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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 9, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: On the last line of page 1 of the claim onto the first line of page 2 of the claim “at least one neck linked to a the at least one top surface of the intermediate region” is believed to be in error for -at least one neck linked to the at least one top surface of the abutment-. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2 of the claim “grooveextending” is believed to be in error for -groove extending-. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3, 5-14, 16-17, 19-28 and 41 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 claimed substantially trapezoidal body and substantially cylindrical body “being part of the upper interface structure” is unclear. It is unclear what additional structure of the upper interface is being claimed and how the claimed trapezoidal body and cylindrical body are related to it along with the claimed vertical facet of the upper region. It is noted for examination purposes, the claimed trapezoidal body and cylindrical body are being interpreted as the upper interface structure and the claimed vertical facet is on at least one of the trapezoidal or cylindrical body portions, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify.
Further with respect to claim 1, the claimed “substantially trapezoidal body” is unclear. It is unclear what shape is being claimed due to the use of “substantially” it is noted that for examination purposes, the limitation is being interested as having at least two flat parallel sides, however, that applicant should amend the claim to clarify what is being claimed.
The same issues applied to the limitation of “substantially cylindrical” and it is noted that the limitation is being interpreted as a cylindrical shape having at least one flat side, however, the applicant should amend the claimed to clarify.
The same issues apply to independent claim 16
With respect to claims 8 and 23, it is unclear if the applicant is trying to further limit a portion of the lower interface or further define the lower interface. It is noted that for examination purposes, the limitation is being interpreted as further limiting a claimed region of the lower interface including at least the anti-rotational interface.
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) 1-2, 7-9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 101259940) in view of Sapkos (5,816,809) in view of Eriksson (2012/0009545) as evidence by Niznick (4,758,161).
Kim teaches a multifunctional prosthetic component for conventional or digital workflow for implant supported dental prosthesis installation configured to be removably attached to an implant 20 or implant analog, the component comprising a lower region 340 comprising a lower interface which cooperates with an implant interface, wherein the lower interface has, in a bottom portion, an anti-rotational element 347 and in an upper portion, a lower surface has a transmucosal region 341; and an intermediate region comprising an abutment 330 which is attached to an upper end of the transmucosal region (see figs. 9-10), wherein the abutment has at least one top surface (see figs. 9-10, annotated figure below), an upper region 310/320 defined by at least one upper interface surface comprising a hole 305 for coupling a screw that cooperates with the implant (see par. 68 of translation), wherein the upper interface comprises at least one vertical facet 312/322, wherein a joining portion which is part of the upper region and which joins the intermediate region and the upper region configures a cutting location to separate the upper region from the abutment, and the joining portion constitutes a neck 327 linked to the top surface of the abutment (see pars. 28, 41, 66 of translation), wherein at least one perimeter groove 332 of the abutment configured as a cut-off marking to adjust a height of the abutment (see figs. 9-10, such that the groove functions as claimed) as evidence by Niznick (see col. 2, ll. 27-30). Such that the grooves are configured as claimed. This is further evidence by Kim in which Kim teaches groove 327 is configured as a cut-off marking. Such that the grooves can function as claimed. Kim further teaches wherein the intermediate region and the upper region of the multifunctional component comprises a surface to be scanned (see pars. 27, 34, 41, 67 of translation) and wherein the neck supports at least one substantially trapezoidal body 320 (see figs. 9-10, pars. 29, 34, 65, such that Kim teaches at least two parallel flats which is substantially trapezoidal as claimed) which supports a substantially cylindrical body 310 with a flat top surface (see figs. 9-10, pars. 34, 65, such that it is a cylindrical body with flats, therefore substantially cylindrical as claimed), the at least one substantially trapezoidal body and the substantially cylindrical body being a part of the upper interface structure (see detailed rejection above, figs. 9-10, such that the bodies are the upper interface structure). Kim teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the abutment comprising a tapered seating region, the intermediate region and the upper region of the multifunctional component comprising a surface treated with a material that enables scanning.
