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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “a dental screw for fixing components” in line 2 wherein it is unclear if it is the same dental component later claimed as part of the support set in lines 21-23. It should be revised to clarify that the components are the same.
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 1, 3-6, 8, 20, and 25 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 1 recites “cone angles of the support surface and screw seat differ from each other” in line 23 wherein it is unclear as to what is considered the cone angle. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as the portion of the support surface and screw seat having an angle and it would be considered a cone angle as the shape of the structures are conical.
Claims 3-6, 8, 20 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph being dependent off of claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 8 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagemann (DE 10124183, see machine translated ver) in view of Herrmann (DE 19850097 A1, see machine translated ver), Haus (GB 2495513 A, see provided foreign document for paragraph numbering), and Thomke (US 20190290403 A1).
Re. Claim 1, Hagemann discloses a dental restoration support set (Fig. 1) comprising:
dental screw for fixing dental components to each other (Par. 1), the dental screw having a proximal end, a distal end, and a longitudinal end (see modified Figure 1 below), the dental screw comprising:
a screw head (Figs 1, 3-5; head part 4) including a tool engaging interface (Figs 1, 3-5; slot 11) for engaging a fastening tool at the proximal end (Par. 21) and a support surface at a distal end of the screw head (Fig. 1 which is found to be at the end that the threads would extend from. The support surface is the lower surface of the distal end);
a screw shank (see Annotated Figure 1), the screw shank disposed distal to the screw head (see modified Figure 1; screw shank is clearly distal to heard part 4);
a torque limiting portion (Figs 3-5; predetermined breaking point 5); and
a threaded portion (Figs 1-5; threaded part 3) disposed distal to the torque limiting portion (Figs 1-5; threaded part 3 is clearly distal to breaking point 5) for engaging a dental component (Figs 1-2; Par. 1),
wherein the threaded portion is disposed distal to the torque limiting portion (Figs 1-5; threaded part 3 is clearly distal to breaking point 5),
wherein the torque limiting portion comprises (i) a cross-section smaller than a remainder of the dental screw (Fig. 3-4); and
a dental component (2) comprising a screw seat (Fig. 1 where the screw sits into place) for engaging the support surface of the screw head (Fig. 1).
However, Hagemann is silent to the dental screw is configured to transfer a minimum torque of 26 Ncm and the torque limiting portion is configured to limit the torque transferable to a maximum torque of 38 Ncm or less for preventing damage to the threaded portion. Further, Hagemann is silent to the tool engaging interface comprises a recess comprising a length that extends between an open proximal end and a closed distal end, wherein the recess tapers in a direction from the open proximal end to the closed distal end for an entire length of the recess. Further, Hagemann is silent to the support surface and the screw seat each have a conical shape, wherein cone angles of the support surface and the screw seat differ from each other.
Herrmann discloses a screw in the same field of endeavor for fixing dental components to each other (Abstract) wherein the screw is configured to transfer a minimum torque 26 Ncm and the torque limiting portion is configured to limit the torque transferable to a maximum torque of 38 Ncm or less for preventing damage to the threaded portion (Par. 13). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the screw of Herrmann to have a minimum torque value of 26Ncm and the torque limiting portion is configured to limit the torque transferable to a maximum torque of 38 Ncm, as it involves only adjusting a dimension of a component that is known to require adjusting.
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 screw of Hagemann to transfer a minimum torque of 26 Ncm and the torque limiting portion is configured to limit the torque transferable to a maximum torque of 38 Ncm or less for preventing damage to the threaded portion as taught by Herrmann in order to provide the desired amount of torque since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Haus discloses a screw (Fig. 3A-3B) in the same field of endeavor and further discloses a screw head (310) including a tool engaging interface (300) comprising a recess (where 320 points to in Fig. 3A) comprising a length (Annotated Figure A.2 of Fig. 3A) that extends between an open proximal end (Annotated Figure A.2 of Fig. 3A) and a closed distal end (Annotated Figure A.2 of Fig. 3A), wherein the recess tapers in a direction from the open proximal end to the closed distal end for an entire length of the recess (Annotated Figure A.2 of Fig. 3A; Par. 13 and Fig. 3A) to provide securement of the tool to the screw.
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 screw of Hagemann and Hermann to have the tool engaging interface comprises a recess comprising a length that extends between an open proximal end and a closed distal end, wherein the recess tapers in a direction from the open proximal end to the closed distal end for an entire length of the recess as taught by Haus to provide securement of the tool to the screw.
Thomke discloses a dental restoration support set and further discloses a dental component (2) comprising a screw seat (see Fig. 8 where element 24 engages) for engaging a support surface (24) of a screw (3), wherein the support surface and the screw seat each have a conical shape (Fig. 7-9; Par. 27) and wherein cone angles of the support surface and the screw seat differ from each other (Fig. 8; Par. 24-28) to avoid significant stress to the to the screw (Par. 29).
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 component and screw of Hagemann, Herrmann, and Haus to have the support surface and the screw seat each have a conical shape, wherein cone angles of the support surface and the screw seat differ from each other as taught by Thomke to avoid significant stress to the to the screw.
PNG
media_image1.png
858
478
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
PNG
media_image2.png
352
543
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure A.2
Re. Claim 3, Hagemann, Herrmann, Haus, and Thomke discloses the dental restoration support set of claim 1, wherein Herrmann discloses the maximum torque transferable at the torque limiting portion is 32 Ncm or less (Par. 32).
Re. Claim 5, Hagemann, Herrmann, Haus, and Thomke discloses the dental restoration support set of claim 1 and Haus discloses the tool engaging interface includes a torque transfer zone (where label 330 points to in Fig. 3A) having a cross-section perpendicular to the longitudinal axis comprising a profile with at least one of four or five first sections alternating with at least one of four or five second sections, respectively, wherein the first sections are convex or planar, wherein the second sections are concave (see Modified Figure 3C below where the section is concave viewed inwardly).
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the tool engaging interface of agemann, Herrmann, Haus, and Thomke to include a torque transfer zone having a cross-section perpendicular to the longitudinal axis comprising a profile with at least one of four or five first sections alternating with at least one of four or five second sections, respectively, wherein the first sections are convex or planar, wherein the second sections are concave as taught by Haus to provide secure engagement of the screw to the tool being used (Par. 23).
PNG
media_image3.png
761
858
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2
Re. Claim 8, Hagemann, Herrmann, Haus, and Thomke discloses the dental restoration support set of claim 5 and Haus further discloses the tool engaging interface further includes a verification zone (360) for verifying a type of the dental screw (Par. 29), the verification zone being located at the distal end of the tool engaging interface (Fig. 3A).
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the tool engaging interface of Hagemann, Herrmann, Haus, and Thomke to have a verification zone for verifying a type of the dental screw, the verification zone being located at the distal end of the tool engaging interface as taught by Haus provide secure engagement of the screw to the tool being used (Par. 23).
Re. Claim 20, Hagemann, Herrmann, Haus, and Thomke discloses the dental restoration support set according to claim 1, wherein the dental component is at least one of a dental implant, an abutment, and an artificial tooth (Fig. 3-5 and Abstract of Hagemann).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagemann (DE 10124183, see machine translated ver) in view of Herrmann (DE 19850097 A1, see machine translated ver), Haus (GB 2495513 A, see provided foreign document for paragraph numbering), Thomke (US 20190290403 A1), and Kumar (US 6447295).
Re. Claim 4, Hagemann, Herrmann, Haus, and Thomke discloses the dental restoration support set according to claim 1 but are silent to the torque limiting portion is configured to withstand a maximum tensile force in a range of 300 N to 500 N, but does explicitly teach that “By means of suitable dimensioning and design, comparable or identical strength values can be achieved as with an anchoring element known from the state of the art” (Par. 14).
Kumar in the same field of endeavor discloses a dental screw when tightened, a tensile force is built up in the screw (Col 5 lines 60-67), and wherein “it is desirable that an abutment screw be tightened to a load just below the yield point to provide maximum or optimum tensile strength and preload” (Col 7 lines 3-5), but also teaches wherein “The load levels at which yield occurs is different for each material or alloys of the same material” (Col 7 lines 5-7) and “The fastening member (abutment screw) should preferably be tightened to a load that exceeds the peak carrying load of the assembly, otherwise the fastening parts (implant and abutment) might either fail during the installation or subsequently during use in the patient's mouth…When an abutment screw is tightened, the resulting load exerted by the abutment screw should exceed the expected implant-abutment assembly load, so that the preload of the abutment screw can sustain the assembly load.” (Col 7 lines 15-26). The maximum tensile force a screw can withstand is a result effective variable in that altering the maximum tensile force a screw can withstand, whether through changing the material of the screw or changing its tightening torque, affects the strength and stability of the dental assembly, which affects the longevity and work efficiency of the dental screw. Adjustment of the maximum tensile force directly correlates to the function of the screw; one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reasonable expectation of success in modifying the maximum tensile strength of the screw such that the screw functions at a desired level, as it involves only adjusting a dimension that is known to be able to be adjusted, depending on the material of the screw, the initial tightening torque, etc.
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 maximum tensile strength of the dental screw of Hagemann, Herrmann, Haus, and Thomke to be in the range of 300-500N as taught by Kumar in order to provide the desired amount of strength since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” Further, it should be noted that the screw of Kumar functions the same as applicant’s screw where the tensile strength is limited to prevent the screw to be damaged (Pg. 4 of Applicant’s specification).
Claim(s) 6 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hornbeck (US 20190274793 A1) in view of Hagemann (DE 10124183) and Herrmann (DE 19850097 A1, see machine translated ver), Haus (GB 2495513 A, see provided foreign document for paragraph numbering), Thomke (US 20190290403 A1), and Jorneus (US 6419489 B1).
Re. Claim 6, Hagemann, Herrmann, Haus, and Thomke discloses the dental restoration support set screw of claim 5, Haus further discloses the concave sections form longitudinal engagement protrusions (Figs 3A-3C; engagement protrusions 350; see Modified Figure 3) radially extending from a circle with a maximum inner diameter towards the longitudinal axis (Figs 3A-3C). Haus further discloses the engagement surfaces have chamfers at their proximal ends (Fig 3A; chamfered edges 340).
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 device of Hornbeck, Hagemann, Herrmann, and Haus ‘513 comprises the concave sections form longitudinal engagement protrusions radially extending from a circle with a maximum inner diameter towards the longitudinal axis and the engagement surfaces chamfers at the proximal end of the engagement protrusions, as the chamfered (or rounded) edges 340 of the mouth of the screw interface guide the tip of the driver head into the bore of the screw as taught by Haus allowing the process of loading the driver head into the screw more simple and require less precise spatial co-ordination from the person manipulating the driver/screw.
However they are silent to the first section being convex.
Jorneus discloses a dental screw in the same field of endeavor and further discloses the screw comprising a tool engaging interface (Fig. 1a, 5a-5b, 7-9, and 11a) comprising engagement interface sections where they can be concave, convex, and/or planar (see Modified Figure 3 of Fig. 11a, Modified Figure 4 of Fig. 7, and Modified Figure 5 of Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the first section of Hagemann, Herrmann, Haus, and Thomke being convex as taught by Jorneus as it is a design choice as to the engagement interface arrangement/structure as it is dependent on the particular tool it is being engaged with.
PNG
media_image4.png
226
487
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 3
PNG
media_image5.png
289
354
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 4
PNG
media_image6.png
254
236
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 5
Re. Claim 25, Hagemann, Herrmann, Haus, and Thomke discloses the dental screw restoration support set of Claim 5, but are silent to the first sections are convex.
Jorneus discloses a dental screw in the same field of endeavor and further discloses the screw comprising a tool engaging interface (Fig. 1a, 5a-5b, 7-9, and 11a) comprising engagement interface sections where they can be concave, convex, and/or planar (see Modified Figure 3 of Fig. 11a, Modified Figure 4 of Fig. 7, and Modified Figure 5 of Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the first section of Hagemann, Herrmann, Haus, and Thomke being convex as taught by Jorneus as it is a design choice as to the engagement interface arrangement/structure as it is dependent on the particular tool it is being engaged with.
Claim(s) 9, 11-14, 21, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Streff (US 20130164708 A1) in view of Rohlfing (US 20200060743 A1) and Padros (US 20190151051 A1).
Re. Claim 9, Streff discloses a dental fastening tool (Fig. 3a; 24) comprising:
A proximal end (Fig. 3a; 38);
A distal end (Fig. 3a; 42);
A longitudinal axis (Fig. 3a; D), and
A screw engaging interface (42) at the distal end for engaging a dental screw (Fig. 3a; Par. 78);
It is noted that the limitations regarding the screw is functional language as what is being claimed- denoted by the preamble- is the dental fastening tool where the rotary tool 24 is capable of engaging with a dental screw that has the limitation described below:
Wherein the dental screw comprises a screw head including a tool engaging interface for engaging the fastening tool at a proximal end of the dental screw,
Wherein the dental screw comprises a screw shank disposed distal to the screw head.
However, Streff is silent to a torque limiting portion, wherein the torque limiting portion comprises a cross-section smaller than a remainder of the dental fastening tool such that the torque limiting portion is configured to limit the torque transferable to a maximum torque of 35 Ncm or less for preventing damage to the dental screw engaging interface, and wherein the torque limiting portion is disposed proximal to the screw engaging interface. Further, Streff is silent to the rounded tip comprising a rounded distal surface.
Streff does disclose that a desired torque to be delivered is between 15 to 35 Nm or less for preventing damage to the screw engaging interface (Par. 25). Further, Streff does disclose a rounded tip (Fig. 3b; Par. 78)
Rohlfing, in the analogous art of surgical screws and surgical fastening tools, teaches a fastening tool (Figs 1-13; driver 20) which comprises a screw engaging interface (Par. 37) and a torque limiting portion (Fig 1; frangible region 34) found proximal to the screw engaging surface (Fig. 1), having a cross-section smaller than a remainder of the dental fastening tool (Fig. 2) and wherein the torque limiting portion of the screw is configured to limit the torque transferable to a maximum torque for preventing damage to the dental screw engaging interface (Par. 53).
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the tool of Streff to have a torque limiting portion having a cross-section smaller than a remainder of the dental fastening tool as taught by Rohlfing to having a cross-section smaller than a remainder of the dental fastening tool. As such, the combination of Streff and Rohling would provide teaching of a torque transferable to a maximum torque of 35 Ncm or less for preventing damage to the screw engaging interface. This is because Streff provides the teaching of a maximum torque of 35 Nm or less is applied to the dental screw and because Rohling teaches a torque limiting portion, it would further ensure the maximum torque does not exceed 35 Nm. Further, it would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date have the limit as claimed. Though Streff does not specifically teach limiting the torque, it should be noted that torques of 15-35 Nm are typically transferred and Streff provides teaching of a range of desired torque that would not damage or impair the screw. Thus a torque of up to 35Ncm can be transferred without difficulty, without the connecting screw becoming damage or otherwise impaired.
Padros discloses a fastening tool in the same field of endeavor and further discloses a rounded tip and comprising a rounded distal surface (Fig. 2; Abstract) to aid in screwing the screw to the abutment.
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the rounded tip of Streff and Rohlfing to have the rounded tip to have a rounded distal surface as taught by Padros to aid in screwing the screw to the abutment.
Re. Claim 11, Streff, Rohling, and Padros discloses the dental fastening tool of claim 9 and Streff further discloses the screw engaging interface includes a torque transfer zone (Figs 3a-3b; tip 42; Par. 74) with a cross-section perpendicular to the longitudinal axis comprising at least one first sections alternating with at least one second sections (see Modified Figure 3; Fig. 3B), respectively, and
At least one of the first sections and the second sections form an engagement structure (Fig 3b; protrusions 54) about the longitudinal axis along the dental fastening tool (Fig 3b; protrusions 54 clearly extend longitudinally), the engagement structure having a curved profile in a cross-section along the longitudinal axis (Fig 3b; protrusion 54 is clearly curved), and
Wherein the first sections are convex or planar (see Modified Figure B; Fig. 3B) and wherein the second sections are concave (see Modified Figure B; Fig. 3B),
Streff is silent to four or five convex and planar sections alternating with four or five concave sections, respectively, but does teach wherein “The engagement means of the connecting screw according to the invention preferably has between 3 and 8 of each of the engagement protrusions and the engagement depressions” (Par. 40), and wherein the engagement means of the screw correspond to the engagement means on the fastening tool (Par. 78).
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 fastening tool of Streff, Rohling, and Padros to comprise four or five convex and planar sections alternating with four or five concave sections, respectively, as that configuration is a listed known equivalent and would produce the same expected result as any other number of sections within the range of 3-8.
PNG
media_image7.png
495
417
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 3
Re. Claim 12, Streff, Rohling, and Padros discloses the dental fastening tool of claim 11 and Streff further discloses the first section and the second sections connected at points of transition (see modified Figure 4 below; while modified Figure 4 is a figure directed towards a cross-section of a dental screw, it is inherent that the corresponding dental fastening tool has the same cross section such that the screw and fastening tool are able to engage each other), and at each point of transition an angle between a tangent to a profile of the second section and a tangent to the second section is in a range of 90° to 180° (see modified Figure 4 below; the angle between the tangents is clearly obtuse, i.e., within a range of 90 – 180 degrees).
