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 § 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.
Claims 1-14 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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claims are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claims must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited. For applications including species of the invention, the claims should be separated for species, and grouped together where possible. The claims should be arranged in order of scope, where the first claim presented includes the less restrictive description of the invention. The set of claims might include dependent claims further describing a particular limitation in more detail.
Regarding claim 1-14, a claim should commence with a preamble indicating the statutory category in which the claimed subject matter falls into, e.g. processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. As an example, if subject matter is directed to a machine, it can include devices, such as a dental implant. The present set of claims does not include a preamble defining the statutory category from where the claim subject matter is based on. Therefore, the claiming of the combination of the dental implant having surface modifications and the limitations described in the rest of the claim, and the intermittent turned/ smooth/ machined/hybrid sub-collar/s (Rezaa Ring/s) feature/s and the limitations described in the rest of the claim, treating peri-implantitis and the limitations described in the rest of the claim, scenarios utilized within the sub-collar/s feature and the limitations described in the rest of the claim, the addition of a third intermittent turned/smooth/machined/hybrid sub-collar (Rezaa ring) feature and the limitations described in the rest of the claim, the intermittent sub-collars and the limitations described in the rest of the claim, the height of each sub-collar and the limitations described in the rest of the claim, the sub-collar modifications and the limitations described in the rest of the claim, the dental implants with the sub-collars and the limitations described in the rest of the claim, and the all in all and the limitations described in the rest of the claim are confusing. The examiner doesn't know if it is trying to claim the sub-combination as the preamble or the combination set forth in the claim. However, the examiner will examine the claim assuming that it is claiming a dental implant including surface modifications in the form of sub-collars with the structural limitations described in each claim.
Regarding claim 1-14, the use of the terms “one or more intermittent turned/smooth/machined/hybrid sub-collar/s (Reza ring/s) feature/s”, “one to three sub-collars”, “sub-collar/s”, sub-collar”, is confusing. It is not understood if said term refers to the same limitation, or if each of them is a separated limitation. For examination purposes, the terms will be interpreted as referring to the same limitation.
Regarding claim 2-3, 5, 7-8 and 11-14, the claims use functional language to describe what the invention does. Even when the use of function language does not make the claim improper, a “functional limitation is often used in association with an element, ingredient, or step of a process to define a particular capability or purpose that is served by the recited element, ingredient or step” (see MPEP 2173.05(g)). On the other hand, “when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear” (see MPEP 2173.05(g)), makes the claims indefinite. For examination purposes, a prior art capable of performing the functional languages in combination with the structural limitations described in each individual claim, said prior art will be considered proper for rejection of that claim.
Regarding claims 2-3 and 5-13, the claims use the term “will” is indicating that the limitation described has not happened, where the present device should have been already created and the functional language and intended use should have been already observed and tested, in which is confusing. For examination purposes, the term will be interpreted as said term is a typographical error, where intended term is described in positive recitation, e.g. in present or in past tense.
Regarding claim 1-14, based on the construction of the claims, each claim has been considered independent from each other. The set of claims does not include dependent claims. Therefore, each claim will be examined independently from each other. For that reason, the claims include terms considered lacking antecedence basis within the claim, because each claim is examined separately, not as a set of claims.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “dental implant” “first one”, “third one” and “machined sub-collars”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 1-4, 7-9 and 14 recite the limitation "intermittent turned/ smooth/ machined/ hybrid sub-collar/s (Reza ring/s) feature/s". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 1-3, 9, 10 and 12-14 recite the limitation "dental implant". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 1 and 4 recite the limitation “platform”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 1, 4 and 9 recites the limitation “apex”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1-14 recites the limitations “sub-collars”, “sub-collar”, “sub-collar/s”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitations "specific dental implant", “intermittent turned/smooth/machined/hybrid sub-collar/s (Reza ring/s) feature/s“ and “coronal third”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitations "first turned/smooth/machined/hybrid sub-collar (Rezaa Ring) feature", “top coronal” and “apex”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitations "sub-collar/s feature", “top 2/3”, “lower 1/3” and “transition zone”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitations of "implant design”, “demarcation” and “implants”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitations "height”, “sub-collar” and “surface area”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitations "sub-collar/s", “external or internal hex”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitations "these dental implants", “sub-collars”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitations “backup features (intermittent turned/ smooth/ machined/hybrid sub-collar/s (Reza ring/s)”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 1-4, 7-9 and 14, the use of the term “Reza ring/s” and “Rezaa ring/s”, is confusing. It is not understood if said terms refer to a particular additional feature, or that the claimed modification is called by the applicant the “Reza ring/s”, “Rezaa ring/s” or if said terms refer to a Trademark (™). If the term refers to a Trademark, the term should be replaced by the generic terminology. For examination purposes, the term will be interpreted as that it refers to the name given by the applicant to the modification done to a dental implant.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation of “In this present invention disclosure for ease of demonstration one to three sub-collars are considered only” in line 2-3, is confusing. It is not understood if the recitation is required by the claim, because by indicating that it is a “demonstration”, which it raises issues if said “one to three sub-collars” is required or not. For examination purposes, the term will be interpreted as that it is positively claiming the “one to three sub-collars”.
