DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 1/26/26.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and additionally do not address the new grounds of rejection and/or interpretation below necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Regarding Applicant’s first and second presented arguments, the Examiner notes that the arguments do not address the new grounds of rejection and/or interpretation below necessitated by the amendments.
Regarding Applicant’s third argument, that is that the identified component of Aldecoa is not a gingivaformer, the Examiner does not find such arguments persuasive, as no specific structure excluding the component of Aldecoa is listed in the claim. Additionally, the Examiner notes that the component is configured to be used during healing if so desired. Further, the Examiner incorporates the previous response to arguments listed in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 10/24/25 for further elaboration on such argument. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive and additionally do not address the new grounds of rejection and/or interpretation below necessitated by Applicant’s arguments.
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 2-3 and 11 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 2, as claim 1 now recites the locking member having a post with an outer thread and the mount being a socket with an inner thread, it is unclear how both the locking member and the pin are attached to the gingiva former (e.g. two screws in a single socket). As best understood by the Examiner, the pin is only engageable with the socket of the gingivaformer when the locking member is removed and vice versa, and will be interpreted as such for examination. However, the claim does not require such limitation nor does it specifically exclude alternate interpretations and as such it is unclear how Applicant intends for the claim to be interpreted. Clarification is required. Claim 3 is rejected based on its dependency on claim 2.
Regarding claim 11, the terms “implant structure” and “emergence profile portion” are indefinite as it is unclear what specific structure, of the many recited in claim 1, the terms correspond to and are a part of. Specifically, as best understood by the Examiner the terms are part of the gingivaformer and will be interpreted as such. Clarification is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anitua Aldecoa (US 2008/0227057 A1) in view of Schar et al (US 6663388 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Anitua Aldecoa discloses a dental restoration system (see Figs. 16-25) capable of restoring a tooth at least during healing of an implant construction being set into a jaw of a patient (capable of being used as such if so desired), comprising a unitary gingiva former (12c or 12d) mounted to the implant construction (1) during healing (configured and capable of being mounted to the implant during a healing phase, if so desired); an implant screw (13c or 13d) configured to fix the gingiva former to the implant construction (see [0094]); a crown abutment (18) configured to be positioned on the gingiva former; and a locking member (20) having a contact face (e.g. bottom of head of screw) and a fastener (e.g. threads of screw) configured to be fixed to a corresponding mount (see Fig. 18), wherein the mount is a socket having an inner thread (36), the fastener is a corresponding post having an outer thread (37), the crown abutment has a through hole (35) configured to receive the locking member such that the contact face of the locking member contacts the crown abutment and the fastener at least partially extends out of the crown abutment (see Fig. 18 and explanation above; capable of at least partially extending out of the crown abutment), and the crown abutment is configured to bond with a crown material used to build a crown (configured to be used as such with appropriate crown material, and at least in part due to ridges in 18). Anitua Aldecoa further discloses wherein an implant structure (bottom surface/cavity of 12c or 12d) is configured to arrange the gingiva former on the implant construction set into the jaw of the patient, and an emergence profile portion (e.g. outer sidewalls of 12c or 12d) is configured to be positioned within a gingiva of the patient when the gingiva former is mounted to the implant construction (configured to be positioned as claimed if so desired; per claim 11). Anitua Aldecoa, however, does not teach wherein the fastener is configured to be fixed to a corresponding mount of the gingivaformer as required.
Schar et al, however, teaches a similar dental implant system comprising an implant (1), a base abutment (2), an implant screw (3), a crown abutment (5) and a locking member (6), wherein the locking member has a contact face (50) and a fastener (screw threads) configured to be fixed to a corresponding mount (240) of the base abutment (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 Anitua Aldecoa to include Schar’s teaching of securing the locking member to the base abutment, as opposed to the implant screw), as such modification would reduce the risk of loosening of the abutment screw, would merely involve a relocation of known parts of the device, which has been held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan, and would merely involve the simple substitution of one known element for another to determine predictable results (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) and 2143). The Examiner notes that should the device of Anitua Aldecoa be modified with the teachings of Schar, as combined above, the locking member would engage the mount located on the base abutment (12c or 12d) in Aldecoa, which as explained above, is interpreted as a gingiva former.
Regarding claims 2-3, Anitua Aldecoa/Schar, as combined above, further discloses wherein the system further comprises a pin (15), wherein the pin has a fixing structure (threads 67) corresponding to the fastener of the locking member (see [0094]-[0099]), and wherein the pin is configured to extend through the though hole of the crown abutment and to project above the crown abutment when the crown abutment is positioned on the gingiva former and the fixing structure of the pin engages the gingiva former (e.g. configured to be used as such if so desired; as modified above, pin would correspond to (have the same threading) as the modified lock screw, such that the modified structure would engage the modified gingiva former with socket with inner thread (see Schar), see Figs. 16-24 and citations above; per claim 2); wherein the pin is configured not to bond with the crown material (e.g. dependent on particular crown material and method of application, not positively recited; additionally no grooves are shown on pin which would adhere material, at least in part thereof; per claim 3).
Claim(s) 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anitua Aldecoa in view of Schar et al, as modified above, in view of Morgan (US 2004/0063070 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Anitua Aldecoa/Schar, as modified above, does not teach wherein the system comprises the crown material to build up the crown, which comprises composite resin material as required.
Morgan, however, teaches an implant abutment system (22) using a crown material (26) in the form of a composite resin (see [0012], [0025], and [0046]) which uses a crown abutment (24) with a roughened and coated metal abutment material to directly bond with the crown material to build up the crown (see citations above). 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 Anitua Aldecoa/Schar as modified above, to include Morgan’s system with coated abutment material and crown material, as such modification would allow the crown to be built directly on the abutment without a cement layer (see Morgan [0021]). It is noted that should the system of Anitua Aldecoa/Schar as modified above, be modified with the teachings of Morgan, as combined above, the abutment would be configured to bond with the crown material when building the crown (see Morgan) and the pin would not be configured to bond with the crown material (no ridge and/or coating disclosed on pin and/or pin configured to be used a different point in time).
Claim(s) 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anitua Aldecoa in view of Schar et al, as modified above, in view of Akinori (JP 2010-148558), as evidenced by its Machine Translation.
Regarding claims 6-10, Anitua Aldecoa/Schar, as modified above, discloses wherein the locking member fixes the crown abutment to the gingiva former (see Fig. 18 and Schar above), wherein the locking member has a mounting tool geometry (cavity in head, see Fig. 17 and citations above, Aldecoa) configured to be connected to a mounting tool for fixing the locking member to the gingiva former, wherein the locking member has an auxiliary tool geometry (e.g. top portion of threads and/or neck) configured to be connected to a demounting tool for demounting the locking member (e.g. tweezers or needle nose pliers for example) and a neck apically located from the mounting tool geometry, the auxiliary tool geometry located apically from the neck, and the fastener (distal portion of threads) located apically from the auxiliary tool geometry as required, but does not teach wherein the neck comprises a breaking structure configured to break upon a predefined threshold load, the breaking structure comprises a weakened section with a reduced diameter or made of a weaker material as required.
Akinori, however, teaches a dental implant abutment screw(40) having a breaker (46 and see [0035], [0042]) arranged at a neck of the screw and configured to break upon a predefined threshold load applied to an abutment when the screw fixes the abutment to the implant; wherein the screw has a mounting tool geometry (44) configured to be connected to a mounting tool for fixing the locking member to the implant, wherein the mounting tool geometry is located on a first side (upper) of the breaker, wherein the screw has an auxiliary tool geometry (48) configured to be connected to a demounting tool for demounting the screw from the implant when the breaker is broken (e.g. pliers or tweezer), and wherein the auxiliary tool geometry is located on a second side of the breaker opposite the first side (see Fig. 3); wherein the screw is arranged such that the breaker (46) is located apically from the mounting tool geometry (44), the auxiliary tool geometry (48) is located apically from the breaker (46) and a fastener (43) is located apically from the auxiliary tool geometry (see Fig. 3); wherein the breaker comprises a weakened section having a reduced diameter compared to other sections of the screw (e.g. groove; see [0035]), or wherein the breaker is made of a weaker material compared to other sections of the screw (e.g. material made weaker by laser annealing, see [0042]). 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 Anitua Aldecoa/Schar as modified above, to include Akinori’s teaching of providing the screw with the breaker as claimed, as such modification would reduce the risk of overtightening the abutment and damaging components of the implant system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached PTO892 form.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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