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 25 November 2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The amended specification was were received on 25 November 2025. This amended specification is acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 16-19, 21, 25-28 and 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boukhris (FR 2921819 A1) (all references are directed to the attached translated specification).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Axial treatment section)][AltContent: textbox (At least two treatment structures each including at least a spiral groove )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Circumferential cooling grooves)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Dental implant drill)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Treatment portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Mounting portion)]
PNG
media_image1.png
568
420
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Cutting edge)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Compaction treatment structure)]
PNG
media_image2.png
300
464
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Point of intersection has an angle with the compaction treatment structure )][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image3.png
616
428
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Boukhris discloses a dental implant drill (1), including:
a mounting portion (2) and a treatment portion (6) (see annotated Fig. 1 above);
wherein the implant drill (1) extends in a longitudinal direction (see longitudinal axis 10);
wherein distal end regions of the implant drill in the longitudinal direction of the implant drill are formed by the mounting portion (2) and the treatment portion (6) (see annotated Fig. 1 above);
wherein the treatment portion (6) has at least two treatment structures (see annotated Fig. 1 and 4A above);
wherein the treatment portion (6) is formed by the at least two treatment structures such that the treatment portion is configured to remove bone material during positive rotation about the longitudinal direction and to compact bone material during a negative rotation about the longitudinal direction; wherein the treatment portion (6) has at least one compaction treatment structure and one bore treatment structure (7) (see page 2, lines 3-9 – where “the invention firstly relates to a drill for bone surgery, with at least one cutting edge at least lateral, constituting a radial crown, with respect to an axis of rotation when drilling a hole, limiting a prior chip extraction surface, considering a direction of rotation in drilling, and further limiting a clearance surface located in the rear position, with respect to the direction of rotation in drilling, characterized in that the clearance surface has at least a lateral relief, compacting the wall of the hole, in the form of screw thread section having a negative axial pitch, in consideration of the direction of rotation in drilling”, and page 4, lines 14-30, page 6, last paragraph);
wherein an envelopment is formed by a circle which lies in a sectional plane which is perpendicular to the longitudinal direction; wherein the circle (91) is the smallest possible circle that can surround the drilling portion in the sectional plane (see Fig. 7 above – where the final hole 91 is considered that also represent the envelopment after compacting the bone);
wherein an at least virtual course of the compaction treatment structure intersects the envelopment in the sectional plane at a point of intersection, and wherein a tangent applied to the envelopment at the point of intersection has an angle with the compaction treatment structure of the virtual course of the compaction treatment structure (see annotated Fig. 7 above); and
wherein the treatment portion has circumferential cooling grooves (see Fig. 1 above including the corrugation 73).
However, Boukhris does not disclose that the angle at the point of intersection is in a range from 100 to 450 (for claim 16); and wherein the angle is in a range of from 120 to 400 (for claim 17).
To further explain the position of the Office, it is understood that Boukhris further discloses one embodiment including that the surface (74) can be a circumferential ramp, having an angular extension with respect to the axis (10) through a linear radial extension, beginning at point (75) of the surface (74) and ending at the cutting edge (7) (see Fig. 7 above). In which it is conceivable several “growth laws” for this configuration, that in other words it is understood that the surface (74) can have other angle of inclinations between point (75) and the cutting edge (7) (see page 9, lines 33-40 of the translation).
Boukhris further discloses another embodiment including that the surface (74) has a circumferential ramp (741) and (742), where each ramp includes a rising slope angle (P1 and P2). Where each slope forms a radius for each of the different circumference, that are not aligned with the axis. Where the minimum radius is at circumferential ramp (741), beginning at point (75), in which it provides an initial slope P1 of maximum angle providing a maximum radially external penetration rate, allowing for an immediate creation of a self-tapping. The second circumferential ramp (742) includes a bigger radius ramp, in this way providing a lower axial increase, in which at the same time provides a smaller angle P2 with respect to a tangent. The angle P2 of the second circumferential ramp (742) is configured to produce a complement of radial bone crushing effect, which it is less than the one produced in first circumferential ramp (741). As a result, the combination provides a complement of radial crushing, in which the second circumferential ramp (742) is less than in the first circumferential ramp (741). At the same time, the second circumferential ramp (742) increases the additional compaction effect, without increasing the necessary force needed by the motor to crush the bone and compact the material (see page 9, line 43 through page 10 line 12 of the translation).
Therefore, if the surface (74) has a linear radial extension, Broukhris indicates that different angles is possible by indicating that it is conceivable several “growth laws” for this configuration. For that reason, 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 angle at the point of intersection of Boukhris, to the claimed angle range of 100 to 450 and 120 to 400, in order to have a better bone crushing effect, while at the same time providing a better bone compacting action towards the wall of the bone cavity.
Furthermore, if the surface (74) has the circumferential ramp (741) and (742), where the circumferential ramp (742) includes the angle P2 that intersects the envelopment in the sectional plane at a point of intersection. Where that angle increases from a very small angle at the cutting end (7) to a bigger angle in the direction of the circumferential ramp (741). For that reason, 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 angle at the point of intersection of Boukhris, to the claimed angle range of 100 to 450 and 120 to 400, in order to have a better bone crushing effect, while at the same time providing a better bone compacting action towards the wall of the bone cavity.
Regarding claim 18, Boukhris discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 16, and where Boukhris discloses that the treatment portion has at least two spiral grooves (see Fig. 1 above), and wherein the spiral grooves at least partially form at least some of the treatment structures (see annotated fig. 1 above – where the cutting portion is at the edge of the groove).
Regarding claim 19, Boukhris discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 16, and where Boukhris discloses that the treatment portion (6) has at least three spiral grooves (see page 7, lines 3-4 – including 4 flutes 60).
Regarding claim 21, Boukhris discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 16, and where Boukhris discloses that the treatment portion is bounded by an axial treatment section (70) in the longitudinal direction, wherein the axial treatment section forms an outer contour pitch angle with the longitudinal direction, wherein the outer contour pitch includes angle of the axial treatment in the longitudinal axis, and wherein axial treatment section includes a length in the longitudinal direction (see annotated Fig. 1 above).
However, Boukhris does not disclose that the outer contour pitch angle is in a range from 600 to 870, and that the length of the axial treatment section in the longitudinal direction is in a range from 0.2 mm to 0.4 mm.
On the other hand, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to change the angle to the range from 600 to 870, and the length to the range from 0.2 mm to 0.4 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 25, Boukhris discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 16, and where Boukhris discloses that the at least one compaction treatment structure is formed by a free surface (see surface 74 in Fig. 1, 4A and 7 above and page 8, last paragraph).
Regarding claim 26, Boukhris discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 25, and where Boukhris discloses that the at least one compaction treatment structure includes a plurality of compact drill structures, and wherein all of the compact drill structures are formed by the free surface (see Fig. 1 above – where the surface 74 includes is part of a plurality of curved surfaces along the longitudinal direction of the treatment portion of the drill).
Regarding claim 27, Boukhris discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 16, and where Boukhris discloses that the angle of the compaction treatment structure is variable along the course in the longitudinal direction (see page 9, line 42 through 49 - “is to provide a circumferential ramp 741, 742, Figure 5, constituting a rounded apex segment cam 742 , ramp 741, 742, the rising slope angle, P1 and P2, that is to say the component in the outer radial direction, decreases starting from the axially forward end 75, angularly posterior. The advantage of this solution is that the contact of the bone wall by the top surface 74 at its axially forward end 75, in a position corresponding to a minimum radius with respect to the axis 10, is effected at an angle of initial slope Pl maximum of the circumferential ramp 741, 742, that is to say on an initial section 741, or low, of the circumferential ramp (from the point axially before 75), therefore with a radially external penetration rate which is maximum”; therefore, the circumferential ramp 741, 742 provides a gradual angle along its surface).
Regarding claim 28, Boukhris discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 16, and where Boukhris discloses that the treatment portion includes a plurality of spiral grooves that are bounded in the circumferential direction by a compaction treatment structure (see surface 74 in Fig. 1, 4A and 7 above and page 8, last paragraph).
Regarding claim 30, Boukhris discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 16, and where Boukhris discloses that the treatment portion is bounded in the longitudinal direction by a stop flange (4) (see annotated Fig. 1 above and page 6, line 10 – “a section 4 constituting a piercing stop ring”).
Regarding claim 31, Boukhris discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 16, and where Boukhris discloses that the implant drill is a single piece (see Fig. 1 above – showing a single piece).
Regarding claim 32, Boukhris discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 16, and where Boukhris discloses that the implant drill is configured as a solid part (see Fig. 1 above – the implant drill is a material that grind bone from the jaw; therefore, it is made of a solid part).
Claims 20, 23-24 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boukhris (FR 2921819 A1) in view of Courvoisier et al. (WO 2018202605 A1).
Regarding claim 20, 23-24 and 29, Boukhris discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 16, and where Boukhris discloses two treatment section extending in the longitudinal axis (see Fig. 1 above – where the sections are the tapered body and the tapered distal tip) (for claim 20); and that that the treatment portion includes at least one spiral groove that extends through a main treatment section and through the axial machining section (for claim 29).
However, Boukhris does not disclose that the at least two treatment sections include at least three treatment sections that form different outer contour pitch angles with the longitudinal direction or are formed cylindrically about the longitudinal direction (for claim 20); that that the treatment portion has a cylinder treatment section, and wherein the cylinder treatment section is cylindrical about the longitudinal direction (for claim 23); and that the treatment portion has a transition treatment section that forms an outer contour pitch angle with the longitudinal direction, and wherein the outer contour pitch angle of the transition treatment section is in a range from 70 to 150 (for claim 24); and the transition treatment section, the cylinder treatment section (for claim 29).
[AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Transition treatment section)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Three treatment sections)][AltContent: textbox (Treatment portion)]
PNG
media_image4.png
396
666
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Axial treatment section)]
PNG
media_image5.png
200
332
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: ][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Each treatment sections including different outer contour pitch angle )][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image6.png
380
360
media_image6.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 20 and- 23-24:
Courvoisier et al. teaches a dental drill including treatment portion including three treatment sections (see annotated fig. 4 above) cylindrical in shape, where each treatment section has a different outer contour pitch angle with the longitudinal axis (see annotated fig. 6 above). By having the three treatment sections provides a decrease in diameter in the distal direction in a step-wise manner towards the distal end of the groove (see page 20, lines 23 through page 21, line 8). Furthermore, between the coronal step of the three-treatment section and the second includes a transition treatment section outer contour pitch angle with the longitudinal direction (see annotated Fig. 5 above).
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 treatment portion of Boukhris, with the three-treatment cylindrical section of Courvoisier, in order to “enable the step to widen the bore hole and thus better mimic the shape of the implant”.
However, Boukhris/ Courvoisier does not disclose outer contour pitch angle of the transition treatment section is in a range from 70 to 150 (for claim 24).
On the other hand, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to change the angle range from 70 to 150, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 22, the prior arts of Boukhris and Courvoisier does not disclose that the drill includes the cooling grooves form closed rings about the longitudinal direction.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 25 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 16 rejection, applicant argues that Boukhris does not disclose the claimed angle ranges of 10-45 degrees and of 12-40 degrees, where that a person skill in the art would not obviously have found any that those angles as claimed.
[AltContent: textbox (Tangent)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Angle between the tangent and the compaction treatment structure)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Compaction treatment structure)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Diameter)][AltContent: textbox (Fig. 7 zoomed portion)]
PNG
media_image7.png
344
316
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The Office disagrees, the claimed language describes that said angle is from a tangent applied to the smallest possible circle surrounding the drilling portion in a sectional plane and the compaction treatment structure or the virtual course of the compaction treatment structure.
The prior art of Boukhris describes that the circle (c) in Fig. 7 is the diameter of “almost the final target diameter” (see page 4, lines 26-28 of the translation). Therefore, it is interpreted that the claimed envelopment formed by the smallest possible circle surrounding the drilling portion in a sectional plane is very close in shape to the circle (c) and in diameter as in Boukhris.
Taking that in to consideration, it is understood that the claimed angle is found between the surface of the compaction treatment structure (741 and 742) and the imaginary line of the tangent of the circle (c).
Even when the compaction treatment structure in Fig. 7 includes two different profiles (741 and 742) in the surface (74), the claim calls for the at least virtual course of the compaction treatment structure that forms the angle, also intersects the envelopment. Meaning that the claimed angle is measured closer to the cutting tip (7) in Boukhris, where at the same time that angle is smaller than in any other point over the compaction treatment structure along the surface (74).
The Office understands that Boukhris does not disclose that angle. On the other hand, it is understood that for a person skill in the art would it have been obvious to optimize the angle at that cutting point for better results in terms of compacting the cut bone.
Due to Boukhris provides a surface at an angle with respect to the envelopment of the cutting circle, allowing compacting bone when moving in reverse direction. In this way, it is understood that finding the optimum angles for better compacting the bone at that point only requires ordinary skills from a person skill in the art, in order to find the angle in the claimed ranges.
Furthermore, the claim has not stablished the criticality in which the claimed angles are needed. Therefore, it is understood that based on the use of the compaction treatment structure is for compacting, the claimed angles are a result of optimization for improving compacting of the bone, in which a person skill in the art would have found for the same reason.
Therefore, it is understood the reasons given above, that the rejection is proper and will be maintained.
Regarding the claimed cooling grooves, applicant argues that the prior art of Boukhris does not disclose that the grooves identified by the Office in the last rejection are for cooling.
The Office disagrees, the claim includes the limitation of “cooling grooves”. The way that said limitation has been used in the claim, it has been interpreted as grooves capable of providing some sort of cooling. Furthermore, even when the prior art does not directly or indirectly disclose the intended use of the grooves, it is understood that by having the circumferential grooves in the treatment portion, those grooves are capable of providing some sort of cooling, because the grooves are placed in a circumferential way as claimed.
On the other hand, due to the claim does not describe that said cooling grooves are configured to provide a cooling effect to the bone material. Furthermore, due to said limitation is not described as a means plus function format, in order to limit its definition as described in the present specification. It is understood that a groove formed circumferentially in the treatment portion is capable of providing cooling effects.
For that reason, the claimed cooling grooves are found in the prior art of Boukhris.
Therefore, the Office understands that for all the reasons given above, that the rejection is proper, making the 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