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 .
Response to Arguments
Regarding arguments pertaining to Apatsidis, it is stated that, as Apatsidis teaches load bearing implants while the applicant’s surgical spacer are not implants and are polyurethane foam sponges. While examiner does recognize that the word “implant” is not present in the claim set, examiner disagrees that Apatsidis having load bearing properties excludes Apatsidis from being considered as relevant prior art as both devices teach sponge spacer devices to be used within a patient body. With respect to Karapetyan, the applicant’s arguments state that the function of Karapetyan, that is to separate two adjacent pair of teeth, that is different than the function of the pending application. While said function may be different, Karapetyan is not relied upon to teach the function of a spacer. Examiner also notes that a specific function is not required by the claims dated 03/16/2026. As the structure of the device is what is claimed in the presented claim set, the prior art relied upon is only required to teach said structure within the same field of art (being a surgical spacer article). With respect to Moran, as Moran is used to teach a spacer location with respect to a dental implant, Moran is not relied upon to teach a material in a spacer. Morel (US Patent No.: 3,579,830) was also applied to teach new limitations presented in the most recent claim set.
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.
Claim(s) 4, 17-18, and 33-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Apatsidis (US Pub No.: 2010/0137990).
Regarding claim 4, Apatsidis (US Pub No.: 2010/0137990) teaches a dental implant surgical spacer article (a spacer is disclosed in the abstract with a dental implant usage disclosed in [0001]), comprising a polyester or polyether polyurethane foam sponge (polyurethane sponge disclosed in [0015]. A sponge used in a spacer in [0026]), or combinations thereof, that is autoclavable at 250°F (while an autoclave temperature is not explicitly disclosed in Apatsidis, polyurethane is known in the art as being autoclavable at 250 degrees F) and has a porosity between not less than 45 pores per inch (ppi) and not more than 105 ppi (polyurethane is known in the art to have a ppi between 10 to 80. As such, the recitation of polyurethane teaches a ppi between 45 and 105) and configured in size and shape to preserve a volume above a dental implant during an osseointegration period (configuration to a desired shape in [0048] with a specific disclosure to an ellipsoid. Configuration the spacer to have a predefined pore shape also in [0076]), said volume being preserved above the dental implant by the dental implant surgical space article for coupling an abutment to the dental implant after said osseointegration period (as the device is a spacer in [0076] with a predefined pore shape, with osseointegration in [0040], the device of Apatsidis preserves a volume. The device is not removed from the body but is gradually broken down in the body, as per [0026], which implies that the spacer will remain for a period during and after osseointegration).
Regarding claim 17, Apatsidis teaches a dental surgical spacer method (a spacer is disclosed in the abstract with a dental implant usage disclosed in [0001]), comprising placing a polyester or polyether polyurethane foam sponge (polyurethane sponge disclosed in [0015]. A sponge used in a spacer in [0026]) in a volume above an embedded dental implant to preserve said volume for coupling an abutment to the dental implant after an osseointegration period (configuration to a desired shape in [0048] with a specific disclosure to an ellipsoid. Configuration the spacer to have a predefined pore shape also in [0076]).
Regarding claim 18, Apatsidis teaches a dental surgical spacer method, comprising placing a polyester or polyether polyurethane foam sponge (polyurethane sponge disclosed in [0015]. A sponge used in a spacer in [0026]), into a prepared tooth cavity volume (dental use in [0004]) until filling material is ready for filling the cavity volume with permanent filling material (it stands to reason that an implant can be removed and replaced with a filling material, as a filling material is not positively recited or required in claim 18).
Regarding claim 33, Apatsidis teaches the dental surgical spacer method of claim 17, wherein the polyester or polyether polyurethane foam sponge comprises a conic or truncated conic shape (being the tapered shape in [0179] and figures 23c-23d).
Regarding claim 34, Apatsidis teaches the dental surgical spacer method of claim 17, wherein the polyester or polyether polyurethane foam sponge comprises a pyramid or truncated pyramid shape (being the tapered shape in [0179] and figures 23c-23d).
Regarding claim 35, Apatsidis teaches the dental surgical spacer method of claim 18, wherein the polyester or polyether polyurethane foam sponge comprises an absorbed, adhered or trapped medicinal dosage, or combinations thereof (delivery of a growth factor in [0039]).