PNG
media_image1.png
411
355
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sapkos teaches a multifunction prosthetic component, the component comprising a lower region comprising a lower interface which cooperates with an implant interface, wherein the lower interface has a bottom portion 201, in an upper portion a lower surface 212 has a transmucosal region, and an intermediate region 214/213 comprising an abutment 213 comprising a tapered seating region 214 which is attached to an upper end of the transmucosal region 212, wherein the abutment has at least one top surface (the surface between 244 and 216), an upper region 222 defined by at least one upper interface structure (see fig. 2), wherein a joining portion which is part of the upper region and which joins the intermediate region and the upper region configured a cutting location to separate the upper region form the abutment, and the joining portion constitutes a neck 216 linked to the upper surface of the abutment (see fig. 2). 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 taught by Kim as evidence by Niznik to includes the tapered seating region taught by Sapkos to more easily seat the prosthesis (see col. 4, ll. 60-63). Kim/Sapkos teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including Kim teaching scanning the abutment with intraoral scanning equipment (such that the scan is done intraorally), however, does not specifically teach 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.
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 Kim/Sapkos as evidence by Niznik with the surface taught by Eriksson to improve the precision of a scanning of the component (pars. 20, 23, 38).
With respect to claim 2, Kim/Sapkos/Eriksson as evidenced by Niznick teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Kim further teaches 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 par. 67 of translation which teaches the abutment being used in an impression method, as a scan body and as a temporary abutment). Such that it is noted that the abutment taught by Kim is configured as claimed. While silent as to the impression method, open or closed tray, the structure can be used with either an open or closed tray for obtaining an impression and therefore, the claimed structure is configured as claimed.
With respect to claim 7, Kim/Sapkos/Eriksson as evidenced by Niznick teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Kim further teaches wherein the at least one vertical facet of the upper interface is rotationally indexed with the anti-rotation element along a longitudinal axis of the component (see pars. 35, 37, 60, 65 of translation).
With respect to claim 8, Kim/Sapkos/Eriksson as evidenced by Niznick teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Kim further teaches wherein a geometry of the lower interface comprises one of the following interfaces: morse cone, external hexagon, or internal hexagon (see fig. 9, par. 36 ,45, 68 of translation).
With respect to claim 9, Kim/Sapkos/Eriksson as evidenced by 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, wherein the microscopically modified surface is the surface treated with the material that enables scanning with intraoral or benchtop scanning equipment (pars. 39, 41, 58, 60, 77).
With respect to claim 12, Kim/Sapkos/Eriksson as evidenced by Niznick teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Sapkos further teaches an upper portion of the abutment has a smaller cross section than a region below it (see fig. 2, such that the abutment is tapered with the upper portion having a smaller cross section than a lower portion). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the abutment taught by Kim as evidence by Niznik with the tapered abutment taught by Sapkos to provide sufficient holding or cementation surface while accommodating minor post misalignment (see col. 5, ll. 45-52). It is noted that the combination of Kim/Sapkos teaches the upper portion of the abutment has a smaller cross section than a cross section of a region located below the at least one perimeter groove, such that the grooved abutment of Kim is modified to be tapered, such that an upper portion would have a smaller cross section than a lower portion, i.e. a portion below the groove.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 101259940) in view of Sapkos (5,816,809) in view of Eriksson (2012/0009545) as evidence by Niznick (4,758,161) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Niznick (4,758,161).
With respect to claim 3, Kim teaches the abutment comprises a body, the at least one top surface and that at least one perimeter groove, however, does not specifically teach the abutment body is a body of substantially tapered shaped supported by the tapered seating region and at least one substantially vertical facet.
Sapkos teaches the abutment comprises a body 213 of substantially tapered shaped supported by the tapered seating region 214 and the at least one top surface (see fig. 2, detailed rejection above). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the abutment taught by Kim with the tapered abutment taught by Sapkos to provide sufficient holding or cementation surface while accommodating minor post misalignment (see col. 5, ll. 45-52). Kim/Sapkos/Eriksson as evidenced by Niznick teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach at least one substantially vertical facet.
Niznick teaches a dental abutment comprising a body 27 of substantially tapered shape, at least one top surface 24, at least one perimeter groove 20/21/22/23/28 and at least one substantially vertical facet 19. 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 taught by Kim/Sapkos/Eriksson as evidence by Niznik to include the at least one substantially vertically facet as taught by Niznik to prevent rotation of the prosthesis on the abutment.
