DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that Koh et al. fails to provide for the new claim limitations, however upon further review and consideration the new limitations have been address by the combination of Koh et al. and Hotta et al. in the following action.
Applicant had argued that Koh discloses fibers in a zig-zag direction however, this is not persuasive as this is only one of the embodiments disclosed in Koh and as such does not remove the cited portions of Koh which discloses the claimed subject matter.
The new claim amendments are different and broader than those of previous claim 22. Claim 22 has been amended to be broader than previous claim 22.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5, and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koh et al. (WO 2016/006930 A1, translation cited) in view of Hotta et al. (JP 201977578 A, translation cited).
Regarding claim 1, Koh discloses a dental implant body (page 2 lines 3-4 and page 3 lines 14-15 disclosing the article is a bone filling material and thus a dental implant body such as for dental bone grafts) made by controlled freezing of a slurry before extrusion and sintering (page 6 lines 38-44 ) comprising:
a zirconia ceramics sintered body (page 4 lines 25-27 the ceramic body can be made of zirconia, page 6 lines 19-23 the body is sintered),
wherein the ceramics sintered body is a porous body having continuous holes formed from a surface of the ceramics sintered body and a wall formed around aligned connected holes (Fig. 1 aligned micropores, Fig. 3 showing the micropores that are elongated and aligned along the length of the fibers from one end of a fiber to the other end),
a porosity of the ceramics sintered body is 50 ±10% (page 7 lines 9-10 disclosing the porosity including 40-70%), and
a diameter of the continuous holes is equal to or greater than 50 µm and equal to or smaller than 190 µm (page 7 lines 5-6 disclosing the diameter of the holes/micropores within the fibers being 100 µm) ,
wherein some of the continuous holes are formed in a certain direction, other continuous holes are formed in a direction perpendicular to the certain direction (Fig. 1 element b showing fibers at perpendicular arrangements and thus each fibers continuous holes that are aligned with the fibers would be at perpendicular directions to be other),
a part of the dental implant body includes only a plurality of horizontal continuous holes arranged in a vertical direction (Fig. 1 (b) showing that any one of the fibers having the aligned micropores are all in one fiber orientation a plurality of horizontal continuous holes that are arranged/stack vertically within the fiber, and further even a top layer of fibers would have all their micropores aligned horizontally within each and relative to each other top layer of fibers, regarding the limitation of “includes only a plurality of horizontal holes is broad language the includes only the internal portion of a fiber that has aligned holes, even if another part of that fiber would have holes in a different direction) and the plurality of horizontally continuous holes continuously penetrate from one surface of the ceramics sintered body to another surface of the ceramics sintered body in one direction (Fig. 1(b) and Fig. 2a-c showing the fibers have ends at the surface of the ceramic body and that their aligned micropores are open at those ends , such as in Fig. 1(b)),
and another part of the dental implant body includes a combination of at least two selected from a group consisting of a right-left direction hole, an upper-lower direction hole, and an oblique direction hole (Fig. 1(b) a lower layer of fibers that would be left-right and Fig. 5 showing where an upper-lower direction of holes would be between the fiber strands).
Regarding claim 1, Koh discloses structure substantially identical to the instant application as discussed above, such as where the micropores extend the entire length of the fibers, but fails to explicitly disclose where the aligned micropores are continuous holes form.
However, Hotta discloses a dental implant body also made by controlled freezing of a slurry before extrusion and sintering (page 4 lines 40-41), where the implant is an elongated fiber having a ceramic body (page 7 lines 2-3) with continuous holes formed from a surface of the sintered ceramic body and a wall formed around the continuous holes (Figs. 1/2 elements 12 are continuous holes with a surrounding wall that extend from one end of the ceramic body to the other) and where either all of the continuous holes extend in a certain direction (page 2 lines 23-24 disclosing 80% or more which includes up to 100%) and continuous holes can be formed in another part of the body in a direction that is not align with the (page 2 lines 23-27 disclosing a different arrangement where some holes would be oblique the majority of the certain direction of holes).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the aligned micropores along the entire length of the a fiber to be continuous holes as taught by Hotta’s forming of the holes by directional freezing into the aligned micropores formed by directional freezing as taught by Koh for the purpose of providing for the ceramic material to have excellent bone conductivity and practical strength as taught by Hotta (abstract).
Regarding claim 18, Koh further discloses wherein some of the continuous holes are formed in a horizontal direction, and other continuous holes are formed in a vertical direction(Fig. 2a-c showing one of the certain directions is vertical with holes between fibers and the other continuous holes are horizontal along the insides of the fibers).
Regarding claim 19, Koh further discloses wherein some of the continuous holes are formed in a horizontal direction at an upper half of the dental implant body, and other continuous holes are formed in a vertical direction at a lower half of the dental implant body (Fig. 2a-c showing the lower half includes some of the vertical direction holes and the upper half includes some of the continuous holes that are horizontal).
Regarding claim 20, Koh further discloses wherein some of the continuous holes are formed in a horizontal direction at an upper half of the dental implant body, other continuous holes are formed in a vertical direction at a lower half of the dental implant body, and a lowermost hole at the upper half of the dental implant body communicates with the holes at the lower half of the dental implant body (Figs. 1(b) and 2a-c showing the lower half includes some of the vertical direction holes and the upper half includes some of the continuous holes that are horizontal and where the midpoint of the body would be the lower most of the upper half has vertical and horizontal holes of the upper and lower halves in fluid communication as the horizontal holes of the fibers are open either end and along the bottom surface of the fiber).
Regarding claim 21, Koh/Hotta as combined would result in wherein at least one of the continuous holes penetrates from one surface of the ceramics sintered body to another surface of the ceramics sintered body in one direction, extends only in one direction from one end of the at least one of the continuous holes to other end of the at least one of the continuous holes, and is completely surrounded by the wall from the one end to the other end (Fig. 2(b) showing the ends of at least one of the continuous holes within the fiber is completely surrounded by a wall of the fiber).
Regarding claim 5, Koh/Hotta as combined discloses structure substantially identical to the instant application as discussed above, including that the walls are densified (page 6 lines 19-20 disclosing the walls are to be densified by sintering) but fails to explicitly disclose where the resulting density of the wall is equal to or greater than 99%. It is understood that because claim 1 recites that then ceramic body has a porosity of 40-60% that the language of density to the walls is excluding any pores.
The instant disclosure does not describe these parameters as contributing any unexpected results to the article and as such these parameters are deemed matter of design choice (lacking in any criticality), well within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results, and as Koh discloses the issue of densifying the ceramic of the walls to at least 99% by sintering would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fully densify the walls to 99% such that the walls would be fully dense before any trimming of the article (page 8 lines 21-22 disclosing sintering of the walls).
Further regarding claim 22, Koh/Hotta as combined discloses structure substantially identical to the instant application as discussed above, with Koh further disclosing where the implant is made by selectively forming by a number of layers (page 6 lines 37-39) and thus it would have been obvious for a body with only two layers to be made depending upon the implants need such as for a thin bone filler (page 7 lines 18-20), thus such a parameters is deemed matters of design choice, well within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results. Therefore where only a two layer 3-d bone filler would be made then the part of the body including only the plurality of continuous holes would be the upper half of the dental implant body.
Regarding claim 23, Koh/Hotta as combined discloses structure substantially identical to the instant application as discussed above, including where the another part of the body would include a combination of right-left direction holes and the upper-lower direction holes (Fig. 1(b) a lower layer of fibers that would be left-right and Fig. 5 showing where an upper-lower direction of holes would be between the fiber strands), but fails to explicitly disclose where the another part of the dental implant body also includes in the combination oblique direction holes.
However Hotta further discloses where some of the holes can aligned in one direction mostly and have some holes in an oblique direction (page 2 lines 24-26 disclosing that some of the elongated fiber bodies would be only 80% aligned and that some would be at angles greater than 30 degrees and thus would be oblique.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate some of the fibers having also the holes over 80% aligned and some oblique to the alignment as taught by Hotta into the another part as taught by Koh/Hotta for the purpose of providing for excellent bone conductivity which would allow for bone formation cells to migrate and settle and to provide strength to withstand handling as taught by Hotta (page 1 lines 16-18).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW P SAUNDERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3250. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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.
/M.P.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3772 03/31/2026
/EDELMIRA BOSQUES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights