Status under America Invents Act
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Acknowledgment of Request for Continued Examination (RCE)
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 30, 2025 has been entered.
Rejection based on Prior Art
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.
Claims 12, 15, 36 and 38-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rubbert (US 2008/0090207).
Rubbert at least in Figures 13, 15, 16, 31, 35, 36 discloses an implantable object (dental implant 12000) that is custom shaped to match an implantation site (e.g. tooth socket 500, Figure 14) wherein the implantable object has a smooth surface with a changing contour and which further comprises an opening (12010, 21000 (Fig 31)). In regard to claims 38-41, the present rejection interprets the claimed invention as not requiring the adhesive/patient as an element of the implantable object, but rather as being intended/constructed for use with the adhesive and implantation site. Accordingly, the intended use of a cement with the claimed implantable object fails to impose any objectively ascertainable structural limitations on the claimed implantable object itself. Furthermore, it is noted that Rubbert discloses the use of cement (9000 Figure 9; paragraphs [0123]-[0126]) for securing the dental implant when in use.
In regard to the newly added limitation requiring “a transition zone between an endosseous portion and a transdermal portion of the implantable object,” the examiner notes that the Rubbert implant 12000 has an endosseous portion that is intended to contact the patient’s bone 1060, a transdermal portion that is intended to contact and extend through the patient’s gum tissue 1030, and a “zone” that is between the two portions. Applicant’s attention is directed to the annotated Figure 15 of Rubbert below.
PNG
media_image1.png
300
582
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubbert (US 2008/0090207).
In regard to claim 37, Rubbert does not appear to explicitly disclose any particular sizes for the dental implant, however, the construction of a dental implant to within the wide range (0.1mm – 50mm diameter) of sizes claimed such that fits with a typical patient’s tooth socket would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 39-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubbert (US 2008/0090207) in view of Garigapati et al (US 2011/0277931).
Rubbert discloses that the implantable object is adhered to the implantation site by a bone cement 9000 (Figure 9). The Rubbert bone adhesive does not appear to meet the limitations set forth regarding the particularly claimed bone cement. At least the bone cement “I” is known in the art as taught by Garigapati et al (see paragraph [0010]). Garigapati further discloses that the cement composition has capacity to enhance the fixation of a prosthesis to a bone and may be used to support new bone growth in dental sockets (see paragraph [0021]). To have substituted the enhanced bone growth cement of Garigapati et al for the bone cement disclosed in Rubbert for an enhanced fixation would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Applicant’s Remarks
In response to the rejection based on Rubbert applicant has amended the claims to require “a transition zone between an endosseous portion and a transdermal portion of the implantable object” and declares that Rubbert fails to disclose such claimed features. The examiner is not persuaded. As illustrated above in the annotated Figure 15 of Rubbert, Rubbert clearly illustrates a portion (endosseous portion) of the implant being in contact with a patient’s bone 1060 and a portion (transdermal portion) being in contact with a patient’s gum tissue 1030 and an undefined “transition zone” between the two portions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ralph Lewis whose telephone number is (571)272-4712. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9AM-4PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Cris Rodriguez, at (571) 272-4964. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
/RALPH A LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772 (571) 272-4712