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 are objected to because in Figure 1G the lead line for reference character 58 for the inside fastener shoulder of the abutment bore and the lead line for reference character 68 for the polygonal fastener socket of the implant fastener are both pointing to the wrong objects in the Figure.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the last line, “an inside wall surface of the bore of a dental reconstruction element” should be changed to “an inside wall surface of a bore of a dental reconstruction element.”
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the inside wall surface of a bore of a dental reconstruction element” should be “the inside wall surface of the bore of the dental reconstruction element”.
Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a dental reconstruction element” should be “the dental reconstruction element”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 21 be found allowable, claim 22 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claims 1, 6, 10, and 13-29 are 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.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “wherein the manipulating disc has a C-shaped body having is configured with a flat top surface, a tapering side wall, and an open portion.” Applicant points to paragraphs [0105] to [0115] and Figure 1D for support for this amendment. However, there is no support for the manipulating disc being C-shaped rather than a complete circle. Figure 1D is an exploded view of a longitudinal cross section of the complete system, therefore manipulating disc 100 appears C-shaped because it is bisected in the cross section. The manipulating disc in all other views of the embodiment of Figure 1D, or in any other embodiments with a manipulating disc, and as described in the specification is a complete ring or circle. For the sake of examination, the claim will be considered to require the manipulating disc to be a circle with an open portion through the middle, as it is presented throughout the disclosure.
Claims 6, 10, and 13-29 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 6, 10, 13-15, 17-18, 20-26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischler (WO 2018060194) in view of Lazzara (US 4,850,870) and Sapian (US 20060014120).
Regarding claim 1, Fischler discloses a dental abutment (FIGS. 1-7) comprising:
a cylindrical abutment body (lower base part 22) and a tubular reconstruction element support (expansion part 23);
wherein the abutment body (22) is couplable to a dental implant (5) and comprises a flat support end (see annotated Figure 1 below, the flat surface of 22 receives 23),
wherein the reconstruction element support (23) has a proximal anchoring head portion (see annotated Figure below) configured with at least one slot (four slots shown between 232), and a distal seat end bearing flush against the flat support end (see annotated Figure 1 below), said reconstruction element support (23) is further configured with an axially extending through-going head bore (portion of central passage 21 that is through expansion part 23),
wherein the abutment body is tubular (22 is generally tubular) and is configured with a through-going abutment bore (portion of central passage 21 that is through base part 22) extending between an implant end (apical or lower end in figures) and the flat support end (see annotated Fig 1 below), said abutment bore (portion of central passage 21 that is through base part 22) configured with an inside fastener shoulder (press section 214), whereby the abutment body (22) is couplable to a dental implant (5) by a fastener (screw element 3) extending through the abutment body (Figs 6-7),
wherein the reconstruction element support (23) is coupled to the abutment body (22) by a fastener (3) extending through the abutment bore of the reconstruction element support (see FIGS. 6-7),
whereby the reconstruction element support (23) is couplable to the abutment body (22) by the fastener (3) extending through the through-going head bore central passage 21), which gives rise to outwardly directed radial forces aimed to the interior tapering section of the reconstruction support element, causing the anchoring head portion to expand and tighten against an inside wall surface of a bore of a dental reconstruction element (¶ [0043], as shown in FIGS. 6-7 indicated by the radially expanding arrows).
PNG
media_image1.png
717
975
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fischler discloses the abutment body (22) and reconstruction element (23) both being secured with a single fastener (screw 3), and thus does not disclose a separate implant fastener and manipulating fastener nor the manipulating fastener being screw coupled with internal threading of the implant fastener. Fischler also discloses that the screw element has a flared upper portion, known as spreading section 33, which applies the outward radial force to expand the anchoring head portion as the screw applies axial force downward and moves into the central passage, and thus does not disclose a separate manipulating disc.
However, Lazzara, in the same field of endeavor of dental abutments (abstract), teaches a multicomponent dental abutment (Fig 4) comprising:
a tubular abutment body (130) with a through-going abutment bore (172) that is couplable to a dental implant by an implant fastener (134) extending through the abutment body (col 4 lines 14-17), and
a reconstruction support element (coping 160) coupled to the abutment body (130) by a manipulating fastener (170) extending through the abutment bore (manipulating fastener enters abutment bore where it enters the implant fastener), the manipulating fastener (170) is screw coupled (col 4 lines 24-25) within an internal threading (172) configured within the implant fastener (134).
Lazzara teaches a separate implant fastener and manipulating fastener so the dental restoration can be disassembled for repair or replacement without risking damage to the lowest abutment body support, allowing changing out of only the reconstruction element and reconstruction support element if needed (col 4 lines 26-33).
Additionally, Sapian, in the same field of endeavor of dental implants and abutments (abstract), teaches a manipulating disc (spline spreader 54), wherein the manipulating disc (54) is configured with a flat top surface, a tapering side wall, and an open portion through the middle (see spline spreader 54 in Figure 2), whereby the manipulating disc is disposable within the interior tapering section of the reconstruction element support (spline spreader 54 sits in abutment 20 along tapered vertical ridges 24) and the fastener (abutment screw 46) extending through the bore (channel 12) and bearing flush against the top surface of the manipulating disc to apply axially directed force to the manipulating disc which gives rise to outwardly directed radial forces, aimed to the interior tapering section of the reconstruction support element, causing the anchoring head portion to expand and tighten against an inside wall of a bore of a dental reconstruction element (¶ [0035]).
Sapian teaches that the manipulating disc can be a separate piece (spline spreader 54 shown in Figure 1) or it can be combined with the abutment screw (angled flats 86 of abutment screw 72 shown in Figure 8 and explained in ¶ [0042] as an alternative embodiment).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the dental abutment as taught by Fischler to have two fastening elements as taught by Lazzara in order to make it possible to remove only the upper portion if needed during repair or replacement (Lazzara: col 4 lines 26-33). It would further be obvious to modify the dental abutment of Fischler to have the manipulating disc be a separate component from the fastener as taught by Sapian. This modification would have been obvious to try as Sapian teaches the screw and manipulating disc can be separate or combined (Sapian ¶ 42).
Regarding claim 6, Fischler, Lazzara, and Sapian teach the dental abutment according to claim 1, as presented above. Fischler further teaches wherein the at least one slot of the reconstruction element support extends from the proximal anchoring head portion towards the seat end (the slots between 232 extend axially).
Regarding claim 10, Fischler, Lazzara, and Sapian teach the dental abutment according to claim 1, as presented above. Fischler further teaches wherein the abutment body (223) is couplable to a dental implant indirectly, with an adapter seat member (222) disposed therebetween (see FIGS. 6-7) and integral with the abutment body (222 is integrated with the abutment body 223), wherein the adapter seat member has a body with a through going bore (bore 21 extends through 222) extending between abutment end mimicking an external head portion of the dental implant (at 51 as shown in FIGS. 6-7) , and an implant end (221/212) configured for bearing over an internal head portion of a dental implant (see FIGS. 3 and 6-7).
Regarding claim 13, Fischler, Lazzara, and Sapian teach the dental abutment according to claim 1, as presented above. Fischler further teaches wherein a dental implant end of the abutment body (22) is cylindrical (a cylindrical portion is shown below 221) and is configured for at least partial insertion into an open end of a dental implant (as shown in FIG. 3 and 6-7 the cylindrical portion below 221 is disposed within the dental implant 5).
Regarding claim 14, Fischler, Lazzara, and Sapian teach the dental abutment according to claim 1, as presented above. Fischler further teaches wherein a portion of the abutment body is configured at an external face thereof with a wrench gripping arrangement (221, is shown as a polygonal surface which is functionally capable of being engaged by a wrench).
Regarding claim 15, Fischler, Lazzara, and Sapian teach the dental abutment according to claim 1, as presented above. Fischler further teaches wherein at least one slot of the reconstruction support extends axially, parallel to an axis of the longitudinal axis of the longitudinal head bore, imparting it a symmetrically segmented shape (four slots which are axially parallel are disposed between 232).
Regarding claim 17, Fischler, Lazzara, and Sapian teach the dental abutment according to claim 1, as presented above. Fischler further teaches wherein the anchoring head of the reconstruction element support is configured with symmetrically disposed at least two slots (see annotated Figure 1 above, four slots are disposed in the anchoring head between 232 and are symmetrically disposed).
Regarding claim 18, Fischler, Lazzara, and Sapian teach the dental abutment according to claim 1, as presented above. Fischler further teaches wherein the proximal anchoring head portion of the reconstruction element support is configured with a cylindrical external cross-section (the external surface of 23 is shown to be cylindrical defined by the generally circular shape with the slots /flanges disposed therebetween).
Regarding claim 20, Fischler, Lazzara, and Sapian teach the dental abutment according to claim 1, as presented above. Fischler further teaches wherein at least the proximal anchoring head portion of the reconstruction element support is configured with surfacing for improved engagement with the inside wall surface of a bore of a dental reconstruction element (shown in FIG. 3 and 6-7 to have surfaces which fit into 411 of the dental reconstruction element 4).
Regarding claims 21-22, Fischler, Lazzara, and Sapian teach the dental abutment according to claim 1, as presented above. Fischler further teaches wherein a distal end of the axially extending through-going head bore of the reconstruction element support is configured with an inwardly tapering section (see annotated Figure 7 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
545
702
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 23, Fischler, Lazzara, and Sapian teach the dental abutment according to claim 22, as presented above. Lazzara further teaches wherein the radial annular projection of the manipulating fastener is cylindrical (top of second bolt 170 has a cylindrical radial annular projection)
Regarding claim 24, Fischler, Lazzara, and Sapian teach the dental abutment according to claim 22, as presented above. Fischler further teaches wherein the radial annular projection of the manipulating fastener is tapering in a direction of tapering section of the reconstruction element support (see annotated Figure 7 above where the fastener (3) has the same tapering as the head bore).
Regarding claim 25, Fischler, Lazzara, and Sapian teach the dental abutment according to claim 1, as presented above. Fischler further teaches wherein at an assembled position, the tubular reconstruction element support (23) extends coaxially with the abutment body (as shown in FIG. 7).
Regarding claim 26, Fischler, Lazzara, and Sapian teach the dental abutment according to claim 1, as presented above. The combination of Fischler and Lazzara further teaches wherein at an assembled position, the manipulating fastener extends coaxially with the tubular reconstruction element support (Fischler Fig 7 shows that the fastener extends coaxially with the reconstruction element support; Lazzara Fig 4 shows that the components also extend coaxially when the fastener is two pieces).
Regarding claim 28, Fischler, Lazzara, and Sapian teach the dental abutment according to claim 1, as presented above. Fischler further teaches wherein a bore (41) of a dental reconstruction element (4) is configured at a distal end thereof with an annular shoulder (cavity 41 flares at the bottom to form a shoulder, as indicated in the annotated portion of Figure 3 below), which at an assembled position is configured for bearing over a cylindrical portion of the abutment body (Figure 5 shows that once assembled the shoulder of 41 bears on the abutment body at 222).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischler (WO 2018060194), Lazzara (US 4,850,870), and Sapian (US 20060014120) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Kim (CA 3050089).
Regarding claim 16, Fischler, Lazzara, and Sapian teach the dental abutment according to claim 15, as presented above.
Fischler teaches axially extending slots along a longitudinal axis of the reconstruction element support (in FIG. 1), but fails to teach wherein the at least one slot of the reconstruction element support extends helically about the longitudinal axis of the reconstruction element support.
However, Kim, in the same field of endeavor of dental abutments (abstract), teaches a reconstruction element support (100; in FIG. 6) which uses helical slots (260) to transfer force between a dental implant abutment system to a prosthesis.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dental abutment as taught by Fischler with the two fasteners as taught by Lazzara to make the at least one slot of the reconstruction element support extends helically about the longitudinal axis of the reconstruction element support as taught by Kim, for the purpose of using a different shape of slot to apply forces between a prosthesis/ abutment/ implant. See MPEP 2144.04(IV).
Claims 19 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischler (WO 2018060194), Lazzara (US 4,850,870), and Sapian (US 20060014120) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Richard (US 2017/0224447).
Regarding claims 19 and 27, Fischler, Lazzara, and Sapian teach the dental abutment according to claim 1, as presented above. They do not explicitly teach (claim 19) wherein the anchoring head portion of the reconstruction element support is configured with an externally spherical or has a spherical portion, or a rounded portion cross-section; or (claim 27) wherein a distal portion of the abutment body is configured with a tapering shoulder, which upon coupling to a dental implant bears over a correspondingly tapering internal tapering portion of the dental implant.
However, Richard, in the same field of endeavor of dental abutments (abstract, Figure 8), teaches an abutment (see annotated Figure 1 below) with reconstruction element support (see annotated Figure 1 below) wherein the anchoring head portion of the reconstruction element support is configured with a rounded portion cross-section (see annotated Figure 4, rounded on a side); and wherein a distal portion of the abutment body is configured with a tapering shoulder (see annotated Figure 1), which upon coupling to a dental implant bears over a correspondingly tapering internal tapering portion of the dental implant (see FIG. 9 where the tapering surface below bears over an internal tapering surface of an implant at 24).
PNG
media_image3.png
735
676
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
649
693
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the dental abutment as taught by Fischler, Lazzara, and Sapian to also require (claim 19) wherein the anchoring head portion of the reconstruction element support is configured with a rounded portion cross-section; (claim 27) wherein a distal portion of the abutment body is configured with a tapering shoulder, which upon coupling to a dental implant bears over a correspondingly tapering internal tapering portion of the dental implant, as taught by Richard, for the purpose of adjusting the shape of surfaces to fit with the prosthesis/implant with corresponding shapes to secure the components together in a stabilized connection.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischler (WO 2018060194), Lazzara (US 4,850,870), and Sapian (US 20060014120)as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pelak (US 2002/0177103).
Regarding claim 29, Fischler, Lazzara, and Sapian teach the dental abutment according to claim 1, as presented above. They do not explicitly teach wherein a resilient sealing member is disposed between a distal end of the bore of a dental reconstruction element mountable thereover, and an external surface of the abutment body.
However, Pelak, in the same field of endeavor of dental abutments (abstract), teaches in FIG. 1 a dental reconstruction element (38) with a distal bore (formed by 42 and 39) and a resilient sealing member (41) disposed thereover (construed as over the distal bore of the dental reconstruction element as 41 fits within 42), and an external surface of an abutment body (41 fits in the recess of 34 which is an abutment and disposes 41 between 34 and 42) in order to provide additional retentive fit between the abutment and the prosthesis (¶ [0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the dental abutment as taught by Fischler, Lazzara, and Sapian to also require wherein a resilient sealing member is disposed between a distal end of the bore of a dental reconstruction element mountable thereover, and an external surface of the abutment body, as taught by Pelak, for the purpose of stabilizing forces applied between a dental prosthesis/prosthesis element and an abutment to respond to forces of the mouth/provide a sealing therebetween (Pelak: ¶ [0008]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments address only the manipulating disc being c-shaped, but this introduces new matter and is not supported by the disclosure. Based on the specification and drawings, the claims are obvious over the relied upon prior art. Fischler teaches an abutment body coupled to the dental implant and a reconstruction element support sitting on the abutment body. Lazzara and Sapian then teach the fastening component that also applies outward axial pressure to the reconstruction support element being three pieces – two fastening screws and a separate manipulating disc to replace the angled head of the single screw in Fischler.
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 Jennifer P. Connell whose telephone number is (703)756-1169. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9 am - 3 pm ET.
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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at (571)270-5614. 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.
/JENNIFER P CONNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/HEIDI M EIDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772 5/14/2026
Prosecution Insights