Claim(s) 5 and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 101259940) in view of Sapkos (5,816,809) in view of Eriksson (2012/0009545) as evidence by Niznick (4,758,161) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hung (2014/0113252).
Kim/Sapkos/Eriksson as evidence by Niznik teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach wherein the upper interface comprises at least one groove extending in a circumferential direction, wherein that at least one groove extends in the circumferential direction along a surface such that the groove intersects the at least one vertical facet of the upper interface and the at least one groove extends in a circumferential direction is configured to secure a perimeter shoulder of a positioner cap.
Hung teaches a multifunctional prosthetic component for conventional or digital workflow for implant supported dental prosthesis installation configured to be removably attached to an implant or analog, the component comprising a lower region comprising a lower interface which cooperates with an implant interface, wherein the lower interface has, in a bottom portion 153, an anti-rotational element 151 and, in an upper portion, a lower surface 143 has a transmucosal region; and an intermediate region comprising an abutment 140 comprising 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 figs. 1-3, such that the top surface is the top surface making the bottom surface of groove 13), an upper region 12 defined by at least one upper interface structure 124/123 comprising a hole for coupling a screw that cooperates with the implant (see figs. 1-3),wherein the upper interface comprises at least one vertical facet 121; wherein a joining portion (groove 13) which is part of the upper region and which joins the intermediate region and the upper region configures a cutting location to separate the upper region from the abutment (see par. 46), and the joining portion constitutes a neck linked to the top surface of the abutment (see figs. 1-3, such that the inwards wall portion of the groove is a neck).
Further with respect to claim 5, Hung further teaches wherein the upper interface comprises at least one groove 122 extending in a circumferential direction.
Further with respect to claim 41, Hung further teaches wherein the at least one groove 122 extends in the circumferential direction along a surface such that the groove intersects the at least one vertical facet 121 (see fig. 1) of the upper interface, and the at least one groove extends in the circumferential direction is configured to secure a perimeter shoulder of a positioner cap (see par. 48, such that it is configured to provide retention during impression and therefore, is configured to function as claimed, as it is noted that cap is NOT being claimed).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Kim/Sapkos/Eriksson with the groove as taught by Hung in order to provide additional retention during impression.
Claim(s) 6 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 101259940) in view of Sapkos (5,816,809) in view of Eriksson (2012/0009545) as evidence by Niznick (4,758,161) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Thome et al. (2015/0111175).
Kim/Sapkos/Eriksson as evidenced by Niznik teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach that least one vertical facet of the upper interface is vertically aligned with a facet of the abutment and at least one facet of the abutment is indexed to at least one face of the anti-rotational element of the lower region.
Thome teaches a multifunctional prosthetic component for conventional or digital workflow for implant supported dental prosthesis installation configured to be removably attached to an implant or analog, the component comprising a lower region comprising a lower interface which cooperates with an implant interface, wherein the lower interface has, in a bottom portion, an anti-rotational element 4F and, in an upper portion, a lower surface has a transmucosal region (see annotated figure below); and an intermediate region comprising an abutment comprising a tapered seating region which is attached to an upper end of the transmucosal region (see annotated figure below),, the abutment has at least one top surface (see annaoted figure below), an upper region defined by at least one upper interface structure comprising a hole for coupling a screw 3 that cooperates with the implant (see fig. 1, annotated figure below),wherein the upper interface comprises at least one vertical facet 4A (see fig. 2); wherein a joining portion (4C) which is part of the upper region and which joins the intermediate region and the upper region configures a cutting location to separate the upper region from the abutment (see fig. 5), and the joining portion constitutes a neck linked to the top surface of the abutment (see figs. 2, 5, annaoted figure below).
PNG
media_image2.png
511
624
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 6, Thome further teaches wherein the at least one vertical facet 4Aof the upper interface is vertically aligned with a facet 4D of the abutment (see pars. 16, 18).
