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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued that Durham does not provide for an insertion element made of an elastic material however this limitation is provided for in combination with the new prior art of Allen which provides for a snap fit connection with an insertion member made of an elastomeric material. The prior art of Durham would still have the same degree of function (stability and snap connection) with the benefits of the elastomeric material of Allen.
Regarding applicants arguments that Grobbee would not support the modification with Zuest due to the disclosure of a “fully constrained” positioning and thus an elastic material would not provide for such positioning, this is not persuasive as Grobbee discloses the support bar can be made of many different materials and flexibilities and the ability to be constrained is in regard to its positioning ability. The prior art of Zuest would not remove from Grobbee any ability to be fully constrained or positioned as they are both art that relate to holding dentures to implants which would function for mastication. There is no evidence that the incorporation of Zuest would make Grobbee not work for its intended function, however it would allow for denture with an added feature of reduced wear between elements. As such the current claims are provided for by the cited prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 7, 10, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durham et al. (WO 2017/106335 A1) in view of Allen et al. (US 2016/0143710 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Durham discloses a bar ( Fig. 3 element 126) for connecting dental implants that are anchored in a jaw bone (Fig. 3 elements 104a),
wherein the bar comprises a base with an underside that is provided to be directed towards the jaw bone with the implants ( Fig. 3 showing an underside of 126 near the jawbone) received in a cavity of a component of a dental prosthesis that imitates the gums (Fig. 3 element 122 imitates gums and with the component is a cavity that receives 126),
the base is made of a biocompatible material comprising a polymer ( Fig. 3 element 3 is using within the mouth and thus is biocompatible, further page 6 lines 20-28 disclosing various biocompatible materials for the base of the bar including polymer) , and
wherein the base comprises two or more recesses that open out on the underside of the base (Fig. 3 showing four recesses such as in Fig. 2 that receive elements 128 and thus the recess open to the underside of the base 126),
and the bar comprises two or more click elements comprising a ridge cap having a cup-shape (Fig. 2 element 144) and an insertion element that is mountable in the rigid cap (Fig. 2 element 130), wherein the click elements are received in the respective recesses (Fig. 2/3 elements 128 received in recesses in 126)
and wherein the click elements make click connections with two or more dental implants for connecting the bar to the dental implants ( Figs. 2/3 elements 128 make click connections to implants portions 132, page 8 lines 24-26).
Regarding claim 1, Durham discloses structure substantially identical to the instant application as discussed above, including where the insertion element must function as a snap-fit element and thus would be a material having some degree of elasticity in order to function in a snap-fit manner (page 8 lines 24-26, page 9 lines 1-6 disclosing the cup having an inner diameter smaller than the diameter of the head of the insertion element which would thus snap in and provide the friction fit) but fails to explicitly disclose where the material of the insertion element is an elastic material.
However, Allen discloses a friction fit detachable denture assembly (title and abstract) with dental implants (Fig. 4 element 102) and a cap with a cup shape (Fig. 1 element 104) and an insertion element that is mountable in the cap (Fig. 1 element 106, paragraph [0064] lines 1-5 disclosing a retention member 106 is compressible for friction fit or compression of the head of the retention member) where the insertion element is made of an elastic material (paragraph [0086] lines 1-6 disclosing insertion element is made of an “elastomeric material”)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the material of the insertion member being an elastic/elastomeric material as taught by Allen into the material of the insertion member as taught by Durham for the purpose of allowing the head of the insertion element of Durham to compress and flex when being attached or detached from and abutment and would make the attachment assembly easier to manufacture as taught by Allen (paragraph [0062] lines 1-5 and 15-16).
Regarding claim 7, Durham further discloses an assembly of an overdenture (Fig. 3 element 122) and a bar according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 10, Durham further discloses wherein the component is made of a plastic (page 6 lines 6-19 disclosing the component made of acrylic which is a plastic material).
Regarding claim 11, Durham discloses an overdenture (Fig. 3 element 122) that is provided to interact with dental implants anchored in a jaw bone (Fig. 3 elements 104a), comprising:
a component that imitates the gums (Fig. 3 element 122 showing a portion that imitates teeth and a portion that imitates gums) and comprises click elements comprising a ridge cap having a cup-shape (Fig. 2 element 144) and an insertion element that is mountable in the rigid cap (Fig. 2 element 130), wherein the click elements make click connections for connecting the overdenture to the dental implants (Fig. 3 element 122 connected to 104a),
wherein the overdenture comprises the bar according to Claim 1 (See claim 1 above) and the click elements of the overdenture are the click elements of the bar (see claim 1 above), and
the component comprises an underside that is directed towards the jaw bone with the implants (Fig. 3 underside of 122 directed towards the jawbone and implants),
wherein the underside comprises one or more openings that provide access to a cavity of the component (Fig. 3 the underside of the imitation component having an opening that receives the bar in a cavity that is formed by the gum imitating portion), and wherein the bar is received in the cavity in such a way that the click elements are accessible (fig. 3 showing the click elements are accessible to connect to the implants) and are provided to make click connections for connecting the overdenture to the dental implants (Figs. 2/3 element 144 for each recess connecting to each element 104a).
Regarding claim 13, Durham further discloses the cavity and the bar are a form-fit, so that the bar occupies a fixed position relative to the component (Fig. 3 showing the cavity fitting the bar 16 within and thus fitted to the cavity for fixed relative positioning).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durham et al. (WO 2017/106335 A1) in view of Allen et al. (US 2016/0143710 A1) and further in view of Berger et al. (WO 2017/145168 herein after Berger’ 168)
Regarding claim 2, Durham discloses structure substantially identical to the instant application as discussed above but fails to explicitly disclose where the biocompatible material comprises polyaryletherketone.
However, Berger’168 discloses a dental bridge system with insert (title and abstract) a bar that inserts into an overdenture (Fig. 2c elements 12/16 acting as a bar to insert into overdenture 14) and discloses the bar can comprise polyaryletherketone (page 7 lines 8-13 disclosing compatible biomaterials of polyaryletherketone, or polyetheretherketone etc.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the use of polyaryletherketone as part of a bar for supporting an overdenture as taught by Berger’168 into the bar polymer material as taught by Durham for the purpose of providing a suitable material that can be formed in high precision to facilitate tight fits and of a material suitable for machining and that would be sufficiently flexible for shock damping as taught by Berger (page 7 lines 5-13).
Claim 1, 4-11, and 13-16, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grobbee et al. (US 2015/0064653 A1) in view of Zuest et al. (US 5,417,570).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 11, 15, 16, Grobbee discloses an overdenture (fig. 10a element 506) that connects to a bar ( Fig. 4a element 202) for connecting dental implants that are anchored in a jaw bone (Fig. 4a elements 404),
the overdenture having a component that imitates the gums (Fig. 10a element 506) and the bar,
the component comprising an underside that is directed towards the jaw bone with implants (Fig. 4a and 10a component 506 connects to the implants via the bar 202), the overdenture having an opening that provides access to a cavity of the component (Fig. 5b element 510), and the bar is received in the cavity (Fig. 6a element 202 inside the cavity of 506).
wherein the bar comprises a base with an underside that is provided to be directed towards the jaw bone with the implants ( Fig. 6b showing an underside of 202 to be directed to the jawbone) received in a cavity of a component of a dental prosthesis that imitates the gums (Fig. 9 element 202 received in cavity 502 inside portion that imitates gums element 506),
the base is made of a biocompatible material (paragraph [0038] all disclosing various biocompatible materials for the base of the bar) , and
wherein the base comprises two or more recesses that open out on the underside of the base (Figs. 4b/6b showing four recesses elements 204 and thus the recess open to the underside of the base 202),
and the bar comprises two or more interfaces of connection making elements for connecting the bar to the dental implants (Fig. 4b elements 402 and 204 are for making connects to the implants 404, further paragraph [0033] all disclosing the interfaces can be “captive olds, threaded holes, captive nuts, or any other fastening mechanism”).
Grobbee discloses structure substantially identical to the instant application as discussed above but fails to explicitly disclose where the interfaces of the bar are click elements comprising a rigid cap having a cup-shape and an insertion element made of an elastic material that is mountable in the rigid cap wherein the click elements are received in the respective recesses for making connection with the dental implants to be click connections as recited in claim 1, nor where the click elements are glued into the respective recesses as recited in claim 4, nor where the rigid cap is made of metal alloy as per claim 15, nor that the metal alloy is of stainless steel as per claim 16.
However, Zuest discloses a dental anchor assembly for fastening denture to implants (title and abstract) including interfaces that connect to an overdenture that are click elements comprising a rigid cap having a cup-shape (Fig. 1 element 18) made of an metal alloy of stainless steel (column 4 lines 4-8 disclosing the cap is made of gold plated stainless steel) and an insertion element made of an elastic material that is mountable in the rigid cap (Fig. 1 /2 element 20/22, Fig. 2 showing the drawings symbols for the elements to be made of resin or plastic, column 3 lines 7-13) such that the click elements are received by glueing in respective recesses of an overdenture (column 5 lines 12-16 disclosing the cap is glued into recesses in an overdenture by an adhesive) for making connection with the dental implants to be click connections (fig. 2 showing a snap/click connection with the implant 16).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate recessed interface to have their fastening mechanism be click elements comprising a rigid metal alloy of a stainless steel cap having a cup-shape and an insertion element made of the elastic material that is mountable in the rigid cap wherein the click elements are received by gluing with an adhesive in the respective recesses for making connection with the dental implants to be click connections as taught by Zuest into interfaces of the bar as taught by Grobbee for the purpose of allowing for the anchoring of divergent implant at various angles and to reduce the amount of wear on the tooth or implant themselves by using such an interface as taught by Zuest (column 2 lines 12-13, and 31-35).
Regarding claim 5, Grobbee further disclose wherein the bar comprises cylindrical covers that envelope respective recesses (Fig. 3a elements 204) and connecting pieces that connect some of the covers to one another successively (Fig. 3a portions of 202 between elements 204s).
