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 § 112
Claims 1-3, 5-14 16-17, and 19-28 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.
With respect to claim 1, the applicant claims the intermediate regions comprises an abutment and the abutment “has at least one top surface”, the upper region being defined “by at lest one upper interface structure…, wherein the upper interface comprises at least one vertical facet” and further claims “a joining portion between the intermediate region and the upper region”. Therefore, the limitations including “the upper interface structure comprises at least one neck linked to a top surface” is unclear. It is unclear if the claimed neck is the joining portion and “a top surface” is the claimed top surface of the abutment. It is noted that for examination purposes, the limitations are being interpreted as the claimed joining region is the claimed neck which is connected to the claimed top surface of the abutment, however, the applicant should amend the claims to clarify what is being claimed.
Further with respect to claim 1 the claimed “substantially trapezoidal body which supports a substantially cylindrical body with a flat top surface” is unclear with respect to the claimed upper interface structure comprising that least one neck and the upper interface body having at least one vertical facet. It is unclear if the claimed bodies are the upper interface or are in addition to the claimed upper interface. It is noted that for examination purposes, the limitations are being interpreted as further limiting the claimed upper interface, such that the upper interface with the at least on facet is a substantially trapezoidal body which supports a substantially cylindrical body with a flat top surface, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify what is being claimed.
With respect to claim 9, the claimed microscopically modified surface is unclear in view of the claimed treated surface of claim 1 (see lines 18-20 of claim 1), such as if they are the same or different. It is noted that for examination purposes, the claimed surface treatment of claim 1 is being interpreted as being further limiting by the claimed microscopically modified surface of claim 9, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify what is being claimed.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the at least one facet of the abutment" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
With respect to claim 10, the limitation “”its medial portion” and “a lower portion” are unclear as to what structure having the medial portion and lower portion is being claimed. It is noted that for examination purposes, the limitations are being interpreted as medial and lower portions of the abutment, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify what is being claimed.
With respect to claim 16, the claimed limitation “since the upper interface comprises at least one vertical facet” is unclear. It is unclear if the applicant is trying to just claim that the upper interface comprises at least one vertical facet or if the applicant is trying to claim that since the interface has at least one vertical facet, something functional is related to the facet. It is noted that for examination purposes, the limitation is being interpreted as the applicant is claiming that the upper interface comprises at least one vertical facet, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify what is being claimed.
Further with respect to claim 16, the claimed limitations with respect to the positioner cap and breakable regions are unclear. Specifically the applicant claims “when the upper interface is pressed against the positioner cap and the breakable structure break, allowing the upper interface to move until the positioner cap is properly coupled to the upper interface” is unclear as to if the applicant is trying to positively claim the action of breaking the structures or just functionally claiming them. It is note that for examination purposes, the limitations are being interpreted as functional. Such that the upper interface is capable of being pressed against the positioner cap to cause the breakable structure to break which then allows the two components to be moved relative to each other to position the position cap on the upper interface, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarity what is being claimed.
With respect to claim 16, the applicant claims the intermediate regions comprises an abutment and the abutment “has at least one top surface”, the upper region being defined “by at least one upper interface structure…, wherein the upper interface comprises at least one vertical facet” and further claims “a union portion between the intermediate region and the upper region”. Therefore, the limitations including “the upper interface structure comprises at least one neck linked to a top surface” is unclear. It is unclear if the claimed neck is the union portion and “a top surface” is the claimed top surface of the abutment. It is noted that for examination purposes, the limitations are being interpreted as the claimed union region is the claimed neck which is connected to the claimed top surface of the abutment, however, the applicant should amend the claims to clarify what is being claimed.
With respect to claim 16, it is noted that that applicant claims that the abutment “has at least one top surface” and then further claims the upper interface comprises at least one neck “linked to a top surface”. It is unclear if the top surface the neck is linked to is the claimed top surface of the abutment or a different top surface. It is noted that for examination purposes, it is being interpreted as the neck is linked to the claimed top surface of the abutment, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify what is being claimed.