With respect to claim 11, Thome further teaches wherein at least one facet 4D of the abutment is indexed to at least one face of the anti-rotational element of the lower region (see pars. 16, 18).
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 taught by Kim/Sapkos/Eriksson as evidence by Niznik to includes a facet on the abutment and have the facet aligned with the facet on the upper interface and anti-rotation element as taught Thome in order to allow the anti-rotational effect and repositioning accuracy of the component on the implant (see pars. 18, 30-31 of Thome).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 101259940) in view of Sapkos (5,816,809) in view of Eriksson (2012/0009545) as evidence by Niznick (4,758,161) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Halldin et al. (2003/0082499).
Kim/Sapkos/Eriksson as evidenced by Niznik teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach wherein at least one facet of the abutment is vertical from the top surface to a medial portion of the abutment, wherein when a lower portion of the abutment from the medial portion of the abutment , the at least one facet begins to softly concave until it reaches the tapered seating region.
Halldin teaches a prosthetic component comprising a lower region comprising a lower interface, wherein the lower interface has in a bottom portion an element 2 and in an upper portion 11 a transmucosal region, and an intermediate region comprising an abutment 3 comprising a tapered seating region 4.
With respect to claim 10, Halldin further teaches at least one facet 15 of the abutment is vertical from the top surface to a medial portion of the abutment (see fig. 1b), wherein when a lower portion of the abutment from the medial portion of the abutment, the at least one facet begins to softly concave until it reaches the tapered seating region (see figs. 1B, 3-4such that in region 9 the facet begins to curve till it reaches the concave seat). 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 taught by Kim/Sapkos/Eriksson as evidenced by Niznik to includes a facet as taught by Halldin to prevent rotation of the prosthetic element attached to the abutment.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 101259940) in view of Sapkos (5,816,809) in view of Eriksson (2012/0009545) as evidence by Niznick (4,758,161) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Skvirsky et al. (2016/0106523).
Kim/Sapkos/Eriksson as evidenced by Niznik teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Kim teaching the device being used for an impression method, 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 14 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 Kim/Sapkos/Eriksson as evidenced by Niznik to includes a positioner cap as taught by Skvirsky in order to provide the impression cap needed to carry out a well-known closed tray impression technique and ensure proper alignment of the cap with the implant.
Claim(s) 16-17, 21, 23, 26 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 101259940) in view of Halldin et al. (2003/0082499) in view of Skvirsky et al. (2016/0106523) in view of Jang (KR 100634982).
Kim teaches a multifunctional prosthetic component for conventional or digital workflow for implant supported dental prosthesis installation configured to be removably attached to an implant 20 or implant analog, the component comprising a lower region 340 comprising a lower interface which cooperates with an implant interface, wherein the lower interface has, in a bottom portion, an anti-rotational element 347 and in an upper portion, a lower surface has a transmucosal region 341; and an intermediate region comprising an abutment 330 which is attached to an upper end of the transmucosal region (see figs. 9-10), wherein the abutment has at least one top surface (see figs. 9-10, annotated figure below), an upper region 310/320 defined by at least one upper interface surface comprising a hole 305 for coupling a screw that cooperates with the implant (see par. 68 of translation), wherein the upper interface comprises at least one vertical facet 312/322, wherein a union portion joining the intermediate region and the upper region configured a cutting location to separate the upper region from the abutment, wherein the upper interface structure comprises at least one neck 327 linked to the top surface of the intermediate portion (see pars. 28, 41, 66 of translation, such that it is the top surface of the abutment), wherein the intermediate region and the upper region of the multifunctional component comprises a surface to be scanned (see pars. 27, 34, 41, 67 of translation) and wherein the neck supports at least one substantially trapezoidal body 320 (see figs. 9-10, pars. 29, 34, 65, such that Kim teaches at least two parallel flats which is substantially trapezoidal as claimed) which supports a substantially cylindrical body 310 with a flat top surface (see figs. 9-10, pars. 34, 65, such that it is a cylindrical body with flats, therefore substantially cylindrical as claimed), the at least one substantially trapezoidal body and the substantially cylindrical body being a part of the upper interface structure (see detailed rejection above, figs. 9-10, such that the bodies are the upper interface structure), a screw 30. Kim teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the abutment comprising a tapered seating region, the intermediate region and the upper region of the multifunctional component comprising a surface treated with a material that enables scanning.