Regarding claim 1, the use of the term “several millimeters” and “about” in line 4, is confusing. Said terms are not understood because the specification lacks some standard for measuring the degrees intended or the deviation from the value claimed, that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the use of the term “platform” in line 4, is confusing. It is not understood the location of said “platform’ with respect to the dental implant. For examination purposes, the term will be interpreted as it refers to a generally flat structure in the direction of the coronal end of the dental implant.
Regarding claim 1, the use of the term “another sub-collar” in line 4 and a “third one” in line 5, is confusing. It is not understood if said collars are part of the “one to three sub-collars” or if it is a separate “sub-collar” in addition to the “one to three sub-collars”. For examination purposes, the term will be interpreted as it is part of the “one to three sub-collars”.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation of “(considering a 10mm dental implant)” in line 5, is confusing. It is not understood if said recitation in parenthesis is a required characteristic for the dental implant or if is just an example. Due to the recitation is in parenthesis and not positively claimed, it is be interpreted as an example.
Regarding claim 1, the use of the term “one to three sub-collars” in line 3, is confusing. It is not understood if said term refers to the “one or more intermittent turned/smooth/machined/hybrid sub-collar/s (Reza ring/s) feature/s” described in line 1-2 of the claim, or if it is another separated limitation. For examination purposes, the term will be interpreted as both terms refer to the same limitation.
Regarding claim 1, the use of the term “first one” in line 3, is confusing. It is not understood to which structural limitation the applicant refers to be the first one. The Office believed and will examine the limitation as being the “first sub-collar” of the one to three sub-collars described in line 3.
Regarding claim 1, the description of the “exact locations and the height of the sub-collars can be modified to variable locations and heights respectively” in line 5-7, is confusing. If the height of the sub-collars has been indicated in the claim, describing that those distances can be modified, it not understood the intended location of each of the sub-collars, that a person skill in the art would understand.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation of “promoting bone growth during the healing after being placed” in line 8, is confusing. It is not understood the intended place where the healing is done. For examination purposes, the term will be interpreted as the intended place is in the “jaw bone”.
Regarding claim 2, the use of the term “coronal third” in line 4, is confusing. It is not understood if it refers to the “specific dental implant”, or to the “loosed osseointegration on the bone”. For examination purposes, the term will be interpreted as it refers to the dental implant.
Regarding claim 2, the use of the term “smooth non threaded surface” in line 5, is confusing. It is not understood if said term refers to the “intermittent turned/smooth/machined/hybrid sub-collar/s (Reza ring/s) feature”, or an additional surface. For examination purposes, the term will be interpreted as describing the “intermittent turned/smooth/machined/hybrid sub-collar/s (Reza ring/s) feature”.
Regarding claim 2, the recitation of “it will also at the same time allow better ability to clean” in line 6-7, is confusing. It is not understood if the recitation refers to the “smooth non threaded surface” of line 5 or to another structure. For examination purposes, the term will be interpreted as referring to the “smooth non threaded surface.
Regarding claim 2, the term “smooth surface” in line 7, is confusing. It is not understood if said term refers to the “smooth non threaded surface” of line 5, or to another surface. For examination purposes, the term will be interpreted as it refers to the “smooth non threaded surface”.
Regarding claim 3, it is used the terms “Zygomatic implants, Bulky hybrid restorations” in line 4, is confusing. The claim is not positively claiming such implant, but that patients can have those kinds of implant. The claim does not describe the intended primary subject matter to be claimed nor any other structural element of the sub-collar, other than general description of a plague accumulation in a patient.
Regarding claim 4, the use of the term “approximately” in line 5, is confusing. The term is considered indefinite by not positively claiming the intended number of millimeters below the platform, that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 4, the use of the term “platform” in line 5, is confusing. It is not understood the location of said “platform’ with respect to the “intermittent turned/smooth/machined/hybrid sub-collar/s (Rezaa Ring/s) feature/s”. For examination purposes, the term will be interpreted as it refers to a generally flat structure in the direction of the coronal end of a dental implant.
Regarding claim 4, the use of the terms “indentation or in line with threads above and below” in parenthesis, is confusing. It is not understood if the terms in parenthesis is an example of the “flat machined surface”, or the intention is to positively claim said terms in association with the “flat machined surface”. For examination purposes, the term will be interpreted as been associated with the “flat machined surface”.
Regarding claim 4, the use of the term “approximately” in line 5, is confusing. The word “several” and “about” are indefinite by not positively claiming the amount of millimeters intended to claim, in which one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 5, the claim the construction does not provide a preamble indicating the statutory category of the claimed, making the claim indefinite as indicated above. For that reason, it is not understood if the claimed subject matter is directed to a method, or to a device/product. As best understood by the examiner, the claim will be examined as the claim is directed to a device/product describing its intended use.
Regarding claim 6, the claim does not have a preamble indicating its statutory category. It is not understood if the applicant’s intention is to claim the dental implant including sub-collar/s with the machined and polished surface, or if it is describing only the sub-collar/s with machined and polishing surfaces, for that reason the claim is considered indefinite. Furthermore, if the intention is to claim only the sub-collar/s, it further creates an indefinite issue over the claimed subject matter, by describing a characteristic of the sub-collar/s over an unknown matter, in this way the claim is open to infinite interpretations, making it indefinite. For examination purposes, the term will be interpreted as sub-collar/s with the machine and polished surfaces.
Regarding claim 6, the claim uses parenthesis in line 2, in which is confusing. Due to the information within the parenthesis is not positively claimed, it is not understood if the information is just an example or if the intention is to claim it. If the intention is to claim those values, the claim further describes in lines 2-4 the same Sa values as the values within the parenthesis, making irrelevant the first two lines of the claim. Due to the claim includes several issues, the claim is considered indefinite.
Regarding claim 6, the use of the term “top 2/3” and “lower 1/3” in line 3, is confusing. It is not described in the claim the orientation of the implant when using the terms top and lower, making the description indefinite by depending on the final orientation of the implant or the sub-collar or the intended orientation of the applicant. Due to the claim does not provide said intended orientation, as best understood by the examiner, the term will be interpreted as that the sub-collar in the implant is placed on the upper jaw of the patient, making the top 2/3 of the sub-collar been in the direction towards the apex, and the lower 1/3 of the sub-collar in the direction toward the platform.
Regarding claim 9, the use of the term “about” in line 2, is confusing. Said term is not understood because the specification lacks some standard for measuring the degrees intended or the deviation from the value claimed, that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 10, the use of parenthesis in lines 1 and 2, is confusing. It is not understood if the intention is to claim the values described in the parenthesis or it the values are just an example. For examination purposes, the term will be interpreted as examples.
Regarding claim 10, the construction of the claim describing the intermittent sub-collars is confusing. Due to the claim is examined as an independent claim, the claim does not provide the structure to which a roughness can be described, making the claim indefinite. For examination purposes, the term will be interpreted as that the intermittent sub-collars located on a dental implant includes a much less rough surface than the remaining dental implant.
Regarding claim 11, it is described that the height ranges from 0.1-1.5mm or more, where the option of having a height over 1.5mm, creates an open-ended numerical range, in this way allowing the height to extend to an infinite height, creating the claim indefinite.
Regarding claim 12, the use of “be it” in line 1, is confusing. It is not understood the intended description within the claim, or if it is a typographical error, where it is supposed to recite “within bone level”. For examination purposes, the term will be interpreted as “
Regarding claim 12, the construction of the claim does not provide a preamble and it does not include structural elements, other than a sub-collar modifications utilized on dental implants, in which is confusing. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as a dental implant with a sub-collar modification.
Regarding claim 13, the construction of the claim does not provide a preamble and it does not include structural elements, other than the claim is directed to dental implants followed by the intended use, in which is confusing. As best understood by the examiner, the claim will be examined as a dental implant capable of providing the intended use described in the claim.
Regarding claim 14, the construction of the claim does not provide a preamble and it does not include structural elements, other than the claim is directed to the back feature of (intermittent turned/smooth/machined/hybrid sub-collar/s (Rezaa Ring/s) followed by the intended use, in which is confusing. As best understood by the examiner, the claim will be examined as the use of backup features (intermittent turned/smooth/machined/hybrid sub-collar/s (Rezaa Ring/s) increases the success and the survival rate of dental implants.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claims 1-14, the reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description and the drawings may be used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims. However, the use of reference characters is to be considered as having no effect on the scope of the claims. (See MPEP 608.01(m) - Form of Claims [R-07.2015])
Examiner’s Note
In order to clarify and demonstrate how to fix the above some of the rejections and objections mentioned above, the following is an example of an amended claim 1. The example shown below is not intended to indicate the only form to amend the claim, but as a way to show how a claim can be re-written in order to solve the issues mentioned above.
