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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 30, it does not appear that the original disclosure provides support for the height of the post apex being equal to a thickness of the cylindrical plate. While figure 7B arguably shows the relative heights, it cannot be determined by the drawings alone whether the height and thickness are exactly the same. Drawings are also not determined to necessarily be to scale.
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) 11, 13-15, 17, 21, 23-27 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmid et al (US 5433607) and in view of Simmons, JR. (US 20030232308 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Schmid discloses a dental implant for a molar (intended use but otherwise at least capable of being for a molar), comprising:
a dental post 13 including a post apex (threaded part in figure 2 that goes into threaded bore of 2/42) and a post body (upper part of 13), a diameter of the post body being wider than a diameter of the post apex (figure 2), the post apex including only a fastening feature (figure 2);
a cylindrical plate 42 (disclosed as identical to element 2) having an opening in a central region thereof (figures 2 and 6), the opening including a complementary fastening feature to the fastening feature of the post apex and configured to couple the dental post to the cylindrical plate (figure 2); and
a plurality of support lattices (see first lattice and second lattice in figure 6 below; the upper structures are interpreted as beams or strips and not support lattices; alternatively, the upper structures are interpreted as support lattices but not the “plurality of support lattices” that are claimed) located at the cylindrical plate and coupled to the cylindrical plate, the cylindrical plate disposed above the support lattices (cylindrical plate disposed above the horizontal radial latices; “comprising” term allows for other latices or other structures that extend up to top of cylinder), the support lattices including a first support lattice having a first fixation element 44c for fixation at a distal end of the first support lattice and a second support lattice having a second fixation element 44c for fixation at a distal end of the second support lattice, the first support lattice being separate from the second support lattice, the first support lattice and the second support lattice being connected via a brace (see “brace” in figure 6 below) attached to the distal end of the first support lattice and the distal end of the second support lattice, wherein the distal end of the first support lattice is an end of the first support lattice which is disposed further away from the second support lattice than any other portion of the first support lattice,
a length of the brace is greater than a distance between the distal end of the first support lattice and the dental post, and the brace (see “brace” in figure 6 below) is formed from a separate piece than the cylindrical plate (44 which includes brace is formed from a separate piece as shown in figure 4).
Schmid discloses the fixation elements are spikes and is silent regarding the fixation elements being apertures. However, Simmons teaches apertures for screws (42 in figure 3) and spikes (18 in figure 1) being known alternatives for connection to bone. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Schmid by providing the fixation elements as apertures for screws, as taught by Simmons, for the purpose of using a known alternative means for fixation to bone.
PNG
media_image1.png
307
591
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, the dental implant is titanium (intermediate piece 13 may be considered the implant; Col. 4, line 1).
Regarding claim 14, the device as made obvious above has apertures in place of spikes such that the support lattices are configured to be fixed to a facial skeleton (jaw bone 10 part of facial skeleton) by a screw inserted into alveolar cortices of the facial skeleton through an aperture (at least of a structure that would allow this connection; note that the “screw” is not positively recited as part of the invention).
Regarding claim 15, the dental post, the cylindrical plate, and the support lattices are configured to allow a bone 61 to extend around each of the dental post, the cylindrical plate and the support lattices (figure 8; of a structure that would allow this to occur).
Regarding claim 17, Schmid does not specifically disclose that the dental implant is configured to replace an upper molar or a lower molar. However, Simmons further teaches anchors configured for replacement of molars (paragraph 0055). Therefore, it would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to modify Schmid by providing the implant as one that would replace an upper molar or a lower molar, as taught by Simmons, for the purpose of allowing for the replacement of such a tooth if missing in a patient jaw.
Regarding claim 21, the dental implant further comprises a bone plate (see “bone plate” in figure 6 below) extending from a buccal end of the cylindrical plate (extending from four sides of plate), the bone plate including a planar portion (see “planar portion” in figure 6 below) disposed proximal to the cylindrical plate, the bone plate having a first surface for contact with one or more bones of a facial skeleton (outer facing surface), the first surface configured to be contoured relative to a surface of one or more bones of the facial skeleton and based on a thickness of the one or more bones of a facial skeleton (configured to be bent as needed (see undulations in figure 5; outer surface of top circular part also contoured; the relative shapes and thicknesses may be choses based on the facial skeleton wherein no specific comparison is required by the claim and otherwise serves as a product-by-process limitation).
