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 21-30 and 32-34 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 21 and 34 recites “wherein the interface comprises a concave and rounded curvature extending around the longitudinal axis over an angular range of at least 90°”, it is unclear if the interface in its entirety or any given component extend around the longitudinal axis over an angular range of at least 90 or if only the concave rounded curvature extends around the axis at least 90 degrees. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted as the interface or any given component extend around the longitudinal axis. Claims 22-30 and 32-33 are rejected based on claim dependency on claim 21.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21-27, 29-30, 32-34 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grant et al (US 2012/0258427).
Regarding claim 21, Grant discloses a superstructure for a dental prosthesis (par 7 discloses the invention of the prior art is drawn to a dental abutment which supports a prosthetic tooth replacement), comprising:
a through-hole (central bore 13) extending along a longitudinal axis of the superstructure (see figures 1-19); and
an interface (lower portion of the abutment of figure 19 including the fillet 91 and anti-rotation feature 89) arranged at a front end of the superstructure for fastening the superstructure to a dental implant (par 7 discloses the anti-rotation feature being on the lower end of the abutment and constructed to mate with a dental implant);
wherein the interface comprises a concave and rounded curvature (anti rotation feature 89 and fillet 91) extending around the longitudinal axis over an angular range of at least 90° (see figures 8 and par 11, where the anti-rotation feature extends entirely around the longitudinal axis), and a support surface arranged radially outwardly relative to the concave and rounded curvature, wherein the support surface has at least one annular portion that is oriented transversely to the longitudinal axis (see annotated figure 19, where the fillet 91 transitions to an extension past a wall 93 creating a support surface which is traverse to the longitudinal axis), and
wherein, in a longitudinal cross section along the longitudinal axis of the superstructure, the concave and rounded curvature merges continuously and tangentially into the annular portion of the support surface (see figure 19, where a fillet is used to create the curved and continuous surface that transitions into a support surface that has an annular portion), such that in the longitudinal cross section, the concave and rounded curvature and the annular portion form a continuous curve without a directional discontinuity at a radially outer edge of the concave and rounded curvature that transitions into the annular portion of the support surface (see figures 19 and annotated figure 19).
PNG
media_image1.png
729
610
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 19
Regarding claim 22, Grant discloses the interface (anti-rotation feature) is not rotationally symmetrical with respect to the longitudinal axis in order to form an anti-rotation device (see example cross sections of figures 8, 11, 12 or 17).
Regarding claim 23, Grant discloses the interface is mirror-symmetrical to a longitudinal sectional plane in which the longitudinal axis lies (see figure 17).
Regarding claim 24, Grant discloses the annular portion of the support surface is oriented at an angle larger than 60° with respect to the longitudinal axis (see annotated figure 19, where the support surface is 90 degrees relative to the longitudinal axis).
Regarding claim 25, Grant discloses the annular portion of the support surface is oriented orthogonally to the longitudinal axis (see annotated figure 19, where the support surface is 90 degrees relative to the longitudinal axis).
Regarding claim 26, Grant discloses at least a part of the radially outer edge of the concave and rounded curvature and at least a part of a radially inner edge of the concave and rounded curvature each lie on a circular line (see annotated figure 19 and further in view of the disclosure of the fillet being circular in paragraph 56).
Regarding claim 27, Grant discloses the concave and rounded curvature (89/91) in the longitudinal cross section along the longitudinal axis of the superstructure is a circular sector (see annotated figure 19, where the fillet 91 is circular in view of the disclosure of paragraph 56).
Regarding claim 29, Grant discloses the concave and rounded curvature (89/91) forms a transition between the annular portion of the support surface and the through-hole (13) and is directly adjacent to the through-hole (see annotated figure 19, where the fillet 91 transitions to an extension past a wall 93 creating a support surface which is traverse to the longitudinal axis).
Regarding claim 30, Grant discloses the concave and rounded curvature is directly adjacent to the annular portion of the support surface (see annotated figure 19).
Regarding claim 34, Grant discloses a dental prosthesis (par 7 discloses the invention of the prior art is drawn to a dental abutment which supports a prosthetic tooth replacement), comprising:
a dental implant (implant 71);
a superstructure (abutment 87); and
a fastening member (screw 11) configured to fasten the superstructure to the dental implant (see figure 15 and par 51); wherein the superstructure comprises:
a through-hole (13) extending along a longitudinal axis of the superstructure (see figure 19); and
an interface arranged at a front end of the superstructure for fastening the superstructure to the dental implant;
wherein the interface (lower portion of the abutment of figure 19 including the fillet 91 and anti-rotation feature 89) comprises a concave, rounded curvature extending around the longitudinal axis over an angular range of at least 90° (see figures 8 par 11, where the anti-rotation feature extends entirely around the longitudinal axis), and
a support surface arranged radially outwardly relative to the concave and rounded curvature, wherein the support surface has at least one annular portion that is oriented transversely to the longitudinal axis (see annotated figure 19, where the fillet 91 transitions to an extension past a wall 93 creating a support surface which is traverse to the longitudinal axis), and
wherein, in a longitudinal cross section along the longitudinal axis of the superstructure, the concave and rounded curvature merges continuously and tangentially into the annular portion of the support surface, such that in the longitudinal cross section (see figure 19, where a fillet is used to create the curved and continuous surface that transitions into a support surface that has an annular portion), the concave and rounded curvature and the annular portion form a continuous curve without a directional discontinuity at a radially outer edge of the concave and rounded curvature that transitions into the annular portion of the support surface (see figures 19 and annotated figure 19).
Regarding claim 32, Grant discloses the concave and rounded curvature (89/91) extends over an angular range of at least 270° around the longitudinal axis (see figure 11, where the interface extends 360 degrees over the longitudinal).
Regarding claim 33, Grant discloses the concave and rounded curvature (89/91) extends over an angular range of 360° around the longitudinal axis (see figure 11, where the interface extends 360 degrees over the longitudinal).
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.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grant et al.
Regarding claim 28, Grant discloses the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 21, but fails to explicitly disclose in the embodiment of figure 19 a central angle of the circular sector is 90°.
However, Grant teaches the angle of the circular sector being a variety of parameters and shapes (par 43 discloses the fillet having an arcuate shape, such as circular with a maximum radius or parameter and par 44 discloses variation in the radial contact between the implant and the abutment, which changes the central angle of the fillet) for the purpose of providing a desired contact between the implant and superstructure (par 44) and affecting the concentration of stress on the abutment (par 43)
As such, the central angle of the circular sector is considered a result effective variable that affects the concentration of stress on the abutment (par 43-44) and contact between the implant and the superstructure. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art, would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Grant to have the central angle of the circular sector 90 degrees as it involves only adjusting the circumference of the disclosed circular sector. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the central angle of the circular sector of Grant to be 90 degrees as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-6, filed 12/09/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 21 and 34 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Grant et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANNEL N BELK whose telephone number is (571)272-9671. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. -Fri. 11:30 am - 3:30 pm.
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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at (571) 270-5614. 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.
/S.N.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/HEIDI M EIDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
3/16/2026