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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on December 29, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 27 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 29, 2025.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitations recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitations are: the “means for stabilizing the implant platform comprises barbs on the projection” in claim 11 and the “means for stabilizing comprises anti-rotation spikes on a mandible-facing surface of the implant platform” in claim 12.
Because these claim limitations are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 9, 11, 16, 18, and 23 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 9 recites the limitation "the dental input" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the projection" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 16, it is unclear what is being claimed, as the claim recites “an implant platform suitable for use as part of the dental implant of claim 1.” As Claim 1 defines the implant as comprising an implant platform, it is unclear what is the intended scope of Claim 16, i.e. is the implant platform an additional implant platform or is it the same implant platform that has already been encompassed in Claim 1. Please note: if the implant platform of Claim 16 is the same as the implant platform of Claim 1 and is not an additional claimed element, the scope of Claim 16 may potentially be considered a duplicate claim (see MPEP § 608.01(m)). If the implant platform of Claim 16 is an additional implant platform, the claim should be worded to reflect multiple implant platforms and distinguish between the implant platforms.
Regarding Claim 18, it is it is unclear what is being claimed, as the claim recites “a strap suitable for use as part of the dental implant of claim 1.” As Claim 1 defines the implant as comprising a strap, it is unclear what is the intended scope of Claim 18, i.e. is the strap an additional strap or is it the same strap that has already been encompassed in Claim 1. Please note: if the strap of Claim 18 is the same as the strap of Claim 1 and is not an additional claimed element, the scope of Claim 18 may potentially be considered a duplicate claim (see MPEP § 608.01(m)). If the strap of Claim 18 is an additional strap, the claim should be worded to reflect multiple straps and distinguish between the claimed straps.
Regarding Claim 23, it is it is unclear what is being claimed, as the claim recites “a dental implant comprising the implant platform and the strap according to claim 18”. As Claim 18 encompasses the subject matter of Claim 1, which already claims a dental implant comprising an implant platform and a strap, it is unclear what is the intended scope of Claim 23, i.e. are these new/additional elements being claimed, or are they the same as have already been encompassed in Claim 1. Please note: if the claim elements of Claim 23 are the same as the claim elements of Claim 1 and are not additional claimed elements, the scope of Claim 23 may potentially be considered a duplicate claim (see MPEP § 608.01(m)). If the claimed elements of Claim 23 are additional elements, the claim should be worded to reflect the additional claim elements and distinguish between the newly claimed elements and those of Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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, 2, 5, 8, 9, 16-21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Christensen (US 3,082,525).
Regarding Claim 1, Christensen discloses a dental implant (Column 1, lines 8-10) comprising an implant platform (Figure 3) and a strap (10), where the strap is suitable for encircling a lower mandible so as to affix the implant platform to the lower mandible (as seen in Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 2, Christensen discloses the dental implant of claim 1, and further discloses that the strap is a flexible sheet and/or wherein the strap has a plurality of apertures forming a mesh (as seen in Figures 1-2, apertures 12).
Regarding Claim 5, Christensen discloses the dental implant of claim 1, and further discloses that the strap comprises a means for engaging the implant platform and/or wherein the strap is made from metal (as seen in Figure 2, the strap engages the implant platform via bolt 16, and Column 4 lines 65-70 discloses that the strap is made of metal).
Regarding Claim 8, Christensen discloses the dental implant of claim 1, and further discloses that the implant platform comprises an abutment receiving portion (Figure 3, 22) for receiving an abutment (28) for receiving a crown (34).
Regarding Claim 9, Christensen discloses the dental implant of claim 1, and further discloses that the implant platform comprises a means for engaging with the strap and/or vice versa and/or wherein the dental input further comprises an abutment suitable for receiving a crown (as seen in Figures 2 and 3 the implant platform engages the strap via bolt 16 and the dental implant includes an abutment for receiving a crown).
