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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 28 January 2026 has been entered.
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 and 2 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: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Upper part of the core )][AltContent: textbox (Internal wall)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Gap)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Sleeve)]
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.
Claims 3-4 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), and in further view of Hayoz et al. (CN 101952269 A).
Regarding claim 3, Sutter ‘586 / Sutter ‘160 discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1, 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 28 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1 and 2 rejection, applicant argues that there is not obvious reason to combine Sutter ’586 with Sutter ‘160.
In addition to the responses given in all the previous Office actions, the position of the Office is as follow. The claimed subject matter is directed to a dental implant including a list of structural elements and a range of a gap. As indicated in the rejection, Sutter’586 discloses all the structures listed, such as the core, the sleeve, the adhesive and a distance of the gap between the core and the sleeve.
Let’s begin with the adhesive used by Sutter ‘586, it is used an elastic adhesive. It is disclosed that said elastic adhesive has the same intended use as the adhesive used in WO 03013385 A1 (see page 1, lines 14-17 of the translation – mentioned as reference). Where the intended use in reference is, when using a ceramic sleeve surrounding a metallic core, the elastic adhesive in between allows for dampening an impact on the ceramic sleeve/ring.
Due to the intended use for a dampening effect of the adhesive on the ceramic sleeve, it would also avoid the breakage of the ceramic sleeve, that it is understood that it would conclude into the breakage of the adherence of the internal wall of the ceramic wall with the external surface of the upper part of the core.
Due to the claimed adhesive is for enabling elasticity between the sleeve and the core, and the adhesive used in Sutter ‘586 provides elasticity for dampening an impact on the ceramic ring/sleeve. The adhesive disclosed by Sutter ‘586 provides the same characteristic as claimed.
Therefore, due to it is not provided any other characteristic or limitation of the adhesive used in the present application, other than it should enable elasticity between the sleeve and the core, it is understood that the adhesive disclosed by Sutter ‘586 is proper by having the only characteristic described in the claim.
The only limitation not disclosed by Sutter ‘586 is the claimed range of the distance that form the gap between the core and the sleeve, in which is of 10 to 20 mm. At the same time the Office understands that it would be obvious for a person skill in the art to change the dimension of the gap for optimization purposes.
Furthermore, the layer formed by the elastic adhesive of Sutter ‘586 is “preferably at least 0.05 mm, preferably at most 0.2 mm and, for example, about 0.08 mm to 0.15 mm thick” (see page 3, par. 4th). With the same token, due to Sutter ‘586 discloses the adhesive dimension as a preference, it does not disclose that those are only dimensions capable of providing the dampening effect are limited by that. For that reason, it is understood that other thickness values can be considered without destroying the intended use of the elastic adhesive in the gap, in other words, it can be optimized.
Taking that into consideration, it was found that Sutter ‘160 teaches a similar dental implant including a core and a sleeve surrounding it. Where that dental implant includes in one of the embodiments use an adhesive/binder in a gap between the core and the sleeve. Said adhesive can have a viscosity from a “thinly fluid adhesive” to a “relatively viscous adhesive” (see col. 3, lines 4-7 of the translation), and the gap can be of 200 mm max. or in the range of 5-50 mm as an example that it would work as intended.
Now, due to Sutter ‘160 provides the gap for placing adhesive for attaching the sleeve with the core of the dental implant, it is understood that a thinner gap can function for placing other fluidics adhesive with a range of viscosity from the “thinly fluid adhesive” to the “relatively viscous adhesive” in it.
In addition, because the kind of adhesive used in the present application is unknown, other than it is a “bi-component epoxy” as described in claim 3, not in claim 1. Any physical or mechanical properties associated to the minimum thickness needed for the intended use of the present application is unknown. For that reason, the Office has given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed adhesive within the claimed gap, and has concluded that the flexible adhesive of Sutter ‘586 is a possible alternative because it has the flexible characteristic that is used in a dental implant in the same relative area. And, due to the gap taught in Sutter ‘160 is for adhesive that can be from a very thin fluid to a relative viscosity, it is understood that the adhesive of Sutter ‘586 can fall within that kind of viscosity based on the thickness of the layer disclosed, in this way capable of been used in a gap as taught by Sutter ‘160.
Even when the viscosity of the adhesive of Sutter ‘586 is unknown, it is understood that it should have the fluidity to provided the thickness of the layer made in that gap, that is at least 0.05 mm or 50 mm and to work.
Therefore, because the thickness of the layer is a preference without any indication that other values cannot be used, the adhesive thickness and the gap dimension in Sutter ‘586 can be optimized. For that reason, when Sutter ‘160 teaches its preference in the dimension of the gap, it is understood that based on the viscosity of its adhesive, it can move through that space provided and is capable of polymerized and glue together the sleeve with the core. Therefore, if the dimension of the gap of Sutter ‘160 is used in the gap Sutter ‘586 it is understood that will be able to move though the gap and polymerized in order to glue together the sleeve with the core, in addition to the physical characteristic of that that adhesive can provide.
Finally, any analysis including ranges, the Office has taken into consideration the case law pertaining to rejections based on the anticipation of ranges when the claimed range is within the disclosed range as indicated in MPEP 2144.05 (I) (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)) where “in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. For the same reason, if the claimed range is within the range taught by Sutter ‘160, it is understood that the prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Therefore, for all the reasons given above, it is understood that Sutter ‘160 is teaching the range including the claimed values, that in combination with Sutter ‘586 provides all the limitations described in claim 1 and 2, making the rejection proper and will be maintained.
Regarding claims 3 and 4 rejection, for the reasons given above, it is understood that the prior arts of Sutter ‘586, Sutter ‘160 and Hayoz include all the limitation described in the claims.
Furthermore, it is argued that the material taught by Hayoz does not indicate that is “biocompatible bi-component epoxy adhesive”. However, Hayoz teaches a composition that can be used in many different purposes, such as for manufacturing of medical device, instrument, or implant (see [0379]). Furthermore, it is taught that the properties of epoxy compound adhesive can be changed, where one variation by adding flexibilizer and reactive diluent (see [00251]).
It is understood that the compositions described by Hayoz takes in consideration the final intended use that requires biocompatibility.
Therefore, it is understood that the use of Hayoz in combination with Sutter ‘586 and Sutter ‘160 is proper and will be maintained.
The Office understands that the limitations described in claims 1-4 are found in the prior arts of Sutter ‘586, Sutter ‘160 and Hayoz, making the claims not ready for allowance.
Conclusion
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