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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/26/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new limitations are addressed by a new grounds of rejection in view of the newly applied prior art of Zipprich et al. (US 2011/0223562 A1) alone and in combination with Jacoby. Applicant had argued that the previous prior art of Niznick would not have been modified into the tapered bore of Jacoby, however as both Jacoby and Zipprich have tapered bores/channels this argument is not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 55, 57, 67, 68, 72, and 73 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zipprich et al. (US 2011/0223562 A1).
Regarding claims 55, Zipprich discloses a dental implant for insertion into bone tissue of a patient (title and abstract), comprising:
a core body having an apical end and a coronal end (Fig. 2 having a top/gingival/coronal end and distal/apical, bottom end), and
at least one thread extending outwardly from said core body (Fig. 1 element 6),
wherein the core body comprises a channel which is open to the coronal end and extends along a longitudinal direction of the implant from the coronal end towards the apical end (Fig. 1 element 10), and
wherein the core body has a drive zone (Fig. 1 interior of 1 receiving 8), in which drive zone a cross-section of the channel perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the implant has a cross-sectional shape having a circular center (Figs. 3/27 etc. circular center i.e. central longitudinal axis, see image below showing each cross-sectional shape having within it a circle) and a plurality of radially convex portions arranged along a circumference of the cross-section of the channel (Fig. 27 elements at HRL-1 and HRL-2), wherein each of the plurality of radially convex portions comprise sidewalls extending between the circular center and a respective circle around a center of the cross-section (Fig. 27 a circle with a center point and circumference at radius HRL-1 would be one circle and another with a center point and a radius of HRL-2 would be a different respective circle), each radially outermost point of the plurality of radially convex portions lies on the respective circle around the center of the cross-section, at least two of said circles having different radii from each other (Fig. 27 a circle with a center point at the longitudinal axis and circumference of radius HRL-1 would be one circle and a circle with the same center point and a radius of HRL-2 would be a larger respective circle and thus different, paragraph [0077] lines 1-10 disclosing that one of the radially convex portions would have a differently increased length radius),
wherein the core body further has a coronal portion (Fig. 2 element 10 nearer to opening of 2), in which coronal portion a cross-section of the channel perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the implant has a number of main directions (Fig. 27 directions from central axis along HRL-1 and HRL-2 being main directions), each of the number of main directions comprising a radius measuring a distance between the center of the cross-section and a contour of the cross-section of the channel is a relative maximum value and thus a higher value than in neighboring orientations of each of the number of main directions (See image below where an apex at each of HRL-1 and HRL-2 is a relative maximum ), wherein the coronal portion is configured to be used as an index (Fig. 27 being triangular allows for use as an index), and
wherein the drive zone is arranged apically of the coronal portion (Fig. 1/2 a coronal top portion of 8 having portions being more coronal and a middle area and thus a drive zone is more apical to a coronal portion zone),
wherein the coronal portion has a tapered configuration such that in the coronal portion lateral dimensions of the cross-section of the channel perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the implant decrease along the longitudinal direction from the coronal end towards the apical end (Fig. 1 showing the tapering of the areas of 10 that receive 8, paragraph [0045] lines 9-10 disclosing the taper towards the apical end).
PNG
media_image1.png
392
850
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 57, Zipprich further discloses where the number of main directions are three or more (See figure above having at least 3 in Fig. 27 and also embodiments of more such as in Figs. 31-36 and 38).
Regarding claim 67, Zipprich further discloses where the sidewalls of the plurality of radially convex portions each have a curved shape that extends from the circular center and the respective circle around the center of the cross section (see image above where the sidewalls are curved and thus are curved from the center circle to a circle having the radius of each sidewall apex).
Regarding claim 68, Zipprich further discloses where the curve shape is an at least partially elliptical or partially oval shape (side images above where the side walls are partially elliptical, paragraph [0073] disclosing the shapes from the curves is elliptical) .
Regarding claim 72, Zipprich further discloses where the cross-section of the coronal portion of the channel is trioval (fig. 25/27, paragraph [0059] lines 12-13 disclosing tri-oval).
Regarding claim 73, Zipprich further discloses where the cross-sectional shape extend along an entire length of the drive zone (Fig. 1/2 and element 27 showing the cross-sectional shape is the whole length of the internal opening and thus the drive zone being a middle portion would have the cross-sectional length along its entire length).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 55, 57, 59-66, 69-71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacoby et al. (US 2017/0049539 A1) in view of Zipprich et al. (US 2011/0223562 A1).
Regarding claim 55 and 71, Jacoby discloses a dental implant for insertion into bone tissue of a patient (title and abstract), comprising:
a core body having an apical end and a coronal end (Figs. 1, 4, 6 etc. having a top/gingival/coronal end and distal/apical, bottom end), and
at least one thread extending outwardly from said core body (throughout figures showing external thread, paragraphs [0100] an [0101] disclosing the body having threads),
wherein the core body comprises a channel which is open to the coronal end and extends along a longitudinal direction of the implant from the coronal end towards the apical end (Fig. 1a element 160), and
wherein the core body has a drive zone (Fig. 1c element 150), in which drive zone a cross-section of the channel perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the implant has a cross-sectional shape having a circular center (Fig. 1c circular inner perimeter of elements 150a/b) and a plurality of radially convex portions arranged along a circumference of the cross-section of the channel (Fig. 1c elements 150a/b being convex portions outward), wherein each of the plurality of radially convex portions comprise sidewalls extending between the circular center and a respective circle around a center of the cross-section, each radially outermost point of the plurality of radially convex portions lies on the respective circle around the center of the cross-section, at least two of said circles having different radii from each other (Fig. 1c convex notch 150a having a different depth and thus radius from the center of the implant than 150b, paragraph [0097] all disclosing the different plurality of convex portions having shallow notches 150a and deeper notches 150b thus having different radii),
wherein the core body further has a coronal portion (Fig. 4a element 460 similar to fig. 1 etc.) , in which the coronal portion a cross-section of the channel perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the implant has a number of main directions (Fig. 1a/3a/4a, etc. showing the main directions in 160/460 area as a triangle shape), each of the number of main directions comprising a radius measuring a distance between the center of the cross-section and an outer contour is a relative maximum value and thus a higher value than in neighboring orientations of each of the number of main directions (Figs. 1a/3z etc. The radius of each point on the triangles being higher than the thinner walls between each vertex), wherein the coronal portion is configured to be used as an index (Figs. 1a/3a etc. being triangular allows for use as an index), and
wherein the drive zone is arranged apically of the coronal portion (Fig. 4a showing the coronal portion being coronal to the drive zone 450a and thus the drive zone is more apical to the coronal zone), and wherein the coronal portion has a tapered configuration such that, in the coronal portion, lateral dimensions of the cross-section of the channel perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the implant decrease along the longitudinal direction from the coronal end towards the apical end (Fig. 4a showing the cross section of 460 being tapered and the cross section of the channel decreasing from coronal to apical direction).
Regarding claims 55 and 71, Jacoby discloses structure substantially identical to the instant application as discussed above but fails to explicitly disclose where the cross section of the coronal portion has a number of main directions each comprising a radius measuring a distance between the center of the cross section and a contour of the cross section of the channel, that is a relative maximum value and thus a higher value than in neighboring orientation of each of the main directions, nor where the cross section of the coronal portion of the channel is trioval.
Zipprich discloses a dental implant for insertion into bone tissue of a patient (title and abstract), comprising a core body having an apical end and a coronal end (Fig. 2 having a top/gingival/coronal end and distal/apical, bottom end), and
at least one thread extending outwardly from said core body (Fig. 1 element 6),
wherein the core body comprises a channel which is open to the coronal end and extends along a longitudinal direction of the implant from the coronal end towards the apical end (Fig. 1 element 10), and
wherein the core body has a drive zone (Fig. 1 interior of 1 receiving 8), in which drive zone a cross-section of the channel perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the implant has a cross-sectional shape having a circular center (Figs. 3/27 etc. circular center i.e. central longitudinal axis, see image below showing each cross-sectional shape having within it a circle) and a plurality of radially convex portions arranged along a circumference of the cross-section of the channel (Fig. 27 elements at HRL-1 and HRL-2), wherein each of the plurality of radially convex portions comprise sidewalls extending between the circular center and a respective circle around a center of the cross-section (Fig. 27 a circle with a center point and circumference at radius HRL-1 would be one circle and another with a center point and a radius of HRL-2 would be a different respective circle), each radially outermost point of the plurality of radially convex portions lies on the respective circle around the center of the cross-section, at least two of said circles having different radii from each other (Fig. 27 a circle with a center point at the longitudinal axis and circumference of radius HRL-1 would be one circle and a circle with the same center point and a radius of HRL-2 would be a larger respective circle and thus different, paragraph [0077] lines 1-10 disclosing that one of the radially convex portions would have a differently increased length radius),
wherein the core body further has a coronal portion (Fig. 2 element 10 nearer to opening of 2), in which coronal portion a cross-section of the channel perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the implant has a number of main directions (Fig. 27 directions from central axis along HRL-1 and HRL-2 being main directions), each of the number of main directions comprising a radius measuring a distance between the center of the cross-section and a contour of the cross-section of the channel is a relative maximum value and thus a higher value than in neighboring orientations of each of the number of main directions (See image below where an apex at each of HRL-1 and HRL-2 is a relative maximum ), wherein the coronal portion is configured to be used as an index (Fig. 27 being triangular allows for use as an index) and where the central channel coronal portion has a cross-section that is trioval in shape (Figs. 25-30, translation page 5 lines 33-36 disclosing “trioval” for a cross section of the mold recess).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the cross section of a coronal portion having a number of main directions each comprising a radius measuring a distance between the center of the cross section and a contour of the cross section of the channel, that is a relative maximum value and thus a higher value than in neighboring orientation of each of the main directions as taught by Zipprich into the shape of the cross section of the coronal portion as taught by Jacoby for the purpose of providing for a cross section shape that would provide a high level of tightness which would improve bacteria infiltration avoidance while providing suitable indexing of the implant in a reliable manner and further providing for a cross section shape that would counteract twisting as taught by Zipprich (paragraph [0013] lines 3-6 and [0014] lines 1-6, paragraph [0006] lines 1-7).
Regarding claim 57, Jacoby further discloses wherein the number of main directions are three or more (fig. 1a showing three main directions, paragraph [0124] all disclosing the main directions can be greater than 3 by being n-fold symmetrical rotational symmetry).
Regarding claims 59 and 71, Jacoby further discloses where the plurality of radially convex portions comprise first radially convex portions (Fig. 1c elements 150B) and second radially convex portions (Fig. 150A), the radially outermost points of the first radially convex portions all lie on a single first circle around the center of the cross-section (Fig. 1c elements 150B being all the same depth and thus all lie on the same fist circle), the radially outermost points of the second radially convex portions all lie on a single second circle around the center of the cross-section (Fig. 1c elements 150A all being the same depth and thus lie on the same second circle), the second circle has a smaller radius than the first circle (paragraph [0097] all disclosing the different plurality of convex portions having shallow notches 150a and deeper notches 150b thus having different radii with 150a being shallower and thus a smaller circle than 150b) , and the first radially convex portions and the second radially convex portions are alternatingly arranged along the circumference of the cross-section and further regarding claim 71 that the number of the first radial convex portions and the second radially convex portions are the same (Fig. 1c elements 150a and 150b alternate evenly).
Regarding claims 60 and 61 Jacoby further discloses a number of cutting flutes are symmetrically provided in a coronal portion of an implant (Fig. 1c elements 101).
Regarding Claim 62 Jacoby further disclose wherein said core body comprises a first core shaped zone (zone formed by the cross section shown in FIG. 1c) , in which first core shaped zone the cross-section of said core body has a number of main directions (three main directions as shown in FIG. 1A and C) in which the radius measuring the distance between the center of the cross section and its outer contour takes a relative maximum value and thus a higher value than in neighboring orientations (see figure below), and wherein each cutting flute, as seen in orientational direction around a central longitudinal axis of said core body, is positioned at a given rotational offset to a neighboring main direction (see figure below).
PNG
media_image2.png
482
668
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 63, Jacoby further discloses wherein the number of cutting flutes, equals to the number of main directions (the cutting directions and flutes are both three as shown above in FIG. 1c).
Regarding claim 64, Jacoby further discloses wherein the cutting flutes are positioned in a threaded region of the implant, each cutting flute being positioned with a displacement relative to its neighboring cutting flute, such that in their positioned the cutting flutes follow a pitch of the thread around the longitudinal axis of the implant (Fig. 1b shown at 130 the cutting flutes end at the threaded section to intersect the threads) .
Regarding claim 65, Jacoby further discloses wherein the cross-section of the channel perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the implant has a plurality of radially concave portions alternatively arranged with the plurality of radially convex portions along the circumference of the cross-section (Fig. 1c inward portions spaced between each element 150a and 150b).
Regarding claim 66, Jacoby further discloses wherein the radially convex portions and the radially concave portions are arranged directly adjacent to each other (Fig. 1c inward portions spaced between each element 150a and 150b and thus the portion between 150a and 150b for each notch ins directly adjacent).
Regarding claim 69, Jacoby further discloses wherein the number of radially convex portions and the number of radially concave portions are the same (Fig. 1c inward portions spaced between each element 150a and 150b and thus the number of convex and concave are the same at six each).
Regarding claim 70, Jacoby further discloses wherein the number of radially convex portions and the number of radially concave portions are both six (Fig. 1c inward portions spaced between each element 150a and 150b and thus the number of convex and concave are the same at six each).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW P SAUNDERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3250. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eric Rosen can be reached at (571) 270-7855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.P.S/ Examiner, Art Unit 3772 10/17/2025
/THOMAS C BARRETT/ SPE, Art Unit 3799