Claim(s) 5-8, 31, 36, 38-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Apatsidis (US Pub No.: 2010/0137990) in view of Karapetyan (US Patent No.: 7,083,412).
Regarding claim 5, Apatsidis does teach the dental implant surgical spacer article of claim 4. However, Apatsidis does not teach wherein the polyester or polyether polyurethane foam sponge comprises a base end opposite a tapered end.
Instead, Karapetyan (US Patent No.: 7,083,412) teaches wherein the polyester or polyether polyurethane foam sponge comprises a base end opposite a tapered end (shown in the device of figure 3a. Triangle shape present in claim 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the triangular shaped spacer of Karapetyan into Apatsidis for the purpose of providing an arrangement for the dental implant and spacer of Apatsidis (disclosed in the abstract and paragraph 1 of Apatsidis) to fit between the teeth of a user, as shown in figure 2b of Karapetyan.
Regarding claim 6, Apatsidis teaches the dental implant surgical spacer article of claim 4. However, Apatsidis does not teach wherein the polyester or polyether polyurethane foam sponge comprises a tapered end to base end weight density ratio of at least 2:1.
Instead, Karapetyan teaches wherein the polyester or polyether polyurethane foam sponge comprises a tapered end to base end weight density ratio of at least 2:1 (in measuring the length of the top of figure 3c and the bottom of figure 3c, the bottom of figure 3c is twice as long as the top of figure 3c. As such, Karapetyan teaches a tapered end to base end weight density ratio of 2:1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the triangular shaped spacer of Karapetyan into Apatsidis for the purpose of providing an arrangement for the dental implant and spacer of Apatsidis (disclosed in the abstract and paragraph 1 of Apatsidis) to fit between the teeth of a user, as shown in figure 2b of Karapetyan.
Regarding claim 7, Apatsidis teaches the dental implant surgical spacer article of claim 4. However, Apatsidis does not teach wherein the polyester or polyether polyurethane foam sponge comprises a conic or truncated conic shape.
Instead, Karapetyan teaches wherein the polyester or polyether polyurethane foam sponge comprises a conic or truncated conic shape (shown in figures 2a and 3b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the triangular shaped spacer of Karapetyan into Apatsidis for the purpose of providing an arrangement for the dental implant and spacer of Apatsidis (disclosed in the abstract and paragraph 1 of Apatsidis) to fit between the teeth of a user, as shown in figure 2b of Karapetyan. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the triangular shaped spacer of Karapetyan into Apatsidis for the purpose of providing an arrangement for the dental implant and spacer of Apatsidis (disclosed in the abstract and paragraph 1 of Apatsidis) to fit between the teeth of a user, as shown in figure 2b of Karapetyan.
Regarding claim 8, Apatsidis teaches the dental implant surgical spacer article of claim 4. However, Apatsidis does not teach wherein the polyester or polyether polyurethane foam sponge comprises a pyramid or truncated pyramid shape.
Instead, Karapetyan teaches wherein the polyester or polyether polyurethane foam sponge comprises a pyramid or truncated pyramid shape (being the device in figure 3c, disclosed as a dental tooth spacer in column 7 lines 25-59). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the triangular shaped spacer of Karapetyan into Apatsidis for the purpose of providing an arrangement for the dental implant and spacer of Apatsidis (disclosed in the abstract and paragraph 1 of Apatsidis) to fit between the teeth of a user, as shown in figure 2b of Karapetyan.
Regarding claim 31, Apatsidis does teach the dental implant surgical spacer article of claim 17. However, Apatsidis does not teach wherein the polyester or polyether polyurethane foam sponge comprises a base end opposite a tapered end.
Instead, Karapetyan (US Patent No.: 7,083,412) teaches wherein the polyester or polyether polyurethane foam sponge comprises a base end opposite a tapered end (shown in the device of figure 3a. Triangle shape present in claim 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the triangular shaped spacer of Karapetyan into Apatsidis for the purpose of providing an arrangement for the dental implant and spacer of Apatsidis (disclosed in the abstract and paragraph 1 of Apatsidis) to fit between the teeth of a user, as shown in figure 2b of Karapetyan.
Regarding claim 36, Apatsidis does teach the dental implant surgical spacer article of claim 18. However, Apatsidis does not teach wherein the polyester or polyether polyurethane foam sponge comprises a base end opposite a tapered end.
