pitch which is greater than the second pitch; wherein each of the first pitch, the second pitch and the third pitch are different from each other, and that the cut-out is a helical oriented cut-out.
Cottrell teaches a dental implant (Fig. 8) with a first thread profile (coronal threads in para. 0048), a second thread profile (middle threads in para. 0048), and a third thread profile (apical threads in para. 0048), wherein the first thread profile is defined with a first pitch (0.2 mm apart, para. 0048); the second thread profile extending from an end of the first thread profile (paras. 0002 and 0020), the second thread profile is defined with a second pitch which is greater than the first pitch (0.4 mm apart, para. 0048); the third thread profile is defined with a third pitch which is greater than the second pitch (1.2 mm apart, para. 0048); wherein each of the first pitch, the second pitch and the third pitch are different from each other (para. 0048).
Eom teaches a dental implant (Figs. 5-8) comprising a helical oriented cut-out (S112 in Fig. 5, para. 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 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 first, second, and third thread profiles of Verma by specifying the first, second and third thread profiles have a first, second, and third pitch, respectively, which are different from each other, wherein the second thread profile extends from an end of the first thread profile, the second pitch is greater than the first pitch, and the third pitch is greater than the second pitch as taught by Cottrell in order to allow maintaining of adequate wall thickness for a deep conical connection (Cottrell para. 0002).
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 cut-out of Verma by specifying the cut-out is helically oriented as taught by Eom in order to allow bone tissue to be laminated on the cut-out and increase bone adhesion (Eom para. 30).
In regard to claim 2, Verma in view of Cottrell and Eom discloses the invention of claim 1. Verma further discloses wherein the base member (2 in Fig. 2) is defined with an internal cavity (26 in Fig. 4) to receive the at least one fastener and the abutment (col. 14 lines 6-9 and 20-21).
In regard to claim 3, Verma in view of Cottrell and Eom discloses the invention of claim 1. Verma further discloses wherein the first thread profile (14 in Fig. 2) is a V-grooved thread profile (Fig. 3).
In regard to claim 4, Verma in view of Cottrell and Eom discloses the invention of claim 1. Verma does not disclose wherein the first thread profile includes a first pitch ranging from 280 µm to 320 µm.
Cottrell teaches a dental implant (Fig. 8) with a first thread profile (coronal threads in para. 0048), a second thread profile (middle threads in para. 0048), and a third thread profile (apical threads in para. 0048), wherein the first thread profile includes a first pitch ranging from 280 µm to 320 µm (0.2 mm apart, which is equal to 200 µm, para. 0048)
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 first thread profile of Verma in view of Cottrell and Eom by specifying the first thread profile includes a first pitch of 200 µm as taught by Cottrell in order to allow maintaining of adequate wall thickness for a deep conical connection (Cottrell para. 0002).
In regard to claim 5, Verma in view of Cottrell and Eom discloses the invention of claim 1. Verma further discloses wherein the second thread profile (7 in Fig. 2) is a buttress thread profile (Col. 13 lines 46-47; Figures 2 and 3).
In regard to claim 6, Verma in view of Cottrell and Eom discloses the invention of claim 1. Verma further discloses wherein the second thread profile includes a pitch ranging from 480 µm to 550 µm (col. 13 lines 46-59, note that middle part 7 is included in the threads 15 in Fig. 1), but does not disclose wherein the second thread profile includes a second pitch.
Cottrell teaches a dental implant (Fig. 8) with a first thread profile (coronal threads in para. 0048), a second thread profile (middle threads in para. 0048), and a third thread profile (apical threads in para. 0048), wherein the second thread profile includes a second pitch (para. 0048).
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 second thread profile of Verma in view of Cottrell and Eom by specifying the second thread profile includes a second pitch as taught by Cottrell in order to allow maintaining of adequate wall thickness for a deep conical connection (Cottrell para. 0002).
In regard to claim 7, Verma in view of Cottrell and Eom discloses the invention of claim 1. Verma further discloses wherein the third thread profile (8 in Fig. 2) is a macro thread profile (the thread on apical portion 8 is considered macro, or large, especially when compared to the micro thread portion 14).
In regard to claim 8, Verma in view of Cottrell and Eom discloses the invention of claim 1. Verma does not disclose wherein the third thread profile includes a third pitch ranging from 0.9 mm - 1.2 mm.
Cottrell teaches a dental implant (Fig. 8) with a first thread profile (coronal threads in para. 0048), a second thread profile (middle threads in para. 0048), and a third thread profile (apical threads in para. 0048), wherein the third thread profile includes a third pitch ranging from 0.9 mm - 1.2 mm (1.2 mm apart, para. 0048)
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 third thread profile of Verma in view of Cottrell and Eom by specifying the third thread profile includes a third pitch of 1.2 mm as taught by Cottrell in order to allow maintaining of adequate wall thickness for a deep conical connection (Cottrell para. 0002).
In regard to claim 9, Verma in view of Cottrell and Eom discloses the invention of claim 1. Verma further discloses wherein the abutment (3 in Fig. 1) is defined with a straight profiled configuration (Fig. 1).
In regard to claim 11, Verma in view of Cottrell and Eom discloses the invention of claim 2. Verma further discloses wherein the internal cavity is further defined with a threaded hole (29 in Fig. 4) to secure the at least one fastener (col. 14 lines 20-21).
In regard to claim 12, Verma in view of Cottrell and Eom discloses the invention of claim 2. Verma further discloses wherein the internal cavity is further defined with a tapered profile to guide the abutment into the internal cavity (Fig. 3-4, col. 14 lines 9-18).
