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 § 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.
Claims 1 - 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutter (CH 702586 A2) (aka Sutter ‘586) in view of Sutter (US 6461160 B1) (aka Sutter’160).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Internal wall)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Gap)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Upper part of the core )][AltContent: textbox (Core)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Sleeve)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
706
414
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Internal wall)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Upper part of the core )][AltContent: textbox (Sleeve)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Adhesive)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Gap)]
PNG
media_image2.png
438
444
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Sutter ‘586 discloses a dental implant including:
a core (15) manufactured of metal (see p. 3, ln 9 – see “metallic base body 15”),
a sleeve (17) having an internal wall and nested by being configured to slide on an upper part of the core (15) such that the internal wall is disposed facing to the upper part of the core (15), the sleeve being manufactured of ceramic (see annotated Fig. 1 and 2 above, and page 3, line 19 – “ceramic sleeve 17),
a thin gap being located between the core (15) and the internal wall of the sleeve (17), characterized in that said gap has a distance for placement of a flexible adhesive (19) lodged within (see abstract and page 3, line 24 of translation).
However, Sutter ‘586 does not disclose that the gap has a distance between 10 and 20mm.
Sutter ‘160 teaches a dental implant including a core (50) and a sleeve (60), where between the core and the sleeve includes a gap for an adhesive/binder in the range of 5 and 50 mm (see col. 6, lines 21-30 – where the claimed 10-20 mm is within the disclosed range).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the distance of the gap of Sutter ‘586, with the distance of the gap of Sutter ‘160, in order to provide the space for placing the necessary adhesive to create the resistance against breakage between the internal wall and the upper part of the core.
Regarding claim 2, Sutter ‘586/Sutter ‘160 discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1, and where Sutter ‘586 discloses that the sleeve (17) is made of ceramic (see abstract, page 3, line 9 of translation).
However, Sutter ‘586 does not disclose that the ceramic of the sleeve is made of Zirconia.
Sutter ‘160 teaches that the ceramic used in the sleeve (60) is Zirconia (see col. 3, line 47-49). Where the ceramic sleeve (60) is originally formed rotationally symmetrical, but due to the material that is made, it can be ground away, if necessary, in order to optimize the shape of the dental prosthesis (see col. 8, lines 45-57).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ceramic material of the sleeve of Sutter ‘586, with the Zirconia ceramic material of the sleeve of Sutter (‘160), in order to be capable grounding material away to optimize the shape of the dental prosthesis, if it is necessary.
Regarding claim 5, Sutter ‘586 discloses dental implant including:
a core (15) having a material of construction that is a metal (see p. 3, ln 9 – see “metallic base body 15);
a sleeve (17) having an internal wall, the sleeve being nested and being configured to slide on an upper part of the core such that the internal wall is disposed facing toward the upper part of the core (See annotated Fig. 1-2 above), the sleeve (17) having a material of construction that is a ceramic (see annotated Fig. 1 and 2 above, and page 3, line 19 – “ceramic sleeve 17);
a gap being located between the core (15) and the internal wall of the sleeve (17) (see abstract and page 3, line 24 of translation – where the gap is described as a “narrow and thin annular gap”); and
an adhesive (19) lodged within the gap for adhering the sleeve (17) to the core (15), the adhesive in the gap enable elasticity between the sleeve (17) and the core (15) (see page 3, lines 24-26 – the gap is filled by the adhesive in the vertical wall and the horizontal wall between the sleeve and the core; where it is disclosed that the adhesive 21 is an elastic adhesive, at the same time the adhesive used in section 19 is the same as the one used in section 21; where the adhesive in section 21 is an elastic adhesive; therefore, the adhesive in section 19 is also elastic).
However, Sutter ‘586 does not disclose that the gap has a distance of between 10 and 20 mm, and that it provides resistance of the sleeve when in contact with a jawbone and reduces the risk of bacterial infiltration in any space not occupied in the gap by the adhesive.
