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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9 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.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 09/02/2025. These drawings are acceptable.
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.
Claim 2 is 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 2 recites the limitation of “the abutment of claim 1, wherein the body has a hexagonal cross-section”, however claim 1 recites “ a lower body and an upper body” and as such it is unclear which body of claim 1 is intended to be further defined as having the hexagonal cross-section. For purposes of examination any prior art which provides for either or both of the upper or lower body having a hexagonal cross-section will be deemed to provide for the claim limitation.
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 1-4, 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dürr et al. (EP 3095409 A1, provided machine translation cited for text).
Regarding claim 1, Dürr discloses an abutment (Fig. 5) comprising:
a coupler having a polygonal shape (Fig. 5 element 88/89); 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 is configured to function as a scan body for a digital impression (Fig. 5 element 92 being a physical body is 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).
Regarding claims 2 and 7, Dürr further discloses where the upper body of the body has a hexagonal cross-section (Fig. 5 element 92 is a hexagon, translation page 9 line 16 disclosing the driving head is a hexagon polygon).
Regarding claim 3, Dürr further discloses where the lower body has a trapezoidal shape with a diameter gradually increasing downwards (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 further disclose where the upper body includes a plurality of grooves disposed thereon along a circumference of the upper body (Fig. 5 grooves between element 92 and 80 and between 80 and 90).
Regarding claim 6, Dürr 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 claims 8 and 9, Dürr 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 (Fig. 5 element 92 showing upper body having substantially equal length hexagon sides with chamfered planar faces between each).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dürr et al. (EP 3095409 A1, provided machine translation cited for text).
Regarding claim 5, Dürr 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), 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
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892.
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 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, 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.
/M.P.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/THOMAS C BARRETT/SPE, Art Unit 3799