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 on 01/29/2026, have been fully considered. Upon careful consideration the Examiner finds that the claims are not patentable over the prior art of record. 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 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) 35-66 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 35 recites “the screw having an attachment screw at least partially housed inside said axial abutment channel”; it is unclear if this is further limiting “the screw” to be an attachment screw or if the claim is requiring two screws (“the screw” and “an attachment screw”).
Claims 36-66 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 35.
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.
Claim(s) 35-39, 41-61 and 65-66 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kikuchi (US 20140141387 A1).
Regrading claim 35, Kikuchi discloses a dental prosthetic device (Figure 1) that extends principally along an axis of extension (longitudinal axis in the vertical direction), the dental prosthetic device comprising: at least one implant (5); a cap (2); and an abutment (4) interposed between said at least one implant and said cap, said abutment (4) comprising: an axial abutment channel (channel where thread 45 is formed); an abutment body (42) attachable to said at least one implant (5), said abutment body (42) comprising an attachment screw (43); and an abutment head (41) at least partially defined by an outer abutment surface (outer surface of the abutment e.g. 47a), said abutment head having a retainer that retains said cap (2) (female thread 45 and tapered surface 47a), said abutment head having a screw (6) adapted to screw said cap (2) onto said abutment head (41), the screw having an attachment screw at least partially housed inside said axial abutment channel (Figure 2), wherein the retainer nests said abutment head inside a cavity (cavity delimited by an inner cap surface 21) formed inside said cap (Figure 2), the cavity being at least partially defined by an inner cap surface (21), wherein said abutment head has a frustoconical shape, the cavity having a frustoconical shape complementary to the frustoconical shape of said abutment head (abutment head 41 and a complementary frustoconical layout of the cavity delimited by an inner cap surface 21; see Figures 1 and 8, [0045]), the inner cap surface having a tab (25) contacting the outer abutment surface (42a), wherein a spacing extends radially between the outer abutment surface and the inner cap surface (Annotated Figure 10 # 1, below), the tab extending axially from a lower cap end to a contact point of the inner cap surface, the spacing being arranged axially between the
PNG
media_image1.png
798
1440
media_image1.png
Greyscale
contact point and a cone lip of the inner cap surface (21) (Annotated Figure 10 #1).
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 1. Annotated Figure 10 #1.)]
Regrading claim 36, Kikuchi discloses wherein the tab extends radially around the axis extension of the dental prosthetic device (Annotated Figure 10 #1).
Regrading claim 37, Kikuchi discloses wherein the tab forms a sealing member between the cap and said abutment head such that the sealing member is laid out so as to prevent entry of dirt between said cap and abutment head (since as shown in Annotated Figure 10 #1, these structures form a seal, that has all the necessary structures to be capable of avoiding the entry of dirt).
PNG
media_image2.png
823
1674
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regrading claim 38, Kikuchi discloses wherein the contact point is at a first distance (X1) from the lower cap end, the first distance being less than a second distance (X2) between the lower cap end and the cone lip (Annotated Figure 10 #2).
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 2. Annotated Figure 10 #2. )]
Regrading claim 39, Kikuchi discloses wherein the first distance is less than half the second distance (Annotated Figure 10 #2).
Regrading claim 41, Kikuchi discloses wherein the lower cap end adjoins a flange that defines said abutment body and said abutment head (Annotated Figure 10 #2).
Regrading claim 42, Kikuchi discloses wherein said abutment head has a first conical portion that has a shape complementary to a second conical portion of the inner cap surface (abutment head 41 and a complementary frustoconical layout of the cavity delimited by an inner cap surface 21; see Figures 1 and 8, [0045]).
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 3. Annotated Figure 10 #3.)]
PNG
media_image3.png
703
1452
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regrading claim 43, Kikuchi discloses wherein the second conical portion extends axially at least between the lower cap end and the cone lip (Annotated Figure 10 #3, below). The Examiner notes that these structures are frustoconical and complementary [0045.]
Regrading claim 44, Kikuchi discloses wherein the second conical portion extends axially between the lower cap end and the contact point (since the second conical portion being the inner cap portion encompasses axially the distance between the lower cap end and the contact point, as shown in Annotated Figure 10 #3, above).
Regrading claim 45, Kikuchi discloses wherein the first conical portion extends axially at least between a flange and an edge of the outer abutment surface (since the first conical portion encompasses axially the distance between a flange and an edge of the outer abutment surface, as shown in Annotated Figure 10 #4, below).
PNG
media_image4.png
703
1452
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 4. Annotated Figure 10 #4, below.)]
Regrading claim 46, Kikuchi discloses wherein the first conical portion extends axially between a flange and the contact point (since the first conical portion being the top section of the abutment, is encompassed axially by the distance between a flange and the contact point, as shown in Annotated Figure 10 #4, above).
Regrading claim 47, Kikuchi discloses wherein the edge of the outer abutment surface faces the cone lip (as shown in Annotated Figure 10 #2).
Regrading claim 48, Kikuchi discloses wherein the edge of the outer abutment surface contacts the cone lip (as shown in Annotated Figure 10 #2).
