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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 11-15 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
- The newly added claims are related to a process, in which are considered a patentably distinct invention from the originally submitted product claims. Where the added claims 11-15 are directed to a method for execution of post-extraction dental implant surgery in an alveolar bone of a patient. Said method claims where not originally elected by not been in the set of claims received on 8 August 2023 during the original submission of the present application.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 11-15 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 1-10 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 1 recites “non-working distal portion”. It is unclear if this is referring to a previously set forth element. The claim previously recites “at least one non-working distal portion”. As best understood, the claim should read “each of said at least one non-working distal portion having an end surface as a fulcrum”.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rondot et al. (FR 2989266 A1) in view of Park (KR 20180116817 A).
[AltContent: ][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Reference markings)][AltContent: textbox (Truncated cone shape)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Straight cylinder shape)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Plurality of dental drills)][AltContent: textbox (Working median portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Proximal portion)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Characteristic diameter)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Plurality of groups of dental implants)]
PNG
media_image1.png
496
712
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 1 and 8-10;
Rondot et al. discloses a kit for the execution of post-extraction dental implant surgery, characterized by the fact that it includes:
- a plurality of groups of dental implants (see I1-I10 in Fig. 1 above), each group including at least one threaded pin having a characteristic diameter, the characteristic diameter of each of said groups of dental implants being different from the characteristic diameter of the other groups of dental implants (see annotated Fig. 1 above and Abstract and page 2, lines 16-25); and
- a plurality of dental drills (see F1-F10 in Fig. 1 above), each of which is provided with:
- at least one proximal portion, connectable to a tool for the setting in rotation (see annotated Fig. 1 above);
- at least one working median portion, having a reference diameter (d1, d2, d3) and adapted to remove at least a part of the alveolar bone (see annotated Fig. 1 above);
wherein each of said dental drills corresponds to one of said groups of dental implants and has said reference diameter which is substantially matching the characteristic diameter of the corresponding group of dental implants (see Abstract and page 2, lines 16-25).
However, Rondot does not disclose that the plurality of dental drills are also provided with at least one non-working distal portion, adapted to be inserted, non-working distal portion having an end surface as a fulcrum, in use, inside a corresponding apical portion of an alveolar cavity without removal of the alveolar bone (for claim 1); that the non-working distal portion has a substantially truncated-cone shape (for claim 8); that the non-working distal portion has a decreasing cross-section in the direction of moving away from said working median portion (for claim 9); and that the non-working distal portion comprises at least one smooth lateral surface adapted to be placed in sliding contact with said alveolar bone (for claim 10).
[AltContent: textbox (Fulcrum end surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Non-working distal portion)]
PNG
media_image2.png
528
280
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
457
352
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Excess of bone material)]
PNG
media_image4.png
484
336
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Excess of bone material)]
PNG
media_image5.png
414
218
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 1 and 8-10;
Park teachers a dental implant kit including a set of drills, where each drill includes a non-working distal portion (330 and 430) for supporting the working median portion of the drill when it is inside a side wall of a drilling portion in the dental hole. Furthermore, the non-working distal portion includes in the distal portion a truncated-cone shape that decreasing in cross-section in the direction of moving away from said working median portion, and where the non-working distal portion includes at least one smooth lateral surface adapted to be placed in sliding contact with said alveolar bone, in this way allowing the working median portion been able to reach and remove the excess of bone material by flattening the bone material with the working (see Fig. 2, 3 and 9-10 above). Furthermore, the non-working distal portion guides the working median portion to trim the remaining tooth material (H1) and/or any excess of alveolar bone material (M) left in the cavity (S), in order to expose the alveolar bone, in this way the non-working distal portion does not trim or cut any alveolar bone tissue (see Fig. 9 above and page 5, lines 26-33).
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 distal end of the drill of Rondot, with the non-working distal portion of Park, in order to provide a distal radial support for guiding the working median portion to the intended drilling portion. Furthermore, said non-working distal portion includes a conical end, forming an end surface as a fulcrum, that for a person skill in the art would see that provides the capability of pivoting at that end surface.