Regarding claim 6, Grobbee further discloses wherein the bas extends along the jaw bone in a longitudinal direction, wherein the covers extend successively next to each other viewed along the longitudinal direction and form local thickenings of the base (Fig. 3b the bar 202 extends along the base with the covers/bulges 204 successively next to each other and showing the base as the covers are local thickening in cross section at each 204).
Regarding claim 7, Grobbee further discloses an assembly of an overdenture (Fig. 7a element 700) and a bar according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 8, Grobbee further discloses wherein the overdenture is connectable to the bar (Fig. 10b element 202 connected to 506) and comprises a component with a cavity in which the bar is detachably receivable as a form fit (Fig. 10b showing the overdenture component having a cavity to receive the bar 202), wherein the component imitates the gums (Fig. 10a element 506 showing a portion that imitates teeth and a portion that imitates gums).
Regarding claim 9, Grobbee further discloses a holder in which the bar is receivable as a form-fit (Fig. 10b element 802) and the overdenture comprises a component that imitates the gums with a cavity in which the holder is receivable as a form-fit (Fig. 10b showing the overdenture component 506 having a cavity that receives 202 and 802) and the component imitates the gums (Fig. 10a element 506 showing a portion that imitates teeth and a portion that imitates gums).
Regarding claim 10, Grobbee further discloses wherein the component is made of a plastic (paragraph [0055] all).
Regarding claim 13, Grobbee further discloses the cavity and the bar are a form-fit, so that the bar occupies a fixed position relative to the component (Fig. 9 showing the overdenture component 506 having a cavity form fit to receive the bar 202).
Regarding claim 14, Grobbee further disclose wherein the overdenture comprises a holder in which the bar is receivable as a form-fit and the holder is receivable as a form-fit in the cavity of the component that imitates the gums (Fig. 8 element 806 acts as a holder that is form fit to 502 and 202, alternatively Fig. 10b element 206 is a holder that is form fit into the component and the bar is form fit into the holder at 804).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grobbee et al. (US 2015/0064653 A1) in view of Zuest et al. (US 5,417,570) and further in view of Berger et al. (WO 2017/145168 herein after Berger’ 168).
Regarding claim 2, Grobbee/Zuest discloses structure substantially identical to the instant application as discussed above including where the bar is made of biocompatible polymers and ca be any material of desired strength, stiffness, or flexibility (paragraph [0038] lines 1-11) but fails to explicitly disclose where the biocompatible material comprises polyaryletherketone.
However, Berger’168 discloses a dental bridge system with insert (title and abstract) a bar that inserts into an overdenture (Fig. 2c elements 12/16 acting as a bar to insert into overdenture 14) and discloses the bar can comprise polyaryletherketone (page 7 lines 8-13 disclosing compatible biomaterials of polyaryletherketone, or polyetheretherketone etc.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the use of polyaryletherketone as part of a bar for supporting an overdenture as taught by Berger’168 into the bar polymer material as taught by Grobbee/Zuest for the purpose of providing a suitable material that can be formed in high precision to facilitate tight fits and of a material suitable for machining and that would be sufficiently flexible for shock damping as taught by Berger (page 7 lines 5-13).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grobbee et al. (US 2015/0064653 A1) in view of Zuest et al. (US 5,417,570) as applied to claim 11 above and further in view of Berger et al. (US 2014/0178839 A1 herein after Berger ‘839).
Regarding claim 12, Grobbee/Zuest as combined above discloses structure substantially identical to the instant application as discussed above including where the underside of the cavity can be more than one (paragraph [0030] lines 6-8 disclosing at least one the includes inherently more than one as well) but fails to explicitly wherein the underside comprises several of the openings that provide access to the cavity, and the number of openings matches the number of click/interface elements and the mutual position of the openings matches the mutual position of the click/interface elements and wherein the bar is received in the cavity in such a way that the openings and the respective click/interface elements are in line with each other and the click/interface elements are accessible through the respective openings, and are provided to make click connections for connecting the overdenture to the dental implants.
However, Berger’839 discloses a dental bridge system with an overdenture having a component with a cavity having several openings that are in line with interface elements of a bar that is inserted in the openings and the number of openings that receive interfaces match the number of interfaces and the interfaces are accessible thought he respective openings for providing connections for the overdenture to dental implants (Fig. 2a element 14 having multiple underside openings to receive scalloped interfaces of 61 at elements 43 to connect to the implants 24).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the use of several of the openings in the underside of the component that provide access to the cavity with the number of openings to matches the number of click/interface elements and the mutual position of the openings matches the mutual position of the click/interface elements such that the bar would be received in the cavity in such a way that the openings and the respective click/interface elements are in line with each other to allow the click/interface elements are accessible through the respective openings, and are provided to make click connections for connecting the overdenture to the dental implants as taught by Berger’839 into the cavity and bar shape as taught by Grobbee/Zuest for the purpose of providing a stable mechanical connection as taught by Berger’839 (paragraph [0082] all).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892.
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 MATTHEW P SAUNDERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3250. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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.
/M.P.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3772 01/30/2025
/EDELMIRA BOSQUES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772