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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/02/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that Dürr fails to provide for the limitation of “a polygonal coupler directly coupled to a polygonal groove or polygonal protrusion of the dental implant” which is not persuasive as the claim limitation actually only recites “configured to be directly coupled to a polygonal groove or polygonal protrusion of the dental implant” as such the only structure which the “configured to” requires is the couple having a polygonal shape which Dürr does provide, and it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987).
Applicant has also argued that Dürr fails to provide for the planar faces having roughened planar faces. While Dürr does disclose the recited planar faces and that those faces are to be used in scanning the dental abutment the new prior art of Levy et al. is cited in combination with Dürr for the new limitation of “roughened”.
Applicant has acknowledged that Dürr does disclose the planar surfaces of the abutment for scanning, but then argues that Dürr also disclose other elements that can also be used as abutment and thus the cited abutment of Dürr is somehow only for an insertion relation structure, however this is not persuasive as the cited elements of Dürr read on the claim limitations, including any intended uses. While Dürr might discloses other embodiments, their presence does not remove the cited portions of Dürr.
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.
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 Claims 1, 3, 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dürr et al. (EP 3095409 A1, provided machine translation cited for text) in view of Levy et al. (WO 2016/151580 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Dürr discloses an abutment configured to be coupled to an upper part of a dental implant fixture (Fig. 5 and Fig. 1 showing the abutment 98 directly coupled to an upper part of a dental implant fixture element 10) comprising:
a coupler having a polygonal shape and configured to be directly coupled to a polygonal groove or a polygonal protrusion disposed at the upper part of the dental implant fixture (Fig. 5 element 88/89 that is configured to be directly coupled to an implant fixture groove as shown in figure 1. While Dürr does disclose the intended use recited, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987). ); and
a body configured to be mounted with a crown, the crown being an artificial tooth (Fig. 5 elements 92/80, page 9 lines 12-13 disclosing the body serves as a holder for an artificial tooth denture),
wherein the body includes a lower body (Fig. 5 element 80) and an upper body that is disposed on the lower body and having a polygonal cross-section, such that the upper body is configured to be gripped by an external driving tool (Fig. 5 element 92 being a hexagonal body that is configured by its hexagonal shape to be gripped by an external driving tool, translation page 9 lines 1- 12 disclosing the upper portion is for driving the implant ), and
wherein the upper body includes a plurality of planar faces defining the polygonal cross section and the planar faces are configured to be optically recognized by a scanner to determine a position and an orientation of the dental implant fixture for digital impression (Fig. 5 element 92 being a plurality of planar faces and polygonal in cross section as shown in the top down view in figure 5 and thus configured to function as a scan body that can be scanned by a scanner for a digital impression, page 9 lines 12-14 the upper portion can act as a scan body. While Dürr does disclose the intended use recited It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987).).
Further regarding claim 1, Dürr discloses structure substantially identical to the instant application as discussed above, including where the planar faces provide for being optically recognized by a scanner ( Fig. 5 element 92 being a plurality of planar faces and polygonal in cross section as shown in the top down view in figure 5 and thus configured to function as a scan body that can be scanned by a scanner for a digital impression, page 9 lines 12-14 the upper portion can act as a scan body) but fails to explicitly disclose where the planar faces of the upper body have roughened surfaces.
However, Levy discloses a dental post with planar faces for scanning (Fig. 1a elements 34/36) and that the scanning faces are roughened (page 11 lines 7-33 disclosing the surfaces for scanning being roughened).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the surfaces for scanning to be roughened as taught by Levy into the planar surfaces disclosed for scanning as taught by Dürr for the purpose of providing for a surface that is meant for scanning to have enhanced optical reflection as taught by Levy (page 11 lines 12-14).
Regarding claim 3, Dürr/Levy further discloses where the lower body has a trapezoidal shape with a diameter gradually increasing downwards (Durr fig. 5 showing the cross-section of 80 being cross-section, as best understood the only way for a three dimensional structure to have a shape of a dimension shape of a trapezoid being a 2d shape would be in a cross-sectional view) and the upper body has a polyprism shape (Fig. 5 element 9 is a polyprism shape of a polygonal hexagon).
Regarding claim 4, Dürr/Levy further disclose where the upper body includes a plurality of grooves disposed thereon along a circumference of the upper body (Durr Fig. 5 grooves between element 92 and 80 and between 80 and 90).
Regarding claim 5, Dürr/Levy further discloses where the coupler includes a lower coupler having a shape with a diameter decreasing downwards and an upper coupler disposed on the lower coupler and having a decreasing diameter shape with a steeper inclination than the lower coupler (see annotated image below, Durr), but fails to explicitly disclose that the decrease in diameter is a gradual taper.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the decreasing diameter of the lower couplers of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient such as a gradual taper. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. Further Dürr disclose where the use of shapes that complement their implants, such as using morse tapers, would be used when needed (page 5 lines 9-15).
PNG
media_image1.png
478
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Dürr/Levy further discloses wherein the upper surface of the upper coupler has a greater diameter than a lower surface of the lower body (see image above).
Regarding claim 7, Dürr/Levy further discloses where the upper body of the body has a hexagonal cross-section (Durr, Fig. 5 element 92 is a hexagon, translation page 9 line 16 disclosing the driving head is a hexagon polygon).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Dürr/Levy further discloses where the hexagonal cross-section includes six primary sides of substantially equal length and further includes additional planar faces disposed between adjacent sides of the hexagonal cross-section to define chamfered surfaces (Durr, Fig. 5 element 92 showing upper body having substantially equal length hexagon sides with chamfered planar faces between each).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW P SAUNDERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3250. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at (571) 270-5614. 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.
/M.P.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3772 09/23/2026
/EDWARD MORAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