Regarding claim 2, Rondot/Park discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1, and where Rondot discloses that the threaded pins have a characteristic length, the characteristic lengths of the threaded pins belonging to a same group of dental implants being different from each other (see Fig. 1 above – where each threaded pin belonging to a group has a characteristic length).
Regarding claim 3, Rondot/Park discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1, and where Rondot discloses that the working median portion includes at least a first section having a straight cylinder shape (see annotated Fig. 1 above).
Regarding claim 4, Rondot/Park discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1, and where Rondot discloses that the working median portion includes at least a second section having a truncated cone shape (see annotated Fig. 1 above).
Regarding claim 5, Rondot/Park discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1.
However, Rondot does not disclose that the working median portion includes a plurality of diamond cutting elements arranged on the surface of at least one of said sections.
Park discloses that the drill working portion includes a diamond coating material for a precise cutting (see abstract and page 4, line 33, page 5, line 9, page 6, line 18 and page 7, lines 25-26).
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 external surface working portion of the drill of Rondot/Park, with the diamond coating material of Park, in order to have a drill that can provide a precise cut.
Regarding claim 6, Rondot/Park discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 3, and where Rondot discloses that the working median portion is provided with reference markings arranged on the surface of said first section (see annotated Fig. 1 above – where the proximal end and the distal end of the straight cylinder shape portion are considered reference markings).
Regarding claim 7, Rondot/Park discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 6, and where Rondot discloses reference markings including at least one depth notch corresponding to a specific characteristic length of at least one of said threaded pins (see annotated Fig. 1 above – where the marking located at the distal end of the straight cylinder shape portion provides a mark for the length of the dental implant that will be placed in the osteotomy).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the use of prior art of Park in page 4 of the remarks, applicant argues that Park does not teach a non-working distal portion with a flat fulcrum end surface.
The arguments are considered moot, because the claims lack a description including that the non-working distal portion the drill has a flat fulcrum end surface. Even when the Office understands that the prior art of Park does not provides said flat fulcrum, the argued subject matter is not present in the claims. Making the arguments moot.
Furthermore, the applicant argues that the non-working distal portion of Park provides for a more stable drill when creating an osteotomy.
The Office understands that even when the non-working distal portion of Park is capable of providing a more stable drill, it is also noted that said non-working distal portion with the end surface in a conical shape, allows the user of the drill to tilt the drill if needed because the conical surface allows for a tapered surface for guidance of the tip of the drill in the alveolar bone cavity.
Furthermore, the non-working distal portion of Park provides the necessary guidance for the drill to maintain a radial distance from the cutting area, so that the working median portion can cut the tissue with more precision. In other words, the non-working distal portion forms a radial stopper, so that the working median portion can cut a predetermined quantity of tissue during the drill insertion.
Furthermore, the surface at the distal end of the drill of Rondot is configured to trim or cut hard tissue. If that distal end of the drill is added the non-working distal portion with the relative smaller radius than the working median portion of Park, said drill is radially guided by the non-working distal portion, so that the additional radius of the working median portion would trim and / or cut the additional tissue in the cavity. Therefore, if the non-working distal portion is placed over the tooth portion to be trimmed, the drill will cut less material, and in a controlled manner, because it will cut with the additional radius portion of the drill every time the drill is inserted into the cavity. For that reason, it is understood that the identified non-working distal portion in the drill of Park would guide the working medial portion of the drill of Rondot in the intended drilling portion, but cutting in a more controlled form.
Therefore, due to the combination does not destroy the intended drilling action of Rondot’s, but enhance its drilling capabilities, it is understood that the combination is proper and will be maintained.
Furthermore, if the user desires to tilt the drill during it use, the non-working distal portion provides the “smooth”/non-working surface capable of tilting the drill without cutting with that non-working distal portion the internal surface of the bone cavity.
Therefore, it is understood that based on the language used in the claims, that the combination of Rondot and Park includes all the limitations of the drill as described in the claims, making the rejection proper.
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