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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/4/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 88 are objected to because of the following informalities:
It is found there are two distinct claim 88 that claims two distinct limitations. It should be revised to be different numerical claim numbers. For examination purposes, it will be examined as claim 88a and claim 88b to avoid confusion with claim 89.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 60 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 60 recites “the tools comprise a component selected from a group consisting of: a cutting insert comprising a hard cutting tool material; a brush; an abrasive; and an abrasive mount” in lines 1-6. It is found that the newly amended claim 51- for which claim 60 depends off of- requires that the tool tips each comprise a cutting edge. From reviewing the specification and drawings, there is no support for a combination in which the tools have a cutting edge as well as a brush, abrasive or abrasive mount (see pg. 31, lines 21-22 of applicant’s specification). There is only support for the tool to comprise a cutting insert comprising a hard cutting tool material in combination with a cutting edge at the tool tips.
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.
Claim 59 is 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 59 recites “the tool comprises an edge configured to cut a bone” in lines 1-2 wherein it is unclear if the edge is the cutting edge of the tool tips or a different edge found on the tool that can be used to cut a bone. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as being the same edge.
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) 51-54, 58-60, 65, 74, 77-78, 82-83, 85-88 (both claims denoted as claim 88) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wade (US 20120028215 A1) in view of Goodman (US 20180125615 A1).
Re. Claim 51, Wade discloses a device for treating a dental implant in-situ (Abstract, Fig. 1-5B, and 12-21), the device comprising:
a shaft (where element 30 points to); and
a plurality of machining tools (32; Par. 62) attached to the shaft (Fig. 2A), tips of each of the machining tool arranged to rotate around a longitudinal axis of the shaft when the shaft rotates (Par. 62),
wherein: the tools are attached to the shaft by hinges, the hinges enabling the tool tips to move in a radial direction relative to the longitudinal axis of the shaft (Hinges can be envisioned in Fig. 2A-2B as it shows the machining tools can be move in a radial direction relative to the longitudinal axis of the shaft, such that the hinges are live hinges).
However, Wade is silent to each of the tool tips comprises a cutting edge configured for cutting a dental implant. Wade does disclose that the edges of the tool can be used to abrade the dental implant (Par. 62).
Goodman discloses a device in the same field of endeavor and further discloses tool (120) with tool tips (304) comprises a cutting edge (see where label 304 points to in Fig. 7) configured for cutting a dental implant (Par. 34 and 42) to create a new implantoplasty surface desirable for bone grafting (Par. 42).
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the tool tips of Wade to have a cutting edge configured for cutting a dental implant as taught by Goodman to create a new implantoplasty surface desirable for bone grafting.
Re. Claim 52, Wade and Goodman discloses the device according to claim 51, wherein Wade further discloses the shaft and the machining tools are sized to be inserted in a human mouth (Fig. 16 shows the tool being used in the mouth of a human patient; Abstract).
Re. Claim 53, Wade and Goodman discloses the device according to claim 51, wherein Wade further discloses the device comprises a guide (28).
Re. Claim 54, Wade and Goodman discloses the device according to claim 52, Wade further discloses comprising a guide (28) wherein a thread sized and shaped to screw into the dental implant (element 94 are the screw threads; Par. 55-57 and Fig. 16 discloses the screw threads engaging with the implant).
Re. Claim 58, Wade and Goodman discloses the device according to claim 51, Wade further discloses wherein the tool tip is arranged to contact an outer surface of a dental implant at a location offset slightly behind a leading face of the tool relative to a rotation direction (Figs. 2B, and Fig. 16 shows the tips would contact with the outer surface of the implant at a location offset slightly behind a leading face of the tool relative to a rotation direction; see annotated figure below of Fig. 16).
PNG
media_image1.png
674
569
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure
Re. Claim 59, Wade and Goodman discloses the device according to claim 51, wherein Goodman discloses the tool comprises an edge configured to cut a bone (304 is the tools tip where the entire head has various edges capable of cutting bone as it is able to cut through in implant as disclosed. This can include edges 1032/1030/1034 in Par. 34 and 42).
Re. Claim 60, Wade and Goodman discloses the device according to claim 51, wherein Goodman discloses the tools comprise a component selected from a group consisting of: a cutting insert comprising a hard cutting tool material (Par. 34 and 42).
Re. Claim 65, Wade discloses a device for treating a dental implant in-situ (Abstract; Fig. 1-5B and 12-21), the device comprising:
a shaft (where element 30 + 28, such that when assembled together, the two elements are a shaft) comprising a shaft-tip sized and shaped to slide into a hole in a dental implant for steadying the shaft around the dental implant when rotating (Fig. 16; Par. 55-57, such that the portion 94 is the tip which is capable of sliding into a dental implant as claimed); and
a tool (32) attached to the shaft at a location between the ends of the shaft (Fig. 16-17 shows that the tool would be in between the end made by elements 28 and 30), the tool tip arranged to rotate around a longitudinal axis of the shaft when the shaft rotates (Par. 62); wherein:
the tool is attached to the shaft by hinges, the hinges enabling the tool tip to move in a radial direction relative to the longitudinal axis of the shaft (Hinges can be envisioned in Fig. 2A-2B as it shows the machining tools can be move in a radial direction relative to the longitudinal axis of the shaft).