Instead, Karapetyan (US Patent No.: 7,083,412) teaches wherein the polyester or polyether polyurethane foam sponge comprises a base end opposite a tapered end (shown in the device of figure 3a. Triangle shape present in claim 3).
Regarding claim 38, Apatsidis teaches the dental implant surgical spacer article of claim 18. However, Apatsidis does not teach wherein the polyester or polyether polyurethane foam sponge comprises a conic or truncated conic shape.
Instead, Karapetyan teaches wherein the polyester or polyether polyurethane foam sponge comprises a conic or truncated conic shape (shown in figures 2a and 3b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the triangular shaped spacer of Karapetyan into Apatsidis for the purpose of providing an arrangement for the dental implant and spacer of Apatsidis (disclosed in the abstract and paragraph 1 of Apatsidis) to fit between the teeth of a user, as shown in figure 2b of Karapetyan. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the triangular shaped spacer of Karapetyan into Apatsidis for the purpose of providing an arrangement for the dental implant and spacer of Apatsidis (disclosed in the abstract and paragraph 1 of Apatsidis) to fit between the teeth of a user, as shown in figure 2b of Karapetyan.
Regarding claim 39, Apatsidis teaches the dental surgical spacer method of claim 18, wherein the polyester or polyether polyurethane foam sponge comprises a pyramid or truncated pyramid shape (being the tapered shape in [0179] and figures 23c-23d).
Regarding claim 39, Apatsidis teaches the dental implant surgical spacer article of claim 18. However, Apatsidis does not teach wherein the polyester or polyether polyurethane foam sponge comprises a pyramid or truncated pyramid shape.
Instead, Karapetyan teaches wherein the polyester or polyether polyurethane foam sponge comprises a pyramid or truncated pyramid shape (being the device in figure 3c, disclosed as a dental tooth spacer in column 7 lines 25-59). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the triangular shaped spacer of Karapetyan into Apatsidis for the purpose of providing an arrangement for the dental implant and spacer of Apatsidis (disclosed in the abstract and paragraph 1 of Apatsidis) to fit between the teeth of a user, as shown in figure 2b of Karapetyan.
Claim(s) 32 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Apatsidis (US Pub No.: 2010/0137990) in view of Morel (US Patent No.: 3,579,830).
Regarding claim 32, Apatsidis teaches the dental surgical spacer method of claim 31, wherein the polyester or polyether polyurethane foam sponge comprises a tapered end to base end (in an embodiment in [0179], where a tapered wedge shape is present).
However, Apatsidis does not teach a weight density ratio of at least 2:1.
Instead, Morel (US Patent No.: 3,579,830) teaches a base end weight density ratio of at least 2:1 (column 2 lines 24-34 teaches a ratio between the bases of a cone shaped bone implant (bone implant in the abstract). Examiner notes that, as Apatsidis teaches a uniform density, the density ratio will be equivalent to the ratio of the cone shape of Morel). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the shape details of Morel into Apatsidis for the purpose of providing shape details into the tapered portion of Apatsidis, where the shapes of Morel allow the device to penetrate a bone if needed, as per the abstract of Morel.
Regarding claim 37, Apatsidis teaches the dental surgical spacer method of claim 36, wherein the polyester or polyether polyurethane foam sponge comprises a tapered end (in an embodiment in [0179], where a tapered wedge shape is present).
However, Apatsidis does not teach a weight density ratio of at least 2:1.
Instead, Morel (US Patent No.: 3,579,830) teaches a base end weight density ratio of at least 2:1 (column 2 lines 24-34 teaches a ratio between the bases of a cone shaped bone implant (bone implant in the abstract). Examiner notes that, as Apatsidis teaches a uniform density, the density ratio will be equivalent to the ratio of the cone shape of Morel). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the shape details of Morel into Apatsidis for the purpose of providing shape details into the tapered portion of Apatsidis, where the shapes of Morel allow the device to penetrate a bone if needed, as per the abstract of Morel.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kaigler (US Pub No.: 2011/0117520) considered for a dental implant that is placed between the user’s teeth in figure 6B. Lozada (US Pub No.: 2020/0188067) considered for a dental prosthesis with spacer details in [0041].
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 AREN PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0144. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 - 4:30 M-Th.
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, Jerrah C. Edwards can be reached at (408) 918-7557. 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.
/AREN PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/YASHITA SHARMA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Prosecution Insights