Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/271,904

BONE SCREW FOR 3D GUIDED BONE REGENERATION

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Jul 12, 2023
Examiner
APONTE, MIRAYDA ARLENE
Art Unit
3772
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Biotem Co., LTD
OA Round
2 (Final)
64%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 64% of resolved cases
64%
Career Allow Rate
419 granted / 660 resolved
-6.5% vs TC avg
Strong +21% interview lift
Without
With
+21.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
40 currently pending
Career history
700
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.3%
-38.7% vs TC avg
§103
41.6%
+1.6% vs TC avg
§102
24.8%
-15.2% vs TC avg
§112
29.2%
-10.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 660 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 26 August 2025. These drawings are acceptable. 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 1, 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 장재우 (aka Jang Jae-woo) (KR 200456270 Y1). [AltContent: textbox (Outer diameter)][AltContent: ][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Inner diameter)][AltContent: ][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Diameter of the head portion)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Head portion)][AltContent: textbox (Bone screw)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Wrench hole)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Holes)][AltContent: textbox (Neck portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Screw portion)] PNG media_image1.png 464 280 media_image1.png Greyscale [AltContent: textbox (Female threads forming side grooves)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Sub lower grooves)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Lower grooves)][AltContent: arrow] PNG media_image2.png 338 198 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claim 1, Jang Jae-woo discloses a bone screw (see Fig. 2 above) for 3D guided bone regeneration used in dental surgery for inducing and regenerating a part of alveolar bone defected in or around an implant surgery region, the bone screw including: a head portion (120) configured to provide a tenting function for a part of the alveolar bone to be regenerated or induced (see annotated Fig. 2 above); a neck portion formed on a lower surface of the head portion (see annotated Fig. 2 above); a screw portion (110) (see annotated Fig. 2 above including threads 112) formed beneath the neck portion and directly fixed to the alveolar bone in a thread fastening manner, wherein the alveolar bone can be induced or regenerated three-dimensionally, this is provided by the shape of the screw portion (110), by including sides grooves (113), lower grooves (114), and sub lower grooves (115), in this way providing surface areas in contact with the alveolar bone that induce bone fusion through the growth of the alveolar bone (200) and by including a surface treatment such as SLA, RBM, SLA and RBM, to promote bone cells adherence with the surfaces of the screw portion (110) (see annotated Fig. 3 above and page 3, lines 14-20 of the translation), However, Jang Jae-woo does disclose the diameter of the head portion is larger than the diameter of the body of the screw portion, and the outer diameter of the screw portion is smaller than the diameter of the head portion (see annotated Fig. 2 above). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the ratio between an inner diameter of the screw portion and a diameter of the head portion to be set to 1:4 to 1:6, and a ratio between an outer diameter of the screw portion and a diameter of the head portion for 1:3 to 1:5, since these are result effective variables that contribute to the fixation force between the screw and the surrounding alveolar bone, 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 and modifying the claim as suggested would allow for more growth of alveolar bone after implantation (page 3 of Jang Jae-woo) . In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Regarding claim 2, Jang Jae-woo discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1, and where Jang Jae-woo discloses that the head portion has a plurality of blood holes (121) (see annotated Fig. 2 above). Regarding claim 4, Jang Jae-woo discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1, and where Jang Jae-woo discloses a wrench hole is provided at the center of the head portion (see annotated Fig. 2 above – the hole has the same shape as the hexagonal shape of the protrusion 111 of the screw portion used by a wrench tool; therefore, it is understood that the hole at the center of the head portion is a wrench hole). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 26 August 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that the limitations described in claim 3, now in claim 1, the prior art of Jang does not have any motivation to modify the diameter in order to conclude into the ratios between the head portion and the inner and outer diameters of the screw portion as claimed. The Office disagrees, the prior art of Jan Jae-woo discloses a bone screw including the same structural elements as claimed, such as the head portion, the screw portion, where the head portion includes a plurality of holes, and the head portion has a diameter, where the screw portion includes the neck portion, threads extending along the longitudinal axis, and where the core portion of the screw portion has an inner diameter, and the threads around the core provides an outer diameter. It was indicated in the last Office action that Jan Jae-woo didn’t provide dimensions for its bone screw. However, it was indicated that the intended use is for implantation in an alveolar bone for dental applications. Therefore, this bone screw should have the general size for such dental implementation. Therefore, due to the bone screw of Jan Jae-woo includes all the structural limitations as claimed, the it has been stablished that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation, where in this case to find the ratios for the diameters between the head portion and the inner and outer diameters of the screw portion. Because it would have been obvious for a person skill in the art would to conclude the same ratios based on the same intended use as in the present application, even if the prior art does not provide a motivation. Therefore, due to the claimed bone screw is no different from the bone screw of Jan Jae-woo, it is understood that the rejection is proper and will be maintained. Making the present set of claims not ready for allowance. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 12, 2023
Application Filed
Jul 12, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
May 19, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 26, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 25, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Apr 03, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594143
METHOD FOR TRACKING, PREDICTING, AND PROACTIVELY CORRECTING MALOCCLUSION AND RELATED ISSUES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588983
DENTAL IMPLANT WITH INDEXING SURFACES HAVING A FRICTION-REDUCING COATING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588984
Dental Apparatus and Methods
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12575911
DISTRACTOR, BONE SCREW FOR SAID DISTRACTOR, AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING SAID DISTRACTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12569318
Device For Heating A Dental Material
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
64%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+21.3%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 660 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month