However, Wade is silent to each of the tool tips comprises a cutting edge configured for cutting a dental implant. Wade does disclose that the edges of the tool can be used to abrade the dental implant (Par. 62).
Goodman discloses a device in the same field of endeavor and further discloses tool (120) with tool tips (304) comprises a cutting edge (see where label 304 points to in Fig. 7) configured for cutting a dental implant (Par. 34 and 42) to create a new implantoplasty surface desirable for bone grafting (Par. 42).
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the tool tips of Wade to have a cutting edge configured for cutting a dental implant as taught by Goodman to create a new implantoplasty surface desirable for bone grafting.
Re. Claim 74, Wade and Goodman discloses the device according to claim 60 wherein Goodman discloses the cutting insert, or at least a cutting edge or a cutting tip is hardened to effect cutting of the outer surface of the dental implant (Par. 32 discloses the cutting tip 304 is hardened/rigid due to the sleeve 112 when it is fitted over. It should be noted that Wade presents a similar concept of fitting the tools into a sleeve 26).
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the cutting tips of Wade and Goodman to be hardened to effect cutting of the outer surface of the dental implant as taught by Goodman to provide enough structure to allow cutting and not abrading to occur.
Re. Claim 77, Wade and Goodman discloses the device according to claim 51, wherein Goodman further discloses the tool tips are configured to remove a portion of the outer surface of the dental implant (Par. 34 and 42).
Re. Claim 78, Wade and Goodman discloses the device according to claim 77, wherein Goodman discloses the portion removed from the outer surface of the dental implant is a portion of metal (It should be noted that the limitation is functional as the dental implant is not positively claimed; Par. 34 and 42).
Re. Claim 82, Wade and Goodman discloses the device according to claim 51, wherein Goodman discloses the tool tips are configured for cutting a dental implant to produce one or more of large particles and cut-off flakes (Par. 32 and 42 discloses cutting the dental implant threads and is fully capable of producing one or more of large particles and cut-off flakes).
Re. Claim 83, Wade and Goodman discloses the device according to claim 51, wherein Goodman discloses the tool tips are configured for removing an outer layer of metal from the outer surface of the dental implant (It should be noted that the dental implant is functionally and claimed and Goodman discloses removing layers from the threading of the dental implant. Thus, it is fully capable of removing an outer layer of metal from the outer surface of the dental implant; Par. 32 and 42).
Re. Claim 85, Wade and Goodman discloses the device according to claim 51, wherein Goodman discloses the edge is an external, outward- facing edge, relative to the tool rotation around a dental implant (Fig. 7 where it is external from the support 302 and extends outwardly from it; Par. 41).
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the edge of Wade and Goodman to be an external, outward- facing edge, relative to the tool rotation around a dental implant as taught by Goodman to allow for direct interaction to the threading of the implant.
Re. Claim 86, Wade and Goodman discloses the device according to claim 85, wherein Goodman discloses the external edge is configured to remove bone from a jawbone surrounding the dental implant (Par. 32 and 41-42 where it disclosed that the external edge is used to cut dental implant and to remove debris on the threads. As such, it is fully capable of removing bone from a jawbone surrounding the dental implant such as in the form of debris found on the dental implant threads).
Re. Claim 87, Wade and Goodman discloses the device according to claim 85, wherein Goodman discloses the external edge is configured for leveling or flattening a surface of a jawbone (Par. 32 and 41-42 discloses that the external edge can cut dental implant threading and as such is fully capable of cutting jawbone to level/flatten its surface).
Re. Claim 88a, Wade and Goodman discloses the device according to claim 85, wherein Goodman discloses the external edge is configured for one or both of:(a) removing diseased bone; and(b) removing an additional amount of healthy bone (Par. 32 and 41-42 discloses that the external edge can cut dental implant threading and as such is fully capable of removing diseased bone or additional amount of healthy bone).
Re. Claim 88b, Wade and Goodman discloses the device according to claim 59, wherein Goodman the edge is designed at an angle to remove bone (304 is the tools tip where the entire head has various edges capable of cutting bone as it is able to cut through in implant as disclosed. This can include edges 1032/1030/1034 in Par. 34 and 42 where each are found at an angle and are fully capable of removing bone such as bone found as debris between implant threading).
Claim(s) 55-56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wade (US 20120028215 A1) in view of Goodman (US 20180125615 A1) and Reed (US 3579834 A).
Re. Claim 55, Wade discloses the device according to claim 51 but is silent to an adjustment nut, the adjustment nut arranged to move the tool tips in the radial direction relative to the longitudinal axis of the shaft. Wade does disclose a sleeve (26) to adjust the tool tips in the radial direction relative to the longitudinal axis (Par. 43).
Reed discloses an adjustment system in the analogous art of dental devices and further discloses an adjustment nut (33) arranged to move the tool tips (23) in the radial direction relative to the longitudinal axis of the shaft (18 is the shaft; Col. 1, lines 56-65).
As such, it would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the device of Wade to have an adjustment nut to adjust the tool tips in the radial direction relative to the longitudinal axis of the shaft as taught by Reed to provide a more secure connection and adjustability.
Re. Claim 56, Wade and Reed discloses the device according to claim 55 and Reed further discloses the adjustment nut acts upon a floating ring (31) to move the ring along the shaft without transferring a rotation of the adjustment nut to the tool tips (Col. 1, lines 56-65).
Wade discloses a sleeve (26) that can act as a floating ring as it allows the adjustment of the device (22) with a sliding mechanism to adjust the machining tools (Par. 43). Reed provides teaching of both an adjustment nut and floating ring where the adjustment nut acts upon a floating ring to move the ring along the shaft without transferring a rotation of the adjustment nut to the tool tips. As such, it would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the device of Wade to have the adjustment nut acts upon a floating ring to move the ring along the shaft without transferring a rotation of the adjustment nut to the tool tips as taught by Reed to provide a more precise adjustment of the device to its desired position.
Claim(s) 55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wade (US 20120028215 A1) in view of Goodman (US 20180125615 A1) and Park (WO 2009057887 A1).
Re. Claim 55, Wade discloses the device according to claim 51 but is silent to an adjustment nut, the adjustment nut arranged to move the tool tips in the radial direction relative to the longitudinal axis of the shaft. Wade does disclose a sleeve (26) to adjust the tool tips in the radial direction relative to the longitudinal axis (Par. 43).
Park discloses a dental instrument in the same field of endeavor and further discloses a device (Fig. 1-4) comprising an adjustment nut (130) arranged to move tool tips (122) in the radial direction relative to the longitudinal axis of the shaft (Fig. 3-4; Par. 46-47). Further, Park also presents the device comprising movement of the tool tips in the radial direction relative to the longitudinal axis of the shaft through sliding a cam structure (Fig. 5-6; Par. 58-59). The sliding function is similar to Wade where Wade discloses a sleeve that would slide upon the tool tip to control the radial direction of the tool tips. With that said, it can be said that comparatively to a sliding mechanism, a threading mechanism would provide a more secure connection and adjustability.
As such, it would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the device of Wade to have an adjustment nut to adjust the tool tips in the radial direction relative to the longitudinal axis of the shaft as taught by Park to provide a more secure connection and adjustability.
Claim(s) 84 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wade (US 20120028215 A1) in view of Goodman (US 20180125615 A1) and Leblanc (US 20180281085 A1).
Re. Claim 84, Akagi discloses the device according to claim 51, wherein the combination of Wade and Goodman discloses wherein upon tool rotation (Wade discloses in Abstract that the buffer member is rotated to abrade the implant surface), the tip is configured to cut the dental implant (Goodman discloses in Par. 26 rotating the tool to allow the tip to cut the dental implant).
However, they are silent to the device is configured to rotate the machining tool at a speed of rotation in a range from 300 to 1000 RPM, and wherein upon tool rotation, the tip is configured to cut the dental implant.
Leblanc discloses a drill bit in the analogous art of implant devices and further discloses having a having a rotation speed of around 800 rpm (Par. 50) to provide minimal thermal effects to the area of interest (Par. 51).
Claim(s) 51-54, 58-60, 76-78, 82-83, 85-88 (both claims denoted as claim 88) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olsson (US 20100291506 A1) in view of Wade (US 20120028215 A1).
Re. Claim 51, Olsson disclose the device (Fig. 1-8) for treating a dental implant in-situ (Abstract), the device comprising:
a shaft (12); and
a plurality of machining tools (20; Par.21) attached to the shaft (Fig. 1), tips (21) of each of the machining tool arranged to rotate around a longitudinal axis of the shaft when the shaft rotates (Par. 20) and
each of the tool tips comprises a cutting edge (43/44/45) configured for cutting a dental implant (Par. 25).
However, Olsson is silent to the tools being attached to the shaft by hinges where the hinges enables the tool tips to move in a radial direction relative to the longitudinal axis of the shaft.
Wade discloses a device in the same field of endeavor and further discloses a shaft (where element 30 points to); and
A plurality of machining tools (32; Par. 62) attached to the shaft (Fig. 2A), tips of each of the machining tool arranged to rotate around a longitudinal axis of the shaft when the shaft rotates (Par. 62), wherein:
The tools are attached to the shaft by hinges, the hinges enabling the tool tips to move in a radial direction relative to the longitudinal axis of the shaft (Hinges can be envisioned in Fig. 2A-2B as it shows the machining tools can be move in a radial direction relative to the longitudinal axis of the shaft, such that the hinges are live hinges).
By having the hinges, it provides an adjustable connection between the tool and implant as depending on the implant size, the tool may need to be adjusted accordingly.
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the tools of Olsson to have hinges to enable the tool tips to move in a radial direction relative to the longitudinal axis of the shaft as taught by Wade to allow an adjustable connection between the tool and implant as depending on the implant size, the tool may need to be adjusted accordingly.
Re. Claim 52, Olsson, and Wade discloses the device according to claim 51, wherein Olsson further discloses the shaft and the machining tools are sized to be inserted in a human mouth (Fig. 8; Abstract).
Re. Claim 53, Olsson, and Wade discloses the device according to claim 51, wherein Wade further discloses the device comprises a guide (28).
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the device of Olsson, and Wade to comprise a guide as taught by Wade to precisely clean the implant.
Re. Claim 54, Olsson, and Wade discloses the device according to claim 52, Wade further discloses comprising a guide (28) wherein a thread sized and shaped to screw into the dental implant (element 94 are the screw threads; Par. 55-57 and Fig. 16 discloses the screw threads engaging with the implant).
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the device of Olsson, Wade, and Goodman to comprise a guide wherein a thread sized and shaped to screw into the dental implant as taught by Wade to precisely clean the implant.
Re. Claim 58, Olsson, Wade and Goodman discloses the device according to claim 51, Olsson further discloses wherein the tool tip is arranged to contact an outer surface of a dental implant at a location offset slightly behind a leading face of the tool relative to a rotation direction (Figs. 3 and 8 shows the tips would contact with the outer surface of the implant at a location offset slightly behind a leading face of the tool relative to a rotation direction; leading face is where label 30 points to in Fig. 3).
Re. Claim 59, Olsson, and Wade discloses the device according to claim 51, wherein Olsson discloses the tool comprises an edge configured to cut a bone (Abstract and Par. 9).
Re. Claim 60, Olsson, and Wade discloses the device according to claim 51, wherein Wade discloses the tools comprise a component selected from a group consisting of: a cutting insert comprising a hard cutting tool material (Par. 9).
Re. Claim 76, Olsson, and Wade, discloses the device according to claim 51, Olsson comprising
the machining tools attached to the shaft at a location between the ends of the shaft (see Fig. 4 where it is found to be between the end pointed by label 41 and where label 24; Fig. 1);
wherein each machining tool comprises a tip (21), the tip extends beyond a distal end of the shaft (Fig. 1-2); and
wherein the shaft comprises a concentric hole at one end (24), the hole sized and shaped to slide over and rotate around a guide (It is fully capable to have a guide fitted into the hole) sized and shaped to be placed in a hole in a dental implant for steadying the shaft when the shaft rotates around the dental implant (Fig. 8).
Re. Claim 77, Olsson, and Wade discloses the device according to claim 51, wherein Olsson further discloses the tool tips are configured to remove a portion of the outer surface of the dental implant (Par. 9).
Re. Claim 78, Olsson, and Wade discloses the device according to claim 77, wherein Olsson discloses the portion removed from the outer surface of the dental implant is a portion of metal (It should be noted that the limitation is functional as the dental implant is not positively claimed; Par. 9).
Re. Claim 82, Olsson, and Wade discloses the device according to claim 51, wherein Olsson discloses the tool tips are configured for cutting a dental implant to produce one or more of large particles and cut-off flakes (Par. 9 discloses cutting the dental implant threads and is fully capable of producing one or more of large particles and cut-off flakes).
Re. Claim 83, Olsson, and Wade discloses the device according to claim 51, wherein Olsson discloses the tool tips are configured for removing an outer layer of metal from the outer surface of the dental implant (It should be noted that the dental implant is functionally and claimed and Olsson discloses removing layers from the threading of the dental implant. Thus, it is fully capable of removing an outer layer of metal from the outer surface of the dental implant; Par. 9).
Re. Claim 85, Olsson, and Wade discloses the device according to claim 51, wherein Olsson discloses the edge is an external, outward- facing edge, relative to the tool rotation around a dental implant (Fig. 4 where it is external from the support 43 and extends outwardly from it; Par. 9).
Re. Claim 86, Olsson, and Wade discloses the device according to claim 85, wherein Olsson discloses the external edge is configured to remove bone from a jawbone surrounding the dental implant (Par. 9).
Re. Claim 87, Olsson, and Wade discloses the device according to claim 85, wherein Olsson discloses the external edge is configured for leveling or flattening a surface of a jawbone (Par. 39 discloses that the external edge can cut bone tissue and as such is fully capable of cutting jawbone to level/flatten its surface).
Re. Claim 88a, Olsson, and Wade discloses the device according to claim 85, wherein Olsson discloses the external edge is configured for one or both of:(a) removing diseased bone; and(b) removing an additional amount of healthy bone (Par. 8-9).
Re. Claim 88b, Olsson, and Wade discloses the device according to claim 59, wherein Olsson the edge is designed at an angle to remove bone (Par. 8-9 and Fig. 4 shows they are angled).
Claim(s) 51-54, 58-60, 76-78, 82-83, 85-88 (both claims denoted as claim 88) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olsson (US 20100291506 A1) in view of Wade (US 20120028215 A1) and Goodman (US 20180125615 A1).
Re. Claim 51, Olsson disclose the device (Fig. 1-8) for treating a dental implant in-situ (Abstract), the device comprising:
a shaft (12); and
a plurality of machining tools (20; Par.21) attached to the shaft (Fig. 1), tips (21) of each of the machining tool arranged to rotate around a longitudinal axis of the shaft when the shaft rotates (Par. 20).
However, Olsson is silent to the tools being attached to the shaft by hinges where the hinges enables the tool tips to move in a radial direction relative to the longitudinal axis of the shaft. Further, Olsson is silent to each of the tool tips comprises a cutting edge configured for cutting a dental implant. Olsson does disclose having cutting edges (43/44/45) for cleaning and abrasion (Par. 25).
