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 Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: It is believed that on line 2 of the claim “each channel-shaped chip space” is in error for -that at least one channel-shaped chip space”. Appropriate correction is required.
The drawings were received on December 12, 2025. These drawings are accepted and entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the angle of incidence must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. It is noted that that applicant has seemed to include the angle, but it is not labeled.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
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.
Claims 2-4 and 6 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.
With respect to claim 2, it is unclear what shape the applicant is claiming with respect to the limitation of “an S-curve” and how it is related to the compaction region and claimed recess. It is noted that in the independent claim, the applicant claims that the recesses comprise both the cutting region and the compaction region. Therefore, it is unclear if the applicant is trying to claim that the shape of the recess where the compaction region is shaped like an “S”, if it is just curved, or if the entire recess is shaped like and “S” and a portion of the compaction region is on a curve of the “S” shaped region of the recess. It is noted that for examination purposes, the limitation is being interpreted as the shape of the recess is curved and shaped like and “S” and the compaction region extends along at least a portion of the “S” shaped curve, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify what is being claimed.
With respect to claim 4, the claimed contour with a constant radius is unclear in view of the claimed “S” shaped curve of claim 2. It is unclear how the two are related, such as if in addition to the “S” shaped curve there is the contour as claimed, if they are different how are the two arranged relative to each other or if the contour as claimed is a portion of the “S” shaped curve. It is noted that for examination purposes, the limitation is being interpreted as a portion of the “S” shaped curve, such that the contour is a portion of the curve making up the “S” shape, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify what is being claimed.
With respect to claim 6, the claimed angle is unclear. It is not clear what the claimed "side view" is and what two portions the claimed angle is between since they are both relative to the cutting edge. Specifically what is the perspective/orientation of the cutting edge. It is noted that for examination purposes, the limitation is being interpreted as the angle of the cutting edges relative to the longitudinal axis, however, the applicant should amend the claims to clarify.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 10-12, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fromovich (2017/0071702).
Fromovich discloses a dental implant 100 comprising a prosthetic interface 118 (see par. 151) in a cervical region of the dental implant, a core 120c forming a main body of the dental implant, and a thread 124 extending from the cervical region to an opposite apical region (see fig. 2a), the thread having a plurality of recesses (such that the flute 122 forms the recesses in the threads, see figures), wherein each recess of the plurality of recesses includes a cutting edge for cutting bone, the cutting edge of each recess being arranged in a direction of the thread on a rear side of the recess relative to an insertion direction of rotation (pars. 20, 23, 50, 57, 59, 191). It is noted that both sides of the recess are cutting edges, such that when rotated in an insertion direction, i.e., either a clockwise or counterclockwise direction, one of the cutting edges is on a rear side as claimed. See annaoted figure below for explanation. Fromovich further teaches wherein each recess of the plurality of recesses has a cutting region at the cutting edge and a compaction region adjacent to the cutting region for compacting bone tissue (see par. 59, specifically condensing of the bone tissue occurs within the flute recess, which is adjacent to the cutting region).
PNG
media_image1.png
462
386
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, Fromovich teaches, as best understood, the compaction region is rounded (see explanation above, such that the compaction region is the flute which as seen in fig. 4b is rounded), and when viewed perpendicular to a central axis of the dental implant from a nearest point in a radial direction of maximum recess depth , comprises an s-curve starting from a concavity located at a point of maximum recess depth closes in a radial direction to the central axis (see annaoted figure below).
PNG
media_image2.png
462
459
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 10, Fromovich further discloses wherein the plurality of recesses along the thread form at least one channel-shaped chip space extending from the implant tip to a thread run-out (see figs. 2a, 3a-b, such that the flute extends along the entire body creating the recesses in the thread and a recess in the body to form a chip space (see abstract, pars. 57, 29).
With respect to claim 11, Fromovich further discloses wherein the at least one channel-shaped chip space comprises three channel-shaped chip spaces which are equally distributed in the circumferential direction (see figs. 3c-4c, par. 178, claim 182).
With respect to claim 12, Fromovich further discloses wherein each channel-shaped chip space of the at least one channel-shaped chip space extends radially within the thread (see figs. 3c-4c).
With respect to claim 14, wherein a depth of the plurality of recesses decreases as seen from the apical end to the cervical end of the dental implant (see figs. 3d-3c which shows the depth smaller near 122o than near 126e).
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.
Claim(s) 3, 6-9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fromovich (2017/0071702).
With respect to claim 3, Fromovich teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including modifying the opening angle of the recess of the plurality of recesses (see figs. 5b-5c which show different angled openings of the neck, which is the opening of the recesses, par. 200). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the opening angle of the groove (i.e. the neck) as taught by Fromovich to have an acute angle in order to control the cutting and collection characteristics of the implant. Such that the angle of the opening is provided on either side with cutting beveled edges (par. 57) and therefore the angle of the cutting edges would be the opening of the recesses.
With respect to claim 6, Fromovich teaches as best understood an angle of incidence of the cutting edge relative to a side view of the cutting edge is variable (see pars. 139, 171, figs. 8I-8P, abstract). Such that in the side view, the edge is tapered, however, does not specifically teach the angle is between 20-80 degrees, however, teaches the angle is for the same reason as disclosed by the applicant which is to guide/collect bone chips (see abstract, pars. 57-59). Therefore, it is noted that the claimed angle does not provide any unexpected results and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the angle to be within the claimed range in order to guide the bone chips in the desired manner.
With respect to claims 7-8, Fromovich teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, and further, as best understood, a zone ratio of a circumferential extend of a threaded passive zone in which there is no recess to a circumferential extent of an active zone in which there is a recess is greater than 1 (see figs. 3D-4A), such that the length of the areas in which there is not a recess is greater than the length in which there is a recess) and further teaches the ratio increasing from the implant tip in the coronal direction increases (such that the width of the threads increase relative to the width of the recesses, see fig, 2A, par. 163). It is noted that Fromovich teaches the thread having variable width along the length of the implant, such that the ratio between the passive and active zone changes or that it could remain constant (see claim 176). It is noted that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the ratio taught by Fromovich to be within the claims range in order to provide the desired cutting the retention characteristics.
With respect to claim 9, Fromovich teaches, the dental implant wherein a recess ratio between a maximum cutting-edge radius, which corresponds to a radial distance from a central axis of the dental implant to a most distant point of the cutting edge and a maximum recess depth which is the radial distance from the central axis to a point of the recess closest to the central axis can vary (see pars. 54, 175, 186, 192). While it is noted that Fromovich does not specifically teach the ratio is between 1.7 to 1.0, the applicant does not disclose that the ratio provides an unexpected result or advantage, therefore, it is noted that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify ratio as claimed in order to provide the desired movement of the bone chips.
With respect to claim 9, Fromovich teaches a radial pitch of each channel shaped chip space is 35mm along the length (see par. 189), however, does not specifically teach is between 15mm and 30mm per revolution of the thread. It is noted that the applicant does not teach the claimed range provides an unexpected result or advantage over the prior art. It is noted that prior art teaches the radial pitch and associated cutting edges functioning as discussed by the applicant such as they are for providing a self-drilling, i.e. cutting of the implant into the bone and moving the bone chips within the cavity to ensure a secure fit. Therefore, it is noted that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the radial pitch to be within the claimed range in order to provide the desired bone cutting and guiding.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fromovich (2017/0071702) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen (2015/0297321).
With respect to claim 5, Fromovich teaches an angle of the cutting edge relative to a tangent of an outer diameter of the thread can changed based on the desired cutting characteristics (pars. 139, 190, 254-262, figs. 8I-8P), however, does not specifically teach the angle is between 70-150 degrees.
Chen teaches a dental implant comprising a prosthetic interface 17 in a cervical region of the dental implant, a core forming a main body of the dental implant (see fig. 1F, such that the core is the body of the implant in which the thread extends from), and a thread 12 extending from the cervical region to an opposite apical region, the thread having a plurality of recesses (such that the trenches 14 creates the recesses in the thread), wherein each recess of the plurality of recesses includes a cutting edge 123. With respect to claim 5, Chen further teaches an angle of the cutting edge relative to a tangent of an outer diameter of the thread is between 70-150 degrees (the angle is between 90-160 degrees which is withing the claimed range, see par. 72, figure 1F showing angle alpha 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the angle taught by Fromovich with the angles taught in the other embodiment of Chen in order to provide the desired cutting resistance.
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Fromovich (2017/0071702) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Trisi (2023/0404717).
With respect to claim 15, Fromovich teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including the thread having a pitch (see pars. 138, 169-170), however, does not specifically teach the pitch is a constant pitch.
Trisi teaches a dental implant comprising a prosthetic interface 2 in a cervical region of the dental implant (par. 86), a core forming a main body of the dental implant (see fig. 3B, such that the core is the body of the implant from which the threads extend from), a thread 4 extending from the cervical region to an opposite apical region, the thread having a plurality of recesses 50. Further with respect to claim 15, Trisi teaches that the thread has a pitch that can be constant (see par. 89). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the pitch of Fromovich to constant as taught by Trisi in order to provide the desired thread properties. It is further noted that Trisi teaches that a variable and constant pitch are known equivalents.
With respect to claim 16, Fromovich/Trisi teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including Fromovich further teaching the thread is a single thread (par. 166, such that it is a single start, i.e. single thread), however, does not specifically teach the pitch is between 0.6-1.2mm.
Trisi further teaches wherein the thread is a single thread having a pitch between 0.6mm-1.2mm (see par. 88, 90, such as a single lead would be a single thread). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the pitch of Fromovich to constant as taught by Trisi in order to provide the desired thread properties.
With respect to claim 17, Fromovich/Trisi teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including Fromovich further teaching wherein the thread is a double thread with a pitch between 1.2 mm and 2.4 mm (pars. 1169-170).
Claim(s) 18-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fromovich (2017/0071702) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kumar et al. (2019/0269484).
Fromovich teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the implant wherein depressions are arranged in the cervical region, which are separated from one another in the radial circumferential direction, wherein the depressions are arranged in several zones, wherein the depressions are formed as radially extending notches, wherein the depressions are formed as rhombic depressions, wherein the rhombic depressions are arranged inclined to a central axis of the dental implant, and wherein the depressions are between 0.08 mm and 0.15 mm.
Kumar teaches a dental implant comprising a prosthetic interface in its cervical 58. region (see annotated figure), a core and at least one thread extending from the cervical region to an opposite apical region (see fig. 3A) and further with respect to claim 18, wherein depressions 143 are arranged in the cervical region (see figs. 3a-3c, par. 138), with respect to claim 19, wherein the depression are arranged in several zones (see figs. 3a-3b, such that each row is a zone), with respect to claim 20, wherein the depressions are formed as radially extending notches (par. 138, figs. 3a-3b, such that the shape of the dimples 143, i.e. depressions can be squares which are notches), with respect to claim 23, wherein the depressions are between 0.08mm and 0.15mm (see par. 139). With respect to claims 20-21, Kumar teaches a different embodiment which teaches rhombic shaped protrusions which are arranged included to a central axis of the dental implant (see fig. 7A, 11a, pars. 161, 194, such that the diamond shape is a rhombus inclined as claimed). It is noted that Kumar teaches the depressions are known equivalents for the protrusions (see par. 139). Therefore it is noted that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the square depressions with included rhombus depressions as a matter of obvious design choice in order to provide the desired gripping properties on the implant as taught by Kumar (see pars. 138-139). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Fromovich with the depressions of Kumar in order to increase the surface area and mechanical engagement of the implant and encourage in growth and adhesion of the line tissues thereby improving primary stability and promoting healing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art fails to teach the claimed cutting region is rounded and when viewed perpendicularly to the central axis of the dental implant from the point of maximum recess depth in the direction of the cutting edge, has a contour with a constant radius which merges into a straight-line section in combination with the other claimed limitations. Specifically the “S” shaped curve of claim 2 and the way it is being interpreted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) 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 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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at 571-270-5614. 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 1/29/2026