Further with respect to claim 16 the claimed “substantially trapezoidal body which supports a substantially cylindrical body with a flat top surface” is unclear with respect to the claimed upper interface structure comprising that least one neck and the upper interface body having at least one vertical facet. It is unclear if the claimed bodies are the upper interface or are in addition to the claimed upper interface. It is noted that for examination purposes, the limitations are being interpreted as further limiting the claimed upper interface, such that the upper interface with the at least on facet is a substantially trapezoidal body which supports a substantially cylindrical body with a flat top surface, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify what is being claimed.
Further with respect to claim 16, it is unclear if the claimed “flat top surface” of the substantially cylindrical body is the same surface as the claimed “upper surface” of the interface. It is noted that for examination purposes, due to how the claimed limitation are being interpreted above (see paragraph above), the surfaces are being interested as the same surface, such that the upper surface of the interface is a flat top surface, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify what is being claimed.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the perimeter groove of the abutment" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
With respect to claim 26, the limitations including “its medial portion” and “lower portion” are unclear as to what structure has the claimed medial and lower portions. It is noted that for examination purposes, the limitations are being interpreted as medial and lower portions of the abutment, however, the applicant should amend the claims to clarify what is being claimed.
Further with respect to claims 1 and 16, the applicant has amended the claims to include the limitation of the abutment “being a tapered seating region”, but further claims the abutment has a top surface and then in dependent claims (3 and 17) that the abutment comprises a body of substantially tapered shape supported by the tapered seating region. It is unclear what the applicant is trying to claim by the abutment being “a tapered searing region”. Such as if the abutment is only the tapered seating region or if it comprises a tapered seating region. It is noted that for examination purposes, the limitation is being interpreted as the abutment comprises a tapered seating region, however, the applicant should amend the claims to further clarify what is being claimed.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 9 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung (2014/0113252) in view of Eriksson et al. (2012/0009545) in view of Niznick (4,758,161).
With respect to claim 1, Hung teaches a multifunctional prosthetic component for conventional or digital workflow for implant supported dental prosthesis installation (see abstract), configured to be removably attached to an implant or analog (see fig. 6 which shows it removably attached to an implant with screw 90), the component comprising a lower region comprising a lower interface which cooperates with an implant interface (see annotated figure, fig. 6 which shows it interfacing with an implant interface, such that it is the circumferential surface that is interfaces with the top circumferential surface of an implant), wherein the lower interface has, in a bottom portion, an anti-rotational element (see annotated figure) and, in an upper portion, a lower surface has a transmucosal region 143 (such when placed in the jaw the region can extend through the mucosa), and an intermediate region comprising an abutment (see annotated figure) being a tapered seating region 142 which is attached to an upper end of the transmucosal region (see figs. 1, 3), wherein the abutment has at least one top surface (see annotated figures below), an upper region defined by at least one upper interface structure comprising a hole for coupling a screw that cooperates with the implant (see annotated figure, fig. 3 which shows hole, figs. 5-6 which show coupling to implant with screw) wherein the upper interface comprises at least one vertical facet 121, wherein a joining portion between the intermediate region and the upper region configures a cutting location 13 to separate the upper region from the abutment (par. 46), wherein the upper interface structure comprises at least one neck (being the joining region) linked to the top surface of the abutment (see annaoted figure below, rejection above regarding how the limitation is being interpreted), and wherein the neck supports the upper interface structure including at least one substantially trapezoidal body which supports a substantially cylindrical body with a flat top surface (see annotated figure below, figs. 1, 3, such that the neck indirectly supports the bodies as claimed). Hung teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including the intermediate region and the upper region comprising a surface that enables scanning with intraoral or benchtop scanning equipment (pars. 4, 11, 23, 25, such that the surface is provided with grooves/flats), however, does not specifically teach wherein the intermediate region and the upper region of the multifunctional component comprise a surface treated with a material that enables scanning with intraoral or benchtop scanning equipment and wherein at least one perimeter groove of the abutment configures a cut-off marking to adjust the height of the abutment.
PNG
media_image1.png
650
592
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
650
662
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
654
451
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Eriksson teaches a multi-function prosthetic component for conventional or digital workflow for implant supported dental prosthesis installation (such that it is capable of use in either) which comprises a lower region 23/24, an intermediate region 20 and an upper region 21, wherein the intermediate region 20 and the upper region 21 of the component comprises a surface treated with a material that enables scanning with intraoral or benchtop scanning equipment (see abstract, pars. 28-39). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Hung with the surface taught by Eriksson in order to improve the precision of a scanning of the component (pars. 20, 23, 38). Hung/Eriksson teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach at least one perimeter groove of the abutment configures a cut-off marking to adjust the height of the abutment.