PNG
media_image5.png
573
912
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regrading claim 49, Kikuchi discloses wherein said abutment head has an axial crown that extends between the edge of the outer abutment surface and an upper abutment end (since the axial crown encompasses the distance between the edge of the outer abutment surface and an upper abutment end, as shown Annotated Figure 8 #1, below).
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 5. Annotated Figure 8 #1.)]
Regrading claim 50, Kikuchi discloses wherein said abutment is a single unit having said abutment head (41) and said abutment body (42) (Figure 8).
Regrading claim 51, Kikuchi discloses wherein a minimum diameter of said axial abutment channel is greater than a maximum diameter of the attachment of screw (since this screw housed/coupled in said channel, as shown in Figure 9).
Regrading claim 52, Kikuchi discloses wherein the attachment screw has a lower cap screw with a cap screw (6) threadedly engaged with an abutment threading (45) complementary to a threading of the cap screw (6) and arranged on an inner abutment surface of said axial abutment channel (Figure 9).
Regrading claim 53, Kikuchi discloses wherein the attachment screw (6) has an upper cap screw with a cap screw head (62) contacting a cap shoulder of the inner cap surface (since a large-diameter screw portion 62 engages thread 22 [0058]; where the tip of the thread would have a shoulder structure for the screw head to abut; see Figure 9).
Regrading claim 54, Kikuchi discloses wherein the attachment screw (6) extends at least partially into an axial cap channel (channel where thread 22 is formed and cavity 21 below), the axial cap channel having an upper zone that houses the cap screw head (62) and is defined at least partially by the cap shoulder (since a cap shoulder would be the tip of the thread 22 where the head of the screw abuts; see Figure 9).
Regrading claim 55, Kikuchi discloses wherein the attachment screw (6) extends at least partially into an axial cap channel (channel where thread 22 is formed and cavity 21 below), the axial cap channel having an upper zone housing the cap screw head (62), the upper zone defined at least partially by a cap shoulder (tip of thread 22), wherein the axial cap channel has an intermediate zone housing the axial crown (since the crown is housed in cavity 21; see Figure 8) and at least one radial finger (Annotated Figure 8, above) of said abutment head.
PNG
media_image6.png
401
877
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regrading claim 56, Kikuchi discloses wherein the intermediate zone is interposed between the upper zone and the cavity (Annotated Figure 8 #2, below).
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 6. Annotated Figure 8 #2.)]
Regrading claim 57, Kikuchi discloses wherein said abutment head (41) comprises an axial crown that extends axially between an edge of the outer abutment surface and an upper abutment end (Annotated Figure 8 #1), wherein said cap extends axially between an upper cap end and a lower cap end, wherein the upper cap end has an upper cap opening adapted to allow insertion of the attachment screw (6) within the axial cap channel (channel where thread 22 is formed and cavity 21 below) extending axially between the upper cap end and the lower cap end (Annotated Figure 8 #2).
Regrading claim 58, Kikuchi discloses wherein said abutment head comprises an axial crown that extends axially between an edge of the outer abutment surface and an upper abutment end (Annotated Figure 8 #1), wherein said cap extends axially between an upper cap end and a lower cap end, wherein the upper cap end has an upper cap opening adapted to allow insertion of the attachment screw (6) within the axial cap channel (channel where thread 22 is formed and cavity 21 below) extending axially between the upper cap end and the lower cap end, wherein the axial cap channel has an upper zone housing the cap screw head, the upper zone being at least partially defined by the cap shoulder (since a large-diameter screw portion 62 engages thread 22 [0058]; where the tip of the thread would have a shoulder structure for the screw head to abut; see Figure 9).
Regrading claim 59, Kikuchi discloses wherein said abutment head (41) comprises an axial crown that extends axially between an edge of the outer abutment surface and an upper abutment end (Annotated Figure 8 #1), wherein said cap extends axially between an upper cap end and a lower cap end (Annotated Figure 8 #2), wherein the upper cap end has an upper cap opening adapted to allow insertion of the attachment screw (6) within the axial cap channel extending axially between the upper cap end and the lower cap end, wherein the axial cap channel has an upper zone housing the cap screw head (62), the upper zone being at least partially defined by the cap shoulder (since a large-diameter screw portion 62 engages thread 22 [0058]; where the tip of the thread would have a shoulder structure for the screw head to abut; see Figure 9), wherein the upper zone extends above the intermediate zone of the axial cap channel, wherein the intermediate zone houses the axial crown of said abutment head (41) (see Annotated Figure 8 #2) and the radial finger (as shown in Annotated Figure 8 #1).
Regrading claim 60, Kikuchi discloses wherein the intermediate zone is interposed between the upper zone and the cavity (Annotated Figure 8 #2).
Regrading claim 61, Kikuchi discloses wherein said cap has a prosthesis thereon (denture 9, see Figure 7).
Regrading claim 65, Kikuchi discloses wherein said cap (2) has a prosthesis (9) thereon, said cap having an outer surface () with an indexing flat (24a, see Figure 4) adapted to index the prosthesis (9) of said cap (2). The Examiner notes that indexing flat 24a has all the necessary structures to be configured to / intended to index any appropriately sized and shaped prosthesis.
Regrading claim 66, Kikuchi discloses wherein the inner cap surface has at least one member adapted to engage with the radial finger of said abutment head in order to index said cap on said abutment (Annotated Figure 2, below).
PNG
media_image7.png
708
1329
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Figure 7. Annotated Figure 2.
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (KR 101089069 B1); see the translation attached to this Office Action.
Regarding claim 35, Kim discloses a dental prosthetic device (Figure 1) that extends principally along an axis of extension (vertical longitudinal axis), the dental prosthetic device comprising: at least one implant (20); a cap (100); and an abutment (30) interposed between said at least one implant (20) and said cap (100), said abutment (30) comprising: an axial abutment channel (channel where screw 60 is housed, see Figure 2); an abutment body (Annotated Figure 2, below) attachable to said at least one implant (20), said abutment body comprising an attachment screw (Annotated Figure 2); and an abutment head at least partially defined by an outer abutment surface (Annotated Figure 2), said abutment head having a retainer that retains said cap (screw and threaded internal channel), said abutment head having a screw (60) adapted to screw said cap (100) onto said abutment head (Figure 2), the screw having an attachment screw at least partially housed inside said axial abutment channel (Figure 2), wherein the retainer nests said abutment head inside a cavity (cavity delimited by an inner cap surface 120) formed inside said cap (as shown in Figure 2), the cavity being at least partially defined by an inner cap surface (120), wherein said abutment head has a frustoconical shape (Annotated Figure 2), the cavity having a frustoconical shape complementary to the frustoconical shape of said abutment head (as shown in Figure 2, the cavity has a shape that is complementary to that of the abutment in order to be nested over the abutment), the inner cap surface having a tab (Annotated Figure 2) contacting the outer abutment surface, wherein a spacing (Annotated Figure 2) extends radially between the outer abutment surface and the inner cap surface, the tab extending axially from a lower cap end to a contact point of the inner cap surface, the spacing being arranged axially between the contact point and a cone lip of the inner cap surface (Annotated Figure 2, below).
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 8. Annotated Figure 2.)]
PNG
media_image8.png
574
1123
media_image8.png
Greyscale
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) 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi.
Regarding claim 40, Kikuchi fails to specifically discloses wherein the first distance is less than one- quarter of the second distance. However, these limitations are disclosed in the immediate Specification as merely preferable ([0046]) and does not describe it as contributing an unexpected result to the dental prosthetic device. As such, these parameters, are deemed matters of design choice (lacking in any criticality). It has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144 IV). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify first distance (X1) and the second distance (X2) taught by Kikuchi to make the first distance (X1) is less than one quarter of the second distance (X2), since such modification would merely involve changing the scale of the prior (see MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Claim(s) 62-64 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi in view of Kim (US 20220160474 A1), hereafter Kim’474 .
Regarding claim 62, Kikuchi discloses a prosthesis shaped for receiving the cap (since it discloses a denture 9 shaped for receiving the cap 2; see [0054]); but fails to specifically disclose “wherein the prosthesis has an axial prosthetic channel extending axially between an upper prosthetic surface and an orifice, the orifice receiving said cap”.
Kim’474 discloses a dental prosthetic device (e.g. Figure 1 and Figure 7); wherein the prosthesis (27) has an axial prosthetic channel (indicated by the arrow in Figure 7) extending axially between an upper prosthetic surface and an orifice (orifice/crown cap 20), the orifice receiving said cap (10) (Figure 7 and [0046]-[0048]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Kikuchi’s prosthesis to make it comprising an axial prosthetic channel extending between an upper prosthetic surface and an orifice, as taught by Kim’474, since such modification would allow the easy removal of the prosthesis for proper cleaning when necessary, but being this a more secured mechanism that would not disengaged due to chewing forces; being this a simple substitution of one known mechanism for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 63, Kikuchi and Kim’474 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Kim discloses wherein the axial prosthetic channel (indicated by the arrow in Figure 7) extends between an upper prosthetic opening and the orifice, wherein the axial prosthetic channel has a chamber extending above said cap, the channel housing the cap screw head when the attachment screw (30) is unscrewed (Annotated Figure 7 below and [0046]-[0048]).
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 9. Annotated Figure 7.)]
PNG
media_image9.png
858
778
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 64, Kikuchi and Kim’474, as modified above, disclose the invention substantially as claimed. Kim’474 discloses wherein the axial prosthetic channel (indicated by the arrow in Figure 7) extends between an upper prosthetic opening and the orifice, wherein the axial prosthetic channel has a chamber extending above said cap, the channel housing the cap screw head (31) when the attachment screw is unscrewed (Annotated Figure 7 and [0046]-[0048]), wherein a channel diameter (Y1) orthogonal to the axis (A1) of extension between a pair of diagonally opposite points of the axial prosthetic channel is less than a diameter (Y2) of the chamber as taken orthogonal to the axis (A1) of extension between a pair of diametrically opposite points of the chamber (Annotated Figure 7). Please note in Figure 7 that the chamber widens to the sides in a direction orthogonally to the axis of extension.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20210393377 A1
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 mailing 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
/ERIC J ROSEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights