DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 51-54, 58-60, 65, and 73 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wade (US 20120028215 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).
Re. Claim 52, Wade discloses the device according to claim 51 wherein 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 discloses the device according to claim 51 wherein the device comprises a guide (28).
Re. Claim 54, Wade discloses the device according to claim 52 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 discloses the device according to claim 51 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
858
722
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure
Re. Claim 59, Wade discloses the device according to claim 51 wherein an edge of the tool is designed at an angle to remove bone (Pointed in Fig. 2A by label 32 where it is found to be abrading material/scraping material away which may be bone; Par. 62).
Re. Claim 60, Wade discloses the device according to claim 51 wherein the tools comprise a component selected from a group consisting of: an abrasive (Par. 62).
Re. Claim 65, Wade discloses a device for treating a dental implant in-situ, 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).
Re. Claim 73, Wade discloses the device according to claim 51 wherein the tool tip is configured for cutting and produces large particles (Par. 62 discloses that it would abrade the implant and as such can cut and produce large particles that can fully be suctioned).
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) 55-56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wade (US 20120028215 A1) in view of 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 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) 74, and 77-78 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Wade (US 20120028215 A1).
Re. Claim 74, Wade discloses the device according to claim 60 wherein at least a cutting edge or a cutting tip is hardened to effect cutting of the outer surface of the dental implant (Par. 121 discloses a different embodiment where there the base member can have more abrasive material such as diamond particles to improve abrasiveness. It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the arms of Wade to have more abrasive material such as diamond particles to improve removal of undesired portions of the implant. As such, the combination would produce the cutting edge or tip to be hardened to effect the cutting).
Re. Claim 77, Wade discloses the device according to claim 51, wherein the tool tips are configured to remove a portion of the outer surface of the dental implant (Par. 62 discloses that the fingers 32 can abrade the implant directly. Because it is directly abrading the implant, they are configured to remove a portion of the outer surface of the implant as claimed).
Re. Claim 78, Wade discloses the device according to claim 77, wherein 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. 63).
Claim(s) 51, and 76 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of 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).
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 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).
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.
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).
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.
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).
Response to Arguments
Argument #1:
Applicant argues that fingers feature of Wade does not constitute a machining tool and the layer being processed differs from the process of claim 51. Further, applicant argues that Wade presents a hinge designed for a different purpose and applicant argues that there is a misinterpretation of the term tool tip.
Applicant argues that the fingers 32 of Wade refers to the buffer member and NOT to a machining tool. This is because the machining tool of applicant intends to remove material whereas Wade’s invention revolve around smoothing the surface. Applicant argues that the machining tool is not suitable for removing the outer surface of the dental implant which is now emphasized in claim 77. Applicant points out Par. 87 of Wade which applicant argues that the texture layer 250 is formed in the cavity and the surface being proceed is not the surface of the dental implant by rather the surface which was formed.
Applicant argues that claim 79 now requires the hinges to include pains and the particular movement of the hinges which Wade does not disclose.
Applicant argues that Wade presents two elements that might be considered tips – element 164 (bristles) and element 52/152/452 (tip portions) where applicant argues that Wade does not disclose the tips to remove a portion of the outer surface of the dental implant.
Response #1:
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The finger 32 of Wade can be read as the machining tool claimed. It should be noted that the machining tool does not have to present the same function as applicant. Further, it should be noted that applicant does not claim the function of the machining tool in claim 51 and applicant claims in claim 51 that the machining tools can also be an abrasive which Wade does teach in Par. 62. Wade specifically discloses that the finger can directly abrade the implant and as such would be capable of removing portions of the outer surface of the implant. In addition, it is found that though the abrasive aspect is intended to remove the texture layer, it does not mean it would not be fully capable of also removing portions of the outer surface of the implant.
Applicant’s argument regarding claim 79 is found to be persuasive.
Argument #2: Re. claim 59, applicant argues that Wade does not disclose removal of the bone as it uses a different instrument to do so in Par. 89.
Response #2: It should be noted that though Wade does not explicitly disclose that it can be used to remove bone, it is still fully capable of doing such task as the tool edges are intended to as Wade provides teaching of scraping material away in Par. 62. It should also be noted that the limitation is functionally claim were applicant is claiming an apparatus (i.e. the device) and NOT a method claim.
Argument #3: Re. claim 65 applicant argues that element 28 and 30 assembled together cannot be considered a shaft as it would not function as a shaft.
Response #3: Applicant’s argument is found to not be persuasive as applicant does not claim the function of the shaft. It is found Wade discloses elements 28 and 30 are found to be rotatable (Par. 43 and 90 where element 28 only rotates till it is fully screwed in). Because it is a rotatable shaft similar to applicant’s, it could still function as claimed in claim 65.
Argument #4: Applicant argues that the modification of Wade to have an adjustment nut as taught by Reed is found to not be plausible as the positioning of the adjustment nut to Wade would result in the system to not work properly as it would cause fluid leakage issues or present structural support issues. Further, applicant argues that claim 81 requires the floating ring applies a force to the arm and because there would be no space for a ring.
Response #4: Applicant’s argument is found to be persuasive.
Argument #5: Applicant argues that Olsson does not disclose a structure suitable for machining a dental implant and neither does Alvater. Applicant argues that the combination would not provide teaching of machining tools, a shaft and a guide.
Response #5: Applicant’s argument is found to be not persuasive as claim 51 does not require what applicant argues is the function of the machining tool. As such, machining tool is broadly interpreted which the Olsson and Alvater discloses.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 57, 75 and 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOLLY T TO whose telephone number is (571)272-0719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6:30 - 4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eric Rosen can be reached on (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.
/HOLLY T. TO/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/HEIDI M EIDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772 10/30/2025