Niznick teaches a dental component comprising an abutment and at least one perimeter groove 20-28 of the abutment configures a cut-off marking to adjust the height of the abutment (see fig. 1, col. 2, ll. 27-30). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the abutment of the component of Hung/Eriksson to include at least one perimeter groove as taught by Niznick in order to be able to easily adjust the abutment as needed based on the individual anatomy and needs. Such as depending on the prosthetic to be attached or the size of the individual’s mouth.
With respect to claim 2, Hung/Eriksson/Niznick teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including Hung further teaching the component is configured to be used as a conventional closed tray transfer, a conventional open tray transfer, a scan body, and a temporary abutment (see abstract, pars. 58-59). It is noted that the limitations of claim 2 are functional, such that the prior art does not have to teach the device being used as claimed, only that it is capable of being used as claimed.
With respect to claim 3, Hung/Eriksson/Niznick teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including Hung further teaches the abutment comprises a body of substantially tapered shaped (see figs. 1, 3, annotated figures) supported by the tapered seating region 142 (see figs. 1, 3, annotated figure), the at least one top surface (see annotated figure) and at least one substantially vertical facet 141. Niznick further teaches the abutment comprises at least one perimeter groove (20-28).
With respect to claim 5, Hung/Eriksson/Niznick teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including Hung further teaches wherein the upper interface comprises at least one groove 122 extending in a circumferential direction (see figs. 1-3).
With respect to claim 6, Hung/Eriksson/Niznick teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including Hung further teaching the at least one vertical facet 121 of the upper interface is vertically aligned with a facet 141 of the abutment (see fig. 1).
With respect to claim 7, Hung/Eriksson/Niznick teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including Hung further teaching the at least one vertical facet 121 of the upper interface is rotationally indexed with the anti-rotation element along the longitudinal axis of the component (see fig. 1, such that they are aligned and therefore indexed).
With respect to claim 9, Hung/Eriksson/Niznick teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including Eriksson further teaching the surface is microscopically modified to enable geometric recognition when using intraoral or benchtop scanning equipment (pars. 39, 41, 58, 60, 77).
With respect to claim 11, Hung/Eriksson/Niznick teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including Hung further teaching the at least facet 141 of the abutment is rotationally indexed with at least one face 151 of the anti-rotation element of the lower region (see fig. 1, such that they are aligned and therefore indexed).
With respect to claim 12, Hung/Eriksson/Niznick teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including Niznick further teaching wherein the upper portion of the abutment has a smaller cross section than the cross section of the region located below the at least one perimeter groove (see fig. 1).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung (2014/0113252) in view of Eriksson et al. (2012/0009545) in view of Niznick (4,758,161) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Conte et al. (2011/0306014).
Hung/Eriksson/Niznick teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the lower interface geometry comprises one of a morse cone, external hexagon, or internal hexagon.
Conte teaches a multifunctional prosthetic component comprising a lower region 110/130 comprising a lower interface geometry 131 which cooperates with an implant interface (par. 48, fig. 13), wherein the lower interface has in the bottom portion an anti-rotational element 110 and in the upper portion the lower surface has a transmucosal region 132, an intermediate region 125/122 comprising an abutment 122 supported by a tapered seating region 125 which is attached to the upper end of the transmucosal region 132, the component comprising an upper region 124/121 defined by at least one upper interface surface comprising a hole (see figs. 3-4, 6) for coupling a screw 500 that cooperates with the implant, wherein the upper interface comprising at least one vertical facet (see fig. 1, 122 extends to the upper region), wherein with respect to claim 8 Conte further teaches the lower interface geometry comprising a morse cone (par. 48, figs. 1-3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the interference geometry taught by Hung/Eriksson/Niznick with the morse cone geometry taught by Conte in order to enhance the accuracy of the fit and proper seating as taught by Conte (see par. 48).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung (2014/0113252) in view of Eriksson et al. (2012/0009545) in view of Niznick (4,758,161) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lustig et al. (6,358,052).
Hung/Eriksson/Niznick teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Hung teaching the facets of the abutment are vertical in form from the top to its medial portion, however, does not specifically teach the facets of the abutment begin to softly concave until they reach the tapered seating region.
Lustig teaches an abutment comprising at least one vertical facet 320 extending form a top of the abutment and being softly concave until it reaches the tapered seating (see fig. 14, such that the tapered seating is the section directly below the facet, such as where arrow 315 points). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the shape of the facet taught by Hung/Eriksson/Niznick to include the concave portion taught by Lustig in order to help secure an impression material, such that it is a deeper facet that helps secure the impression. Further it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the shape of the facet taught by Hung/Eriksson/Niznick with the shape taught by Lustig as a matter of obvious design choice. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04, IV, B).
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung (2014/0113252) in view of Eriksson et al. (2012/0009545) in view of Niznick (4,758,161) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Skvirsky et al. (2016/0106523).
Hung/Eriksson/Niznick teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Hung teaching the component being used in an open and closed tray impression method and the grooves 122/13 being used to assist in the impression method (pars. 46-47), however, does not specifically teach a positioner cap comprising on its inner wall at least one perimeter shoulder that cooperates with the groove on the upper interface of the multifunctional component when using a closed tray impression technique and wherein the perimeter shoulder of the poisoner cap cooperates with the groove of the upper interface by one of the following means: interface, pressure or male-female coupling.
Skvirsky teaches a multifunctional component 204 comprising a lower region 212/210/238, an intermediate region 242/243, an upper region 248/226/254/206/224, the component for use in a closed tray impression method (see figs. 11-13) and with respect to claim 13, the component further comprising a positioner cap 108 comprising on its inner wall, at least one perimeter shoulder 150 that cooperates with the groove 254 of the upper interface of the multifunctional component when using a closed try impression technique (see figs. 10-13, par. 66) and with respect to claim 13 wherein the perimeter shoulder of the positioner cap cooperates with the groove of the upper interface by a male-female coupling (par. 33) . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the component of Hung/Eriksson/Niznick to includes a positioner cap as taught by Skvirsky in order to provide the impression cap needed to carry out the closed tray impression technique and ensure proper alignment of the cap with the implant.
Claim(s) 16, 19-21 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung (2014/0113252) in view of Skvirsky et al. (2016/0106523) in view of Jang (KR 100634982).
With respect to claim 16, Hung teaches a multifunctional prosthetic component for conventional or digital flow of implant prosthesis installation (see abstract), configured to be removably attached to an implant or analog (see fig. 6 which shows it removably attached to an implant with screw 90), the component comprising a lower region comprising a lower interface which cooperates with an implant interface (see annotated figure, fig. 6 which shows it interfacing with an implant interface, such that it is the circumferential surface that is interfaces with the top circumferential surface of an implant), wherein a bottom of the lower interface is linked to an anti-rotational element (see annotated figure) and a top of the lower surface has a transmucosal region 143 (such when placed in the jaw the region can extend through the mucosa), and an intermediate region comprising an abutment (see annotated figure) being a tapered seating region 142 which is attached to an upper end of the transmucosal region (see figs. 1, 3), wherein the abutment has at least one top surface (see annotated figures below) and comprises at least one substantially vertical facet 141, a screw 90, an upper region defined by at least one upper interface structure comprising a hole for coupling the screw that cooperates with the implant (see annotated figure, fig. 3 which shows hole, figs. 5-6 which show coupling to implant with screw) wherein the upper interface comprises at least one vertical facet 121, wherein a union portion between the intermediate region and the upper region configures a cutting location 13 to separate the upper region from the abutment (par. 46), wherein the upper interface structure comprises at least one neck (being the joining region) linked to the top surface of the abutment (see annaoted figure below, rejection above regarding how the limitation is being interpreted), and wherein the neck supports the upper interface structure including at least one substantially trapezoidal body which supports a substantially cylindrical body with a flat top surface (see annotated figure below, figs. 1, 3, such that the neck indirectly supports the bodies as claimed). Hung teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Hung teaching the component being used in an open and closed tray impression method and the grooves 122/13 being used to assist in the impression method (pars. 46-47), however, does not specifically teach a positioner cap attached to the upper surface of the interface by means of breakable structures, wherein the positioner cap has on its inner wall at least one perimeter shoulder that cooperates with the groove of the upper interface of the multifunctional component with the multifunctional component is pressed against the positioner cap and the breakable structure break, allowing the component to move until the positioner cap is properly coupled to the upper interface.
PNG
media_image1.png
650
592
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
650
662
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
654
451
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Skvirsky teaches a multifunctional component 204 comprising a lower region 212/210/238, an intermediate region 242/243, an upper region 248/226/254/206/224, the component for use in a closed tray impression method (see figs. 11-13) and the component further comprising a positioner cap 108 comprising on its inner wall, at least one perimeter shoulder 150 that cooperates with the groove 254 of the upper interface of the multifunctional component when using a closed try impression technique (see figs. 10-13, par. 66). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the component of Hung to includes a positioner cap as taught by Skvirsky in order to provide the impression cap needed to carry out the closed tray impression technique and ensure proper alignment of the cap with the implant. Hung/Skvirsky teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the positioner cap attached to the upper surface of the interface by means of breakable structures, and the breakable structure is configured to break, allowing the component to move until the positioner cap is properly coupled to the upper interface.
Jang teaches a multi-functional prosthetic component comprising an abutment 110 and an impression element 120 attached to the abutment by means of a breakable structure 130 (see figs. 2-3, par. 20, such that the structure is configured to be broke, therefore it is a breakable structure). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the multifunctional component including the cap taught by Hung/Skvirsky with the integral connected structures taught by Jang in order to easily provide the user with all the elements in one integral component needed to carry out the impression method. It is noted that the combination of Hung/Skvirsky/Jang teaches the limitations as claimed such that the positioner cap would be attached to the rest of the component by means of a breakable structure such that when the structure is broken, it would allow the component to move until the positioner cap move until the positioner cap is properly coupled to the upper interface. Such that when the structure is broken, the two elements are freely moveable and can be moveable relative to each other until assembled. It is noted that this is a functional limitation. It is noted that Jang does not specifically teach multiple breakable structures, however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the single structure to include more than one since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04, VI, B).
With respect to claim 19 Hung/Skvirsky/Jang teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including Hung further teaches wherein the upper interface comprises at least one groove 122 extending in a circumferential direction (see figs. 1-3).
With respect to claim 20, Hung/Skvirsky/Jang teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including Hung further teaching the at least one vertical facet 121 of the upper interface is vertically aligned with the at least one substantially vertical facet 141 of the abutment (see fig. 1).
With respect to claim 21, Hung/Skvirsky/Jang teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including Hung further teaching the at least one vertical facet 121 of the upper interface is rotationally indexed with the anti-rotation element along the longitudinal axis of the component (see fig. 1, such that they are aligned and therefore indexed).
With respect to claim 27, Hung/Skvirsky/Jang teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including Hung further teaching the at least one substantially vertical facet 141 of the abutment is rotationally indexed with at least one face 151 of the anti-rotation element of the lower region (see fig. 1, such that they are aligned and therefore indexed).
Claim(s) 17, 22 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung (2014/0113252) in view of Skvirsky et al. (2016/0106523) in view of Jang (KR 100634982) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Niznick (4,758,161).
Hung/Skvirsky/Jang teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including with respect to claim 17 Hung further teaches the abutment comprises a body of substantially tapered shaped (see figs. 1, 3, annotated figures) supported by the tapered seating region 142 (see figs. 1, 3, annotated figure), the at least one top surface (see annotated figure) and the at least one substantially vertical facet 141, however, does not specifically teach at least one perimeter recess, at least one perimeter groove of the abutment configures a cut-off mark to adjust the height of the abutment and the upper portion of the abutment has a smaller cross section than the cross section of the region located below the perimeter groove.
Niznick teaches with respect to claims 17 and 22, a dental component comprising an abutment and at least one perimeter groove 20-28 of the abutment configures a cut-off marking to adjust the height of the abutment (see fig. 1, col. 2, ll. 27-30).
Niznick further teaches with respect to claim 28, wherein the upper portion of the abutment has a smaller cross section than the cross section of the region located below the perimeter groove (see fig. 1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the abutment of the component of Hung/Skvirsky/Jang to include at least one perimeter groove as taught by Niznick in order to be able to easily adjust the abutment as needed based on the individual anatomy and needs. Such as depending on the prosthetic to be attached or the size of the individual’s mouth.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung (2014/0113252) in view of Skvirsky et al. (2016/0106523) in view of Jang (KR 100634982) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Conte et al. (2011/0306014).