Kim teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Kim teaching the component being used in an impression method, 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 and the abutment comprising a tapered seating region and at least one vertical facet.
Halldin teaches a prosthetic component comprising a lower region comprising a lower interface, wherein the lower interface has in a bottom portion an element 2 and in an upper portion 11 a transmucosal region, and an intermediate region comprising an abutment 3 comprising a tapered seating region 4 and at least one vertical facet 15. 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 taught by Kim as evidenced by Niznik to includes a facet as taught by Halldin to prevent rotation of the prosthetic element attached to the abutment. Kim/Halldin teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach 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.
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 Kim/Halldin to includes a positioner cap as taught by Skvirsky to provide the impression cap needed to carry out a well-known closed tray impression technique and ensure proper alignment of the cap with the implant. Kim/Halldin/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 Kim/Halldin/Skvirsky as evwith 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 Kim/Halldin/Skvirsky 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 17, Kim/Halldin/Skvirsky/Jang teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including Kim teaching the abutment comprising a shaped body, the at least one top surface and at least one perimeter recess 332. Halldin further teaches the abutment comprising a substantially truncated conical shaped body and the at least one substantially vertical facet (see figs. 1a-1b). 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 Kim to have a tapered abutment body to easily guide the prosthetic on the abutment. Such that the tapered surface allows for a guiding surface.
With respect to claim 21, Kim/Halldin/Skvirsky/Jang teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Kim further teaches wherein the at least one vertical facet of the upper interface is rotationally indexed with the anti-rotation element along a longitudinal axis of the component (see pars. 35, 37, 60, 65 of translation).
With respect to claim 23, Kim/Halldin/Skvirsky/Jang teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Kim further teaches wherein a geometry of the lower interface comprises one of the following interfaces: morse cone, external hexagon, or internal hexagon (see fig. 9, par. 36 ,45, 68 of translation).
With respect to claim 26, Kim/Halldin/Skvirsky/Jang teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including Halldin further teaches at least one facet 15 of the abutment is vertical from the top surface to a medial portion of the abutment (see fig. 1b), wherein when a lower portion of the abutment from the medial portion of the abutment, the at least one facet begins to softly concave until it reaches the tapered seating region (see figs. 1B, 3-4such that in region 9 the facet begins to curve till it reaches the concave seat).
With respect to claim 28, Kim/Halldin/Skvirsky/Jang teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Halldin further teaches wherein an upper portion of the abutment has a smaller cross section than the cross section of a lower region (see figs, 1a-1b, such that it is tapered). It is noted that the combination of Kim/Halldin teaches the upper portion of the abutment has a smaller cross section than a cross section of a region located below the at least one perimeter groove, such that the grooved abutment of Kim is modified to be tapered, such that an upper portion would have a smaller cross section than a lower portion, i.e. a portion below the groove. 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 Kim to have a tapered abutment body to easily guide the prosthetic on the abutment. Such that the tapered surface allows for a guiding surface.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 101259940) in view of Halldin et al. (2003/0082499) 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 Hung (2014/0113252).
Kim/Halldin/Skvirsky/Jang teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach wherein the upper interface comprises at least one groove extending in a circumferential direction.
Hung teaches a multifunctional prosthetic component for conventional or digital workflow for implant supported dental prosthesis installation configured to be removably attached to an implant or analog, the component comprising a lower region comprising a lower interface which cooperates with an implant interface, wherein the lower interface has, in a bottom portion 153, an anti-rotational element 151 and, in an upper portion, a lower surface 143 has a transmucosal region; and an intermediate region comprising an abutment 140 comprising 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 figs. 1-3, such that the top surface is the top surface making the bottom surface of groove 13), an upper region 12 defined by at least one upper interface structure 124/123 comprising a hole for coupling a screw that cooperates with the implant (see figs. 1-3),wherein the upper interface comprises at least one vertical facet 121; wherein a joining portion (groove 13) which is part of the upper region and which joins the intermediate region and the upper region configures a cutting location to separate the upper region from the abutment (see par. 46), and the joining portion constitutes a neck linked to the top surface of the abutment (see figs. 1-3, such that the inwards wall portion of the groove is a neck).
Further with respect to claim 19, Hung further teaches wherein the upper interface comprises at least one groove 122 extending in a circumferential direction.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Kim/Halldin/Skvirsky/Jang with the groove as taught by Hung in order to provide additional retention during impression.
Claim(s) 20 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 101259940) in view of Halldin et al. (2003/0082499) 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 Thome et al. (2015/0111175).
Kim/Halldin/Skvirsky/Jang as evidenced by Niznik teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach that least one vertical facet of the upper interface is vertically aligned with a facet of the abutment and at least one facet of the abutment is indexed to at least one face of the anti-rotational element of the lower region.
Thome teaches a multifunctional prosthetic component for conventional or digital workflow for implant supported dental prosthesis installation configured to be removably attached to an implant or analog, the component comprising a lower region comprising a lower interface which cooperates with an implant interface, wherein the lower interface has, in a bottom portion, an anti-rotational element 4F and, in an upper portion, a lower surface has a transmucosal region (see annotated figure below); and an intermediate region comprising an abutment comprising a tapered seating region which is attached to an upper end of the transmucosal region (see annotated figure below),, the abutment has at least one top surface (see annaoted figure below), an upper region defined by at least one upper interface structure comprising a hole for coupling a screw 3 that cooperates with the implant (see fig. 1, annotated figure below),wherein the upper interface comprises at least one vertical facet 4A (see fig. 2); wherein a joining portion (4C) which is part of the upper region and which joins the intermediate region and the upper region configures a cutting location to separate the upper region from the abutment (see fig. 5), and the joining portion constitutes a neck linked to the top surface of the abutment (see figs. 2, 5, annaoted figure below).
PNG
media_image2.png
511
624
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 20, Thome further teaches wherein the at least one vertical facet 4Aof the upper interface is vertically aligned with a facet 4D of the abutment (see pars. 16, 18).
With respect to claim 27, Thome further teaches wherein at least one facet 4D of the abutment is indexed to at least one face of the anti-rotational element of the lower region (see pars. 16, 18).
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 taught by Kim/Halldin/Skvirsky/Jang to includes a facet on the abutment and have the facet aligned with the facet on the upper interface and anti-rotation element as taught Thome in order to allow the anti-rotational effect and repositioning accuracy of the component on the implant (see pars. 18, 30-31 of Thome).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 101259940) in view of Halldin et al. (2003/0082499) in view of Skvirsky et al. (2016/0106523) in view of Jang (KR 100634982) as applied to claim 16 above, and further as evidence by Niznick (4,758,161).
Kim/Halldin/Skvirsky/Jang teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Kim teaching at least one perimeter groove of the abutment configured a cut-off marking to adjust a height of the abutment as evidence by Niznick (see col. 2, ll. 27-30). Such that the grooves are configured as claimed. This is further evidence by Kim in which Kim teaches groove 327 is configured as a cut-off marking. Such that the grooves can function as claimed.
Claim(s) 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 101259940) in view of Halldin et al. (2003/0082499) 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).
Kim/Halldin/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 (see detailed rejection above regarding Kim teaching scanning of the component), 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). 59. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Kim/Halldin/Skvirsky/Jang with the surface taught by Eriksson to improve the precision of a scanning of the component (pars. 20, 23, 38).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 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.
Applicant's arguments filed July 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the component performing the functions of transfer, scanbody, and temporary abutment. It is noted that both the prior art of Hung and newly cited prior art of Kim teaches the component being used in an impression method, a scanning method, and as an abutment. Therefore, it is noted that the component is capable of functioning as claimed. It is noted that the applicant is NOT claiming the method of use, therefore the prior art does not have to teach the component being used in the specific methods, only that it is functionally capable as claimed. It is noted that since the structure claimed is taught by the prior art and the prior art teaches the device for use in similar methods, the device is capable of functioning as claimed and the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The prior art of Verma has been cited teaching a multi-use component.
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 9/1/2026
Prosecution Insights