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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by JANG (US 2023/0190421 A1, hereinafter Jang).
The applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding Claim 1, Jang discloses an abutment screw-separable dental implant structure (Figure 7) comprising an abutment screw (200 and 400 taken together) for fastening and fixing an abutment (10) to a fixture (2) implanted in an alveolar bone. The abutment screw of Jang comprises a threaded part (lower part of 400) coupled to the fixture through an inner space of the abutment (as seen in Figure 7), a connection part (upper portion of 400 and lower portion of 200 taken together) formed on an upper portion of the threaded part and that is entirely received and seated within an inner space of the abutment by the threaded part coupled to the fixture (as seen in Figure 7), and a head part (upper portion of 200) formed on an upper portion of the connection part, the head part protruding upward from an upper end of a post of the abutment by an extended length, and having a tapered outer surface (210) such that a diameter of the head part decreases from the upper portion of the connection part to an opposite end which is an upper end of the head part and protruding toward the upper portion of the abutment (as seen in Figure 7). Jung further discloses a crown (1) installed to cover the head part and a post of the abutment (as seen in Figure 7), the crown being provided with an accommodating groove part (central opening in crown as seen in Figure 7) in which the head part and the post of the abutment are accommodated, and an abutment cap (300) coupled to the head part and accommodated in the accommodating groove part (as seen in Figure 7).
Regarding Claim 11, Jang discloses the abutment screw-separable dental implant structure of claim 1, and further discloses that the abutment cap comprises a threaded part of the abutment cap (320) screwed to the head part of the abutment screw (as seen in Figure 7), and a head part of the abutment cap (310) formed on an upper portion of the threaded part of the abutment cap and pressing an inner wall of the accommodating groove part toward the abutment (as seen in Figure 7 the head part of the abutment cap would be pressing downward in the abutment groove, thus pressing toward the abutment).
Claims 1 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wakabayashi (US 10,729,519 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Wakabayashi discloses an abutment screw-separable dental implant structure (Figure 1) comprising an abutment screw (4) for fastening and fixing an abutment (2) to a fixture (1) implanted in an alveolar bone. The abutment screw of Wakabayashi comprises a threaded part (lower part of 4) coupled to the fixture through an inner space of the abutment (as seen in Figure 1), a connection part (middle section of 4) formed on an upper portion of the threaded part and that is entirely received and seated within an inner space of the abutment by the threaded part coupled to the fixture (as seen in Figure 1), and a head part (upper section of 4) formed on an upper portion of the connection part, the head part protruding upward from an upper end of a post of the abutment by an extended length, and having a tapered outer surface (outer surface of the upper section of 4 tapers to align with taper of 3) such that a diameter of the head part decreases from the upper portion of the connection part to an opposite end which is an upper end of the head part and protruding toward the upper portion of the abutment (as seen in Figure 1). Wakabayashi further discloses a crown (3 taken together with a crown as implied in Column 6, lines 15-20 as there is a “crown fixing part” there would be a crown as well) installed to cover the head part and a post of the abutment (as seen in Figure 1), the crown being provided with an accommodating groove part (central opening in 3 in Figure 1) in which the head part and the post of the abutment are accommodated, and an abutment cap (5) coupled to the head part and accommodated in the accommodating groove part (as seen in Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 11, Wakabayashi discloses the abutment screw-separable dental implant structure of claim 1, and further discloses that the abutment cap comprises a threaded part of the abutment cap (at 44) screwed to the head part of the abutment screw (as seen in Figure 1), and a head part of the abutment cap formed on an upper portion of the threaded part of the abutment cap and pressing an inner wall of the accommodating groove part toward the abutment (as seen in Figure 1 the head part of the abutment cap would be pressing downward in the abutment groove, thus pressing toward the abutment).
Regarding claim 12, Wakabayashi further discloses wherein the abutment screw has the threaded part, the connection part and the head part formed integrally as a unitary piece (see Fig. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang.
Regarding Claim 12, Jang discloses the abutment screw-separable dental implant structure of claim 1 as described above in the embodiment of Figure 7, and further discloses the abutment screw with the threaded part, the connection part, and the head part formed integrally as a unitary piece in the embodiment of Figure 1 (as described in [0006]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the embodiment of Figure 7 of Jang with the head part formed integrally as a unitary piece as taught by Figure 1 of Jang, as such a modification would merely involve making formerly separate components integral, which has been held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan (see MPEP 2144.04 (V)(B).
Response to Arguments
Replacement drawings are sufficient to overcome the drawing objections and have been entered.
Claim amendments are sufficient to overcome the prior 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 11 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.
/CHRISTINE L NELSON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/EDWARD MORAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772