Wade discloses a device in the same field of endeavor and further discloses a shaft (where element 30 points to); and
A plurality of machining tools (32; Par. 62) attached to the shaft (Fig. 2A), tips of each of the machining tool arranged to rotate around a longitudinal axis of the shaft when the shaft rotates (Par. 62), wherein:
The tools are attached to the shaft by hinges, the hinges enabling the tool tips to move in a radial direction relative to the longitudinal axis of the shaft (Hinges can be envisioned in Fig. 2A-2B as it shows the machining tools can be move in a radial direction relative to the longitudinal axis of the shaft, such that the hinges are live hinges).
By having the hinges, it provides an adjustable connection between the tool and implant as depending on the implant size, the tool may need to be adjusted accordingly.
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the tools of Olsson to have hinges to enable the tool tips to move in a radial direction relative to the longitudinal axis of the shaft as taught by Wade to allow an adjustable connection between the tool and implant as depending on the implant size, the tool may need to be adjusted accordingly.
Goodman discloses a device in the same field of endeavor and further discloses tool (120) with tool tips (304) comprises a cutting edge (see where label 304 points to in Fig. 7) configured for cutting a dental implant (Par. 34 and 42) to create a new implantoplasty surface desirable for bone grafting (Par. 42).
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the tool tips of Olsson and Wade to have a cutting edge configured for cutting a dental implant as taught by Goodman to create a new implantoplasty surface desirable for bone grafting.
Re. Claim 52, Olsson, Wade, and Goodman discloses the device according to claim 51, wherein Olsson further discloses the shaft and the machining tools are sized to be inserted in a human mouth (Fig. 8; Abstract).
Re. Claim 53, Olsson, Wade, and Goodman discloses the device according to claim 51, wherein Wade further discloses the device comprises a guide (28).
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the device of Olsson, Wade, and Goodman to comprise a guide as taught by Wade to precisely clean the implant.
Re. Claim 54, Olsson, Wade, and Goodman discloses the device according to claim 52, Wade further discloses comprising a guide (28) wherein a thread sized and shaped to screw into the dental implant (element 94 are the screw threads; Par. 55-57 and Fig. 16 discloses the screw threads engaging with the implant).
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the device of Olsson, Wade, and Goodman to comprise a guide wherein a thread sized and shaped to screw into the dental implant as taught by Wade to precisely clean the implant.
Re. Claim 58, Olsson, Wade and Goodman discloses the device according to claim 51, Olsson further discloses wherein the tool tip is arranged to contact an outer surface of a dental implant at a location offset slightly behind a leading face of the tool relative to a rotation direction (Figs. 3 and 8 shows the tips would contact with the outer surface of the implant at a location offset slightly behind a leading face of the tool relative to a rotation direction; leading face is where label 30 points to in Fig. 3).
Re. Claim 59, Olsson, Wade, and Goodman discloses the device according to claim 51, wherein Goodman discloses the tool comprises an edge configured to cut a bone (304 is the tools tip where the entire head has various edges capable of cutting bone as it is able to cut through in implant as disclosed. This can include edges 1032/1030/1034 in Par. 34 and 42).
Re. Claim 60, Olsson, Wade, and Goodman discloses the device according to claim 51, wherein Goodman discloses the tools comprise a component selected from a group consisting of: a cutting insert comprising a hard cutting tool material (Par. 34 and 42).
Re. Claim 76, Olsson, Wade, and Goodman, discloses the device according to claim 51, Olsson comprising
the machining tools attached to the shaft at a location between the ends of the shaft (see Fig. 4 where it is found to be between the end pointed by label 41 and where label 24; Fig. 1);
wherein each machining tool comprises a tip (21), the tip extends beyond a distal end of the shaft (Fig. 1-2); and
wherein the shaft comprises a concentric hole at one end (24), the hole sized and shaped to slide over and rotate around a guide (It is fully capable to have a guide fitted into the hole) sized and shaped to be placed in a hole in a dental implant for steadying the shaft when the shaft rotates around the dental implant (Fig. 8).
Re. Claim 77, Olsson, Wade, and Goodman discloses the device according to claim 51, wherein Goodman further discloses the tool tips are configured to remove a portion of the outer surface of the dental implant (Par. 34 and 42).
Re. Claim 78, Olsson, Wade, and Goodman discloses the device according to claim 77, wherein Goodman discloses the portion removed from the outer surface of the dental implant is a portion of metal (It should be noted that the limitation is functional as the dental implant is not positively claimed; Par. 34 and 42).
Re. Claim 82, Olsson, Wade, and Goodman discloses the device according to claim 51, wherein Goodman discloses the tool tips are configured for cutting a dental implant to produce one or more of large particles and cut-off flakes (Par. 32 and 42 discloses cutting the dental implant threads and is fully capable of producing one or more of large particles and cut-off flakes).
Re. Claim 83, Olsson, Wade, and Goodman discloses the device according to claim 51, wherein Goodman discloses the tool tips are configured for removing an outer layer of metal from the outer surface of the dental implant (It should be noted that the dental implant is functionally and claimed and Goodman discloses removing layers from the threading of the dental implant. Thus, it is fully capable of removing an outer layer of metal from the outer surface of the dental implant; Par. 32 and 42).
