DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Abstract
2. Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
3. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it currently exceeds 150 words, and appear to be in a claim format of a single run-on sentence. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
4. Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
- “thee” (claim 7 line 2) is a typographical error and should be “the”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-17 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 1 recites “a crown medium that is disposed between the abutment part and a prosthesis…” (lines 7-8); it is unclear whether “a prosthesis” is positively claimed as an element of the dental implant system.
Claim 3 recites “the prosthesis can be separably coupled to the abutment part…” It unclear whether such prosthesis is positively claimed as reasoned in claim 1. Furthermore, the terminologies “can be” are functional, conveying intended use or capability. It is unclear whether or not the prosthesis is separably coupled to the abutment part.
Claim 1 recites “surface contact” (line 17 and line 23) and “fixing” (line 18) without a preceding definitive article “said” or “the”; it is unclear whether such later recitations of “surface contact” and “fixing” are the same or different from the previously recited “surface contact” (line 12) and “fixed” (line 16).
All dependent claims are rejected herein based on dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
8. Claims 1-8, 14, and 17, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pelak (US 5,556,280).
Regarding claim 1, Pelak discloses a detachable dental implant system (Fig. 3) comprising:
an implant body 40/50 including an implantation part 40 for implantation in an alveolar bone and an abutment part 50 that is fixed to a top of the implantation part 40 and provides an outer inclination surface 52 having a truncated pillar shape 52 and an internal space 74 with an open top 72 (Fig. 3);
a crown medium 90/68 that is disposed between the abutment part 50 and a prosthesis 56 and fixes the prosthesis 56 to the abutment part 50 by itself (Figs. 1-12).
Pelak discloses the crown medium 90/68 including:
an accommodation space 54 providing a first close contact inclination surface 54 that is in surface contact with the outer inclination surface 52 and being able to accommodate the abutment part 50 (see Fig. 3), and
a distance holder 82 extending downward from a ceiling of the accommodation space and inserted in the internal space 74 of the abutment part 50 with an end 82 thereof fixed to the abutment part 50 (Fig. 3).
Note that there the surface contact between the outer inclination surface 52 and the first close contact inclination surface 54 and fixing between the abutment part 50 and the distance holder 82 generate resistance torque that interferes with rotation of the crown medium 90/68 with respect to the abutment part 50, and coupling between the abutment part 50 and the distance holder 82 does not interfere with surface contact 52/54 between the outer inclination surface 52 and the first close contact inclination surface 54 (Fig. 3).
As to claim 2, Pelak shows the crown medium 68 and the abutment part 52 are fastened to each other via distance holder 86 matingly fit to abutment coupling element 66/74 without cement or an adhesive (see Fig. 3).
As to claim 3, Pelak shows the prosthesis 58 can be separably coupled to the abutment part 50 without forming a screw hole in the prosthesis 58.
As to claims 4-6, Pelak the implantation part 40 and the abutment part 50 are separately provided and are coupled by thread-fastening 100, which is an internal type or an external type (Fig. 3).
As to claim 7, Pelak shows an alternative embodiment of implant and abutment combination 116/114 (Fig. 4) where the implantation part 116 and the abutment part 114 are integrally formed (see Fig. 4).
As to claim 8, Pelak shows the outer inclination surface 52 is formed in a truncated cone shape or a truncated pyramid shape (Fig. 3).
As to claim 14, the distance holder 82 is provided in a pillar shape 82 having a protrusion 82 at an end, and a groove 74 that is fitted to the protrusion 82 the distance holder is formed in the internal space 72 of the abutment (Fig. 3).
As to claim 17, there is a sealing inclination surface (angled chamfer surface 110 shown in Fig. 5) having an inclination angle smaller than an angle of the outer inclination 52 surface is formed at a lower portion of the outer inclination surface 52 (Figs. 3 and 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pelak in view of Ranck (US 2010/0184002).
Pelak discloses the invention substantially as claimed including the distance holder 82 is provided in a cylindrical shape as detaild above. However, Pelak fails to disclose the distance holder 82 having elastic legs formed at the end as claimed in claim 15, and a female threaded portion as claimed in claim 16.
As to claim 15, Ranck discloses a similar connection between crown medium (coping 100) and abutment 520 of implant 500; wherein the crown medium 100 includes a distance holder 111 having a cylindrical shape with elastic legs 112 at an end (see Fig. 1); a protrusion 116 is formed at an end of the elastic legs 112, and a groove 516 that is fitted to the protrusion 116 of the elastic legs 112 is formed on an inner wall of the internal space of abutment 520 (see Ranck Figs. 1, 5, and 11). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pelak by including elastic legs with protrusion as taught by Ranck in order to form a resilient snap-fit connection with the groove in the abutment. Such resilient snap-fit connection would have been a suitable alternative connection mechanism yielding the same and/or predictable results.
As to claim 16, Ranck further discloses a female threaded portion is formed at a lower portion of the inner space 510/511 under the groove 516 that is fitted to the elastic legs 112 (see Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pelak by including a female threaded portion in the lower portion of the inner space of the abutment as taught by Ranck in order to facilitate an attachment screw.
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claims 9-13 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.
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner HAO D. MAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3002. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:00-4:30. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Hao D Mai/
Examiner, Art Unit 3772