Hung/Skvirsky/Jang teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the lower interface geometry comprises one of a morse cone, external hexagon, or internal hexagon.
Conte teaches a multifunctional prosthetic component comprising a lower region 110/130 comprising a lower interface geometry 131 which cooperates with an implant interface (par. 48, fig. 13), wherein the lower interface has in the bottom portion an anti-rotational element 110 and in the upper portion the lower surface has a transmucosal region 132, an intermediate region 125/122 comprising an abutment 122 supported by a tapered seating region 125 which is attached to the upper end of the transmucosal region 132, the component comprising an upper region 124/121 defined by at least one upper interface surface comprising a hole (see figs. 3-4, 6) for coupling a screw 500 that cooperates with the implant, wherein the upper interface comprising at least one vertical facet (see fig. 1, 122 extends to the upper region), wherein with respect to claim 8 Conte further teaches the lower interface geometry comprising a morse cone (par. 48, figs. 1-3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the interference geometry taught by Hung/Skvirsky/Jang with the morse cone geometry taught by Conte in order to enhance the accuracy of the fit and proper seating as taught by Conte (see par. 48).
Claim(s) 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung (2014/0113252) in view of Skvirsky et al. (2016/0106523) in view of Jang (KR 100634982) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Eriksson et al. (2012/0009545).
Hung/Skvirsky/Jang teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including the intermediate region and the upper region comprising a surface that enables scanning with intraoral or benchtop scanning equipment (pars. 4, 11, 23, 25, such that the surface is provided with grooves/flats), however, does not specifically teach wherein the intermediate region and the upper region of the multifunctional component comprise a surface treated with a material that enables scanning with intraoral or benchtop scanning equipment and he surface is microscopically modified to enable geometric recognition when using intraoral or benchtop scanning equipment.
Eriksson teaches with respect to claim 24, a multi-function prosthetic component for conventional or digital workflow for implant supported dental prosthesis installation (such that it is capable of use in either) which comprises a lower region 23/24, an intermediate region 20 and an upper region 21, wherein the intermediate region 20 and the upper region 21 of the component comprises a surface treated with a material that enables scanning with intraoral or benchtop scanning equipment (see abstract, pars. 28-39).
With respect to claim 25, Eriksson further teaching the surface is microscopically modified to enable geometric recognition when using intraoral or benchtop scanning equipment (pars. 39, 41, 58, 60, 77).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Hung/Skvirsky/Jang with the surface taught by Eriksson in order to improve the precision of a scanning of the component (pars. 20, 23, 38).
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung (2014/0113252) in view of Skvirsky et al. (2016/0106523) in view of Jang (KR 100634982) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Lustig et al. (6,358,052).
Hung/Skvirsky/Jang teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Hung teaching the facets of the abutment are vertical in form the top to its medial portion, however, does not specifically teach the facets of the abutment begin to softly concave until they reach the tapered seating region.
Lustig teaches an abutment comprising at least one vertical facet 320 extending form a top of the abutment and being softly concave until it reaches the tapered seating (see fig. 14, such that the tapered seating is the section directly below the facet, such as where arrow 315 points). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the shape of the facet taught by Hung/Skvirsky/Jang to include the concave portion taught by Lustig in order to help secure an impression material, such that it is a deeper facet that helps secure the impression. Further it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the shape of the facet taught by Hung/Skvirsky/Jang with the shape taught by Lustig as a matter of obvious design choice. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04, IV, B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 29, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant agues that each of the independent claims have been amended to include the limitation including “wherein the substantially cylindrical body does not extend radially in diameter beyond the diameter of the trapezoidal body”. However, it is noted that the applicant has not added the above limitation to the claims and therefore the applicant’s arguments are moot.
While it is noted that the limitation argued above is NOT claimed, it is noted that view of figure 2 of Hung appears to show the argued limitation and therefore, even if added to the claim, would appear to not overcome the current rejection.
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 HEIDI MARIE EIDE whose telephone number is (571)270-3081. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-4:00.
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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at 571-270-5614. 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.
/HEIDI M EIDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772 2/9/2026