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 .
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6 May 2026 has been entered.
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 3 and 15 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.
Regarding claim 3, the use of the term “such as” in the claim is indefinite. The term is interpreted as an example that leads to confusion over the intended scope of the claim, in this way it is not clear whether it is further limiting the claimed subject matter or providing an example. See MPEP 2173.05(d) – Exemplary Claim Language (“for example” “such as”).
Claim 15 recites the limitation " one of the coupling regions " in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 15, the use of the term “one of the coupling regions” in line 8 when referring to the main body and the abutment is indefinite. It is not understood what and or where those other regions of the main body and the abutment are referenced to in the claim. For examination purposes, the term will be interpreted as “one of the coupling region of the main body and the coupling region of the abutment….”.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2 introduces a “wherein” statement. However, the claim is not connecting the ceramic statement with the materials in the wherein. Even when the Office understands that the intention is to claim that the “wherein” statement refers to the kind of ceramics that the main body and /or abutment is made of. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 5-9, 11-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SCHREIBER (DE 20000668 U1).
[AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Second depression )][AltContent: textbox (First depression )][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Recess)][AltContent: textbox (First elevation)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Second elevation)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Connecting element)][AltContent: textbox (Coupling region at the coronal end of the main body)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Dental implant)][AltContent: textbox (Apical coupling region of the abutment)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Main body)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Longitudinal axis)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Apical end)][AltContent: textbox (Coronal end)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Recess)][AltContent: textbox (Abutment)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Main body)][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
658
376
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, SCHREIBER discloses a dental implant assembly including
a main body (9, 17) which is introduced at least partially into the jawbone, including a recess which extends from the coronal end of the main body in the direction of the apical end and a coupling region at the coronal end which encloses the recess (see annotated Fig. 1 above),
an abutment (2), wherein the abutment (2) has an apical coupling region which is aligned with the main body (9, 17) (see Fig. 1 above – where the abutment is aligned with longitudinal axis of the main body),
wherein the coupling region of the main body (9, 17) forms an interface with the coupling region of the abutment (2) (see in Fig. 1 above – where the coupling region is along the curved surface 4), wherein one of the coupling region of the main body (9, 17) or the coupling region of the abutment 92) is concavely curved and the other is convexly curved (see in Fig. 1 section C and [0010] and [0021] – where the coupling region of the main body shows a sinusoidal curved around the perimetry of the recess, that is configured to couple with the sinusoidal curved apical region of the abutment), and wherein the curvature of the concave coupling region is smaller than the curvature of the convex coupling region (in Fig. 1 and in [0010] shows that the concave surface 4 of the abutment fits above the convex surface (4) of the main body (9, 17) and it is configured to accurately position the abutment with respect to the main body; furthermore, understanding that the concave surface has a larger radius than the concave surface, in order for concave surface been able to engage all over the concave surface; it is understood that the convex surface has a smaller radius than the concave surface, for that reason the curvature of the concave coupling region is smaller than the curvature of the convex coupling region); and
a connecting element (5, 7) for fastening the abutment (2) to the main body (9, 17) (see annotated Fig. 1 above),
wherein, upon fastening the abutment (2) to the main body (9, 17) by the connecting element (5, 7), the interface between the coupling regions produces an automatic self-centering of the abutment relative to the main body, eliminating any initial angular misalignment between a longitudinal axis of the abutment and a longitudinal axis of the main body (see Fig. 1 above and [0010] – “implant (9, 17, 2) is connected to each other via fixation screws (5, 7) in such a way that”…. “precise repositioning to the initial position is possible at any time via the preferred corresponding sinusoidal curves (4, 4) of (17) and (2)”).
Regarding claim 5, SCHREIBER discloses that the interface has a convex coupling region of the main body and a concave coupling region of the abutment (see Fig. 1 above – where the coupling region of the main body shows a sinusoidal curved around the perimetry of the recess, that is configured to couple with the sinusoidal curved apical region of the abutment; in this way the interface has a convex coupling region in the main body and one concave coupling region in the abutment).
Regarding claim 6, SCHREIBER discloses that the coupling regions of concave and convex shape form a contact line, wherein the contact line is circular or at least substantially circular in plan view (see section C of Fig. 1, the viewing coupling region from the top view, the sinus curve surfaces 4 form a contact line in the perimeter of the recess that has a circular shape).
Regarding claim 7, SCHREIBER discloses that the diameter of the contact line is 40-99% of the diameter of the coupling portion of the main body in plan view (see section C of Fig. 1 above – where most of the curved surface 4 of the main body is in contact with most of the curved surface 4 of the distal end of the abutment; therefore, it is understood that the contact line can be almost 99%).
Regarding claim 8, SCHREIBER discloses that the coupling regions of the abutment and of the main body together define at least one elevation and at least one depression, the elevations and depressions being arranged in an even number (see section C of Fig. 1 above – where the main body includes four elevation and 4 depressions and where the abutment includes the same counter shape as in the main body).
Regarding claim 9, SCHREIBER discloses that the coupling region of the main body have a first elevation, a second elevation and a first depression between the first elevation and the second elevation, and a second depression between the second elevation and the first elevation, and the elevations and depressions are diametrically opposite one another (see annotated Fig. 1 section C above).
Regarding claim 11, SCHREIBER discloses that the connecting element is an external connecting element (5,7) which is introduced through an opening in the abutment (2) which extends into the recess in the main body (9, 17) from the coronal to the apical end of the abutment (2) (see annotated Fig. 1 above and [0010]).
Regarding claim 12, SCHREIBER discloses that the connecting element (9,17) is a screw see annotated Fig. 1 above and [0010] – “fixation screws (5, 7) “).
Regarding claim 15, SCHREIBER discloses a dental implant assembly including:
a main body (9, 17) configured to be introduced at least partially into a jawbone, the main body (9, 17) including a recess extending from a coronal end toward an apical end and a coupling region at the coronal end (see in Fig. 1 above – where the coupling region is along the curved surface 4);
an abutment (2) including an apical coupling region configured to interface with the coupling region of the main body (see in Fig. 1 above – where the coupling region is along the curved surface 4 is in the counter part of the abutment);
and a connecting element (5, 7) configured to fasten the abutment (2) to the main body (9, 17);
wherein one of the coupling region of the main body (9, 17) and the coupling region of the abutment (2) is concavely curved and the other is convexly curved (see in Fig. 1 section C and [0010] and [0021] – where the coupling region of the main body shows a sinusoidal curved around the perimetry of the recess, that is configured to couple with the sinusoidal curved apical region of the abutment),
wherein a curvature of the concave coupling region is smaller than a curvature of the convex coupling region (in Fig. 1 and in [0010] shows that the concave surface 4 of the abutment fits above the convex surface (4) of the main body (9, 17) and it is configured to accurately position the abutment with respect to the main body; furthermore, understanding that the concave surface has a larger radius than the concave surface, in order for concave surface been able to engage all over the concave surface; it is understood that the convex surface has a smaller radius than the concave surface, for that reason the curvature of the concave coupling region is smaller than the curvature of the convex coupling region), and
wherein, upon fastening of the abutment to the main body, the coupling regions form a contact line that is circular or substantially circular in plan view (see section C of Fig. 1, the viewing coupling region from the top view, the sinus curve surfaces 4 form a contact line in the perimeter of the recess that has a circular shape).
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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHREIBER (DE20000668 U1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Kwan (US 6068479 A)
Regarding claims 2 and 4, SCHREIBER discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1.
However, SCHREIBER does not disclose that the main body and/or the abutment is/are made of titanium, titanium alloys, a plastic or ceramic (for claim 2); and that the abutment and the main body consist of the same material (for claim 4).
Kwan teaches that the materials such as titanium or titanium alloy material can be used for implants and abutments (see col. 4, lines 58-60 - "Any of the titanium or titanium alloy materials used in implants may be used to make abutment 10").
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 material of the main body and the abutment of SCHREIBER, with the titanium or titanium alloy materials of Kwan, because it is well known in the art the use of those material for medical purposes, e.g. in this case for implants, in which will be in direct contact with the internal tissues of the patient, in other words, are considered biocompatible.
Regarding claim 3, SCHREIBER discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1.
However, SCHREIBER does not disclose that the main body and/or the abutment is/are made of ceramic, wherein zirconium dioxide or zirconium dioxide alloys, such as yttrium oxide-stabilized zirconium dioxide or aluminum oxide-reinforced zirconium dioxide or cerium oxide-stabilized zirconium dioxide.
Kwan teaches an abutment (10) consisting essentially of alumina (aluminum oxide – Al2O3) or of one or more other ceramic materials (see col. 4, lines 54-57).
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 material of the abutment of SCHREIBER, with the ceramic material of Kwan, because it is well known in the art the use of ceramics for medical purposes, e.g. in this case for abutments, in which it will be exposed to mouth fluids of the patient, will not react to the fluids around and will not be harmful to the patient, in other words, biocompatible.
Claims 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHREIBER (DE20000668 U1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ishiwata (WO 2017179517 A1).
Regarding claim 13, SCHREIBER discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 11.
However, SCHREIBER does not disclose that the external connecting element (51) is made of a plastic, selected from polyethylene (PE), polyetherketone (PEK), polyetherketoneketone (PEKK), polyetheretherketone (PEEK), or fiber-reinforced versions thereof.
Ishiwata teaches that the external connecting element (40) is formed of a material having a higher elastic modulus than the main body (11) for providing high fatigue resistance, wear resistance, chemical resistance, radiation resistance, workability, and dimensional stability, where in order to provide that it is used polyether ether ketone (PEEK: Poly Ether Ketone) (see page 6, lines 15-19).
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 material of the external connecting element of SCHREIBER, with the material of Ishiwata, in order have a structural element that provides high fatigue resistance, wear resistance, chemical resistance, radiation resistance, workability, and dimensional stability.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHREIBER (DE20000668 U1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Lusting et al. (WO 0028914 A2).
Regarding claim 14, SCHREIBER discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1, and where SCHREIBER discloses a kit including at least one dental implant including a main body, an abutment and a screw as shown in claim 1.
However, SCHREIBER does not disclose a kit further including at least one dental prosthesis.
Lusting et al. teaches a dental implant assembly to be used with a dental prosthesis attached to the abutment (see page 34, 2nd paragraph).
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 kit of SCHREIBER, with the dental prosthesis of Lusting, in order to provide all the structural elements to install in a jaw bone of a patient a dental prosthesis through an implant.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 10, the prior arts of SCHREIBER, Kwan, Ishiwata and Lusting do not disclose that the most apical point of the first depression of the coupling region of the main body is more coronal than the most apical point of the second depression and/or the most coronal point of the first elevation is more apical than the most coronal point of the second elevation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights