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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 04/29/2026. These drawings are entered.
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 14-18 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 14:
For limitation a) it is not clear if “a dental implant or screw” is the same or different implant than in the implant or screw of lines 1-2. Also is the “selection of an available implant or screw model” in addition to the dental implant/screw or alternate to the dental implant. The limitation is unclear to determine the scope of the claim.
In limitation “b) analysis of the intended location of the implant or screw, the analysis including morphological analysis by imaging tests such as computed tomography of the indicated location,” it is not clear what intended location or indicated location are and what they are being refereed to. No antecedent basis found for “the indicated location.” The terms “such as” creates ambiguity about what is actually required by the claim. It renders claim unclear as to the metes and bounds of the invention.
Regarding limitation “c) obtaining patient data to verify integration needs,” it is not clear what data are being obtained and what is being meant by “verify integration needs.” What is being integrated?
Regarding limitation “d) analysis of implant loading or screw in order to determine an optimized implant topology,” the whole limitation is vague and indefinite. It is not clear what is meant by implant loading. What are the input parameters for analysis to determine topology. It is not clear what the term “optimized” encompasses
Regarding limitation “e) computer model of a texture comprising designing of a porous surface comprising geometry, pore size, wall thicknesses and other characteristics of the implant or screw surface wherein the texture is limited to the trabecular region and is determined geometrically by the shape of the implant or screw,” it is noted that no computing device is being claimed or associated with the claimed method. It is not clear what “computer model” encompasses. It is not clear what “other characteristics of the implant” encompasses. Further, “the implant or screw surface” lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Regarding limitation “f) reproduction of the texture in the implant or screw in a controlled manner using an additive manufacturing technique; wherein after the additive manufacturing technique, the method comprises the following additional steps,” it is not clear what is meant by reproduction of the texture in the implant. Is the texture reproduced? How the texture in the implant produced using additive manufacturing technique. No functioning hardware is being claimed for the additive manufacturing to take place.
Regarding “wherein after the additive manufacturing technique, the method comprises the following additional steps:
g) heat treatment;
h) sintering;
i) machining;
j) cleaning;
k) anodizing;
l) laser marking;
m) quality control;
n) final cleaning;
o) packaging;
p) labeling; and
q) sterilization”
it not clears what each steps encompasses. There is not operative steps or what is actually being performed making these steps unclear to understand. There is no recitation of what is heat treated, sintered, machined, cleaned, anodized, laser marked, quality controlled, cleaned, labeled, or sterilized.
Regarding claim 15, it is not clear what is meant by “by means of...method.” What do they encompasses.
Regarding claim 16 “the pore diameter” lacks antecedent basis in the clam.
Regarding 17, Regarding “such as” language. See the rejection above. “The material” lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Patel Yogesh whose telephone number is (571) 270-3646. The examiner can normally be reached between 9 AM – 5:30 PM on Monday, Thursday and Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, SPE Bosques Edelmira, at (571) 270-5614.
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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YOGESH P PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights