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 Objections
Claims 20 and 22 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 20, line 2 change “the abutment assembly according to claim 1 having at least two abutment base members” to “the dental implant abutment assembly comprising at least two abutment bases according to claim 1”.
Claim 20, line 8 change “a medial flange (504) and a proximal body member” to “a medial flange (504), a proximal body member”.
Claim 20, line 10 change “of said proximal body member (506) is disposed internal to said parallel bores” to “of said proximal body member (506) of each injection sleeves is disposed internal to said parallel bores”.
Claims 20-21 and 23 change “abutment base members” to “abutment bases”
Claim 22 , line 1 change “The assembly kit of claim 20” to “The assembly kit of claim 21”, claim 22 recites “said at least two post members” which is introduced in claim 21.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-11, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fromovich (US 2012/0322030 A1) in view of Carrero (US 2023/0329844 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fromovich discloses a dental implant abutment assembly (see figures 1-15), each abutment base featuring a body (angular abutment body 3) having a dual functioning single internal connection interface (recess 5/longitudinal bore 5a/circumferential inner ledge 8) including a central channel (longitudinal bore 5A) and a seat (8), said body featuring a distal portion (connection collar 19) and a proximal portion (base 12),
a) the distal portion (19) comprises an anchor coupling interface (plurality of circumferential engagement surfaces 21) configured to be seated with to an implanted in-situ dental implant anchor (par 48);
b) the proximal portion (12) comprising said dual functioning single internal connection interface (5), wherein said central channel (5A) spans both said distal portion (19) and a proximal portion (12, see figure 2 and par 43); and wherein said seat (8) is disposed adjacent to a proximal surface (rim 7) of said proximal portion (12); and
c) said seat (8) has a central axis that forms an angle of up to 60 degrees relative to a central axis of said central channel (5A, see figure 2 and 4 and par 43 which discloses an angle of 10, 17, 30 or 45 degrees) and is configured to receive a coupling member (cover 2), said coupling member featuring a central recess (see figure 4).
With regards to the limitation “a dental implant abutment assembly comprising at least two abutment bases”, Fromovich fails to explicitly state that there are two abutment bases in the assembly. However, Fromovich disclosure of the abutment being selected from a group of four different angled abutments which are interchangeably mountable on the dental implant (par 14) and the abutment of the invention being a part of a prosthetic employing “all on 4” and ‘all on 6” restoration technique (par 2), it would be inherent and/or obvious for the purpose of maintaining the structural integrity and distributing forces between abutment elements throughout the product life and during general use, such as mastication (par 3). Furthermore, since it is held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Fromovich discloses the seat being defined within the proximal portion at a distance from said proximal surface (see figure 2 and 4), but fails to expressly disclose said distance is up to about 5.5 mm.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the depth of the seat of Fromovich to be up to 5.5 mm would result in a difference in function of the abutment. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the depth of the seat of Fromovich to be up to 5.5 mm would have a reasonable expectation of success in making the seat (5) of Fromovich would still support or be a placement for the coupling member (2) within an abutment which attaches to an implant and a prosthetic (figure 4) and it appears that the abutment would function as intended being given the claimed range. Lastly, applicant has placed no criticality on the range in the specification, which states “post coupling seat 124 may be disposed at any height and/or angle relative to the upper proximal surface 122 of portion 120. In embodiments seat 124 may be disposed up to about 5.5 mm (millimeters) from upper proximal surface 122” in par 130 of the patent publication.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fromovich/Carrero to have the seat being defined within the proximal portion up to 5.5 mm from said proximal surface as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art for the purpose of providing stability of the abutment configuration is crucial to proper healing and preservation of the restoration throughout the product life. (par 46).
Fromovich fails to disclose said coupling member featuring a central recess forming an internal coupling interface, provided in forms selected from: threading, friction fit, snap fit, male/female couplers, turn-lock couplers, or any combination thereof.
However, Carrero teaches a coupling member (upper body 20) with a central recess (hollow space 26) forming an internal coupling interface, provided in forms selected from: threading, friction fit, snap fit, male/female couplers, turn-lock couplers, or any combination thereof (inner threads 21) for the purpose of placing and attaching other possible dental components with a screw (par 43).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fromovich to have the coupling member featuring the central recess form an internal coupling interface provided in threading as taught Carrero for the purpose of placing and attaching other possible dental components with a screw.
Regarding claim 3, Fromovich further discloses said dual functioning single internal connection interface (5) is configured to form an open lumen having an open volume (open area defined by the perimeter of inner ledge 8 and threads 9) accounting for at least 20% of the volume of the proximal portion (12, see figure 2, where the volume is more than 20 % of the proximal area’s volume).
Regarding claim 4, Fromovich/Carrero disclose the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 1. Fromovich further discloses the claimed invention as set forth above, and further discloses said dual functioning single internal connection interface (5) forms an open lumen having an open volume (open area defined by the perimeter of inner ledge 8 and threads 9) accounting for a large percentage of the volume of the proximal portion (see figure 2), but Fromovich/Carrero fail to explicitly disclose the open volume accounting for up to 90% of the volume of the proximal portion.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fromovich/Carrero to have a maximum open volume of 90% of the volume of the proximal portion, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was 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 was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the open volume of Fromovich would not operate differently with the claimed volume percentage and since the volume of Fromovich still enables attachment of additional abutment components (see figure 4) with the provided volume. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the volume percentage by indicating a plurality of acceptable values (par 124-126 of applicant’s specification in patent application publication US 2024/0315809).
Regarding claim 5, Fromovich/Carrero discloses the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 1. Fromovich further discloses said dual functioning single internal connection interface (5) forms an open lumen having an open volume (open area defined by the perimeter of inner ledge 8 and threads 9) accounting for a large percentage of the volume of the proximal portion (see figure 2), but Fromovich/Carrero fail to explicitly disclose the open volume accounting for up to 60% of the volume of the proximal portion.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fromovich/Carrero to have a maximum open volume of 60% of the volume of the proximal portion, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was 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 was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the open volume of Fromovich would not operate differently with the claimed volume percentage and since the volume of Fromovich still enables attachment of additional abutment components (see figure 4) with the provided volume. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the volume percentage by indicating a plurality of acceptable values (par 124-126 of applicant’s specification in patent application publication US 2024/0315809).
Regarding claim 6, Fromovich further discloses said proximal portion (12) is configured to have a hollow portion (open area defined by the perimeter of inner ledge 8 and threads 9) of said dual functioning single internal connection interface (5) and a solid portion (rim and outer portion, see figure 2).
Regarding claim 7, Fromovich/Carrero discloses the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 6, but fails to explicitly disclose said hollow portion accounts for up to 60% of the proximal portion.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fromovich/Carrero to have said hollow portion accounts for up to 60% of the proximal portion, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was 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 was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the open volume of Fromovich would not operate differently with the claimed percentage and since the hollow opening percentage of Fromovich still enables attachment of additional abutment components (see figure 4). Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the hollow portion percentage of the proximal portion by indicating a plurality of acceptable values (par 124-126 of applicant’s specification in patent application publication US 2024/0315809).
Regarding claim 8, Fromovich/Carrero discloses the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 6, but fails to explicitly disclose said hollow portion accounts for up to 90% of the proximal portion.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fromovich/Carrero to have said hollow portion accounts for up to 90% of the proximal portion, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was 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 was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the open volume of Fromovich would not operate differently with the claimed percentage and since the hollow opening percentage of Fromovich still enables attachment of additional abutment components (see figure 4). Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the hollow portion percentage of the proximal portion by indicating a plurality of acceptable values (par 124-126 of applicant’s specification in patent application publication US 2024/0315809).
Regarding claim 9, Fromovich further discloses said solid portion (rim and outer portion, see figure 2) is selected from materials that are one of: solid, partially hollow, trabecular, intermittently hollow, or any combination thereof (see figure 2).
Regarding claim 10, Fromovich further discloses said seat (8) is configured so that a central axis thereof is positioned to be at an angle theta relative to the central axis of the abutment base of up to 60 degrees (5A, see figure 2 and par 43 which discloses an angle of 10, 17, 30 or 45 degrees, where the abutment base central axis is shared with the central axis of the central channel 5A).
Regarding claim 11, Fromovich/Carrero discloses the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 1, but fails to specifically disclose the external diameter of abutment base is configured to from about 3 mm and up to about 15 mm.
However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fromovich/Carrero to have an external diameter of the abutment base be from about 3 mm and up to about 15 mm as set forth in the claim, as it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was 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 was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the abutment base of Fromovich would not operate differently than one with the claimed diameter and the abutment base attaches to a dental implant which is installed into the patient (see figure 1 and par 43), the abutment base would function appropriately having the claimed diameter range. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the diameter “may” be within the claimed ranges (specification par 104).
Regarding claim 14, Fromovich/Carrero discloses the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 1, but fails to specifically disclose the seat is configured to have an internal diameter of at least 2 mm and up to about 12 mm.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the internal diameter of at least 2 mm and up to about 12 mm would result in a difference in function of the abutment seat of Fromovich. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the seat diameter of Fromovich would have a reasonable expectation of success in making the internal diameter at least 2 mm up to about 12 mm and it appears that the abutment would function as intended being given the claimed diameter range. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, indicating that the diameter may be within the criticality placed on the range as claimed such that is produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, 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 transition the seat’s internal diameter of at least 2 mm and up to about 12 mm as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art. For the purpose of enabling interaction with placement tools and additional abutment elements (par 51).
Regarding claim 15, Fromovich/Carrero discloses the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 1, but fails to disclose said seat is configured to have a vertical dimension to at least 1 mm.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the vertical dimension of at least 1 mm would result in a difference in function of the abutment seat of Fromovich. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the vertical dimension of the seat of Fromovich would have a reasonable expectation of success in making vertical dimension of at least 1 mm and it appears that the abutment would function as intended being given the claimed diameter range. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem or produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, 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 transition the seat’s vertical dimension to at least 1 mm as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art. For the purpose of enabling engagement of a placement tools and/or additional abutment elements (par 51).
Regarding claim 16, Fromovich/Carrero discloses the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 1, but fails to disclose said proximal portion has a vertical dimension from 2 mm and up to about 14 mm.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the vertical dimension of the proximal portion of Fromovich to be between 2 mm and 14 mm. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the vertical dimension of the proximal portion of Fromovich would have a reasonable expectation of success in making vertical dimension between the claimed range and it appears that the abutment would function as intended being given the claimed range. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem or produce an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fromovich/Carrero to have said proximal portion has a vertical dimension from 2 mm and up to about 14 mm, as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art for the purpose of enabling a secure placement into the dental implant (par 43).
Regarding claim 17, Fromovich further discloses said seat (8) features a coupling member (cover 2) that is configured to be disposed at an angle beta of up to 60 degrees relative to the central axis (see figure 4, where the cover shares an axis with the seat and par 43 which discloses an angle of 10, 17, 30 or 45 degrees).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20-24 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 20, the prior art of record fails to disclose a dental implant abutment formation kit, which comprises an abutment assembly with two abutments according to claim 1, a parallel guide member configured according to an individual dental arch, the guide member featuring at least two parallel bores, each bore corresponding to each of said at least two abutment bases, at least two injection sleeves associated with said parallel guide member, each injection sleeve featuring a distal member, a medial flange and a proximal body member and a injection channel, wherein at least a portion of said proximal body member is disposed internal to said parallel bores; at least two coupling member each associated with said distal body member of said injection sleeve in combination with all additionally recited claim limitations.
The closest prior art of record is Von Malottki (US 2013/0084541) which discloses the parallel guide member (172) and two abutment base members (136). Fromovich in view of Carrero disclose the abutment assembly of claim 1 as set forth above and Fromovich discloses the at least two coupling members (2) as set forth in the rejection of claim 1. As pointed out by applicant on page 8 of Remarks submitted 3/25/2026, Von Malottki and Fromovich fail to disclose an “injection sleeve” with at least a portion of said proximal body member is disposed internal to said parallel bores and distal body member associated with the coupling member. Von Malottki discloses a similar structure “functional part 26”, which is positioned within a parallel guide member (172), but this structure is not an “injection sleeve” and does not include structure such as an “injection channel”, the disclosed channel of the functional part 26 being disclosed in par 35 as serving for anchoring an artificial dental prosthesis to the patient’s jaw. Additional prior art of record, Honig (US 2016/0113739) discloses an injection sleeve (optional device 410) which comprises a channel (420) for introducing fluid into the surrounding tissue (par 140), but does not disclose a parallel guide member with a bore or a coupling member as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/25/2026, regarding claims 1, 3-12 and 14-17 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 5-7, that it would not be obvious to include two abutment bases based on Fromovich being used “to correct implant angulation” and this correction applies to only “single implant and not group (two or more) implants”. The examiner does not find this argument persuasive. As set forth above, Fromovich discloses the abutment being selected from a group of four different angled abutments which are interchangeably mountable on the dental implant (par 14) and the abutment of the invention being a part of a prosthetic employing “all on 4” and ‘all on 6” restoration technique (par 2), therefore it is implied/obvious that multiple abutments can be used together and are included in an assembly for the reasoning set forth above in the rejection.
The remainder of applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-12 and 14-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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
Prosecution Insights