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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. Claims 67-76 and 79-81 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pirker (US 2009/0092944).
Regarding claim 67, Pirker discloses a root portion of a dental implant (Fig. 5-9) designed using a three- dimensional scan of an extracted tooth root (Fig. 4; paragraph [0018] “the geometry of the extracted tooth… taken by… laser scanning, computer tomography”). The root portion of the dental implant being configured to fit within socket site from which the tooth was extracted (abstract; paragraph [0019]) and comprising:
a. a first section (upper region best pointed to by reference numeral 108 in Fig. 6) having a size and shape corresponding to a first portion of the three-dimensional scan of the extracted tooth root, the first section corresponding to a top region of the extracted tooth root proximate to a crest of the socket site (Figs 3-9; paragraphs [0012], [0018]).
b. a second section (middle region best pointed to by reference numeral 110 in Fig. 9) positioned below the first section, the second section 110 corresponding to a second portion of the three-dimensional scan of the extracted tooth root, a circumference of the second section being smaller (i.e. reduced) than a corresponding circumference of the second portion of the three-dimensional scan of the extracted tooth root (Fig. 9; paragraphs [0040]-[0043] “implant diameter reduction… are marked in the figures as 110”).
c. a third section (apical portion best pointed to by reference numerals 109, 114, in Figs. 6 and 11, respectively) positioned below the second section, the third section having a size and shape corresponding to a third portion of the three-dimensional scan of the extracted tooth root, the third section corresponding to a bottom region of the extracted tooth root proximate to a bottom of the socket site (Figs. 6 and 11; paragraph [0048]).
In the second section (i.e. middle region 110 shown in Fig. 9), Pirker et al. discloses a circumference of the second section being smaller (i.e. reduced) than a corresponding circumference of the second portion of the three-dimensional scan of the extracted tooth root (Fig. 9; paragraphs [0040]-[0043] “implant diameter reduction… are marked in the figures as 110”), but fails to teach the specifically claimed range of 3-7% smaller. Nonetheless, note that Pirker discloses the implant diameter is “preferably reuced by 0.05 mm to 1 mm, if necessary by 1.5 mm to avoid pressure induced resorption and fracture of the thin cortical bone layer” (paragraph [0022]), effectively indicating such reduction variable is optimizable. Therefore, such claimed range of 3-7% smaller/reduction would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in art before the filing of the invention since it has been held that discovering an optimum or workable ranges is well within the skill of an artisan via routine experimentation in order to improve upon what is already generally known. See MPEP §§ 2144.05.
As to claim 68, Pirker discloses the root portion of the dental implant further comprising: a plurality of retentive elements 107, 113, 116, positioned on an exterior surface of the second section (Figs. 11-12; abstract “dental implant of the same size and shape as the root… with macro retentions…”).
As to claim 69, Fig. 10 shows the retentive elements have at least one of a circular, triangular, trapezoidal, and teardrop shape (Fig. 10; paragraphs [0034], [0044]).
As to claim 70, Fig.3 shows the retentive elements 107 are configured to engage with lamina dura present in a socket site of a patient from which the tooth was extracted when the dental implant is positioned within the socket site (Fig. 3).
As to claim 71, Fig. 8 shows the retentive elements are arranged in a spiral configuration along a length of the third section (Fig. 8; paragraph [0043] “screw like winding for macro retentions”).
As to claim 72, an exterior surface of the first/top section has a taper along the length of the first section with a largest circumference of the first section occurring at a top of the first/top section (Figs. 5-9, 11-12).
As to claim 73, a length of the implant is smaller than a length of the extracted tooth root (paragraph [0024] “shortening of the implant at the apex…”).
As to claim 74, the third/apical section is configured to have a size and shape substantially similar to a bottom portion of the extracted tooth root (see Figs. 4-5; paragraph [0041] “Fig. 4 shows… a human tooth and Fig. 5 a corresponding implant”).
As to claim 75, the third/apical section is configured to provide strong engagement between the third section of the dental implant and a bottom of the socket site from which the tooth was extracted (Figs. 11-12; paragraph [0048] “increase of the surface and improved stability… root replica and a cylindrical part extending the apex of the implant…”).
As to claims 76 and 79-81, Pirker discloses the lengths of the sections are responsive to or based from lengths of the extracted tooth root provided by the three-dimensional scan, and that the third section is configured to be smaller than the third portion of the three-dimensional scan of the extracted tooth root (paragraph [0024] “shortening of the implant at the apex”). However, Pirker is silent to the recited ranges of: 0.1-7% smaller, 2-4 mm for the first section length, and the third section length. However, note that Pirker discloses that the implant at the apex is shortened by 0.3 mm to 1 mm (paragraph [0024]), indicating that such lengths and reduction variable are of optimizable variables. Therefore, such claimed ranges reduction percentage and lengths of the would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art since it has been held that discovering an optimum or workable ranges is well within the skill of an artisan via routine experimentation in order to improve upon what is already generally known. See MPEP §§ 2144.05.
4. Claims 77-78 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Pirker in view of Kumar et al. (US 2016/0015483).
Pirker discloses the invention substantially as claimed including an abutment section 106 (Fig. 5; paragraph [0041]) but fails to disclose the abutment section is configured to attached to a carrier/mount that is configured to attach to an implant insertion tool configured to vibrate in an ultrasonic range as recited in claims 77-78.
Kumar et al. discloses a dental implant 210 comprising an abutment section 273/265 (Figs. 10H-10I); the abutment section 273/265 is configured to attach to a carrier/mount that is attach to an implant insertion tool configured to vibrate the dental implant at a vibratory frequency as the dental implant is inserted into a socket site (Figs. 12A-12E; paragraph [0168] “a torque driver or silimlar tool… configured to matingly engage the socket 237”; paragraph [0186] “vibration driver my be used to vibrate… drive the implant into an… osteotomy”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pirker’s abutment section to be configured to attach to a carrier/mount that is attaching to a vibrating insertion tool in order to effectively vibrate drive the implant into an osteotomy upon installation as taught by Kumar et al.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments regarding the amended claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection under Rubbert et al. has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Pirker and Kumar et al. as detailed above.
Conclusion
6. 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 HAO D MAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3002. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:00-4:30. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eric Rosen can be reached on (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 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.
/HAO D MAI/
Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772