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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9, in the reply filed on 09/19/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 10 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/19/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/05/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement filed 04/118/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered where lined through.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mielecke (US 20150351875 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Mielecke teaches a dental implant comprising an integrally connected abutment and dental prosthetic element (ZK) [Fig. 7, Abstract, 0087-0088].
Claim 1 defines the product by how the product was made. Thus, claim 1 is a product-by-process claim. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited steps imply a structure having the abutment connected to the dental prosthetic element. The reference suggests such a product.
In regards to claim 2, Claim 2 defines the product by how the product was made. Thus, claim 2 is a product-by-process claim. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited steps imply a structure comprising a resin for the tooth portion. The reference suggests such a product as Meikle teaches a thermoplastic polymer [0088, claim 9].
Claims 3-5 define the product by how the product was made. Thus, claims 3-6 is a product-by-process claim. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited steps imply a structure comprising a resin for the tooth portion. The reference suggests such a product as Meikle teaches a thermoplastic polymer is used to create the tooth shaped crown (ZK) [0088]. It is noted that the claim is drawn to a dental implant and not the mold to make it nor the method to make the implant, thus only the finished product’s structure is examined.
In regards to claim 6, Mielecke further teaches longitudinal portions of the abutment are both within (TB2) the dental prosthetic element and outside (TB1) [Claim 9, Figs. 1 (B), 3, Fig. 4(A)-(B), 5(c), 7].
In regards to claim 7, Mielecke further teaches a groove portion is present at the collar (KR) between the first and second portions of the abutment and the resin covers the groove [0025, claim 23, Fig. 7].
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mielecke (US 20150351875 A1), as applied to claim 6 above.
In regards to claim 8, Mielecke teaches a contact surface increasing part provided in the longitudinal first portion of the abutment in the form of ribs with a triangular cross section [0020, 0063]. However, Mielecke does not teach that the contact surface increasing part has a shape of threads but does teach that other configurations are possible [0063].
Mielecke discloses the claimed invention except for contact surface increasing part having a shape of threads. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the contact surface increasing part have a shape of threads, since it has been held that the configuration was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration claimed was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mielecke (US 20150351875 A1), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Rosenberg (US 20090123888 A1) [IDS dated: 04/11/2023].
In regards to claim 9, Mielecke further teaches the polymer is mixed with a ceramic additive but does not teach the amount of size range.
Rosenberg teaches a dental abutment and tooth prothesis [Abstract].
Rosenberg teaches the tooth prothesis portion is a resin composite material with an inorganic filler such as a ceramic like silica or zirconia-silica [0050-0051]. The filler has a particle size of 0.1-10 microns [0051].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the silica or silica-zirconia of Rosenberg having particles sizes between 0.1-10 microns as the ceramic additive of Mielecke. One would have been motivated to do so as Rosenberg teaches these ceramics with the particle range of 0.1-10 microns are conventionally known additives to make composite polymer tooth prothesis and thus one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Neither Mielecke nor Rosenberg teach the inorganic filler content is 50-60% by mass.
Rosenberg teaches the filler is used to increase the strength of the resulting replacement tooth prosthesis [0054].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the mass of the filler for the intended application, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
A particular parameter can be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, and the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05.II.B.).
It has been held that the discovery of the optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH A COLLISTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1019. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9 am-5 pm.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
/ELIZABETH COLLISTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784