Re. Claim 85, Olsson, Wade, and Goodman discloses the device according to claim 51, wherein Goodman discloses the edge is an external, outward- facing edge, relative to the tool rotation around a dental implant (Fig. 7 where it is external from the support 302 and extends outwardly from it; Par. 41).
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the edge of Olsson, Wade and Goodman to be an external, outward- facing edge, relative to the tool rotation around a dental implant as taught by Goodman to allow for direct interaction to the threading of the implant.
Re. Claim 86, Olsson, Wade, and Goodman discloses the device according to claim 85, wherein Goodman discloses the external edge is configured to remove bone from a jawbone surrounding the dental implant (Par. 32 and 41-42 where it disclosed that the external edge is used to cut dental implant and to remove debris on the threads. As such, it is fully capable of removing bone from a jawbone surrounding the dental implant such as in the form of debris found on the dental implant threads).
Re. Claim 87, Olsson, Wade, and Goodman discloses the device according to claim 85, wherein Goodman discloses the external edge is configured for leveling or flattening a surface of a jawbone (Par. 32 and 41-42 discloses that the external edge can cut dental implant threading and as such is fully capable of cutting jawbone to level/flatten its surface).
Re. Claim 88a, Olsson, Wade, and Goodman discloses the device according to claim 85, wherein Goodman discloses the external edge is configured for one or both of:(a) removing diseased bone; and(b) removing an additional amount of healthy bone (Par. 32 and 41-42 discloses that the external edge can cut dental implant threading and as such is fully capable of removing diseased bone or additional amount of healthy bone).
Re. Claim 88b, Olsson, Wade, and Goodman discloses the device according to claim 59, wherein Goodman the edge is designed at an angle to remove bone (304 is the tools tip where the entire head has various edges capable of cutting bone as it is able to cut through in implant as disclosed. This can include edges 1032/1030/1034 in Par. 34 and 42 where each are found at an angle and are fully capable of removing bone such as bone found as debris between implant threading).
Claim(s) 62-64 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Altvater (US 5782635 A) in view of Olsson (US 20100291506 A1).
Re. Claim 64, Alvater discloses a kit (Fig. 1 shows the guide and a device for treating a dental implant is being used with one another and as such it would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the guide and device to be in a kit to provide everything needed for the treatment in one convenient package) comprising:
A device (31/39) for treating a dental implant in-situ (Abstract), the device comprising:
A shaft (39); and
wherein the shaft comprises a concentric hole at one end (the hole is where element 11 is fitted into as shown in Fig. 1), the hole sized and shaped to slide over and rotate around a guide (Fig. 1) sized and shaped to be placed in a hole in a dental implant for steadying the shaft when the shaft rotates around the dental implant (Fig. 1 where the implant is element 1); and
A guide (11) comprising:
a first portion shaped as a cylinder (Annotated Figure A of Fig. 1); and
a second portion (Annotated Figure A of Fig. 1) with a diameter small enough to anchor into a hole in a center of a dental implant (Annotated Figure A of Fig. 1), wherein a longitudinal axis of the cylinder of the first portion is concentric with a longitudinal axis of the second portion (Annotated Figure A of Fig. 1); and
the guide comprises a lip portion (Annotated Figure A of Fig. 1) between the first portion and the second portion (Annotated Figure A of Fig. 1), the lip extending radially further than a radius of the dental implant (Annotated Figure A of Fig. 1).
However, Alvater is silent to a machining tool attached to the shaft at a location between the ends of the shaft, tips of the machining tool arranged to rotate around a longitudinal axis of the shaft when the shaft rotates, and the tip of the machining tool extend beyond a distal end of the shaft. Further, Alvater is silent to each of the tips comprises a cutting edge configured for cutting a dental implant.
It should be noted that Alvateer does disclose a machining tool (31) attached to the shaft (Fig. 1).
Olsson discloses a device (Fig. 2A-2D) in the same field of endeavor and further discloses:
a shaft (12); and
a plurality of machining tools (20; Par.21) attached to the shaft (Fig. 1), tips (21) of each of the machining tool arranged to rotate around a longitudinal axis of the shaft when the shaft rotates (Par. 20).
wherein the shaft comprises a concentric hole at one end (24), the hole sized and shaped to slide over and rotate around a guide (It is fully capable to have a guide fitted into the hole) sized and shaped to be placed in a hole in a dental implant for steadying the shaft when the shaft rotates around the dental implant (Fig. 8).
a shaft (where element 30 is pointing to); and
a machining tool (32) attached to the shaft at a location between the ends of the shaft (Fig. 2), tips of the machining tool arranged to rotate around a longitudinal axis of the shaft when the shaft rotates (Par. 62), wherein:
the shaft comprises a concentric hole at one end (46), the hole sized and shaped to slide over and rotate around a guide (28) sized and shaped to be placed in a hole in a dental implant for steadying the shaft when the shaft rotates around the dental implant (Fig. 16); and
the tip of the machining tool extends beyond a distal end of the shaft (Fig. 2),
wherein each of the tips comprises a cutting edge (43/44/45) configured for cutting a dental implant (Par. 25)
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the kit of Alvater to have the device as taught by Olsson to allow for a device to be easily repaired/replaced as the components of the device are found to be interchangeable. Further, it would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the tool tips to comprise each a cutting edge configured for cutting a dental implant as taught by Olsson to aid in cleaning the implant without removal of the implant.
PNG
media_image2.png
738
584
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure A
Re. Claim 62, Alvater and Olsson discloses the kit according to claim 64 wherein Alvater further discloses the second portion comprises a thread sized (13) and shaped to screw into a dental implant (Fig. 1; Col. 2, lines 16-22).
Re. Claim 63, Alvater and Olsson discloses the kit according to claim 64 wherein Alvater further discloses the guide is sized and shaped to enable a hole in a shaft of a device for treating a dental implant in- situ to slide over the guide and rotate around the guide (Annotated Figure A of Fig. 1; Col. 3, lines 50-63).
Claim(s) 62-64 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Altvater (US 5782635 A) in view of Olsson (US 20100291506 A1) and Goodman (US 20180125615 A1).
Re. Claim 64, Alvater discloses a kit (Fig. 1 shows the guide and a device for treating a dental implant is being used with one another and as such it would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the guide and device to be in a kit to provide everything needed for the treatment in one convenient package) comprising:
A device (31/39) for treating a dental implant in-situ (Abstract), the device comprising:
A shaft (39); and
wherein the shaft comprises a concentric hole at one end (the hole is where element 11 is fitted into as shown in Fig. 1), the hole sized and shaped to slide over and rotate around a guide (Fig. 1) sized and shaped to be placed in a hole in a dental implant for steadying the shaft when the shaft rotates around the dental implant (Fig. 1 where the implant is element 1); and
A guide (11) comprising:
a first portion shaped as a cylinder (Annotated Figure A of Fig. 1); and
a second portion (Annotated Figure A of Fig. 1) with a diameter small enough to anchor into a hole in a center of a dental implant (Annotated Figure A of Fig. 1), wherein a longitudinal axis of the cylinder of the first portion is concentric with a longitudinal axis of the second portion (Annotated Figure A of Fig. 1); and
the guide comprises a lip portion (Annotated Figure A of Fig. 1) between the first portion and the second portion (Annotated Figure A of Fig. 1), the lip extending radially further than a radius of the dental implant (Annotated Figure A of Fig. 1).
However, Alvater is silent to a machining tool attached to the shaft at a location between the ends of the shaft, tips of the machining tool arranged to rotate around a longitudinal axis of the shaft when the shaft rotates, and the tip of the machining tool extend beyond a distal end of the shaft. Further, Alvater is silent to each of the tips comprises a cutting edge configured for cutting a dental implant.
It should be noted that Alvateer does disclose a machining tool (31) attached to the shaft (Fig. 1).
Olsson discloses a device (Fig. 2A-2D) in the same field of endeavor and further discloses:
a shaft (12); and
a plurality of machining tools (20; Par.21) attached to the shaft (Fig. 1), tips (21) of each of the machining tool arranged to rotate around a longitudinal axis of the shaft when the shaft rotates (Par. 20).
wherein the shaft comprises a concentric hole at one end (24), the hole sized and shaped to slide over and rotate around a guide (It is fully capable to have a guide fitted into the hole) sized and shaped to be placed in a hole in a dental implant for steadying the shaft when the shaft rotates around the dental implant (Fig. 8).
a shaft (where element 30 is pointing to); and
a machining tool (32) attached to the shaft at a location between the ends of the shaft (Fig. 2), tips of the machining tool arranged to rotate around a longitudinal axis of the shaft when the shaft rotates (Par. 62), wherein:
the shaft comprises a concentric hole at one end (46), the hole sized and shaped to slide over and rotate around a guide (28) sized and shaped to be placed in a hole in a dental implant for steadying the shaft when the shaft rotates around the dental implant (Fig. 16); and
the tip of the machining tool extends beyond a distal end of the shaft (Fig. 2),
wherein each of the tips comprises a cutting edge (43/44/45).
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the kit of Alvater to have the device as taught by Olsson to allow for a device to be easily repaired/replaced as the components of the device are found to be interchangeable. Further, it would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the tool tips to comprise each a cutting edge configured for cutting a dental implant as taught by Olsson to aid in cleaning the implant without removal of the implant.
Goodman discloses a device in the same field of endeavor and further discloses tool (120) with tool tips (304) comprises a cutting edge (see where label 304 points to in Fig. 7) configured for cutting a dental implant (Par. 34 and 42) to create a new implantoplasty surface desirable for bone grafting (Par. 42).
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the tool tips of Alvater, and Olsson to have a cutting edge configured for cutting a dental implant as taught by Goodman to create a new implantoplasty surface desirable for bone grafting.
Re. Claim 62, Alvater, Olsson and Goodman discloses the kit according to claim 64 wherein Alvater further discloses the second portion comprises a thread sized (13) and shaped to screw into a dental implant (Fig. 1; Col. 2, lines 16-22).
Re. Claim 63, Alvater, Olsson and Goodman discloses the kit according to claim 64 wherein Alvater further discloses the guide is sized and shaped to enable a hole in a shaft of a device for treating a dental implant in- situ to slide over the guide and rotate around the guide (Annotated Figure A of Fig. 1; Col. 3, lines 50-63).
Response to Arguments
Argument #1: Applicant argues that Wade fails to describe the tool tips to have cutting edges but rather tips that have abrasive edges (claim 51 and 65).
Response #1: Applicant’s argument is found moot as Goodman is used to teach tool tips that have a cutting edge.
Argument #2: Applicant argues that Wade does not disclose the tool tip is arranged to contact an outer surface of a dental implant at a location offset slightly behind a leading face of the tool relative to a rotation direction (Claim 58). Applicant argues that Wade does not rely on direct contact between the device and implant surface to achieve abrasion as the abrasive material is applied between the buffer surfaces and the implant surfaces and the abrading action is performed by the buffer surfaces (Applicant points to Par. 95 of Wade).
Response #2: Applicant’s argument is found to not be persuasive. It should be noted that the contact arrangement as claimed does not require it to be directly in contact and can be indirectly in contact. With that said, it can be done indirectly through the abrasive material 260 as applicant pointed out that is applied to the tool tips which would allow the tips to be abrasive. It should also be noted that figure 17 is used to provide a visual to how the limitation is met where it is understood that the rotational direction is rotating the device clockwise around the implant (as shown in Fig. 16). When in contact with the implant, it is found to be at a location offset slightly behind the leading face pointed out in the annotated figure 17 relative to the rotation direction. This is denoted by how the inner surface of the tool tip 64a which would abrade the material is facing inwards away from the leading face.
Argument #3: Applicant argues that Wade teaches abrasion and not cutting material (Claim 59, 82-83 and 86-87).
Response #3: Applicant’s argument is found moot as Goodman is used to teach cutting the material.
Argument #4: Applicant argues claim 84 that Wade is silent to the teaching of the claimed speed and argues that the flexible structure would deflect away from the implant surface.
Response #4: Applicant’s argument is found to not be persuasive as Akagi is used to teach the speed and it should be noted that the flexible structure of Wade would not be deflected away as the embodiment teaching the flexible structure (denoted in Fig. 7A) is not relied upon. It should also be noted that the sleeve 26 would provide a rigidity to the tools to prevent them from being deflected away as shown in Fig. 16.
Argument #5: Applicant argues that the edge is an external outward-facing edge, relative to the tool rotation around a dental implant which Wade does not teach (Claim 85).
Response #5: Applicant’s argument is found to not be persuasive as Wade is not relied upon for the teaching. Goodman is used for the particular teaching.
Argument #6: Applicant argues the usage of functional language applicant argues that there is structural requirements on the claimed device where it has to be angular to cut bone.
Response #6: Applicant’s argument is found to not be persuasive as what is being construed as functionally claimed is “to remove bone”. It should be noted that an “angle” is claimed and not “angular”. As such, any angle can be used to read upon the limitation. With that said, Wade is not relied upon for the limitation as Goodman is used for the particular teaching which does disclose cutting to remove bone.
Argument #7: Applicant argues that Olsson does not teach cutting the implant material but rather focuses on abrasion.
Response #7: Applicant’s argument is found to not be persuasive as Olsson specifically discloses having “cutting edges” as disclosed in the Abstract and Par. 7 used to both abrade and clean the material. It specifically stating that the presence of a cutting edge and as such would be used to cut the desired material. With that said, a separate 103 can be denoted above in combination with Olsson and Wade with a separate teaching in which Goodman is used to teach the cutting edges that is used for cutting.
Argument #8: Applicant argues that Alvater does not disclose a lip portion functionally or structurally. Further, applicant argues that Olsson discloses cleaning legs that cleans the implant rather than cut the implant.
Response #8: Applicant’s argument is found to be not persuasive as Alvater does disclose a lip portion as shown in the Annotated Figure 1 for which allows the structure adjacent to the screw thread pointed out below to be fitted into the guide 11. With regards to the teaching of Olsson see response to argument #7 where it should also be denoted that a separate 103 relying on Goodman is also applied in regards to the teaching of the cutting edge.
PNG
media_image3.png
617
894
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 89 is allowed.
Claims 57, 75, 79-81 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Wade is found to be the closest prior art and discloses a device for treating a dental implant in-situ, the device comprising: a shaft; and a plurality of machining tools attached to the shaft, tips of each of the machining tool arranged to rotate around a longitudinal axis of the shaft when the shaft rotates, wherein: the tools are attached to the shaft by hinges, the hinges enabling the tool tips to move in a radial direction relative to the longitudinal axis of the shaft. However, Wade is silent to in combination with the rest of the claim limitation that each of the machining tools includes at least two separate parts, coupled to each other comprising: an arm part; and a tool part; wherein the hinges include pins, such that movement of the arm radially outward around the pin causes the movement of the tool part inwards; wherein the tool part is more rigid than the arm part; and an arm coupled to the tool tips by a hinge, and wherein the movement of the floating ring along the shaft applies a force to the arm, and the force is transmitted to the tool tips. Further, Wade is silent to the ring arranged to move the tool tips to press onto the outer surface of the dental implant by acting on an inclined spring arm and the inclined spring arm elastically exerts an inward force on the tool tips, and the tool tips maintain continuous contact with the outer surface of the dental implant.
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 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