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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, Species A, Species C and Species E in the reply filed on 10/16/25 is acknowledged.
Claims 4, 6, 12-13 and 16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/16/25.
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
Note: No new incorporation by reference should be made.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because there are multiple grammatical errors throughout. Review and correction thereof is required. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Additionally, it appears Applicant uses the term “graft” and “coupling” to describe the same structure in the instant disclosure. A single term should be used to describe a single component. Correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “connection means” and “obstruction means” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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, 5, 7-11, and 14-15 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.
Regarding claim 1, the term “connection means” appears to recite structure, however it is unclear what structure is or is not specifically included in the “connection means”. As best understood by the Examiner, the “connection means” comprises the graft, body and obstruction means, however the “obstruction means” is indefinite as explained below. Correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, the term “obstruction means” is indefinite, as it is unclear what specifically the obstruction means comprises. For example, the claim first states that the means comprise the slider. However, the following paragraph states that the obstruction means are configured to produce a force on the slider. It is unclear how the slider can produce a force on itself, or if there is other structure that forms the means which is not recited. It is unclear what said structure is. Additionally, the term “in a compliant way” is indefinite as it is unclear what would or would not specifically be considered compliant or non-compliant. Further in claim 1, the term “are in constrained configuration” should read “in the constrained configuration” and “slide enters hole” should read “slide enters the hole”. Clarification is required.
Additionally regarding claim 1, the term “implant type support” and “magnetic type” are indefinite as the addition of the word “type” to an otherwise definite expression extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(B)(III)(E).
Regarding claim 2, the term “obstruction means” is further muddied as the claim recites that the obstruction means comprise a component constrained within the body which moves with the slide. It is unclear if this intends to state that the obstruction means also comprises this component, or alternatively to the slider. Again, the claim recites that the obstruction means acts on itself. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 3, the term “said component…and separated from said guide” is indefinite as the claim depends from claim 2, which requires that the component is part of the guide. As such, it is unclear how the component can be part of the guide and separate from it. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 7, the term “said component” lacks antecedent basis in the claim, as claim 7 depends from claim 1, not claim 2. It is unclear if the term refers to the same or different component. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 9, the term “said first” is indefinite as it is unclear what specifically the term intends to recite. As best understood by the Examiner the term may refer to said first flap, however the flap lacks antecedent basis in claim 9 as it depends from claim 1. Further, the “obstruction means” is further muddied in claim 9 as it appears to further include the “said first” but it is unclear what said structure is and how it could even be part of the obstruction means, if it is part of the graft. Clarification is required.
Regarding claims 14, the term “said coupling” is indefinite and lacks antecedent basis in the claims. It is unclear what the term refers to. As best understood by the Examiner, based on the specification the term refers to the graft and will be interpreted as such. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 15, the term “main axis”, “development axis” and the previously recited “constraint axis” are indefinite as it is unclear what the difference between said axes are. As best understood by the Examiner they appear to refer to the same axis. Clarification is required.
All other claims not specifically addressed above are rejected based on their dependency on a previously rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-11 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Milne (US 9603681 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Milne discloses a dental device (200, see Figs. 3-4) comprising at least: an implant type support (210) configured to be constrained on a bone portion of a user and defining a constraint axis (axis B; configured to be used as such), connection means (206/204/218, as best understood by the Examiner) configured to operatively interconnect said support and a dental prosthesis (202) in a fixed manner along said constraint axis (see Fig. 3), defining at least one constraint configuration wherein said support and said prosthesis are firmly linked (see Fig. 3), and include: a graft (206) comprising at least a first portion (upper portion which is covered by prosthesis when assembled) extending mainly along a direction parallel to said constraint axis (e.g. extends along said axis up and down), a body (204) comprising a guide (224) extending along a transverse or oblique direction with respect to said constraint axis (see Figs. 3-4) and a cavity (area of 204 which receives first portion of 206) extending in a direction parallel to said constraint axis and adapted to house said first portion at least when said connection means are in said constraint configuration (see Fig. 3), obstruction means (218/214/234, as best understood by the Examiner) comprising a slider (218) placed in a compliant way within said guide (see Fig. 3), said first portion comprising a hole (e.g. hole in 206 where 218 inserts into) substantially aligned with said guide, when said connection means are in constrained configuration, in such a way as to allow the insertion of said slider within said hole (see Fig. 3), said obstruction means being configured to produce a force on said slider capable of moving said slider along said guide in such a way that at least part of said slider enters hole (see Fig. 3), when said connection means form said constraint configuration, so as to obstruct the reciprocal movement between said graft and said body and said device (see Fig. 3), and wherein said force realized on said slider is of the magnetic type (the force is capable of being applied to the slider as required; as shown in Figs. 3-4, force is comprised of magnetic vector due to action of 234 and spring vector due to 214 in opposing directions; as such device is capable of being used as such, as the magnetic force may first be applied, followed by application of the spring force to allow the slider to enter the hole, and as such the force is at least in part the magnetic type over the full motion of the slider, as explained above).
Regarding claims 2-3, Milne further discloses wherein said force is a magnetic force of attraction (attractive force of 234 on 218, see explanation above) and said obstruction means comprise a component (214) constrained within said body in such a way as to be facing, or part of, said guide (see Figs. 3-4) and configured to realize said magnetic force of mutual attraction or repulsion with said slider so that (e.g. component is compressed), when said constraining means are in said constraining configuration, said slider is dragged towards or away from said component, it is inserted into said hole and obstructs the reciprocal movement between said graft and said body (slider is dragged first towards and then away from distal end of component; capable of being used as such; per claim 2); and wherein said component is constrained within said body in such a way as to be facing said guide and separated from said guide by said cavity realizing said magnetic attraction force with said slider (as best understood by the Examiner, 224 faces the guide, at least in part, and separated therefrom at least in part at an end or side; per claim 3).
Regarding claims 7-9, Milne further discloses wherein said first portion defines a wedge-shaped free end (e.g. distal most end of first portion) configured to separate said slider and said component or said slider and part of said body (part of body, see Fig. 3-4) when said first portion is inserted into said cavity (free end pushes slider off of body interior surface; per claim 7); wherein said graft comprises at least a first flap (e.g. tallest portion of first portion of graft, right of graft as shown in Fig. 3) defining a wall extending in a direction parallel to said constraint axis and including said hole (e.g. right sidewall as shown in Fig. 3; per claim 8); and wherein said obstruction means comprise said first [flap] which defines a wall (see above) with a substantially C or U shape in section perpendicular to said constraint axis and said cavity is counter-shaped to said first portion (e.g. cavity matches first portion; first flap as explained above would form a C shaped cross section as it corresponds to only the right side of the graft, as best understood by the Examiner; per claim 9).
Regarding claim 10, Milne further discloses wherein said slider (218) defines a beveled tip edge (see rounded distal end, facing 206 in Fig. 4) configured to facilitate the introduction of said free end between said slider and said component or between said slider and a portion of said body (see Figs. 3-4).
Alternatively to the interpretation of claim 10, regarding claim 11, Milne discloses wherein said guide (224) is a cylindrical pipe (see Figs. 3-4), said hole has a conical body shape (see curved distal most, rightmost extent of hole in Fig. 4) and said slider comprises a cylindrical body compatible with said guide and conical body tip configured to fit into said hole (tip is curved as shown in Fig. 4; per claim 11).
Regarding claim 14, Milne further discloses wherein in which one of the said graft and said body is constrained to said support (graft is constrained to support via screw) and the other between said coupling and said body is configured to be constrained to said prosthesis (see Figs. 3-4, as best understood by the Examiner, graft/coupling constrained to prosthesis).
Regarding claim 15, Milne further discloses wherein said support defines a main axis coinciding with the prevailing development axis of said support (e.g. constraint axis, as best understood by the Examiner) and said graft comprises a second portion defining an annular element (e.g. below first portion, annular due to screw hole) including a through fixing hole centered along said main axis (screw hole for screw 208, see Figs. 3-4), said constraint axis being aligned or slanted with respect to said main axis (see Figs. 3-4).
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 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.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milne in view of Ghalili (US 5106299).
Regarding claim 5, Milne disclose all the features of the claimed invention including wherein the hole is arranged such that when the connection means are in the constraining configuration, the slider passes into the hole (see Fig. 3), but does not teach that the hole is a through hole with the slider passing therethrough.
Ghalili, however, teaches a similar dental implant device, comprising an abutment (18) and a body (23) retained together by a biased slider (27) wherein the body has a through hole to receive the slide, with the slider passing therethrough in a constraining configuration (see Figs. 1-2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Milne to include Ghalili’s through hole as such modification would improve retention of the slider, and reduce the risk of inadvertent separation of the components.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached PTO892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD MORAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 AM-4 PM EST.
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.
/EDWARD MORAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772