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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "32" and "52" have both been used to designate Seat portion and Base shoulder for the same location in Fig. 3 and 4.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The concave side profile portion as part of the base of claim 1, is not found.
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.
Claim 1-5, 7-10, 14-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, the use of the term “concave side profile portion” is indefinite. It is not understood where is the intended location of said concave limitation, e.g. inside the base, outside surface of the base, etc. For examination purposes, the term will be interpreted as said concave side profile portion is formed by the opening of the implant bore, that forms a concave surface at the coronal end.
Claims 4, 5 and 18-20 recites the limitation " coping bore " in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 4, 5 and 18-20, the use of the term “coping bore” in line 1 is indefinite. It is not understood if said term refers to the third bore of the coping or if it is another bore located at the coping. For examination purposes, the term will be interpreted as been the same as the third bore.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "coping second bore" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 8, the use of the term “coping second bore” is indefinite. It is not understood if said term refers to the “threaded second bore” described in claim 1, and located at the base to receive the coping screw, or that the coping has a second bore. For examination purposes, the term will be interpreted as it refers to the “threaded second bore” of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1, 4, 5, 8-10 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 101380919 B1).
[AltContent: textbox (Ball head)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Implant bore)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Semi-spherical ball head)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Implant)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Base)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Base)]
PNG
media_image1.png
242
226
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
344
160
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Ridges)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Implant)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Base)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Coping)]
PNG
media_image3.png
334
180
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Second shoulder)][AltContent: textbox (First shoulder)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Base shoulder)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Angled wall)][AltContent: textbox (Coping screw)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Stem portion)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Second bore)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Third bore)][AltContent: textbox (Alignment line)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Seat portion having a ball receptacle)][AltContent: textbox (Ball head)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Coping)][AltContent: textbox (Male faceted exterior portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Implant bore with a concave side profile portion )][AltContent: textbox (On-axis with the implant)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (First bore)][AltContent: ][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Implant screw)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Implant)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Base)]
PNG
media_image4.png
346
222
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Angle of inclination)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Sloped side wall)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image5.png
280
384
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a ball head multi-unit abutment assembly for use with an implant (200), an implant screw (400), and a coping screw (500) (see Figs. 1-4 and 6), the assembly including:
a base (100) having an implant bore (132) oriented on-axis with the implant (200), a first bore for receiving the implant screw (400), a concave side profile portion (see annotated Fig. 4 above – formed at the coronal end of the implant bore), and a male faceted exterior portion configured to seat into the implant (see annotated Fig. 4 above – where the male faceted exterior portion is formed by having a cylindrical apical portion followed by a tapered portion);
the base (100) further including a ball head including a curvature surrounding a threaded second bore (131) facing tangentially away from the faceted exterior (see annotated Fig. 4 above), the ball head oriented off-axis with the first bore (see annotated Fig. 4 above), the threaded second bore (131) configured to receive the coping screw (500) (see annotated Fig. 4);
a coping (300) having a stem portion (310) and a seat portion (see annotated Fig. 4 above);
the seat portion having a ball receptacle corresponding to the ball head (see annotated Fig. 4 and page 4, lines 27-34);
the stem portion having a third bore (310) for receiving the coping screw (500) (see annotated Fig. 4 above); and
wherein the base (100) is configured such that when the ball receptacle is seated on the ball head, the second bore (131) is brought into alignment with the third bore (see annotated Fig. 4 above).
Regarding claim 4, Lee discloses that the coping bore is oriented at an angle to the implant bore (see annotated Fig. 4 and 6 above – where the implant axis and the coping bore axis are at an angle other than 90 or parallel to each other).
Regarding claim 5, Lee discloses that the coping bore is conical in profile (see annotated Fig. 4 above).
Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses that the ball head has a flattened area surrounding the coping second bore (see Fig. 4 above – where the second bore is surrounded a perimeter extending in a singular area; therefore, it is understood that said perimeter provides a flattened area surrounding the second bore).
Regarding claim 9, Lee discloses that the base includes a base shoulder surrounding the ball head (see annotated Fig. 4 above – where at the base of the ball head, it is surrounded by a ring-like surface that is interpreted to be the base shoulder).
Regarding claim 10, Lee discloses that the base includes a sloped sidewall extending between the faceted exterior and a base shoulder surrounding the ball head (see annotated fig. 6 above).
Regarding claim 14, Lee discloses that the seat portion includes a first shoulder and a second shoulder separated by an angled wall (see annotated Fig. 4 above).
Regarding claim 15, Lee discloses that the second shoulder is configured to fully engage a base shoulder of the base when the ball head is seated in the ball head receptacle (see annotated Fig. 4 above).
Regarding claim 16, Lee discloses that the ball head receptacle has a concave profile corresponding to the shape of the ball head (see Fig. 3 above – where the ball head is inside the ball head receptable of the coping 300).
Regarding claim 17, Lee discloses that the coping includes flattened areas separated by ridges along the stem portion (see annotated Fig. 3 and 4 above).
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.
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.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 101380919 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lazzara et al. (US 5022860 A).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Lee discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1.
However, Lee does not disclose that the implant bore includes a first upper portion and a first lower portion separated by a first conical portion (for claim 2); and that wherein the implant screw configured to engage the first conical portion when rotated into the implant (for claim 3).
[AltContent: ][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Implant screw)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Implant bore)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (First conical portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First lower portion)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (First upper portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Base)]
PNG
media_image6.png
656
438
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Lazzara teaches a base (52) for engagement with a dental implant (30) and an implant screw (62), where the base (52) includes an implant bore that includes a first upper portion and a first lower portion separated by a first conical portion (see annotated Fig. 4 above), and where the implant screw includes at the head portion a surface (68) that is formed with angle with respect to the horizontal axis and is configured to engage the first conical portion when it is inserted into the dental implant (see annotated Fig. 4 above and col. 4, lines 30-39).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the internal shape of the implant bore and implant screw of Lee, with the first upper portion and a first lower portion separated by a first conical portion and the implant screw engaging the first conical portion Lazzara, in order to increase the surface area between the implant screw and the internal surface of the implant bore, so that it increases the retention force between the surface avoiding relative movements between them.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 101380919 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of グロール et al. (aka Grool et al.) (JP 2007525255 A).
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1.
However, Lee does not disclose that the faceted exterior is hexagonal.
Grool et al. teaches that when in situations when the abutment has virtually infinite rotational position, and it is required precise engaging rotational orientation, the engagement can be changed to a hexagonal shape (see page 2, last line through page 3, line 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cylindrical portion of the faceted exterior portion and the engaging portion in the implant bore of Lee, with the hexagonal shape at the base and at the implant bore of Grool, in order to provide a base with a precise rotational orientation with respect to the dental implant.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 101380919 B1) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 18-20, Lee discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1, and where Lee discloses that the coping bore is angled relative to the implant bore at an angle between 0 and 90 degrees (see annotated Fig. 6 above).
However, Lee does not disclose that the angle is greater than fifteen degrees, and less than 45 degrees (for claim 18); less than sixty degrees (for claim 19); and between fifteen and sixty degrees (for claim 20).
However, these parameters are deemed matters of design choice, well within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the objection to the drawings, applicant indicates the submission of a replacement drawing. However, the records of the Office do not include said replacement drawing. Therefore, the objection is maintained until the document is received.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 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.
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 MIRAYDA ARLENE APONTE whose telephone number is (571)270-1933. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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.
/MIRAYDA A APONTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772