In regard to claim 13, Verma in view of Cottrell and Eom discloses the invention of claim 2. Verma further discloses further comprising a female securing portion (28 in Fig. 4) defined in the internal cavity to secure the abutment and prevent rotation of the abutment within the base member (Figs. 1 and 4, col. 14 lines 6-21).
In regard to claim 14, Verma in view of Cottrell and Eom discloses the invention of claim 13. Verma further discloses wherein a shape of the female securing portion corresponds to the shape of the abutment (Figs. 1 and 4, col. 14 lines 6-21).
In regard to claim 15, Verma in view of Cottrell and Eom discloses the invention of claim 1. Verma further discloses wherein the third thread profile of the base member facilitates in cutting into the jaw-bone (col. 6 lines 50-54), and the second thread profile forms a threaded groove within the jaw bone for anchoring the base member (col. 13 lines 27-31).
In regard to claim 16, Verma in view of Cottrell and Eom discloses the invention of claim 1. Verma further discloses wherein the abutment is configured with a neck region (36 in Fig. 6) at a top end of the abutment for receiving a tooth crown (col. 12 lines 8-14).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to the rejections of claims 1-9 and 11-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Verma in view of Palti and Eom, Applicant argues that Verma fails to disclose the aspect of the base member being defined with three different thread profiles, the first thread profile has a first pitch, the second thread profile has a second pitch and the third thread profile has a third pitch profile. Applicant argues that Verma also does not disclose the aspect of a "helical" oriented cutout defined in the apical region, where such apical region includes macro threads, as disclosed in the present application. Applicant argues that Verma discloses that the apical part consists of an apical end with rounded shape and longitudinal apical recess, and teaches the apical recess is "vertical" and not helical. Applicant argues that Verma nowhere discloses the aspect of three distinct thread profiles including a macro thread profile that is suitable for bone cutting, as required by the present application.
Examiner notes that in the above rejection, claims 1-9 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verma in view of Cottrell and Eom. Cottrell teaches a dental implant (Fig. 8) with a first thread profile (coronal threads in para. 0048), a second thread profile (middle threads in para. 0048), and a third thread profile (apical threads in para. 0048), wherein the first thread profile is defined with a first pitch, the second thread profile is defined with a second pitch, and the third thread profile is defined with a third pitch (para. 0048), wherein each of the first pitch, the second pitch and the third pitch are different from each other (para. 0048). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first, second, and third thread profiles of Verma by specifying the first, second and third thread profiles have a first, second, and third pitch, respectively, which are different from each other as taught by Cottrell in order to allow maintaining of adequate wall thickness for a deep conical connection (Cottrell para. 0002). Examiner further notes that Eom teaches a dental implant (Figs. 5-8) comprising a helical oriented cut-out (S112 in Fig. 5, para. 27), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cut-out of Verma by specifying the cut-out is helically oriented as taught by Eom in order to allow bone tissue to be laminated on the cut-out and increase bone adhesion (Eom para. 30). Examiner notes that Verma discloses that the third thread profile (3) is capable of cutting into the jaw-bone to anchor the base member (col. 6 lines 50-54) and that the third thread profile (8 in Fig. 2) is a macro thread profile (the thread on apical portion 8 is considered macro, or large, especially when compared to the micro thread portion 14). Applicant is directed to the rejections in view of the amendments.
Examiner notes that In regard to Applicant’s arguments regarding Palti, in the above rejection, claims 1-9 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verma in view of Cottrell and Eom. Applicant is directed to the rejections in view of the amendments.
In regard to the prior art Eom, Applicant argues that Eom also fails to disclose the aspect of the base member defined with three different thread profiles, wherein the first thread profile has a first pitch, the second thread profile has a second pitch and the third thread profile has a third pitch profile. Applicant argues that Eom does not specify multiple thread profiles on the fixture's body, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to replace the thread profiles of Palti et al. with Eom to increase axial load distribution of the implant, in a jaw bone of the subject. Applicant argues that Eom does not suggest defining the helical oriented cutout in the apical region, but rather suggests defining spiral groove with different configuration. Applicant argues that there would be no motivation from the teachings of Eom to one of ordinary skill in the art for combining or modifying the teachings with that of Verma et al and/or Palti et al to arrive at the aspects recited in amended claim 1 of present application.
Examiner notes in the above rejection, claims 1-9 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verma in view of Cottrell and Eom. Examiner notes that, as noted in the above response, Cottrell teaches a dental implant (Fig. 8) with a first thread profile (coronal threads in para. 0048), a second thread profile (middle threads in para. 0048), and a third thread profile (apical threads in para. 0048), wherein the first thread profile is defined with a first pitch, the second thread profile is defined with a second pitch, and the third thread profile is defined with a third pitch (para. 0048). Examiner notes that, as noted above, Palti is not used in the above rejection. Examiner notes that Verma discloses wherein the apical region of the base member is defined with a cut-out (18 in Fig. 2) that is formed over a plurality of threads of the third thread profile (Fig. 2). Examiner notes that Eom teaches a dental implant (Figs. 5-8) comprising a helical oriented cut-out (S112 in Fig. 5, para. 27), and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cut-out of Verma by specifying the cut-out is helically oriented as taught by Eom in order to allow bone tissue to be laminated on the cut-out and increase bone adhesion (Eom para. 30). Applicant is directed to the rejections in view of the amendments.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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
/ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772