Regarding Claim 16, Christensen an implant platform (Figure 3) suitable for use as part of the dental implant of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 17, Christensen discloses an implant platform comprising a receiving portion ( Figure 3, 28) for receiving a dental prosthesis (34), the implant platform comprising an attachment means (bolt 16 attaches the strap to the implant platform) configured to engage a strap to allow the strap to affix the implant platform to a mandible of a patient (as seen in Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 18, Christensen discloses a strap (Figures 1-3, 10) suitable for use as part of the dental implant of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 19, Christensen discloses a strap for affixing an implant platform to a mandible (Figures 1-3, 10), the strap comprising a substantially flat flexible sheet (Column 2, lines 65-70 and as seen in Figures 1-3) and a means for engaging the implant platform (via bolt 16), the strap configured to wrap around the mandible and affix the implant platform to the mandible (as seen in Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 20, Christensen discloses a strap (Figures 1-3, 10) for affixing an implant platform to a mandible (as seen in Figure 2), the strap being of a length great enough to encircle a portion of the mandible (Figure 2 and described in Column 3, lines 40-45) and comprising means for engaging with the implant platform (via bolt 16), the strap being configured such that when the strap encircles the mandible, the means can engage with the implant platform and hold the implant platform in position against the mandible.
Regarding Claim 21, Christensen discloses a strap according to claim 20, where the means for engaging with the implant platform is provided at the ends of the strap and/or wherein the means for engaging with the platform is configured to allow tightening of the strap around the lower mandible whilst holding the implant platform in position (as described in Column 3, lines 40-60).
Regarding Claim 23, Christensen discloses a dental implant comprising the implant platform (Figure 3) and the strap (10) according to claim 18.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 7, 10-12, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christensen in view of (US 3,082,525) in view of Metcalfe (US 5,133,662).
Regarding Claims 7 and 10-12, Christensen discloses the invention of Claim 1 substantially as claimed as described above, but does not disclose that the implant platform comprises a projection for insertion into a mandible, a means for stabilizing the implant platform relative to the mandible, and where the means for stabilizing the implant platform comprises barbs and anti-rotation spikes on the mandible-facing surface of the implant platform. In the same art of dental implants, Metcalfe discloses an implant platform (Figure 2, 22) with projection for insertion into a mandible (hook ends/barbs 30 and spikes 20) that serve as a means for stabilizing the implant and prevent rotation and are located on the mandible-facing surface of the implant platform (described in Column 3, lines 37-45). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add spikes and barbs as taught by Metcalfe to the mandible-facing surface of the implant platform (underside of 20) of Christensen in order to provide a more secure and stable attachment to the mandible for the implant platform.
Regarding Claims 24 and 25, Christensen discloses a kit of parts comprising a dental implant, where the implant comprises a strap (Figures 1-3, 10) and an implant platform (Figure 3), where the strap is suitable for affixing the implant platform to a mandible of a patient (as seen in Figure 2), and where the strap is suitable for encircling the mandible so as to affix the implant platform to the mandible and/or wherein the implant platform comprises a receiving portion for receiving a dental prosthesis (Figures 1-3), the implant platform comprising an attachment means (bolt 16) configured to engage the strap to allow the strap to affix the implant platform to the mandible of a patient. Christensen fails to teach that the kit has a tool suitable for implanting the implant onto the mandible. In the same art of dental implants, Metcalfe teaches a tool (Figure 2, 50) suitable for implanting the implant onto the mandible. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a tool for implanting as taught by Metcalfe with the kit of Christensen in order to make the implant placement more efficient and keep the materials needed for a successful procedure together.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christensen in view of (US 3,082,525) in view of Karapetyan (US 11,446,119 B1).
Regarding Claim 13, Christensen discloses the dental implant of claim 1, but does not disclose that any or all components of the dental implant are coated with a material to promote osseointegration and/or wherein any or all components of the dental implant are coated or part-coated with a material to reduce friction between the implant and soft tissue of the lower mandible. In the same art of Dental implants, Karapetyan teaches coating implant components with hydroxyapatite and other types of surface treatments (Column 17, lines 55-60). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to coat the surfaces of the implant of Christensen with hydroxyapatite as taught by Karapetyan in order to promote increased implant surface quality and promote bone growth.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE L NELSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5368. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 7:30-4:30 PT.
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.
/CHRISTINE L NELSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/EDWARD MORAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772