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 .
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 1, 4-9, 12, 13, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seavey (US 20150230892 A1) in view of Linden (DE 3829576 A1).
[AltContent: textbox (Upper component axis)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Dental system)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Lower component)][AltContent: textbox (Upper component)]
PNG
media_image1.png
602
352
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (External thread of lower component)][AltContent: textbox (Implant)][AltContent: textbox (Longitudinal axis)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Internal thread of lower component)][AltContent: textbox (Longitudinal axis)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Contour)][AltContent: ][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Margin)][AltContent: textbox (Screw)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (One protrusion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Convex interface)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Coronal region with a bevel interface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Dental system)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Upper component)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Lower component)]
PNG
media_image2.png
450
332
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Seavey discloses a dental system (101) including:
a lower component (105) having a coronal region with a bevel interface (see annotated Fig. 1A-1B above); and
an upper component (102) having:
an apical region with a corresponding convex interface (see annotated Fig. 1B);
an inner cavity with a surface (see annotated Fig. 1B above), the lower component and the upper component fixed together via a screw (109) with a circular or convex outer surface (see element 111 in Fig. 1B above and [0020]) that seats on the surface of the upper component (102) and remains aligned to the axis of the lower component (105) (see annotated Fig. 1B above); and
at least one protrusion disposed on the apical region and configured to limit a pivot angle of the upper component (102) when fixed together with the lower component (105) (see annotated Fig. 1B above – where the lower tip of the convex interface of the upper component will limit the tilt of the upper component when hitting the screw),
wherein the upper component (102) is rotatable around an axis of the lower component and pivotable at an angle with respect to the axis (see [0006]-[0007] – where the “collar may be pivoted in many angles prior to its securement to compensate for the angulation of the implant”) (for claim 1); and that the lower component and the upper component are fixed together via the screw with the circular or convex outer surface that seats on the surface of the upper component and engages the threads of the lower component (see annotated Fig. 1B above – see the internal threads of the lower component) (for claim 18).
However, Seavey does not disclose that the inner cavity is with a bevel surface (for claims 1 and 18).
[AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Internal cavity)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Pivoting opening)][AltContent: textbox (Screw with convex outer surface head)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Bevel surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Dental system)][AltContent: textbox (Axis )][AltContent: textbox (Axis )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Implant )][AltContent: ][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Upper component )][AltContent: textbox (Lower component )]
PNG
media_image3.png
462
544
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Linden teaches a dental system (see Fig. 7 above) that includes an upper component (12), a lower component (10) and a screw. The upper component (12) is attached to the lower component (10) through the screw. The upper component (12) includes an internal cavity that ends on a pivoting opening (see annotated Fig. 7 above), that its diameter is smaller closer to the internal cavity, and expands towards the distal end forming a bevel surface. The screw seats in the internal cavity of the upper component (12) and on top of the bevel surface. By having the bevel surface at the opening with the different diameters, it allows during pivoting the upper component (12) to extend at a maximum angle with respect to the longitudinal axis when all of the bevel surface reaches the shaft of the screw, avoiding limiting the pivot by any single edge of the opening (see Fig. 7 above.
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 cavity of the upper component of Seavey, with the bevel surface of the upper component of Linden, in order to expand the range of pivoting of the upper component with respect to the lower component.
Regarding claim 4, Seavey/Linden discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1, and where Seavey discloses that the lower component (105) includes an implant-engaging abutment (see annotated Fig. 1A and 1B above - where the lower component is an abutment engaged with the implant (104)).
Regarding claim 5, Seavey/Linden discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1, and where Seavey discloses the lower component (105) includes an abutment having threads for engaging an implant (see annotated Fig. 1B above – see the external thread of the lower component for engagement with the internal thread of the implant).
Regarding claim 6, Seavey/Linden discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1, and where Seavey discloses that the upper component (102) includes coronal features to support removable overdentures (see Fig. 1B above and [0018] – the “top cap 103 is configured to connect to pivotable collar 102. Preferably, top cap 103 is generally cylindrical in shape, with a height less than its diameter, and has disposed in it an opening for attachment onto pivotable collar 102. The outer surface of top cap 103 may optionally have disposed on its side exterior structure to facilitate its connection to a dental prosthesis” and that the “top cap 103 is seated onto pivotable collar 102. To this end, disposed on the outer surface of collar 102 is optional horizontal circumferential detent 106, which is configured to facilitate the connection of top cap 103 onto pivotable collar 102”).
Regarding claim 7, Seavey/Linden discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1, and where Seavey discloses that the upper component (206) includes coronal features to support fixed-retained overdentures (see page 4, line 20 - "denture", and page 7 claim 19 - "a fixed combination of the pivotable collar 211 and the replacement value 206 of the processed texture effectively pivotable collar 211")
Regarding claim 8, Seavey/Linden discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1, and where Seavey discloses that the upper component (102) includes upper features to support single-unit prosthesis (see [0026]).
Regarding claim 9, Seavey/Linden discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1, and where Seavey discloses that the upper component (102) has a margin to support prosthetic component (see annotated Fig. 1B above and [0018] – where the horizontal circumferential detent 106 is configured to facilitate the connection of top cap 103 onto pivotable collar 102, that at the same time the top cap 103 is configured facilitate its connection to the dental prosthesis; therefore the said horizontal circumferential detent 106 is considered the margin of the upper component 102 by providing the stop mechanisms in the vertical direction).
Regarding claim 12, Seavey/Linden discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1, and where Seavey discloses that the lower component (105) has a contour (see annotated Fig. 1B above – where the coronal end has a circular contour in the cross-sectional view transversed to the longitudinal axis, and has a beveled surface at the coronal end; furthermore, the lower component has a cylindrical shape contour).
Regarding claim 13, Seavey/Linden discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1, and where Seavey discloses that the lower component (105) and the upper component (102) support conventional and digital prosthetic fabrication workflows (see [0007] – “secured into a denture”; therefore, it is capable of supporting any form of prosthetic fabrication).
Regarding claim 16, Seavey/Linden discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1, and where Seavey discloses that the upper component (102) has coronal features having the same axis as the axis of the convex interface (see Fig. 1B – due to the upper component has a general cylindrical shape along its axis, it is understood that all the features of the upper component have the same axis).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 10, 11, 14, 15 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, the prior arts of Seavey and Linden do not describe that the lower component comprises an implant.
Regarding claim 3, the prior arts of Seavey and Linden do not describe that the lower component comprises a root post.
Regarding claim 10, the prior arts of Seavey and Linden do not describe that the upper component has no margin and has a coronal feature to frictionally retain or snap-on retain a prosthetic component.
Regarding claim 11, the prior arts of Seavey and Linden do not describe that the lower component has a margin to support prosthetic component.
Regarding claim 14, the prior arts of Seavey and Linden do not describe that the upper component has internal threads to engage a prosthetic supporting component.
Regarding claim 15, the prior arts of Seavey and Linden do not describe that the upper component has coronal features that are off axis to the axis of the convex interface.
Regarding claim 17, the prior arts of Seavey and Linden do not describe that the lower component and the upper component are fixed together via the screw that engages the threads of an implant.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 5 November 2025, with respect to the rejection under Wilje, Cendres and Linden have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 8 August 2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant has not submitted any arguments regarding the rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15 and 16 under 35 USC 102(a), anticipated by Sterngold made in the last Office action of 8 August 2025.
The Office has used the prior art of Seavey (US 20150230892 A1) in the present rejections, in which also includes the dental system shown in Stergold (KR 20150097423 A), used in the last Office action.
However, it is further found more detailed description in the US publication of Seavey than in the translation of the KR publication of Stergold, in which it was needed to address the limitations claimed in the present application under the latest amendments.
For that reason, it is used the US prior art of Seavey instead of the KR prior art of Stergold.
The Office understands that the US prior art of Seavey in combination with the prior art of Linden provides the structural limitations claimed.
For that reason, it is understood that the present set of claims are not ready for allowance.
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