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 .
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 28 December 2025 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 28 December 2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 10-12 describe that the “Wet CIP is a molding method in which a material poured into a mold is pressurized uniformly while maintaining inherent properties of the material”. The Office understands that said definition is to further clarify the intended kind of Wet Process Cold Isotropic Pressing method used in the manufacturing of the break resistant reinforced implant structure. On the other hand, due to the Wet CIP is defined in the present specification and that said molding method is a well-known in the art, in addition to avoid any confusion that said well-known method is also claimed by the applicant, it is suggested to remove such description from the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eom (KR 20170069028 A) in view of Grundei (EP 0178448 A1), in further view of カストロ，ダレン，ティ (JP 2005514305 A) (aka Kasutoro et al.).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Hexagonal shape)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Hexagonal body )][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Coupling hole )][AltContent: textbox (Upper portion )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Lower portion)][AltContent: textbox (Fastening hole)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Fixture)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Reinforcing layer)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
526
312
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Fixture)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Reinforcing layer)][AltContent: textbox (Coupling surface that provides a contact surface)][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image2.png
388
334
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Coupling hole)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Abutment)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Reinforcing layer)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Fixture)]
PNG
media_image3.png
814
332
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Eom discloses a break-resistant reinforced implant structure based on metal coating, including:
a fixture (120) made of a ceramic (see abstract, lines 10-12 of the translation);
an abutment (130) made of titanium (see page 6, line 8 of the translation), the abutment being separated from the fixture and configured to be coupled to the fixture to be integral therewith; and
a reinforcing layer (110a) made of a metal and configured to be integrally bonded to the fixture (120) (see Fig. 9 and page 4, lines 6-7 of the translation – where the material is titanium; and page 8, line 5 – where the internal surface of the fixture has adhesive 121 to bonding the reinforming layer with the fixture),
wherein the reinforcing layer (110a) includes:
a body having an upper portion and a lower portion, both having the same radial dimension (see annotated Fig. 9 above);
a coupling hole disposed in the upper portion of the body (see annotated Fig. 9 above), wherein the coupling hole is concavely defined on a top end of the body to permit vertical introduction of the abutment (130) thereinto (see annotated fig. 11 above); and
wherein the fixture (120) includes a fastening hole having a contact surface (see annotated Fig. 9-10 above).
However, Eom does not disclose that the abutment is made of the ceramic; that the body of the reinforcing layer has an upper portion and a lower portion wherein the upper portion is wider than the lower portion, the body being tapered such that an outer diameter of the body gradually decreases from the upper portion toward the lower portion; and a recessed-machined surface disposed on an outer surface of the lower portion of the body; where a friction piece protruding from a lower portion of the contact surface of the fastening hole and configured to be engaged with the recessed-machined surface, and wherein, when the recessed-machined surface engages with the friction piece, the friction piece is configured to guide an insertion alignment of the reinforcing layer into the fastening hole and restrict a coupling direction of the reinforcing layer, thereby restricting rotational movement of the reinforcing layer.
[AltContent: textbox (Fixture)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Reinforcing layer including a body)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Contact surface on the internal wall)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Contact surface on the internal wall)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Lower portion)][AltContent: textbox (Upper portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Abutment)]
PNG
media_image4.png
330
376
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Contact surface on the internal wall)][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image5.png
284
440
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Grundei teaches an implant structure including a fixture (1), an abutment (6), and a reinforcing layer (4) that includes a body having an upper portion and a lower portion (see annotated Fig. 1 above), wherein the upper portion is wider than the lower portion, the body being tapered such that an outer diameter of the body gradually decreases from the upper portion toward the lower portion (see annotated Fig. 1 above), where the fixture (1) includes a friction piece protruding from the lower portion of a contact surface of the wall (2) (see annotated Fig. 1, 2a and 2B – where the internal surface of the wall 2 of the fixture 1 has a conical shape with a recessed-machined surface identified as the lateral flat portion 5 extending in the longitudinal direction and ending at the distal end of the cavity, where that lateral flat portion 5 is considered an internal protrusion by not following the curve surface of the rest of the internal surface, and protruding inwardly as a flat surface. Where all the internal surface (2) provides a static friction to the external surface of the body of the reinforcing layer (4) for restricting vertical movement, and the surface of the recessed-machined surface (5) further provides a restriction for rotational movement with respect to the body of the fixture (1) (see page 2, lines 32-38).
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 shape of the cylindrical layer and the fastening hole of Eom, with the tapered shaped body with the recessed-machined surface and the counter shape fixture fastening hole and the friction engagement between the body and fixture of Grundei, in order to create between the body of the reinforcing layer and the fixture an alternative holding mechanism by using static friction between both structures and the recessed-machined surface to avoid rotational movement between the abutment in which is connected to the reinforming layer and the fixture.
However, Eom/Grundei does not disclose that the abutment is made of the ceramic of the implant.
Kasutoro et al. teaches an abutment made of a polycrystalline alumina-based ceramic material, in which by using this kind of material that has an “average particle size of 1.0 micron or less” (see abstract) and provides is “substantially nonporous and maintains a high degree of light transmission” (see page 6, line 24 of the translation), and to obtain a molded structure, that when sintered has sealed pores (see page 4, lines 21-22). Furthermore, the same ceramic material can be used for dental implants (see page 5, 1st paragraph). Said polycrystalline alumina-based ceramic material is characterized by having high translucency, in this way having the ability to harmonize with the surrounding devices, such as dentures (see page 3, “Technical-Field” paragraph).
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 material of the abutment and the ceramic of the fixture of Eom/Gangtaein, with the polycrystalline alumina-based ceramic material of Kasutoro, in order to have an abutment and a fixture with sealed pores, in which a person skill in the art would see obvious that such characteristic provides reduces the absorption of fluids and the adhesion of microorganisms in the surface of said body in the mouth environment, in addition of providing high aesthetics by harmonizing with the surrounding dentures.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the claim objection, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 5, the prior arts of Eom, Grundei and Kasutoro do not disclose alone or in an obvious combination between them a method for manufacturing a break-resistant reinforced implant structure including a reinforcing step of applying a bonding material selected from a blazing material, a metalizing material, a resin bond, and a ceramic bond on the contact surface of the fastening hole of the fixture; melting the bonding material so as to enhance an engagement between the fixture and the reinforcing layer in combination with the elements set forth in the claim.
Claim 6 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 6, the prior arts of Eom, Grundei and Kasutoro do not disclose alone or in combination a break-resistant reinforced implant structure including a reinforcing layer made of a metal and configured to be integrally bonded to a fixture, wherein the reinforcing layer that includes a body having an upper portion and a lower portion, wherein the upper portion is wider than the lower portion, the body being tapered such that an outer diameter of the body gradually decreases from the upper portion toward the lower portion, and a plurality of protrusions disposed on an outer surface of the body; the fixture includes a plurality of concave grooves disposed on a contact surface of a fastening hole and is configured to be engaged with the plurality of protrusions; and wherein each of the plurality of concave grooves defines a space into which a bonding material is introduced.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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
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