PNG
media_image8.png
540
613
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 4
Re. Claim 13, Streff, Rohling, and Padros discloses the dental fastening tool of claim 11, wherein Streff further discloses the screw engaging interface includes a pick-up zone (Figs 3a-3b; protrusions 54 and depressions 56 on tip 42) for holding a dental screw (Par. 78, and 88; the protrusions/depressions of the rotary tool 24 engage in the corresponding protrusions/depressions in a dental screw, allowing the rotary tool to hold a screw and thus constituting a pick-up zone), the pick-up zone being located adjacent, proximally to, or at least partially along the torque transfer zone (Fig 3b; protrusions 54 and depressions 56 are along tip 42).
Re. Claim 14, Streff, Rohling, and Padros discloses the dental fastening tool of claim 9 and Streff further discloses the screw engaging interface further includes a verification zone (Fig. 3B; protrusions 54 and depressions 56) for verifying a type of a dental screw when engaging said dental screw (Par. 41, 78), the verification zone being located at a distal end of the screw engaging interface (Fig. 3b).
Re. Claim 21, Streff, Rohling, and Padros discloses the dental fastening tool of claim 9 and Streff further discloses the dental screw is configured to transfer a minimum torque of 26Ncm and the torque limiting portion is configured to limit the torque transferable to a maximum torque for preventing damage to the threaded portion (It is noted that the limitations regarding the screw is functional language and the dental fastening tool where the rotary tool 24 is capable of engaging with a dental screw that has the limitation described).
Re. Claim 24, Streff, Rohling, and Padros discloses the dental fastening tool of claim 9, wherein Streff further discloses wherein the screw engaging interface includes a torque transfer zone (tip 42), the cross-section of the torque transfer zone (Figs 3a-3b; tip 42; Par. 74) comprises convex sections alternating with concave sections (see Modified Figure 3).
Claim(s) 15-16, 18-19 and 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Streff (US 20130164708 A1) in view of Rohlfing (US 20200060743 A1) and Herrmann (DE 19850097 A1, see machine translated ver).
Re. Claim 15, Streff discloses a dental fastening set (Figs 2-3; screw 22 and rotary tool 24) comprising:
a dental screw (Fig 2; screw 22) comprising:
a screw head (Fig 2; head portion 34) including a tool engaging interface (Fig 2; engagement means 50) for engaging a fastening tool at a proximal end (abstract) and a screw shank (Fig 2; shaft portion 32) disposed distal to the screw head (Fig 2; shaft portion 32 is clearly distal to head portion 34);
a threaded portion (Fig 2; thread 48) for engaging a dental component (Par. 76); and
a dental fastening tool (Figs 3a-3b; rotary tool 24), having a proximal end (Fig 3a; grip part 38), a distal end (Fig 3a; tip 42), and a longitudinal axis (Fig 3a; longitudinal axis D),
wherein the dental fastening tool comprises a screw engaging interface at the distal end (Fig 3a; tip 42) for engaging the dental screw (Par. 78).
Streff is silent to the dental screw is configured to transfer a first minimum torque of 26 Ncm and the first torque limiting portion is configured to limit the torque transferable to a first maximum torque of 38 Ncm or less and the dental screw comprises a torque limiting portion, wherein the threaded portion is disposed distal to the torque limiting portion, and wherein the dental fastening tool comprises a second torque limiting portion, wherein the first torque limiting portion of the dental screw is configured to bear the first maximum torque that is higher than the second maximum torque that is transferable by the second torque limiting portion of the dental fastening tool.
Rohlfing, in the analogous art of surgical screws and surgical fastening tools, teaches of a screw (Fig 10; bone fastener 22) comprising a tool engaging interface (Fig 10; head 50 of bone fastener 22 clearly engages a fastening tool), a torque limiting portion (Fig 10; first frangible region 54) and a thread (Fig 10; shaft 52 clearly has threads), wherein the threaded portion is distal to the torque limiting portion (Fig 10), and wherein the torque limiting portion is configured to limit the torque transferable to a maximum torque for preventing damage to the threaded portion (Par. 57; if the first frangible region 54 experiences a torque that is above its limit, it will break at the head region, preventing damage to the shaft and threaded region); and a fastening tool (Figs 1-13; driver 20) which comprises a screw engaging interface (Par. 37) and a torque limiting portion (Fig 1; frangible region 34) and wherein the torque limiting portion of the screw is configured to bear a maximum torque that is higher than the maximum torque that is transferable by the torque limiting portion of the fastening tool (Par. 53).
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 device of Streff with the teachings of Rohlfing, such that the dental screw and dental fastening tool of Streff each comprise torque limiting portions, and wherein the torque limiting portion of the dental screw is configured to bear a maximum torque that is higher than the maximum torque that is transferable by the torque limiting portion of the dental fastening tool, in order to provide a safety mechanism that allows a broken part of a instrument to be removed from a surgical site easily and without it drifting, and to prevent damage to the screw (Rohlfing, Par. 3-4).
Herrmann discloses a screw in the same field of endeavor for fixing dental components to each other (Abstract) wherein the screw is configured to transfer a minimum torque 26 Ncm and the torque limiting portion is configured to limit the torque transferable to a maximum torque of 38 Ncm or less for preventing damage to the threaded portion (Par. 13). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the screw of Herrmann to have a minimum torque value of 26Ncm and the torque limiting portion is configured to limit the torque transferable to a maximum torque of 38 Ncm, as it involves only adjusting a dimension of a component that is known to require adjusting.
It should be noted that Streff provides teaching of a range of desired torques and Rohling provides teaching limiting the torque for both the tool and the screw where the torque limiting means is less for the tool than the screw. This would allow the implant to be screwed into place before damage can be applied as damage to the tool would be presented first. In addition, it should be noted that applicant does not disclose the range claimed is inventive and does not provide an advantage or unexpected results in the specification. By modifying the ranges of the torque limiting, it would solve the same problem which is preventing the implant from being damaged (Pg. 3 of applicant’s specification).
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 screw of Streff and Rohling to transfer a minimum torque of 26 Ncm and the torque limiting portion is configured to limit the torque transferable to a maximum torque of 38 Ncm or less for preventing damage to the threaded portion as taught by Herrmann in order to provide the desired amount of torque since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
The combination as such would teach the dental screw is configured to transfer a first minimum torque of 26 Ncm and the first torque limiting portion is configured to limit the torque transferable to a first maximum torque of 38 Ncm or less and the dental screw comprises a torque limiting portion, wherein the threaded portion is disposed distal to the torque limiting portion, and wherein the dental fastening tool comprises a second torque limiting portion, wherein the first torque limiting portion of the dental screw is configured to bear the first maximum torque that is higher than the second maximum torque that is transferable by the second torque limiting portion of the dental fastening tool.
Re. Claim 16, Streff, Rohlfing, and Herrmann discloses the dental fastening set of claim 15 and Streff further discloses wherein the tool engaging interface includes a torque transfer zone (Fig 2; engagement means 50; Par. 98) with a cross-section comprising at least one of convex and planar sections (Fig 7; see modified Figure 5 below) alternating with concave sections (Fig 7; see modified Figure 5 below); and wherein the screw engaging interface includes a torque transfer zone (Figs 3a-3b; tip 42; Par. 74) with a cross-section comprising at least one of convex and planar sections (Fig 3b; see modified Figure 3) alternating with concave sections (Fig 3b; see modified Figure 3),
wherein in an engaged state of the dental screw and the dental fastening tool for transferring torque, at least an intermediate section of each of at least one of the convex and planar sections of the dental screw faces a profile of a concave section of the tool engaging interface at a distance (see modified Figure 6 below; an intermediate, curved section of a convex section of the screw faces a profile of a concave section of the tool engaging interface of the dental screw at a distance).
PNG
media_image9.png
457
471
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
457
471
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 5 Modified Figure 6
Re. Claim 18, Haus, Rohlfing, and Herrmann discloses the dental fastening set of claim 15 and Haus further discloses the dental screw and the dental fastening tool each comprise a pick-up zone (for dental screw: Fig 3A; recesses 350, surfaces 320; for fastening tool: edges 450) configured to engage each other by friction (Par. 47).
Re. Claim 19, Streff, Rohlfing, and Herrmann discloses the dental fastening set of claim 16 and Streff further discloses the dental screw and the dental fastening tool each comprise a verification zone (engagement protrusions/depressions 60,64 of the screw 22; protrusions/depressions 54,56 of the rotary tool 24; Par. 41, 78; the protrusions and depressions of the screw/rotary tool constitute a verification zone of the engaging interfaces, such that the protrusions/depressions of the rotary tool have to match the protrusions/depressions of a dental screw in a corresponding manner such that they can engage and the rotary tool can properly be used to screw in a dental screw) configured to allow engagement of the torque transfer zone of the dental fastening tool and the torque transfer zone of the dental screw when the dental fastening set is fully engaged (Par. 88).
Re. Claim 26, Streff, Rohlfing, and Herrmann discloses the dental fastening set of Claim 15, Streff further discloses the screw engaging interface of the dental fastening tool includes a torque transfer zone (Fig 2; engagement means 50; Par. 98), wherein the cross-section of the torque transfer zone comprises convex sections alternating with concave sections (Fig. 7; See modified Fig. 5).
Re. Claim 27, Streff, Rohlfing, and Herrmann discloses the dental fastening set of Claim 15, Rohling discloses the second maximum torque of the second torque limiting portion (Fig 1; frangible region 34; Par. 53). Hermann provides teaching of a torque limiting portion of the dental fastening tool to be 35 Ncm or less (Par. 13).
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 second maximum torque of Streff, Rohlfing, and Herrmann to have the second maximum torque of the second torque limiting portion is 35 Ncm or less as taught by the combination of Rohfling and Herrmann to provide enough torque that would not damage the screw.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Streff (US 20130164708 A1) in view of Rohlfing (US 20200060743 A1), Herrmann (DE 19850097 A1, see machine translated ver) and Haus (US 20140186797 A1).
Re. Claim 17, Streff, Rohlfing, and Herrmann discloses the dental fastening set of claim 16 but are silent to the torque transfer zone of the dental screw and the torque transfer zone of the dental fastening tool have a rotational play when being engaged with each other, in particular a play in a range of 1 to 3.5°, but does explicitly teach wherein “the engagement means on the screw and the counter means on the rotary tool have to be matched to one another as precisely as possible so that the tool does not have too much play and the engagement means are not damaged” (Par. 11).
Haus discloses a dental screw in the same field of endeavor and further discloses a tool engagement interface (Fig 3A; screw interface 300); and a screw driver (Figs 4-5) comprising screw engagement interface (Figs 4-5; screw driver head 400), and wherein in an engaged state of the dental screw and screw driver (Figs 5A-C), the contact between the corresponding engagement surfaces can be optimized such that “an optimal play between the screw and the driver is achieved to allow angulated rotation of screw” (Par. 45). The rotational play is a result effective variable in that changing the rotational play between the engaged parts affects the guidance of the screw driver into the screw and the overall efficiency of the screw driver and the screw. Adjustment of the rotational play directly correlates to the function of the dental set; one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reasonable expectation of success in modifying the rotational play of the dental set, as it involves only adjusting a dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment.
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 rotational play of the dental set of Streff, Rohlfing, and Herrmann to be in the range of 1 to 3.5° as taught by Haus in order to optimize efficiency between the components of the dental set since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Streff (US 20130164708 A1) in view of Rohlfing (US 20200060743 A1) and Herrmann (DE 19850097 A1, see machine translated ver) and Thomke (US 20190290403 A1).
Re. Claim 28, Streff, Rohlfing, and Herrmann dental fastening set of Claim 15, and but are silent to the dental screw comprises a support surface at a distal end of the screw head, the dental fastening set further comprising a dental component, wherein the dental component comprises a screw seat for engaging the support surface of the screw head, wherein the support surface and the screw seat have a conical shape, and wherein cone angles of the support surface and the screw seat differ from each other.
Thomke discloses a dental restoration support set and further discloses a dental component (2) comprising a screw seat (see Fig. 8 where element 24 engages) for engaging a support surface (24) of a screw (3), wherein the support surface and the screw seat each have a conical shape (Fig. 7-9; Par. 27) and wherein cone angles of the support surface and the screw seat differ from each other (Fig. 8; Par. 24-28) to avoid significant stress to the to the screw (Par. 29).
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 component and screw of Streff, Rohlfing, and Herrmann to have the support surface and the screw seat each have a conical shape, wherein cone angles of the support surface and the screw seat differ from each other as taught by Thomke to avoid significant stress to the to the screw.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Streff (US 20130164708 A1) in view of Rohlfing (US 20200060743 A1) and Haus (US 20140186797 A1).
Re. Claim 29, Streff discloses a dental fastening tool (Fig. 3a; 24) comprising:
a proximal end (Fig. 3a; 38);
a distal end (Fig. 3a; 42);
a longitudinal axis (Fig. 3a; D);
a screw engaging interface (42) at the distal end for engaging a dental screw (Fig. 3a; Par. 78) with concave sections (Par. 78; 56); and
a torque limiting portion; wherein the torque limiting portion comprises a cross-section smaller than a remainder of the dental fastening tool such that the torque limiting portion is configured to limit the torque transferable to a maximum torque of 35 Ncm or less for preventing damage to the screw engaging interface,
wherein the torque limiting portion is disposed proximal to the screw engaging interface,
It is noted that the limitations regarding the screw is functional language as what is being claimed- denoted by the preamble- is the dental fastening tool where the rotary tool 24 is capable of engaging with a dental screw that has the limitation described below:
Wherein the dental screw comprises a screw head including a tool engaging interface for engaging the fastening tool at a proximal end of the dental screw,
Wherein the dental screw comprises a screw shank disposed distal to the screw head.
However, Streff is silent to a torque limiting portion, wherein the torque limiting portion comprises a cross-section smaller than a remainder of the dental fastening tool such that the torque limiting portion is configured to limit the torque transferable to a maximum torque of 35 Ncm or less for preventing damage to the dental screw engaging interface, and wherein the torque limiting portion is disposed proximal to the screw engaging interface. Further, Streff is silent to the rounded tip comprising a rounded distal surface. Further, Streff is silent to the screw engaging interface comprising a conical shape interrupted by concave sections.
Streff does disclose that a desired torque to be delivered is between 15 to 35 Nm or less for preventing damage to the screw engaging interface (Par. 25).
Rohlfing, in the analogous art of surgical screws and surgical fastening tools, teaches a fastening tool (Figs 1-13; driver 20) which comprises a screw engaging interface (Par. 37) and a torque limiting portion (Fig 1; frangible region 34) found proximal to the screw engaging surface (Fig. 1), having a cross-section smaller than a remainder of the dental fastening tool (Fig. 2) and wherein the torque limiting portion of the screw is configured to limit the torque transferable to a maximum torque for preventing damage to the dental screw engaging interface (Par. 53).
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the tool of Streff to have a torque limiting portion having a cross-section smaller than a remainder of the dental fastening tool as taught by Rohlfing to having a cross-section smaller than a remainder of the dental fastening tool. As such, the combination of Streff and Rohling would provide teaching of a torque transferable to a maximum torque of 35 Ncm or less for preventing damage to the screw engaging interface. This is because Streff provides the teaching of a maximum torque of 35 Nm or less is applied to the dental screw and because Rohling teaches a torque limiting portion, it would further ensure the maximum torque does not exceed 35 Nm. Further, it would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date have the limit as claimed. Though Streff does not specifically teach limiting the torque, it should be noted that torques of 15-35 Nm are typically transferred and Streff provides teaching of a range of desired torque that would not damage or impair the screw. Thus a torque of up to 35Ncm can be transferred without difficulty, without the connecting screw becoming damage or otherwise impaired.
Haus discloses a dental fastening tool and further discloses the screw engaging interface (400) comprising a conical shape (Par. 44; Fig. 4b) interrupted by concave sections (see Fig. 4b; Par. 43) to rest more comfortably with the screw head (Par. 44).
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the tool of Streff and Rohling to have the screw engaging interface comprising a conical shape interrupted by concave sections as taught by Haus to rest more comfortably with the screw head.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8-9, 11-14, 24-25 and 29. have been fully considered but are found moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that none of the cited references discloses the first minimum torque and applicant does express the importance of the range in the specification to prevent damage to the threaded portion.
Applicant’s argument is found to not be persuasive as it is found that Streff and Hermann provides the particular teaching of the torque ranges. It should also be noted that the specified section of applicant’s specification regarding the torque range is found to not be an unexpected result.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See Form PTO-892.
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 HOLLY T TO whose telephone number is (571)272-0719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6:30 - 4:30.
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.
/HOLLY T. TO/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/EDELMIRA BOSQUES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights