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, see Remarks filed 10/20/2025, have been fully considered. The Applicant’s arguments against the rejections in view of the prior art of record have been fully considered, but are not persuasive as they do not address the new grounds of rejection and/or interpretation below necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, line 21, reads “a dental prosthetic”; it should read “the dental prosthetic” or “said dental prosthetic”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 1, 3, 5-6 and 18-20 is/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.
Claim 1 recites “a dental abutment adjustment screw configured to secure a dental prosthetic to a dental abutment below a fracture threshold of said prosthetic”; it is unclear what is meant by the phrase “below a fracture threshold of said prosthetic”. The scope of the claim is indefinite. A review of the Specification appears to indicate that “the selection of components suitable to secure prosthetic 18 without fracture by screw during installation and use is well within the existing and expected level of skill for one having no more than an ordinary level of skill in the art of dental restoration” ([0039]). Therefore, for the purpose of examination this limitation is interpreted as simply applying a specific shearing force desired to avoid a prosthesis fracture.
Claim 1, line 13, recites “said shoulder”; there is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites “wherein the bottom portion of said screw exhibits a radiused external transition shoulder from the bottom portion to the middle portion”; it is unclear if this structure refers to the transition shoulder previously recited in the claims or if it is a different structure.
Claim 19 is rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 18.
Claim 20 recites “wherein the bottom portion of said dental screw exhibits a radiused external transition shoulder from the bottom portion to the middle portion”; it is unclear if this structure refers to the transition shoulder previously recited in the claims or if it is a different structure.
Claims 3 and 5-6 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 17-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 17 fails to further limit claim 1 from which it ultimately depends. Claims 18 and 19 fail to further limit claim 7 from which they ultimately depend. Claim 20 fails to further limit claim 14 from which it ultimately depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-7, 10, 12-13 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herve (US 20170224447 A1) in view of Mangrane (BR 102013017139 A2), in view of Fradera (US 4790753 A), further in view of Baruc (US 20170027669 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Herve discloses dental abutment adjustment screw (9) configured to secure a dental prosthetic (3) to a dental abutment (7) below a fracture threshold of said prosthetic (the dental abutment adjusted screw disclosed by Herve, has all the necessary structures to be configured to secure a dental prosthetic to a dental abutment, by one having no more than an ordinary level of skill in the art, below a fracture threshold of said prosthetic), said dental screw (9) extending apically in an axial direction (Figure 2) and being made from a medically-acceptable material (Herve’s dental abutment adjustment screw is intended for used in patients; therefore, it is made of medically-acceptable material; see e.g. titanium [0089], disclosed to be the material of some components of Herve’s dental implant system), said screw comprising:
a. a bottom portion having a bottom profile at a bottom end of said bottom portion (Annotated Figure 2, below),
b. a threaded middle portion (12) extending helically in said axial direction from said bottom portion to an upper location of said middle portion,
c. a top portion (a frustoconical cap 10) that is configured to engage interior surfaces of a prosthetic installation channel (channel 4, see Figures 6-7) so that apical forces needed to secure the prosthetic to said abutment are evenly distributed within said installation channel of said prosthetic (the dental abutment adjusted screw disclosed by Herve, has all the necessary structures to be configured to engage interior surfaces of a prosthetic installation channel so that apical forces needed to secure the prosthetic to said abutment are evenly distributed within said installation channel of said prosthetic), wherein said top portion comprises:
(i) a frustoconical cap (10) having a tapered external wall that is larger in diameter at a top end of said cap than at a bottom of said cap (since cap/head 10 has a substantially frustoconical contact surface 10b [0066]), wherein the tapered external wall of said frustoconical cap has a maximum diameter at the top of said cap and a smaller diameter at the bottom of said cap above said shoulder (since the cap/head has a frustoconical surface; see Figure 2 and [0024]),
(ii) an open recess (10a) that is centrally located in said cap (10) and within said external wall, said recess exhibiting a plurality of arc-shaped recess that are spaced equidistant around a perimeter of said recess and which extend radially from said axial direction (since it is a hexagon socket [0063], with sharp angles arcs, Figure 2), and
(iii) a radiused external transition shoulder located at the bottom of said cap (Annotated Figure 5, below) wherein said shoulder is configured to exert force in an axial, apical direction when tightened against an interior retention channel (4) of a dental prosthetic (the dental abutment adjusted screw disclosed by Herve, has all the necessary structures to be configured to exert force in an axial, apical direction when tightened against an interior retention channel of the dental prosthetic) having a corresponding, mating radiused transition (see Figure 7). However, Herve fails to specifically disclose “said recess exhibiting a plurality of arc-shaped recess lobes”, “wherein the tapered external wall of said frustoconical cap has a maximum diameter at the top of said cap and a smaller diameter at the bottom of said cap above said shoulder in a taper ratio within a range from about 1.5 to about 1.7”, “wherein said shoulder exhibits a radius of curvature of 0.38-0.44 mm” and “wherein said screw exhibits an overall screw height to maximum cap diameter ratio that is with a range from about 1 to about 3”.
