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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 26 November 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 6 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 6 recites the limitation "screw implant connecting section" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 6, the use of the term “screw implant connecting section” is indefinite. It is not understood if said term refers to the “implant connecting section” described in line 8 of claim 1, or if it is another structure. For examination purposes, the term will be interpreted as it is the same limitation described in claim 1.
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 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Spindler et al. (DE 102019001715 A1).
[AltContent: textbox (Screw Implant)][AltContent: textbox (Longitudinal upper slot of the Open-end passage)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Fastening section)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Abutment receiving section)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Longitudinal lower slot of the Open-end passage)][AltContent: textbox (Threaded portion)][AltContent: ][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second female thread)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Head portion)][AltContent: textbox (Second male thread)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First male thread)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First female thread)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Open-end passage)][AltContent: textbox (Implant connecting section)][AltContent: textbox (Crown connecting section)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ][AltContent: connector][AltContent: ][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: ][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Blind hole)][AltContent: textbox (Abutment)][AltContent: textbox (End)][AltContent: ][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Screw fastening member)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Outer thread section)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
640
506
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Spindler et al. discloses an implant for dental prosthesis, including:
a screw implant being externally formed with an outer thread section (see annotated Fig. 10 above), and an end of the implant having a blind hole (see annotated Fig. 10 above), the blind hole internally defining an abutment receiving section and a fastening section having a profile smaller than that of the abutment receiving section (see annotated Fig. 11 above), and the fastening section being internally provided with a first female thread (82) (see annotated Fig 11 above);
an abutment including a crown connecting section located outside the blind hole and an implant connecting section received in the abutment receiving section of the screw implant (see annotated Fig. 11 above), the crown connecting section and the implant connecting section being sequentially arranged from top to bottom of the abutment (see annotated Fig. 11 above), the abutment being internally formed with an open-end passage extending from the crown connecting section into the implant connecting section (see annotated Fig. 11 above), the open-end passage including a longitudinal lower slot located adjacent to the fastening section of the screw implant and a longitudinal upper slot having a bore size larger than that of the longitudinal lower slot, the longitudinal lower slot being internally provided with a second female thread (see annotated Fig. 11 above); and
a screw fastening member (62) including a head portion disposed in the longitudinal upper slot of the open-end passage and a threaded portion extending into both the fastening section of the screw implant and the longitudinal lower slot of the open-end passage (see annotated Fig. 11 above), the threaded portion being provided with a first male thread meshing with the first female thread on the screw implant and a second male thread meshing with the second female thread on the abutment (see annotated Fig. 11 above), wherein
the first male thread has a spiral extending direction in the same as the spiral extending direction of the second male thread, such that the first male thread and the second male thread are arranged parallelly and alternatively in a same direction (see page 3, line 35 – where the first female thread 82 is a right-hand thread, and in page 4, lines 30-31 – where the second female thread 72 is a right hand thread; therefore, the spiral extending direction for both threads are the same).
Regarding claim 4, Spindler discloses that the screw fastening member is extended into the open-end passage of the abutment first for the second male thread to mesh with the second female thread, and the screw fastening member is extended further into the fastening section of the implant for the first male thread to mesh with the first female thread (see Fig. 10-11 above – where the first figure shows on the left that the second male thread of the screw fastening member is first in the open-end passage of the abutment, and then in the second figure on the right shows the first male thread engaging with the first female thread of the fastening section of the implant).
[AltContent: textbox (Depth of the Second male thread )][AltContent: ][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Second female thread)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second male thread)]
PNG
media_image2.png
240
334
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Fig. 10 zoomed upper and lower portions )][AltContent: textbox (Depth of the First male thread )][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (First female thread)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First male thread)]
PNG
media_image3.png
246
346
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Spindler discloses that the first male thread and the second male thread area arranged parallelly in the same direction (see Fig. 10 and 11 above, page 3, line 35 – where the first female thread 82 is a right-hand thread, and in page 4, lines 30-31 – where the second female thread 72 is a right hand thread; therefore, the spiral extending direction for both threads are the same); and the first male thread having has a thread depth larger than that of the second male thread (see annotated Fig. 10 zoomed upper and lower portions above – where the threads of the second male threads on the upper portion have smaller pitch and thread root to crest dimension than the first male threads on the lower portion.
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.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spindler et al. (DE 102019001715 A1) in view of Neumann (DE 20303653 U1).
Regarding claim 1, Spindler et al. discloses an implant for dental prosthesis, including:
a screw implant being externally formed with an outer thread section (see annotated Fig. 10 above), and an end of the implant having a blind hole (see annotated Fig. 10 above), the blind hole internally defining an abutment receiving section and a fastening section having a profile smaller than that of the abutment receiving section (see annotated Fig. 11 above), and the fastening section being internally provided with a first female thread (82) (see annotated Fig 11 above);
an abutment including a crown connecting section located outside the blind hole and an implant connecting section received in the abutment receiving section of the screw implant (see annotated Fig. 11 above), the crown connecting section and the implant connecting section being sequentially arranged from top to bottom of the abutment (see annotated Fig. 11 above), the abutment being internally formed with an open-end passage extending from the crown connecting section into the implant connecting section (see annotated Fig. 11 above), the open-end passage including a longitudinal lower slot located adjacent to the fastening section of the screw implant and a longitudinal upper slot having a bore size larger than that of the longitudinal lower slot, the longitudinal lower slot being internally provided with a second female thread (see annotated Fig. 11 above); and
a screw fastening member (62) including a head portion disposed in the longitudinal upper slot of the open-end passage and a threaded portion extending into both the fastening section of the screw implant and the longitudinal lower slot of the open-end passage (see annotated Fig. 11 above), the threaded portion being provided with a first male thread meshing with the first female thread on the screw implant and a second male thread meshing with the second female thread on the abutment (see annotated Fig. 11 above).
However, Spindle does not disclose that the first male thread has a spiral extending direction different from a spiral extending direction of the second male thread, such that the first male thread intersects the second male thread.
[AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Screw fastening member)][AltContent: textbox (Abutment)][AltContent: textbox (Fastening section)][AltContent: textbox (Abutment receiving section)][AltContent: ][AltContent: connector][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Blind hole)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Outer thread section)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Implant)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (End)]
PNG
media_image4.png
634
500
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Neumann discloses a dental implant including an implant (1), abutment (2) and screw fastening member (3), where the implant includes a blind bore on its upper end that it is divided into an abutment receiving section and a fastening section (see annotated Fig. 1 above). The screw fastening member is divided into two threaded sections (9, 10) including first male thread (7) and second male thread (8) (see Fig. 2 above), where the first male thread includes a spiral extending direction that is different from the second male thread direction (see page 3, lines 13-21).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the direction of one of the male threads of the screw fastening member of Spindler, with the opposing spiral direction of Neumann, in order to further use the screw fastening member with a clamping lock.
Regarding claim 4, Spindler/Neumann discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1, and where Spindler and Neuman disclose that the screw fastening member is extended into the open-end passage of the abutment first for the second male thread to mesh with the second female thread, and the screw fastening member is extended further into the fastening section of the implant for the first male thread to mesh with the first female thread (see Fig. 10-11 of Spindler above – where the first figure shows on the left that the second male thread of the screw fastening member is first in the open-end passage of the abutment, and then in the second figure on the right shows the first male thread engaging with the first female thread of the fastening section of the implant; and see Fig. 1 and page 2, lines 22-27 above of Newman).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, the prior arts of Spindle does not disclose that each of the first male thread and the second male thread extends from the first end of the threaded portion to the second end of the threaded portion.
Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6, the prior arts of Spindle does not disclose an inner surface of the abutment receiving section is provided with an auxiliary female thread that has a spiral extending direction the same as that of the first male thread; and an outer surface of the implant connecting section being provided with an auxiliary male thread meshing with the auxiliary female thread.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1 rejection, applicant argues that the prior art of Spindler does not describe that the first male thread has a spiral extending direction that is either different or the same as the spiral extending direction of the second male thread.
The position of the Office is, the language used to describe the above subject matter uses the conjunction “or”, making the two spiral extending direction to be alternatives directions for the first male thread. The language does not necessarily indicate that both options can be performed using the same threads.
For that reason, claim 1 can be found in the prior art of Spindler when using the spiral extending direction been the same as the spiral extending direction of the second male thread, such that the first male thread and the second male thread are arranged parallelly and in a same direction as claimed.
If the intention is to describe that the screw fastening member is configured to rotate either of the two opposing spiral directions, instead of one or the other spiral direction as described in the claim, it should be used the “and” conjunction. So that the first male threads are configured to spiral in the same direction and in different direction as the second male thread. In this way it will read in a way of as an example as follow:
“…the first male thread is configured to have
different from a spiral extending direction of the second male thread, such that the first male thread intersects the second male thread, [[or]]and
the same as the spiral extending direction of the second male thread, such that the first male thread and the second male thread are arranged parallelly and alternatively in a same direction”.
Therefore, due to the present claim describes the alternative spiral extending directions, as one or the other direction, and Spindle provides one of the alternative directions, it is understood that the use of Spindle is proper and will be maintained.
The arguments using Fig. 7 and 8 of Spindle are moot because that alternative embodiment shown was not use in the last rejection.
Regarding claim 2 and 4, where the subject matter of claim 2 is one of the alternative spiral directions described in claim 1, it is understood that does not place the claim in condition of allowance for the same reasons given above. The subject matter now in claim 1 has been rejected using the alternative spiral extending direction of the first male thread as been different from the spiral direction of the second male thread shown in the obvious combination of Spindle and Neumann.
Therefore, due to the claim does not describe that the same threads are configured for a bidirectional rotation. It is understood that the rejection of the prior arts is proper.
The amendment has not changed the interpretation of the claimed implant given in the last rejection. Therefore, the Office understands, that the limitations described are found in Spindle or in combination with Newman, making the set of claims 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