PNG
media_image2.png
333
768
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 23, the diameter of the post body 13 (figure 2) is wider than a diameter of the opening of the cylindrical plate (figure 2).
Regarding claim 24, wherein the post body, being wider than the post apex, includes an annular surface (bottom shoulder of 13 that rests on upper rim of cylinder in figure 2) connecting a vertical surface of the post body (outer cylindrical surface of post body) to a vertical surface of the post apex (outer cylindrical surface of screw apex of 13 in figure 2).
Regarding claim 25, the annular surface abuts a surface of the cylindrical plate upon the opening receiving the dental post and the dental post being fully seated in the cylindrical plate (figure 2; at least of a structure that would allow the abutment if diaphragm is not used; this is interpreted as a functional recitation of the connection because of the phrase “upon…”).
Regarding claim 26, the fastening feature on the post apex includes threads and the opening of the cylindrical plate includes complementary threads to the threads of the post apex, the opening of the cylindrical plate being configured to twistably receive and secure the post apex (see threaded connection at 2a in figure 2).
Regarding claim 27, the dental post 13 (figure 2) includes a post base (very top of 13 in figure 2) on a side of the dental post opposite the post apex, the post base having a diameter narrower than the diameter of the post body (very top of 13 tapers inwards such that the diameter at the very top is less than a diameter of the body at the shoulder near “12a” in figure 2).
Regarding claim 30, a height of the post apex is less than a thickness of the cylindrical plate (see screw of 13 not extending all the way through cylinder in figure 2), the height of the post apex being defined as perpendicular to the diameter of the post apex and the thickness of the cylindrical plate being defined as perpendicular to the diameter of the opening of the cylindrical plate (figure 2). Schmid is silent regarding the heigh being equal to the thickness. However, the specification is silent regarding any rational, reason or benefit for the height being equal to the thickness and is therefore deemed to be a design choice wherein the prior art would work equally as well as a device with the height being equal to the thickness. It would therefore be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Schmid by having the height equal to the thickness for the purpose of having a desired amount of connection between the parts.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmid et al (US 5433607) and in view of Simmons, JR. (US 20030232308 A1) and in view of Zanna (US 20160250001 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Schmid/Simmons discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 11. Schmid discloses the dental post is threaded to the opening of the plate but is silent regarding the dental post is frictionally coupled to the opening of the cylindrical plate. However, Zanna teaches a fixing portion being connected to a fixing opening by either threads or friction (paragraphs 0041-0042). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Schmid/Simmons by connecting by friction, as taught by Zanna, for the purpose of using well known alternative connection to screwing.
Claim 31 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmid et al (US 5433607) and in view of Simmons, JR. (US 20030232308 A1) and in view of Attenborough (US 20190239868).
Regarding Claim 31, Schmid as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 11.
The bone plate of Schmid appears to be identical to one that is made from direct metal laser sintering, wherein the limitation is interpreted as a product by process limitation, otherwise, assuming, arguendo, that Schmid does not disclose the bone plate is fabricated via direct metal laser sintering, Attenborough discloses an implant (paragraph [0021]) that is fabricated via direct metal
laser sintering (paragraph [0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Schmid by having the bone plate fabricated via direct metal laser sintering, as taught by Attenborough, for the purpose of using a known method of making metal implant parts.
Response to Arguments
The follow is a section of claim 11 with emphasis added. Note that the dental implant s claimed as “comprising” a dental post, a cylindrical plat and a plurality of support lattices. The dental implant may therefore comprise additional structures beyond those that are claimed. This could include, for example, additional, unclaimed support lattices. Therefore, the limitation that the plate is above “every support lattice of the plurality of support lattices” does not limit the dental implant to have no support lattices located above the plate. Alternatively, the structures above the plate in the prior art may be interpreted to be beams, strips, or other elements that are not interpreted as “lattices” such that these structure are above the plate while all support lattices are below the plate.
11. A dental implant… comprising:
a dental post… ;
a cylindrical plate…; and
a plurality of support lattices located at the cylindrical plate and coupled to the cylindrical plate,
the cylindrical plate disposed above every support lattice of the plurality of support lattices….
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ERIC J ROSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7855. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 930am-6pm.
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, Santiago-Cordero, Marivelisse can be reached at (571) 272-7839. 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.
/ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights