Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1-2, 5, 7-16 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Memmolo et al. (2007/0072148) in view of Schatz et al. (2007/0087305) in view of Hayashi et al. (2007/0105067).
Memmolo teaches a dental tool comprising a shaft extending along a longitudinal axis and including a distal end (towards 12) and a proximal end (towards 2), and a distal end region of the tool comprising a functional element 13, the functional element comprising an annular resilient retention member 13 (see figs. 2, 2a, 4, 4a, pars. 25-26) configured to axially retain a cooperating component (such that the cooperating element is implant 14) by forming a snap/press fit with an internal surface of the cooperating component (par. 28, “the implant undercut 18 designed for subsequent insertion of the dental implant 14 is also dimensioned suitably for clampingly receiving the clamp ring 13”), wherein the annular resilient retention member is a hollow band (see figs 2-2a, 4-4a, such that it extends around the shaft). Memmolo teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the annular resilient retention member is formed from a titanium alloy and wherein the hollow band has a central axis and comprises one kink, and the one kink is formed by a section of the hollow band that is bend around an axis remote from the central axis at a smaller radius of curvature than a remainder of the hollow band.
PNG
media_image1.png
277
496
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Schatz teaches with respect to claim 1, a dental tool comprising a shaft 4 extending along a longitudinal axis and including a distal end and a proximal end, and a distal end region of the tool comprising a functional element 12, the functional element comprising an annular resilient retention member configured to axially retain a cooperating component by forming a snap fit or press fit with an internal surface of the cooperating component (see pars. 34-35, the cooperating element being the head housing 1), wherein the annular resilient retention member is a hollow band, the hollow band has a central axis, and comprises only a single kink 13, and the single kink is formed by a section of the hollow band that is bent around an axis remote from the central axis at a smaller radius of curvature than a remainder of the hollow band (see fig. 7, par. 35, such that the kink 13 has a first radius which is about the remote axis and the other curvatures 31 have a second radius which is about the central axis). 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 annular resilient retention member taught by Memmolo with the shape taught by Schatz in order to guarantee a secure and complete engagement (see par. 35 of Schatz). It is also noted that Schatz teaches the annular resilient retention member can be circular (par. 35) as taught by Memmolo and therefore, Schatz discloses that the two shape are equivalents. Memmolo/Schatz teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the annular resilient retention ember is formed of a titanium alloy.
Hayashi teaches with respect to claim 1, a dental element comprising a shaft extending along a longitudinal axis and including a distal end and a proximal end (see figures 8-9B, such that the dental tool is the implant), and a distal end region of the tool comprising a functional element (portion of implant with groove 8), the functional element comprising a metal annular resilient retention member 10 configured to axially retain a cooperating component by forming a snap fit or a press fit with an internal surface of the cooperating component (such that the dental crown 12 is the cooperating member, see pars. 41, 43-44), wherein the annular resilient retention member is a hollow band, and is formed from a titanium alloy (see par. 42) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Memmolo/Schatz with the annular retention member of titanium as taught by Hayashi as an obvious matter of design choice since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07). It is noted that Hayashi teaches the material of the band can be a variety of materials including polymers (see par. 15).
With respect to claim 2, Memmolo/Schatz/Hayashi teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Memmolo further teaches wherein the band is discontinuous (see figs. 4-4a).
With respect to claim 5, Memmolo/Schatz/Hayashi teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Memmolo further teaches wherein the band has at least one protrusion on its outer surface (see annaoted figure below).
PNG
media_image2.png
239
331
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 7, Memmolo/Schatz/Hayashi teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Memmolo further teaches the band comprises a ring (see figs. 4-4a, such that it is a discontinuous ring).
With respect to claim 8, Memmolo/Schatz/Hayashi teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Memmolo further teaches wherein the proximal end region of the tool comprises a connection means 3a for connection to a manipulating device (see par. 22, such that rotational tool or adaptor is the manipulating device), the connection means comprising a further annular resilient retention member (see par. 22, such that it is an O-ring). Memmolo teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, is silent regarding the annular resilient retention member being metal.
Hayashi teaches a metal annular resilient retention member (par. 41). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the further annular resilient retention member of Memmolo/Schatz with the annular retention member of metal as taught by Hayashi since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07). It is noted that the annular retention member of both Memmolo and Hayashi are performing the same function of attaching two elements together.
With respect to claim 9, Memmolo/Schatz/Hayashi teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Memmolo further teaches wherein the connection means further compress a torque receiving section 2 for receiving torque from a manipulating device (see fig. 1, par. 22).
With respect to claim 10, Memmolo/Schatz/Hayashi teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Memmolo further teaches wherein the shaft comprise an annular groove 11 dimensioned to accommodate the annular resilient retention member (see fig. 2a).
With respect to claim 11, Memmolo/Schatz/Hayashi teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Memmolo further teaches wherein a depth of the annular groove is less than a cross-sectional diameter of the band such that the band protrudes beyond the annular groove (see annaoted figures below, such that it protrudes beyond both the upper and lower diameter of the groove).
PNG
media_image3.png
420
584
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 12, Memmolo/Schatz/Hayashi teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Memmolo further teaches wherein the annular resilient retention member 13 is connected to an external surface of the shaft (see figs. 2-2a).
With respect to claim 13, Memmolo/Schatz/Hayashi teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Memmolo further teaches wherein the functional element further comprising a torque applying means 10 suitable for transmitting torque to a dental implant, and the annular resilient retention member is configured to axially connected the dental implant to the tool (see abstract, par. 27).
With respect to claim 14, Memmolo/Schatz/Hayashi teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Memmolo further teaches wherein the band comprises a circumferential gap (see figs. 4-4a, such that the gap is between the ends of the band).
With respect to claim 15, Memmolo/Schatz/Hayashi teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Memmolo further teaches a shoulder on a proximal end side of the annular resilient retention member along the longitudinal axis of the tool (see annaoted figure above).
With respect to claim 16, Memmolo/Schatz/Hayashi teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Memmolo further teaches a break zone 30 located between the distal end and the proximal end, the break zone being adapted to break above a predetermined amount of torque, wherein the annular resilient retention member is positioned distally of the brake zone (see fig. 1 such that retention member is retained in groove 11 which his distal of the zone 30, par. 23, such that it is adapted to break as claimed).
Claim 4 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Memmolo et al. (2007/0072148) in view of Schatz et al. (2007/0087305) in view of Hayashi et al. (2007/0105067) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kumar et al. (2003/0224325).
Memmolo/Schatz/Hayashi teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, is silent with respect to the material of shaft of the dental tool, therefore does not specifically teach the annular resilient retention member is formed of the same material as the shaft of the dental tool at a location at which the annular resilient retention member is connected.
Kumar teaches a tool comprising a shaft extending along a longitudinal axis and including a distal end (end with retention element 30) and a proximal end (end near 16) and a distal end region comprising a functional element, the functional element comprising a metal resilient retention member 34 (par. 34) and further with respect to claim 4, wherein the resilient retention member 34 is formed of the same material as the shaft of the dental tool at the location at which the resilient retention member is connected (pars.21 and 34 such that the shaft and biasing member can both be made of stainless steel or titanium). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the material of the shaft of the tool taught by Memmolo/Schatz/Hayashi to be the same material as the retention element as taught by Kumar since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07). Such as the selection of the two metal materials as shown as being selected due to being biocompatible and a corrosive resistant material.
Claims 18-20 and 22 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Padros Fradera (EP 1974680) in view of Kumar et al. (2003/0224325).
Padros Fradera discloses with respect to claim 18, a dental tool comprising a shaft extending along a longitudinal axis and including a distal end and a proximal end (see annotated figure), and a distal end region of the tool comprising a functional element 6, the functional element comprising a metal annular resilient retention member configured to axially retain a cooperating component by forming a snap fit or a press fit with an internal surface of the cooperating component (see annotated figure below, pars. 37, 39), wherein the annular resilient retention member 6 is a band, and is formed from a stainless steel (par. 39, “preferably of stainless steel’, see figs. 3-4). Padros Fradera teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the annular resilient retention member is formed of the same material as the shaft of the dental tool at a location at which the annular resilient retention member is connected.
PNG
media_image4.png
738
750
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Kumar teaches a tool comprising a shaft extending along a longitudinal axis and including a distal end (end with retention element 30) and a proximal end (end near 16) and a distal end region comprising a functional element, the functional element comprising a metal resilient retention member 34 (par. 34) and further with respect to claim 4, wherein the resilient retention member 34 is formed of the same material as the shaft of the dental tool at the location at which the resilient retention member is connected (pars.21 and 34 such that the shaft and biasing member can both be made of stainless steel or titanium). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the material of the shaft of the tool taught by Memmolo/Hayashi to be the same material as the retention element as taught by Kumar since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07). Such as the selection of the two metal materials as shown as being selected due to being biocompatible and a corrosive resistant material.
With respect to claim 18, Padros Fradera/Kumar teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Padros Fradera further teaching wherein the band is discontinuous (see par. 37, “open elastic washer 6”, see fig. 4, par. 39, “it ends 6a and 6b tend to separate”).
With respect to claim 19, Padros Fradera/Kumar teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Padros Fradera further teaching wherein the band has at least one protrusion on its outer surface (see fig. 6, annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image5.png
378
436
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 22, Padros Fradera/Kumar teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Padros Fradera further teaching the band 13 comprises a ring (such as it is an elastic washer, i.e. an adjustable ring).
Claim 21 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Padros Fradera (EP 1974680) in view of Kumar et al. (2003/0224325) further in view of Hayashi et al. (2007/0105067).
Padros Fradera/Kumar teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach wherein the band comprises at least one kink.
Hayashi teaches a dental element comprising a shaft extending along a longitudinal axis and including a distal end and a proximal end (see figures 8-9B, such that the dental tool is the implant), and a distal end region of the tool comprising a functional element (portion of implant with groove 8), the functional element comprising a metal annular resilient retention member 10 configured to axially retain a cooperating component by forming a snap fit or a press fit with an internal surface of the cooperating component (such that the dental crown 12 is the cooperating member, see pars. 41, 43-44), wherein the annular resilient retention member is a hollow band, and is formed from stainless steel (see par. 42) and further with respect to claim 22, the band one kink (par. 42, such that it is oval shaped and as defined by the applicant has a kink since it is not uniformly curved, such that the side opposite the opening is the kinked portion in that it forms a protrusion which extends along the longitudinal length of the band, see fig. 10B). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the resilient hollow band taught by Padros Fradera/Kumar with the resilient hollow band having a kink as taught by Hayashi in order to adjust the strength during connection and disconnection (see par. 42 of Hayashi).
Claim 17 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Memmolo et al. (2007/0072148) in view of Padros Fradera (EP 1974680) in view of Kumar et al. (2003/0224325).
With respect to claim 17, Memmolo teaches a combination comprising a dental tool 1 and a dental implant 14, the dental tool comprising a shaft extending along a longitudinal axis and including a distal end (towards 12) and a proximal end (towards 2), and a distal end region of the tool comprising a functional element 13, the functional element comprising an annular resilient retention member 13 (see figs. 2, 2a, 4, 4a, pars. 25-26) configured to axially retain a cooperating component (such that the cooperating element is implant 14) by forming a snap/press fit with an internal surface of the cooperating component (par. 28, “the implant undercut 18 designed for subsequent insertion of the dental implant 14 is also dimensioned suitably for clampingly receiving the clamp ring 13”), wherein the annular resilient retention member is a band (see figs 2-2a, 4-4a, such that it extends around the shaft). Memmolo teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the annular resilient retention member is metal which is titanium alloy and the shaft and the annular resilient retention member are formed of the same material.
Padros Fradera teaches with respect to claim 17, a dental tool comprising a shaft extending along a longitudinal axis and including a distal end and a proximal end (see annotated figure), and a distal end region of the tool comprising a functional element 6, the functional element comprising a metal annular resilient retention member configured to axially retain a cooperating component by forming a snap fit or a press fit with an internal surface of the cooperating component (see annotated figure below, pars. 37, 39), wherein the annular resilient retention member 6 is a band, and is formed from a stainless steel (par. 39, “preferably of stainless steel”, see figs. 3-4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Memmolo with the annular retention member of stainless steel as taught by Padros Fradera since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07). It is noted that the annular retention member of both Memmolo and Padros Fradera are performing the same function of attaching two elements together. It is further noted that Padros Fradera teaches the elastic means/retention element can be made of a rubber material such as silicone. Memmolo/Padros Fradera teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the annular resilient retention member is metal which is titanium alloy and the shaft and the annular resilient retention member are formed of the same material.
Kumar teaches a tool comprising a shaft extending along a longitudinal axis and including a distal end (end with retention element 30) and a proximal end (end near 16) and a distal end region comprising a functional element, the functional element comprising a metal resilient retention member 34 (par. 34) and further with respect to claim 4, wherein the resilient retention member 34 is formed of the same material as the shaft of the dental tool at the location at which the resilient retention member is connected (pars.21 and 34 such that the shaft and biasing member can both be made of stainless steel or titanium). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the material of the shaft of the tool taught by Memmolo/Hayashi to be the same material as the retention element as taught by Kumar since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07). Such as the selection of the two metal materials as shown as being selected due to being biocompatible and a corrosive resistant material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-16 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 November 14, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues with respect to claims 17-18 that the prior art of Kumar does not teach the limitation of the annular resilient retention member and the shaft and the annular resilient retention member are formed of the same material. The applicant argues that Kumar teaches the ball element 32 is not of the same material as the shaft. However, it is noted that as discussed above in detailed action, the ball element 32 is NOT the resilient retention member. It is noted that the spring element 34 is the resilient retention member which is the same material as the shaft as taught in cited paragraphs 21 and 34. It is also noted that the combination of the prior art would teach the claimed limitations. Such that Padros Fradera teaches the annular resilient retention member is made of stainless steel and the prior art of Kumar teaches the shaft being made of stainless steel. It is noted that Kumar has been used to teach that it is known to make a resilient retention member (i.e. a spring) out of the same material of the shaft. The applicant’s arguments are not persuasive as discussed above in detail since the applicant is arguing the material of element 32 which was NOT used to teach the resilient retention member.
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, Eric Rosen can be reached on 571-270-7855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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 11/25/2025
Prosecution Insights