Mangrane discloses a dental screw with an open recess (P-11-A) that is centrally located in said the screw cap (P-11), said recess exhibiting a plurality of arc-shaped recess lobes that are spaced equidistant around a perimeter of said recess and which extend radially from the central axis (see Figure 6 and page 4 last paragraph to page 5 first paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Herve’s recess to make it exhibiting a plurality of arc-shaped recess lobes, as taught by Mangrane, since such modification would create a hexalobular geometrical design, with radiuses with strong cross section and adapted to fit a wrench up to a 35° of effective inclination to apply tightening torque (page 5).
Fradera discloses a dental abutment adjustment screw (26) configured to secure a dental prosthetic (25) to a dental abutment (14), said dental screw having a cap/head having frustoconical shape in a taper ratio of about 1.3 (see table in column 5, where it is disclosed that upper and lower diameter of the tapered portion are 4.5 and 3.5 mm, respectively). Fradera discloses a screw 26 having an overall screw height of (e.g. from 6 to 16 mm), and maximum cap diameter of 4.5 mm (see table in column 5); therefore the ratio could be approximately 1 to about 3 or 1.5 to about 2.5 or from about 1.9-2.3. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Herve/Mangrane’s tapered external wall of the frustoconical cap to make then having a taper ratio of about 1.3, since such modification would create a screw cap/head that comprises a proper abutting angle with the receiving structure in the dental abutment/prosthesis. Also, it would have been obvious to modify Herve/Mangrane’s overall screw height to maximum cap diameter to make it comprising a ratio that is with a range from about 1 to about 3 or 1.5 to about 2.5 or from about 1.9-2.3, since such modification would create a screw that comprises a properly sized structures that match the receiving structures in the dental abutment.
The Examiner notes that Herve/Mangrane/Fradera discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as discussed above, except for the exact range of the taper ratio of the screw cap, being within a range from about 1.5 to about 1.7 or within the range of 1.55 to 1.65. However, the immediate specification discloses these parameters as being merely preferable ([0028]) and does not describe it as contributing an unexpected result to the dental abutment adjustment screw. As such, these parameters, are deemed matters of design choice (lacking in any criticality), well within the skills of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the taper ratio of the screw cap to make it from about 1.5 to about 1.7 or 1.55 to 1.65, since such modification would merely involve the optimization of a result effective variable (e.g. taper ratio), obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results (e.g. obtaining the proper ratio for abutting against the receiving structure in the dental abutment/prosthesis) which has been held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan (see MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Baruc discloses a dental implant, including a generally cylindrical body having a threaded screw shape. The implant has am internal shoulder (curved portion 216) which transfers stress and strain so that they are distributed over a wider area ([0087]); said internal shoulder (216) could have a radius of curvature of 0.35 mm, or another larger or smaller radius ([0124]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Herve/Mangrane/Fradera’s shoulder in order to exhibits a radius of curvature of for instance 0.38 mm, since such modification would strengthens the dental screw by substantially preventing failure inducing stress concentration ([00124]).
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 1. Annotated Figure 2.)]
PNG
media_image1.png
639
662
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 2. Annotated Figure 5.)]
PNG
media_image2.png
707
734
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Herve, Mangrane, Fradera and Baruc the invention substantially as claimed: “wherein said taper ratio is within a range from about 1.55 to 1.65” (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claims 5-6, Herve, Mangrane, Fradera and Baruc the invention substantially as claimed. Fradera discloses wherein said screw exhibits an overall screw height to maximum cap diameter ratio that is with a range from about 1.5 to about 2.5 (see table in column 5); therefore the ratio could be approximately 1 to about 3 or 1.5 to about 2.5 or from about 1.9-2.3.
Regarding claim 7, Herve in combination, (a) a dental adjustment abutment (7) configured to connect on a first end to an implant (2) in a patient's jawbone and on a second end to receive a dental screw (9) (Figure 8), and (b) a dental screw (9) made from a medical-grade metal (Herve’s dental abutment adjustment screw is intended for used in patients; therefore, it is made of medically-acceptable material; see e.g. titanium [0089], disclosed to be the material of some components of Herve’s dental implant system) and comprising: a. a bottom portion having a bottom profile at a bottom end of said bottom portion (Annotated Figure 2),
b. a threaded middle portion (12) extending helically in said axial direction from said bottom portion to an upper location of said middle portion,
c. a top portion (a frustoconical cap 10) that is configured to engage interior surfaces of a prosthetic installation channel (channel 4, see Figures 6-7) so that apical forces needed to secure the prosthetic to said abutment are evenly distributed within said installation channel of said prosthetic (the dental abutment adjusted screw disclosed by Herve, has all the necessary structures to be configured to engage interior surfaces of a prosthetic installation channel so that apical forces needed to secure the prosthetic to said abutment are evenly distributed within said installation channel of said prosthetic), wherein said top portion of the dental screw comprises:
(i) a frustoconical cap (10) having a tapered external wall that is larger in diameter at a top end of said cap than at a bottom of said cap (since cap/head 10 has a substantially frustoconical contact surface 10b [0066]), wherein the tapered external wall of said frustoconical cap tapers has a maximum diameter at the top of said cap and a smaller diameter at the bottom of said cap above said shoulder (since the cap/head has a frustoconical surface; see Figure 2 and [0024]),
(ii) an open recess (10a) that is centrally located in said cap (10) and within said external wall, said recess exhibiting a plurality of arc-shaped recess that are spaced equidistant around a perimeter of said recess and which extend radially from said axial direction (since it is a hexagon socket [0063], with sharp angles arcs, Figure 2), and
(iii) a radiused transition shoulder located at the bottom of said cap (Annotated Figure 5) and is configured to exert force in an axial, apical direction when tightened against an interior retention channel of a dental prosthetic having a corresponding, mating radiused transition (the dental abutment adjusted screw disclosed by Herve, has all the necessary structures to be configured to exert force in an axial, apical direction when tightened against an interior retention channel of the dental prosthetic; see Figure 7). However, Herve fails to specifically disclose “said recess exhibiting a plurality of arc-shaped recess lobes”, “wherein the tapered external wall of said frustoconical cap tapers has a maximum diameter at the top of said cap and a smaller diameter at the bottom of said cap above said shoulder in a taper ratio within a range from about 1.5 to about 1.7”, “wherein said shoulder exhibits a radius of curvature of 0.38-0.44 mm” and “wherein said screw exhibits an overall screw height to maximum cap diameter ratio that is with a range from about 1 to about 3”.
Mangrane discloses a dental screw with an open recess (P-11-A) that is centrally located in said the screw cap (P-11), said recess exhibiting a plurality of arc-shaped recess lobes that are spaced equidistant around a perimeter of said recess and which extend radially from the central axis (see Figure 6 and page 4 last paragraph to page 5 first paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Herve’s recess to make it exhibiting a plurality of arc-shaped recess lobes, as taught by Mangrane, since such modification would create a hexalobular geometrical design, with radiuses with strong cross section and adapted to fit a wrench up to a 35° of effective inclination to apply tightening torque (page 5).
Fradera discloses a dental abutment adjustment screw (26) configured to secure a dental prosthetic (25) to a dental abutment (14), said dental screw having a cap/head having frustoconical shape in a taper ratio of about 1.3 (see table in column 5, where it is disclosed that upper and lower diameter of the tapered portion are 4.5 and 3.5 mm, respectively). Fradera discloses a screw 26 having an overall screw height of (e.g. from 6 to 16 mm), and maximum cap diameter of 4.5 mm (see table in column 5); therefore the ratio could be approximately 1 to about 3 or 1.5 to about 2.5 or from about 1.9-2.3. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Herve/Mangrane’s tapered external wall of the frustoconical cap to make then having a taper ratio of about 1.3, since such modification would create a screw cap/head that comprises a proper abutting angle with the receiving structure in the dental abutment/prosthesis. Also, it would have been obvious to modify Herve/Mangrane’s overall screw height to maximum cap diameter to make it comprising a ratio that is with a range from about 1 to about 3 or 1.5 to about 2.5 or from about 1.9-2.3, since such modification would create a screw that comprises a properly sized structures that match the receiving structures in the dental abutment.
The Examiner notes that Herve/Mangrane/Fradera discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as discussed above, except for the exact range of the taper ratio of the screw cap, being within a range from about 1.5 to about 1.7 or within the range of 1.55 to 1.65. However, the immediate specification discloses these parameters as being merely preferable ([0028]) and does not describe it as contributing an unexpected result to the dental abutment adjustment screw. As such, these parameters, are deemed matters of design choice (lacking in any criticality), well within the skills of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the taper ratio of the screw cap to make it from about 1.5 to about 1.7 or 1.55 to 1.65, since such modification would merely involve the optimization of a result effective variable (e.g. taper ratio), obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results (e.g. obtaining the proper ratio for abutting against the receiving structure in the dental abutment/prosthesis) which has been held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan (see MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Baruc discloses a dental implant, including a generally cylindrical body having a threaded screw shape. The implant has am internal shoulder (curved portion 216) which transfers stress and strain so that they are distributed over a wider area ([0087]); said internal shoulder (216) could have a radius of curvature of 0.35 mm, or another larger or smaller radius ([0124]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Herve/Mangrane/Fradera’s shoulder in order to exhibits a radius of curvature of for instance 0.38 mm, since such modification would strengthens the dental screw by substantially preventing failure inducing stress concentration ([00124]).
Regarding claim 10, Herve, Mangrane, Fradera, and Baruc discloses the invention substantially as claimed: wherein the tapered external wall of said frustoconical cap (10) tapers has a maximum diameter at the top of said cap and a smaller diameter at the bottom of said cap above said shoulder (since the cap/head has a frustoconical surface; see Herve: Figure 2 and [0024]), wherein said taper ratio is within a range from about 1.55 to 1.65 (see the rejection of claim 7 above).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Herve, Mangrane, Fradera, and Baruc discloses the invention substantially as claimed :wherein said screw exhibits an overall screw height to maximum cap diameter ratio that is with a range from about 1.5 to about 2.5 and wherein said screw exhibits an overall screw height to maximum cap diameter ratio that is with a range from about 1.9- 2.3. (see table in column 5); therefore the ratio could be approximately 1 to about 3 or 1.5 to about 2.5 or from about 1.9-2.3).
Regarding claim 16, Herve, Mangrane, Fradera, and Baruc discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Herve discloses wherein said bottom portion exhibits a radiused external transition shoulder from the bottom portion to the middle portion (Annotated Figure 2).
Regarding claim 17, Herve, Mangrane, Fradera, and Baruc discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Baruc discloses wherein said radiused external portion has a radius of curvature of said shoulder within a range of 0.38 mm to 0.44 mm ([0124]).
Regarding claim 18, Herve, Mangrane, Fradera, and Baruc discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Herve discloses wherein the bottom portion of said screw exhibits a radiused external transition shoulder from the bottom portion to the middle portion (Annotated Figure 2).
Regarding claim 19, Herve, Mangrane, Fradera, and Baruc discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Baruc discloses wherein the radiused external transition shoulder has a radius of curvature of said shoulder within a range of 0.38 mm to 0.44 mm ([0124]).
Claim(s) 8, 14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herve in view of Mangrane, in view of Fradera, in view of Baruc, further in view of Carrero (US 20220313400 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Herve, Mangrane, Fradera, and Baruc discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Herve discloses further comprising a dental prosthetic (3) having an installation channel (4) that exhibits an angle ([0057]), but fails to disclose “within a range from about 0 to about 25 degrees from vertical”.
Carrero discloses in combination, (a) a dental adjustment abutment configures to connect on a first end to an implant in a patient’s jawbone and on a second end to receive a dental screw (9) (Annotated Figure 22, below), and a dental screw (10, [0119]); further comprising a dental prosthetic having an installation channel that exhibits an angle (Annotated Figure 22) within a range from about 0 to about 25 degrees from vertical (angle between 0 and 45 degrees; see Figure 22 and [0082]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Herve/Mangrane/Fradera and Baruc’s combination/dental system in order to create a dental prosthetic having an installation channel comprising angle within a range from about 0 to about 25 degrees from the vertical axis, since such modification would allow the placement of the screw in an ergonomic manner that provides more space for the practitioner to maneuver inside the mouth of the patient.
PNG
media_image3.png
719
774
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 3. Annotated Figure 22.)]
Regarding claim 14, Herve discloses a method for securing a dental prosthetic to a base ([0041]-[0043] and claim 13) by a process that comprises: passing an adjustment screw through an opening in said dental prosthetic (a) directly to a multi-unit abutment base (claim 13), (b) through a metal substructure made from titanium or chromium-cobalt, or (c) into a titanium base (see implant system made of titanium [0040]),
and wherein a dental screw made from a medical-grade metal (Herve’s dental abutment adjustment screw is intended for used in patients; therefore, it is made of medically-acceptable material; see e.g. titanium [0089], disclosed to be the material of some components of Herve’s dental implant system) and comprising: a bottom portion having a bottom profile at a bottom end of said bottom portion (Annotated Figure 2), a threaded middle portion (12) extending helically in said axial direction from said bottom portion to an upper location of said middle portion ,a top portion which comprises:
a frustoconical cap (10) having a tapered external wall that is larger in diameter at a top end of said cap than at a bottom of said cap (since cap/head 10 has a substantially frustoconical contact surface 10b [0066]), wherein the tapered external wall of said frustoconical cap tapers has a maximum diameter at the top of said cap and a smaller diameter at the bottom of said cap above said shoulder (since cap/head 10 has a substantially frustoconical contact surface 10b [0066]),
an open recess (10) that is centrally located in said cap and within said external wall, said recess exhibiting a plurality of arc-shaped recess that are spaced equidistant around a perimeter of said recess and which extend radially from said axial direction (since it is a hexagon socket [0063], with sharp angles arcs, Figure 2),
and a radiused transition shoulder located at the bottom of said cap (shoulder shown in Annotated Figure 5) and is configured to exert force in an axial, apical direction when tightened against an interior retention channel (4) of a dental prosthetic having a corresponding, mating radiused transition (the dental abutment adjusted screw disclosed by Herve, has all the necessary structures to be configured to exert force in an axial, apical direction when tightened against an interior retention channel of the dental prosthetic; see Figure 7); and wherein said shoulder and the tapered external wall of said frustoconical cap exert force in an axial, apical direction when tightened against an interior retention channel of a dental prosthetic to retain said prosthetic on said base (the dental abutment adjusted screw, disclosed by Herve, exerts force in an axial, apical direction when tightened against an interior retention channel (4) of the dental prosthetic; see Figure 7). The examiner notes that even though said shoulder and the tapered external wall of said frustoconical cap do not directly abut against an interior retention channel of a dental prosthetic, since it abuts against the distal parts 130s of the fins 13s, they do exert force in an axial, apical direction when tightened against (towards the direction of) an interior retention channel of a dental prosthetic to retain said prosthetic on said base. However, Herve fails to specifically disclose “said recess exhibiting a plurality of arc-shaped recess lobes”, “wherein the tapered external wall of said frustoconical cap tapers has a maximum diameter at the top of said cap and a smaller diameter at the bottom of said cap above said shoulder in a taper ratio within a range from about 1.5 to about 1.7”, “wherein said shoulder exhibits a radius of curvature of 0.38-0.44 mm”, “wherein said screw exhibits an overall screw height to maximum cap diameter ratio that is with a range from about 1 to about 3” and “wherein said opening in said dental prosthetic exhibits an angle within a range from about 5- 20 degrees from coronal direction”.
Mangrane discloses a dental screw with an open recess (P-11-A) that is centrally located in said the screw cap (P-11), said recess exhibiting a plurality of arc-shaped recess lobes that are spaced equidistant around a perimeter of said recess and which extend radially from the central axis (see Figure 6 and page 4 last paragraph to page 5 first paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Herve’s recess to make it exhibiting a plurality of arc-shaped recess lobes, as taught by Mangrane, since such modification would create a hexalobular geometrical design, with radiuses with strong cross section and adapted to fit a wrench up to a 35° of effective inclination to apply tightening torque (page 5).
Fradera discloses a dental abutment adjustment screw (26) configured to secure a dental prosthetic (25) to a dental abutment (14), said dental screw having a cap/head having frustoconical shape in a taper ratio of about 1.3 (see table in column 5, where it is disclosed that upper and lower diameter of the tapered portion are 4.5 and 3.5 mm, respectively). Fradera discloses a screw 26 having an overall screw height of (e.g. from 6 to 16 mm), and maximum cap diameter of 4.5 mm (see table in column 5); therefore the ratio could be approximately 1 to about 3 or 1.5 to about 2.5 or from about 1.9-2.3. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Herve/Mangrane’s tapered external wall of the frustoconical cap to make then having a taper ratio of about 1.3, since such modification would create a screw cap/head that comprises a proper abutting angle with the receiving structure in the dental abutment/prosthesis. Also, it would have been obvious to modify Herve/Mangrane’s overall screw height to maximum cap diameter to make it comprising a ratio that is with a range from about 1 to about 3 or 1.5 to about 2.5 or from about 1.9-2.3, since such modification would create a screw that comprises a properly sized structures that match the receiving structures in the dental abutment.
The Examiner notes that Herve/Mangrane/Fradera discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as discussed above, except for the exact range of the taper ratio of the screw cap, being within a range from about 1.5 to about 1.7 or within the range of 1.55 to 1.65. However, the immediate specification discloses these parameters as being merely preferable ([0028]) and does not describe it as contributing an unexpected result to the dental abutment adjustment screw. As such, these parameters, are deemed matters of design choice (lacking in any criticality), well within the skills of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the taper ratio of the screw cap to make it from about 1.5 to about 1.7 or 1.55 to 1.65, since such modification would merely involve the optimization of a result effective variable (e.g. taper ratio), obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results (e.g. obtaining the proper ratio for abutting against the receiving structure in the dental abutment/prosthesis) which has been held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan (see MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Baruc discloses a dental implant, including a generally cylindrical body having a threaded screw shape. The implant has am internal shoulder (curved portion 216) which transfers stress and strain so that they are distributed over a wider area ([0087]); said internal shoulder (216) could have a radius of curvature of 0.35 mm, or another larger or smaller radius ([0124]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Herve/Mangrane/Fradera’s shoulder in order to exhibits a radius of curvature of for instance 0.38 mm, since such modification would strengthens the dental screw by substantially preventing failure inducing stress concentration ([00124]).
Carrero discloses in combination, (a) a dental adjustment abutment configures to connect on a first end to an implant in a patient’s jawbone and on a second end to receive a dental screw (9) (Annotated Figure 22, below), and a dental screw (10, [0119]); further comprising a dental prosthetic having an installation channel that exhibits an angle (Annotated Figure 22) within a range from about 0 to about 25 degrees from vertical (angle between 0 and 45 degrees; see Figure 22 and [0082]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Herve/Mangrane/Fradera and Baruc’s combination/dental system in order to create a dental prosthetic having an installation channel comprising angle within a range from about 0 to about 25 degrees from the vertical axis, since such modification would allow the placement of the screw in an ergonomic manner that provides more space for the practitioner to maneuver inside the mouth of the patient.
Regarding claim 20, Herve, Mangrane, Fradera, Baruc and Carrero disclose the invention substantially as claimed. Baruc wherein the bottom portion of said dental screw exhibits a radiused external transition shoulder from the bottom portion to the middle portion, wherein said radiused external transition shoulder has a radius of curvature within a range of 0.38 mm to 0.44 mm ([0124]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Abenaim (US 20220125558 A1).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS RUIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0839. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 Am - 5 PM (EST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eric Rosen can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Luis Ruiz Martin/
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3772
/EDWARD MORAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772