Sutter ‘160 teaches a dental implant including a core (50) and a sleeve (60), where between the core and the sleeve includes a gap for an adhesive/binder in the range of 5 and 50 mm (see col. 6, lines 21-30 – where the claimed 10-20 mm is within the disclosed range). Furthermore, Sutter’ 160 also teaches that the adhesive/binder in the gap is “biocompatible, nontoxic, and well tolerated by the bones and soft tissues of patients” (see col. 3, lines 15-17 – if the adhesive/binder is configured to be biocompatible with the bones, it is understood that the sleeve also can be in contact with the bone in order for using that kind of the biocompatible adhesive material that can tolerate the bone material; for that reason, it is understood that no degradation of the adhesive occurs when exposed to the bone material; in this way the integrity of the bonding between the sleeve and the core is maintained; in other words, the adhesive in the gap is capable of providing the resistance for the sleeve to move when in contact with the jawbone).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the distance of the gap of Sutter ‘586, with the range of 10-20 mm within the 5 and 50 mm range of the gap of Sutter ‘160, in order to provide the space for placing the necessary adhesive to create the resistance against movement between the sleeve and the upper part of the core.
Furthermore, the combination of the implant of Sutter ‘586 with the gap of Sutter’160 includes all the claimed subject matter. Therefore, it is understood that the combination also is capable of providing the same benefits of reducing the risk of bacterial infiltration in areas where the adhesive is not present within the gap as claimed.
Claims 3-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutter (CH 702586 A2) (aka Sutter ‘586) in view of Sutter (US 6461160 B1) (aka Sutter’160) as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and in further view of Hayoz et al. (CN 101952269 A).
Regarding claims 3 and 6, Sutter ‘586 / Sutter ‘160 discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1 and 5 respectively, and where Sutter ‘586 discloses the use of the flexible adhesive (19) to bind the sleeve (17) to the core (15) of the dental implant.
However, Sutter ‘58 / Sutter ‘160 does not disclose that the elastic adhesive is a biocompatible bi-component epoxy adhesive.
Hayoz et al. teaches that the properties of commercially available epoxy compounds can be changed, such that one possible variation can be done by adding flexibilizer and reactive diluent (see [0251]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flexible adhesive of Sutter ‘586 /Sutter ‘160, with the epoxy with flexibilizer and reactive diluent of Hayoz, in order to provide a functional flexible adhesive with reduced viscosity so that it improves its workability and flow.
Regarding claim 4, Sutter ‘586/Sutter ‘160/Hayoz discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 3, and where Sutter ‘586 discloses that the sleeve (17) is made of ceramic (see abstract, page 3, line 9 of translation).
However, Sutter ‘586 / Sutter ‘160/Hayoz does not disclose that the ceramic of the sleeve is made of Zirconia.
Sutter ‘160 teaches that the ceramic used in the sleeve is Zirconia (see col. 3, line 47-49). Where the ceramic sleeve is originally formed rotationally symmetrical, but due to the material that is made, it can be ground away, if necessary, in order to optimize the shape of the dental prosthesis (see col. 8, lines 45-57).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ceramic material of the sleeve of Sutter ‘586 / Sutter ‘160/Hayoz, with the Zirconia ceramic material of the sleeve of Sutter (‘160), in order to be capable of grounding material away to optimize the shape of the dental prosthesis, if necessary.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8 September 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, to further explain the position of the Office with respect to the interview of 23 June 2026. The claimed subject matter at that time included a dental implant including a metal core with a sleeve made of ceramic or Peek, and between the sleeve and the metal core includes a gap where an adhesive is placed. The gap has a distance between 10-20 mm. It is also claimed that the gap distance enables elasticity between the sleeve and the core.
The Office understands that the gap per se does not provide elasticity, but the material present in the gap is the one that can provide that characteristic, where in this case is the adhesive. For that reason, it is understood that the adhesive in the gap is the one that provides the space for the adhesive to be flexible within the gap and to enable the elasticity between the sleeve and the core.
Based on that reasoning, the prior art of Sutter ‘586 includes the general structural limitations of the implant including a metal core and a ceramic sleeve, using an adhesive within the gap that is flexible. In this way, it is understood that it is capable of enabling elasticity between the sleeve and the core.
Sutter ‘586 does not disclose the range of the gap used in his implant. On the other hand, the prior art of Sutter ‘160 includes a similar structure including, a core, a sleeve, and a gap between the core and the sleeve and a binder in between that can be between 5-50 mm.
It is understood that the claimed gap is already within the range found and used by Sutter ‘160. Therefore, if the claimed range is found within the range of Sutter’160 and used to place the adhesive for holding together the core and the sleeve of his implant, is used in the gap of Sutter ‘586, it would provide the same benefits as in Sutter ‘160 and at the same time it is capable of providing the same benefits as the one claimed by the applicant, by include all the structures and dimensions as described in the claims. For that reason, the Office understands that in this case the resulting combination is capable of providing resistance against breakage between the internal wall of the sleeve and the upper part of the core.
Applicant in page 5 argues that due to in the rejection found in the Office action of 5 March 2026, indicates that Sutter’586 does not disclose that claimed range, it should be considered novel.
The Office disagrees, a novel idea is the one that has not been invented by another, or that it would not be obvious for a person skill in the art to modify a known invention with a limitation of another. Where the changes have to be in a way that will not change the original functionality and intended use of the primary invention but to improve above it. That’s why claim 1 was rejected under 35 USC 103 which forms the basis of an obviousness rejection, in which a person skill in the art would see obvious to modify the size of the gap of Sutter ‘586 to the claimed dimensions found within the range of Sutter’106 to further expand the capability of the implant of Sutter’586, in order to add more adhesive to enable enough elasticity between the sleeve and the core, in this way it is reduced the possibility of breakage between the two components.
Furthermore, applicant mentions the paragraph citing the description of the gap of Sutter’160, specifically that it is indicated that it is preferably a gap having a distance of at most 200 mm (see recitation below).
PNG
media_image3.png
62
444
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The Office sees that the description also indicates that it is also given an example of a preference range from 5-50 mm within the preferable gap of at most 200 mm. Based on the description, it is understood that both are preferred by the inventor.
Furthermore, the applicant mentions in page 8 of the remarks that there are more reasons for selecting the claimed gap size than the use for housing the adhesive. One of them is to avoid fracturing the sleeve, and to improve the pull-out resistance.
The position of the Office is that the claim language describing the gap and its function does not include that the adhesive per se is configured to function within the gap as a shock absorber between the sleeve and the core, or to maintain a space between the core and the sleeve so that they do not get in contact with each other, in addition of a bonding material, all the functionality is directed to a gap.
A gap is an open space that provides a volume. That volume by itself is just air. However, if at the same time that annular volume of the gap allows the adhesive to provide the necessary thickness for holding together the sleeve in place with the core, and to absorb external forces that can fracture the sleeve, it is not included in the claimed language.
If the sleeve is formed from a ceramic material, the claimed gap between the internal wall of the sleeve and the core would not avoid the fracture of the sleeve by an external force as argued, because of its material. The implant needs another material/structure to absorb that force and/or to avoid the sleeve to have a direct contact with the core to avoid fracture. In this case it is understood that the kind of adhesive used in that gap with the claimed distance makes the difference, in addition of indicating in the claim that the adhesive is flexible. that flexibility king of insinuate that the material can provide some movement, in which can provide absorption of forces somehow.
However, the claimed subject matter is only indicating that the gap by itself avoids fractures of the sleeve, not the adhesive material. It is understood that in the present application, the combination of the characteristics of the adhesive in combination with the claimed distance of the gap allows for the ability of the implant to avoid the fracture of the sleeve when exposed to external forces, e.g. masticatory forces. It is understood that by functioning as shock absorber, where the adhesive can provide that function, or the adhesive is capable of maintaining a distance between the two walls during the application of an external force that allows for the dissipation of that force and avoids the potential fracture of the sleeve.
On the other hand, if only the gap having the claimed range is avoiding the fracture of the sleeve as argued, the Office does not understand the mechanics and physics behind that assertion due to all the reasons given above.
Therefore, it is concluded that the construction of the present claim only provides a list of structures and materials, but how they interact with each other as argued, is not found in the claim. For that reason, it is understood that the rejection is proper and will be maintained.
Regarding claims 2-4, it is understood that the claimed subject matter is found in the prior arts of Sutter’586 and Sutter’160 for the same reasons given above.
Regarding the added claim 5, the claimed subject matter described in the claim includes the same limitations as in claim 1, with the addition that the claimed gap lodge with adhesive reduces the risk of bacterial infiltration. The position of the Office is that the combination of the prior arts mentioned above includes all the claimed structures, in which provides a dental implant capable of reducing the risk of bacterial infiltration in the gap area as claimed, (see rejection above).
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 MIRAYDA ARLENE APONTE whose telephone number is (571)270-1933. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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.
/MIRAYDA A APONTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3772 /ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
