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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 1 December 2025. These drawings are not acceptable.
The drawings are object to under 37 CFR 1.212(f) the amended Fig. 1-2 include new matter by providing shapes not previously shown in the originally filed drawings for elements labeled 5, 6 and 9. 37 CFR 1.212(f) reads as follows:
No new matter. No amendment may introduce new matter into the disclosure of an application.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The amended specification was received on 1 December 2025. Amended specification not is acceptable.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [00030] - [00033] use label with and without parenthesis, where the use of parenthesis should be consistent through the specification,
In paragraph [00031] - [00031], not all the structural elements described include the labels, and
In paragraph [00033] last sentence reads “The cap (15) cap is assembled on the lower end of the clamping screw (1) where it has a millimetric thread 6, and the cubic body 8 with markings appears (9, 10)”. Where it is not understood if the intention is to have a coma after label (15) as follow “The cap (15), cap…”, or if the second “cap” is a transcript error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, it is used to term “first millimetric threads” in line 5, by using the term threads, it indicates that the “first millimetric threads” includes a plurality of threads, in which it is not found in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 - 2 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.
Regarding claim 1, the use of the term “first millimetric threads” in line 5, is indefinite. It is not understood if said term refers to a set of threads, or if it is a single thread with multiple turns. For examination purposes, the term will be interpreted as that it is a single thread with multiple turns, based that the present specification does not describe including a plurality of threads in that area.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "first millimetric thread" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, the use of the term “first millimetric thread” in line 12 is indefinite. It is not understood if said term refers to the “first millimetric threads” in line 5, or if it refers to another thread. For examination purposes, as that both terms refer to the same limitation.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "first cylindrical body" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, the use of the term “first cylindrical body” in line 10 is indefinite. It is not understood if said term refers to the “cylindrical body” of line 4 or if it refers to another structure in the oroantral prosthetic attachment. For examination purposes, the term will be interpreted as been the same as the “cylindrical body” of line 4.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 8-10 is described the intended use of the hole of the anchor followed by claiming the hole. Even when the Office understands the intention of the applicant, it is suggested to claim first the structure that provides the anchorage as claimed, followed by the intended use. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Regarding claims 1-2, the amendments have solved most of the previous rejections. However, the added language has created other issues that needs to addressed (see rejection above).
Furthermore, the drawings and the specification include issues that need to be resolved.
Therefore, for all the reasons given in the present Office action, it is understood that the present application is not ready for allowance.
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