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 .
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 1-13 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. For instance, “cylindrical projection” is used by the applicant in the specification (and therefore assumed in the claims for consistency) to refer to any shape resembling a cylinder, including truncated cones (such as in the reference below) and hexagonal portions ([0041] and Fig. 7); as opposed to what would typically be expected of a cylinder projection having a circular cross section and no taper. Also in claim 1, it being unclear if the osseointegrable implant and one prosthesis are meant to be included as part of the prosthetic component or if the prosthetic component is meant for use therewith, “being endorsed with” language is unclear, “characterized” language, “controlled size porous” language, and “of the intermediate portion in controlled to” language. There are more issues in claim 1 and the other claims due to this unclear language, such as including “tronconic shape” which appears to possibly be equivalent to a truncated cone of claim 2, “second spherical cylinder” of claim 8 since being a cylinder and being spherical are mutually exclusive shapes (i.e. spherical cylinder does not have a widely understood definition), claim 11 not stating what is coated by carbon nanostructures, and claim 12 relying upon claim 1 but also appearing to claim the same structure again raising the issue if these are the same or additional. Claims will be addressed as best understood due to this language.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 10 recites “at least one region in the intermediate portion comprises a controlled roughness”, however claim 1 from which it depends already recites “the intermediate portion comprises a substantially rough surface made of controlled size porous”. Claim 10 therefore does not appear to add any additional structure, and may possibly be intending to broaden the scope. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-10 are rejected as best understood under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sanchez et al. (US 2014/0272791).
Sanchez shows a prosthetic component for a dental prosthesis (3/2 in Fig. 8), the prosthetic component being coupled to an osseointegrable implant (5) and one prosthesis (to be placed on top of 3),the component comprises an upper portion (upper portion of 3 in Fig. 8), an intermediate portion (between about 15 and 52 in Fig. 8, corresponding to the flared out portion) and a lower portion (lower portion of 3/2 in Fig. 8); the upper portion being endorsed with a cylindrical projection (see 112 above with regards to “endorsed” language and interpretation of “cylindrical projection” in this context, Sanchez shows a truncated cone shape approximating a cylinder just as the structure in the present invention does in its Fig. 7, particularly when the angle being approximately 1 degree is essentially cylindrical, [0079] for instance), comprising a cavity (interior of 3); the lower portion comprises an adaptation base (portion received by implant), in which at one end of the base a threaded projection (11) is arranged; the component being characterized by having a variable surface roughness wherein the upper portion and the lower portion comprises a substantially smooth surface (no roughening applied) and the intermediate portion (exposed transgingival soft tissue portion is roughened to promote soft tissue adhesion or growth; [0084]; the other portions are not soft tissue portions and therefore would not be roughened portions to promote soft tissue adhesion) comprises a substantially rough surface made of controlled size porous (see 112 above, roughening of soft tissue portion will result in a porous surface); and said component is produced by additive manufacturing technology wherein the porous size of the substantially rough surface of the intermediate portion in controlled to increase or increase the surface roughness (see 112 above; this appears to be product-by-process where only the resulting structure is at issue as addressed above). With respect to claim 2, the projection and adaptation base are machined after being additive manufactured (this is also considered product-by-process where only the resulting structure is at issue; it is also noted that no structure appears to be implied by the machining). With respect to claim 3, characterized by the intermediate portion having a tronconic shape (see 112 above, however the portion between about 15 and 52 on Fig. 8 resembles the form of a truncated cone). With respect to claim 4, characterized by the cylindrical projection comprises a cylindrical portion and a tronconic portion (see 112 above, a cylindrical portion having a tronconic portion seems contradictory, however the reference shows a truncated cone shape near the top of 3 and a cylindrical portion as detailed above). With respect to claim 5, characterized by the cylindrical projection comprises a hexagonal portion (interior of 15 is hexagonal in the cylindrical portion as detailed above). With respect to claim 6, characterized by cylindrical projection comprise a tronconic portion and a hexagonal portion (interior of 15 and exterior of upper 3). With respect to claim 7, characterized by cylindrical projection comprise a tronconic portion (see 112 above, truncated cone shown on upper portion of 3); and intermediate are angled (see 112 above, however a truncated cone will inherently have an angle in order for it to be conical). With respect to claim 8, characterized by the cylindrical projection comprises a first cylinder and a second spherical cylinder, in which the first cylinder has a diameter smaller than the second cylinder (see 112 above, being treated as cylinder like shapes for purposes of examination; cylindrical like portions of 3 as detailed above, where higher/first portion is smaller in diameter). With respect to claim 9, characterized by being manufactured in titanium alloy ([0084]). With respect to claim 10, characterized by at least one region in the intermediate portion comprises a controlled roughness (See 112 above; the exposed soft tissue portion at the intermediate portion has the roughness as detailed above and [0084]).
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.
Claim 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanchez et al. (US 2014/0272791) in view of Wysocki et al. (US 2022/0387143).
Sanchez discloses the device as previously described above and manufacturing thereof ([0084]) and the structure being solid, but fails to show that the abutment is defined by computer modeling with the porous surface texture pore size, wall thickness, and shape and produced by means of additive manufacturing and machining of the cylindrical projection and adaptation base (see 112 above regarding the antecedent issues of possibly multiple cylindrical projections and adaptation bases, as well as all the other repeated structure already disclosed in claim 1 upon which claim 12 relies).
Wysocki similarly shows manufacture of a dental prosthesis device wherein the device is defined by computer modeling with the porous surface texture pore size, wall thickness, and shape (Abstract/[0017]/[0032]) for instance; 3D printing requires a computer model in order to have a source for printing) and produced by means of additive manufacturing (3D printing) and machining of the cylindrical projection and adaptation base (3D printing may be used just for the porous section leaving the rest machined in other conventional manner; [0013] and figures show planned porous structure; [0016] and [0033] for instance discuss milling; [0017]). 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 Sanchez’s device by using the design and manufacture of the structure and pores as taught by Wysocki in order to have specific control over pore size/shape/etc characteristics and utilize known manufacturing/design techniques in the art.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanchez in view of Fadeev et al. (US 2021/0251726).
Sanchez discloses the device as previously described above, but fails to show being coated by carbon nanostructures.
Fadeev similarly teaches a dental prosthesis device having a carbon nanostructure coating on titanium (“nanocoating”; [0011]). 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 Sanchez’s device by including a carbon nanostructure coating as taught by Fadeev in order to provide higher strength, increased osteogenesis and osseointegration, bactericidal properties, and high biocompatibility ([0010]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanchez in view of Wysocki as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Fadeev.
Sanchez/Wysocki discloses the device as previously described above, but fails to show coating the prosthetic component with carbon nanostructure.
Fadeev similarly teaches a dental prosthesis device having a carbon nanostructure coating on titanium (“nanocoating”; [0011]). 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 Sanchez/Wysocki’s device by including a carbon nanostructure coating as taught by Fadeev in order to provide higher strength, increased osteogenesis and osseointegration, bactericidal properties, and high biocompatibility ([0010]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW NELSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5898. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm EDT.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Eric Rosen, 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 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.
/MATTHEW M NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772