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 were received on 4 September 2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The amended specification was received on 4 September 2025. This amended specification is not acceptable.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: each figure must be described separately in the Brief Description of the Drawings, wherein Figures 1A-3D, 10A-10B, 12A-13B and 16A-17B are not. Appropriate correction is required.
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 17-22, 24-26 and 28-32 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.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "internal groove" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 17, the use of the term “internal groove” in line 12 is indefinite. It is not understood if said term refers to the “internal recess” of line 11, or if it is another limitation. For examination purposes, the term will be interpreted as it is the same as the internal recess of line 11.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "punching process" in line 30. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 17-22, 24-26 and 28-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsieh (US 20100092920 A1) in view of Rocci et al. (CN 111372532 A), and further in view of エングマン (JP 2004529698 A) (aka Engman).
Claims 17-19 introduce product-by-process language “machined”, “formed by a first bit”, “formed by a second bit”, “not machined”, “boring section is processed prior to the polygon part punching process”. Therefore, claims 17-18 are considered product-by-process claims and the final product will be given patentable weight only.
Examiner’s note: it is reminded that all product-by-process language has been removed from the claim language examined, due to only the final product will be given patentable weight only.
[AltContent: textbox (Thread non-machining section)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
766
478
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: ][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Lower side inclined part)][AltContent: textbox (End point)][AltContent: ][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Circular vertical part)][AltContent: textbox (Anti-rotational part)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Screw part)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Larger width)][AltContent: textbox (Upper side inclined part)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Top entrance part)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Internal recess)][AltContent: textbox (External bottom thread section)][AltContent: ][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Smaller width)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Threads having small heights)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Threads having large heights)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Dental implant)][AltContent: textbox (External top thread section)][AltContent: ][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image2.png
768
490
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 17, 28, 29 and 32, Hsieh discloses a dental implant (1) implantable into an alveolar bone tissue and forming an artificial tooth root, the dental implant (1) including:
an external bottom thread section machined up to a predetermined section upward from a bottom of an outer peripheral surface of the implant (1) so that threads have large heights (see annotated Fig. 2 above); and
an external top thread section machined above the external bottom thread section so that threads have small heights (see annotated fig. 1 above) and a width that are different from a machining surface shape and a width of the external bottom thread section (see annotated Fig. 2 above),
wherein each individual thread section machined maintains its own same pitch and the same crest width (see annotated Fig. 2 above – where each thread section maintains the same width between threads and same crest width);
an internal recess (6) to which an abutment configured for prosthesis supporting is capable of being coupled is formed inside a top portion of the implant (see annotated Fig. 2 above and [0026]), and the internal groove (6) includes:
an upper side inclined part positioned at a top entrance part of the implant, the upper side inclined part having a circular cross-sectional shape and having an inner diameter gradually decreased downward (see annotated Fig. 2 above);
an anti-rotational part formed below the upper side inclined part (see annotated Fig. 2 above); and
a screw part configured for abutment coupling formed below the anti-rotational part, the screw part having threads that have a diameter smaller than a diameter of a circle inscribed in the anti-rotational part (see annotated Fig. 2 above and [0026] – where “a connecting structure 6, for example, a screw hole, is formed from the neck portion 2 into the body portion 3).
However, Hsieh does not disclose that the anti-rotational part has polygonal cross-sectional shape, and a boring section having a circular shape and having a diameter larger than a diameter of a circle circumscribed to the polygonal shape of the polygonal part is formed between a bottom of the polygonal part and a top of the screw part configured for abutment coupling (for claim 17); that the external top thread section is positioned from a bottom of the boring section to a lower side section by 2 to 4 threads when viewed from a top surface of the implant (for claim 28); that boring section having the circular shape is provided with a first circular vertical part and a round part which is positioned below the first circular vertical part and which has a predetermined curvature, and a diameter of the first circular vertical part is larger than the diameter of the circle circumscribed to the polygonal part (for claim 29); and that the polygonal part is any one shape of a regular hexagonal shape, a regular octagonal shape, and a regular dodecagonal shape (for claim 32).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Upper side inclined part)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Circular vertical part)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Lower side inclined part)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Polygonal part)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Internal groove)]
PNG
media_image3.png
384
196
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Rocci et al. teaches a dental implant including an internal recess (24) including an upper side inclined part followed by an anti-rotational part (27) in the shape of an octagonal or hexagonal polygon (see annotated Fig. 2 above and page 8, lines 31-32).
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 anti-rotational part of Hsieh, with the polygonal shape anti-rotational part of Rocci, in order to define a limited number of rotational locating possibilities for the abutment with respect to the implant. Furthermore, a person skill in the art would also modify the connecting lower portion of the abutment to the octagonal or hexagonal polygon to properly engage with the dental implant.
However, Hsieh/Rocci does not disclose a boring section having a circular shape and having a diameter larger than a diameter of a circle circumscribed to the polygonal shape of the polygonal part is formed between a bottom of the polygonal part and a top of the screw part configured for abutment coupling (for claim 17); that the external top thread section is positioned from a bottom of the boring section to a lower side section by 2 to 4 threads when viewed from a top surface of the implant (for claim 28); and that boring section having the circular shape is provided with a first circular vertical part and a round part which is positioned below the first circular vertical part and which has a predetermined curvature, and a diameter of the first circular vertical part is larger than the diameter of the circle circumscribed to the polygonal part (for claim 29).
[AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (First circular vertical part)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (])][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Boring section)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Round part)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Internal recess)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Top of the screw part)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Screw part)][AltContent: textbox (Polygonal part)]
PNG
media_image4.png
344
354
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Engman teaches a dental implant including an internal recess for placing an abutment at the coronal end of the dental implant, where the internal recess includes boring section (30) having a circular shape and having a diameter larger than a diameter of a circle circumscribed to the polygonal shape of the polygonal part is formed between a bottom of the polygonal part and a top of the screw part (12), and formed from a first circular vertical part on the top portion followed by a round part in the direction of the screw part. The round part allows for the transition between the first circular vertical part to an inner cylindrical surface 30 that serves as a guide for the lower portion of the abutment (32) (see annotated Fig. 1 above and [0059] – where the “guiding / centering area 20 and the mating connection element or groove 26 there is provided an annular undercut 30 of minimum height to facilitate chip ejection during the production of the groove 26”; the round part is considered round in the cross sectional view tangent from the longitudinal axis of the dental implant).
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 space between the polygonal part and the top of the screw part of Hsieh/Rocci, with the boring section of Engman, in order to further allow the removal of any chip material created during the production of the polygonal part.
Furthermore, when the space below the polygonal part of Hsieh/Rocci is modified with the boring section of Engman, said boring section is located on the lower side section by 2 to 4 threads when viewed from a top surface of the implant.
Regarding claim 18, Hsieh/Rocci/Engman discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 17, and where Hsieh discloses a thread valley depth of the external top thread section is gradually decreased from a lower portion of the external top thread section to an upper portion of the external top thread section (see annotated Fig. 2 zoomed portion above).
Regarding claim 19, Hsieh/Rocci/Engman discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 17, and where Hsieh discloses that the external top thread section is provided with a thread non-machining section in which threads are not machined over a predetermined section downward from a topmost of the implant (1) (see annotated Fig. 1 above).
Regarding claim 20, Hsieh/Rocci/Engman discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 19, and where Hsieh discloses that the thread non-machining section is formed from the topmost of the implant to a position downward from the coronal end of the dental implant.
However, Hsieh/Rocci/Engman does not disclose that the position is 0.2 mm to 0.3 mm downward.
On the other hand, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the thread non machine section position 0.2 mm to 0.3 mm downward, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 21, Hsieh/Rocci/Engman discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 19, and where Hsieh discloses an ending point that is a point at which an inclination of an external top thread machining trajectory is changed is set at a lower side of the thread non-machining section, and the ending point is positioned at a point from the topmost of the implant (see annotated Fig. 2 above).
However, Hsieh/Rocci/Engman does not disclose ending point is positioned at a point of 0.6 mm to 0.8 mm from the topmost of the implant.
On the other hand, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the ending point positioned at a point of 0.6 mm to 0.8 mm from the topmost of the implant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 22, Hsieh/Rocci/Engman discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 21, and where Hsieh discloses that the valley surface between threads of the external top thread section gradually moves deeper towards the central axis line of the dental implant (see Fig. 2 zoomed portion above). Furthermore, the combination of the valley surfaces along the external top portion forms an angle.
However, Hsieh/Rocci/Engman does not disclose the angle between the combination of the valley surfaces along the external top portion and the central axis line of the dental implant.
On the other hand, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the angle of inclination of the threads between 23.5 degrees to 26.5 degrees with respect to an axis line of the implant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 24, Hsieh/Rocci/Engman discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 17, and where Hsieh discloses that the external top thread section is positioned from a bottom of the anti-rotational part to a lower side section by 2 to 4 threads when viewed from a top surface of the implant (see Fig. 2 above). Furthermore, the modification of the anti-rotational part of Hsieh to the polygonal part of Rocci would not change the heigh of the original part of Hsieh, the lower bottom of the polygonal part in the combination of Hsieh/Rocci would comply with the claim description too.
Regarding claim 25, Hsieh/Rocci/Engman discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 17, and where Hsieh and Rocci disclose a circular vertical part having a circular cross-sectional shape and being formed below the polygonal part such that the circular vertical part is connected to the polygonal part (see annotated respective Fig. 2’s above).
Regarding claim 26, Hsieh/Rocci/Engman discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 25, and where Hsieh and Rocci disclose a lower side inclined part formed between the circular vertical part and the screw part configured for abutment coupling such that the lower side inclined part connects the circular vertical part and the screw part configured for abutment coupling to each other, the lower side inclined part having a top that has a diameter same as a diameter of the circular vertical part, the lower side inclined part having a bottom that has a diameter same as a diameter of the screw part configured for abutment coupling, and the lower side inclined part being formed such that an inner diameter thereof is gradually decreased downward (see annotated respective Fig. 2’s above).
Regarding claim 30, Hsieh/Rocci/Engman discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 29.
However, Hsieh/Rocci/Engman does not disclose a ratio of the diameter of the first circular vertical part of the boring section having the circular shape to the diameter of the circle circumscribed to the polygonal part is equal to or larger than 100% to equal to or smaller than 115%.
On the other hand, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the diameter of the first circular vertical part having the diameter equal to or larger than 100% to equal to or smaller than 115% than the diameter of the polygonal part, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 31, Hsieh/Rocci/Engman discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 17.
However, Hsieh/Rocci/Engman does not disclose an overall height along an axis line direction of the boring section having the circular shape is set to 0.1 mm to 1.5 mm.
On the other hand, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the overall height of the boring section in the range of 0.1 mm to 1.5 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1 rejection, the applicant argues that the amendments include the addition of the subject matter of claims 23 and 27, that include the most characteristic feature of the present dental implant, in which the limitations described are not found in the prior art used in the last Office action of 4 June 2025.
[AltContent: textbox (Internal recess)]
[AltContent: textbox (Polygonal part)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Prior art of Rocci )][AltContent: textbox (Present application)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox ( Threads for the screw part)][AltContent: textbox (Upper side included part)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image5.png
556
358
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
384
196
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Prior art of Engman )][AltContent: textbox (Present application)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Internal recess)][AltContent: textbox (Screw part)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Polygonal part)][AltContent: textbox (Boring section)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Top of the screw part)]
PNG
media_image5.png
556
358
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox ()][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image4.png
344
354
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The Office disagrees, the internal groove as described, includes an upper side inclined part, a polygonal part and a screw part, where it is configured to engage with the lower portion of an abutment. As can be seen in the Fig. 20 in the previous page above, the present dental implant compared to Fig. 2 of Rocci, and can be observed that each and every limitation described in claim 23, now deleted, can also be seen in the prior art of Rocci, as also explained in the rejection above.
Furthermore, it is shown above a comparative Figure 20 of the present application with Fig. 1 of Engman. Where the claimed boring section having a diameter larger than a diameter of the polygonal part located coronal to the boring section can be seen in the prior art of Engman. Therefore, each and every limitation described in claim 27, now deleted, can also be seen in the prior art of Engman.
Therefore, the Office understands based on the presence of all the claimed limitations in the prior arts shown above, that a person skill in the would see obvious to include them in the internal groove of the dental implant of Hsieh to further improve the dental implant of Hsieh as explained in the rejection above.
Furthermore, claim 1 and the added limitations of claims 23 and 27, also includes product by process language. It needs to be reminded that any sequencing of steps for manufacturing the dental implant, and any machine or tool for shaping the dental implant, is not considered in the examination, because the claims are directed to a product, not to a method of manufacturing the product. For that reason, only the final product is examined, and given patentable weight.
Therefore, based on the explanation given above, the Office understands that the dental implant claimed is found in the combination of prior arts of Hsieh, Rocci and Engman, making the rejection proper and will be maintained.
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