Claim 1 (examiner’s example of amended claim) A dental implant, including;
a body, including a platform and an apex,
a height extending from the platform to the apex;
one to three sub-collars located on the body;
where a first sub-collar of the one to three sub-collars is located on a first distance below the platform;
where a second sub-collar of the one to three sub-collars is located midway of the body bellow the platform;
where a third sub-collar of the one to three sub-collars is located millimeters above the apex;
where the one to three sub-collars include a smooth surface for promoting bone growth during the healing after being placed.
Regarding claim 1, due to the claim includes multiple issues, in order to simplify the examination procedure. As best understood by the examiner, claim 1 will be examined as the example given above, in which it includes all the limitations as it was originally included in the claim, with amendments fixing the 112’s mentioned above.
Regarding claim 2-14, due to the claim includes multiple issues, in order to simplify the examination procedure. As best understood by the examiner, the claims will be examined all the limitations as it was originally described in the each claim, with amendments fixing the 112’s mentioned above
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-3, 5 and 7-8, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schulte et al. (EP 0438048 A1).
Claims 1-3 and 7-8 introduce product-by-process language “machined” or “machined (non-blasted) and rough (blasted) surfaces”. Therefore, claim 1-3 and 7-8 are considered product-by-process claim and the final product will be given patentable weight only.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Body)][AltContent: textbox (Flat machined surface)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Millimeter above the apex)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Third sub-collar)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Intermittent turned/smooth/machined/hybrid sub-collar/s (Rezaa_ Ring/s) feature/s,
or the One to three sub-collars)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Dental implant)][AltContent: textbox (Distance)][AltContent: ][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Platform)][AltContent: ][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second sub-collar)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First sub-collar)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Apex)]
PNG
media_image1.png
724
284
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 1, Schulte et al. discloses a dental implant, including;
a body, including a platform and an apex,
a height extending from the platform to the apex (see annotated Fig. 2 above);
one to three sub-collars located on the body (see annotated Fig. 2 above);
where a first sub-collar (20) of the one to three sub-collars is located on a distance below the platform of the dental implant (see annotated Fig. 2 above);
where a second sub-collar (21) of the one to three sub-collars is located midway of the body bellow the platform;
where a third sub-collar of the one to three sub-collars is located millimeter above the apex (see annotated Fig. 2 above);
where the one to three sub-collars include a smooth surface for promoting bone growth during the healing after being placed (see annotated Fig. 2 above and page 1, lines 5 of the translated description – where the sub-collars do not include threads and the dental implant has a “tissue friendly surface made of high-purity, non-porous Al₂O₃ ceramic”; therefore, due to the dental implant is made of a non-porous ceramic and the sub-collars do not include threads, it is understood that said surface of the sub-collars are smooth).
Regarding claim 2, Schulte et al. discloses that the dental implant includes the one to three sub-collars having smooth non threaded surface capable of providing the intended use described in the claim (see annotated Fig. 2 and page 1, lines 5 of the translated description – where the sub-collars do not include threads and the dental implant has a “tissue friendly surface made of high-purity, non-porous Al₂O₃ ceramic”; therefore, due to the dental implant is made of a non-porous ceramic and the sub-collars do not include threads, it is understood that said surface of the sub-collars are smooth).
Regarding claim 3, Schulte et al. discloses a dental implant including three sub-collars having a smooth surface (see annotated Fig. 2 above); the dental implant is capable to allow the bone to remain stable below the sub-collar for a short period of time if treatment for Peri-implantitis is delayed.
[AltContent: textbox (Smooth non threaded surface sub-collar)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
714
316
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Schulte et al. discloses a dental implant including a smooth non threaded surface sub-collar (14) capable of been used to improve the prognosis after the treatment of peri-implantitis using a regenerative approach (see annotated Fig. 1 above and page 5, lines 2-4 – where the coronal portion 14 of the implant body includes a smooth non threaded surface to maintain perimplant hygiene; therefore, the dental implant of Schulte et al. is capable of providing the regenerative approach treatment).
Regarding claim 7, Schulte et al. discloses a dental implant including the intermittent turned/smooth/machined/hybrid sub-collar/s (Rezaa_ Ring/s) feature/s serve as a demarcation surface visible on the radiograph, providing a guideline for the clinician to either treat or refer to be treated by another clinician for advanced treatment (see annotated Fig. 2 above – where the feature are clearly demarcated on the external surface of the dental implant that are capable of providing the guideline on a radiograph).
Regarding claim 8, Schulte et al. discloses a dental implant including the intermittent turned/smooth/machined/hybrid sub-collar/s (Rezaa Ring/s) feature in this implant design is helpful in patient education to help understand the importance of hygiene and potential bone loss, and when to get treatment. This demarcation will intrigue the thought process in the viewers (patient or clinician) mind; hence initiate a self-understanding of both by the clinicians as well as patients. This will also be helpful for explanation purposes during informed consent too; which is often forgotten. Also, the advertisement makes it sound like implants are bullet proof. This will help viewers to understand more; hence make intelligent decisions (see annotated Fig. 2 above – due to the dental implant includes the intermittent turned/smooth/machined/hybrid sub-collar/s (Rezaa Ring/s) feature as claimed, it is understood that the dental implant provides the capability for the patient or clinician to help understand the importance of hygiene and potential bone loss).
Regarding claim 12, Schulte et al. discloses a dental implant including a sub-collar (14) including located at the soft tissue level (68) (see annotated Fig. 1 above).
Regarding claim 13, Schulte et al. discloses that these dental implants with the sub-collars are capable to be used for all patients. If a choice is to be made regarding its use in some patients for any reason; those at high risk for peri-implantitis are prioritized; putting a brake on the progression of Peri-implantitis (see annotated Fig. 2 above – due to the dental implant includes sub-collars, it is understood that the dental implant is capable of been used in patients to break the progression of peri-implantitis.
Regarding claim 14, Schulte et al. discloses the presence of these backup features (intermittent turned/smooth/machined/hybrid sub-collar (Rezaa Ring) (see annotated Fig. 1 above will increase the success and the survival rate of dental implants (see annotated Fig. 1 above and page 5, lines 2-4 – where the coronal portion 14 of the implant body includes a smooth non threaded surface to maintain perimplant hygiene; therefore, the dental implant of Schulte et al. is capable of increasing the success of survival of the dental implant in the patient).
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.
Claims 4 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulte et al. (EP 0438048 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Schulte et al. discloses a dental implant including a plurality of intermittent turned/smooth/machined/hybrid sub-collar/s (Rezaa_ Ring/s) feature/s having a flat machined surface (indentation or in line with threads above and below) (see annotated Fig. 2 above).
However, Schulte et al. does not disclose that the first turned/smooth/machined/hybrid sub-collar (Rezaa Ring) feature is to be placed approximately 3.5 mm below the platform.
On the other hand, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to place the first turned/smooth/machined/hybrid sub-collar (Rezaa Ring) feature approximately 3.5 mm below the platform, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 9, Schulte et al. discloses a dental implant including third intermittent turned/smooth/machined/hybrid sub-collar (Rezaa Ring) feature above the apex (see annotated Fig. 2 above).
However, Schulte et al. does not disclose that the third intermittent turned/smooth/machined/hybrid sub-collar (Rezaa Ring) feature about 3.5mm above the apex.
On the other hand, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to place the third turned/smooth/machined/hybrid sub-collar (Rezaa Ring) feature approximately 3.5 mm above the apex, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10, Schulte et al. discloses a dental implant including intermittent sub-collars, where each of the dental implant and the intermittent sub-collars include a surface, each having a roughness.
However, Schulte et al. does not disclose that the intermittent sub-collars are much less rough, as compared to the remaining dental implant.
On the other hand, having a surface including threads, it is considered to provide more roughness than a surface not having threads. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would see obvious that the intermittent sub-collars include a surface that is much less rough than the remining surface of the dental implant.
Regarding claim 11, Schulte et al. discloses a dental implant including sub-collars, each sub-collar having a height.
However, Schulte et al. does not disclose the height range from 0.1-1.5mm or more.
On the other hand, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a sub-collar having a height in the range from 0.1-1.5mm or more, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crohin et al. (WO 2005107630 A2).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Transition zone)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Polished surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Machined surface)][AltContent: textbox (Sub-collar feature)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
412
490
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Crohin et al. discloses sub-collar feature (24) is a combination of machined and polished surfaces. The sub-collar feature includes a portion divided into a top 2/3 having machined surface (18) and lower 1/3 having a polished surfaces (60) forming a transition zone between each surface portion (see annotated Fig. 6-7 and page 5, lines 38-43).
However, Crohin does not disclose that the machined portion includes a Sa 0.3-1.0 mm and that the polished surface includes a Sa 0.1-0.3 mm.
On the other hand, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a sub-collar having the machined portion including a Sa 0.3-1.0 mm and the polished surface including a Sa 0.1-0.3 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Conclusion
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 3723