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 Objections
Claims 2-20 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2-20 delete “A dental implant” to “The dental implant”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 7-10, 14-15, 17 and 19 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 7 recites “preferably being shifted by half a pitch relative to the first thread”, it is unclear if the limitation that follows preferably is required or an option. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted as optional.
Claim 7 recites “the second thread preferably being shifted by half a pitch relative to the first thread”, the limitation “half a pitch relative to the first thread” is unclear, because there is no clearly defined “pitch”. Is the pitch the pitch of the first thread or the second thread, and if it is the a half pitch of the first thread would that mean just the start of the second thread half of the pitch of the first thread. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted as the second pitch starts half of a pitch before or after the apical end of the first thread. Claims 8-10 are rejected based on claim dependency on claim 7.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 14 recites the broad recitation “the cutting flute intersects three”, and the claim also recites “preferably two and most preferably one turn of the first thread” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 15 recites “the first thread comprises an outer radius, the front face being formed at a point along the longitudinal axis where the outer radius is minimal”, it is unclear how the minimal outer radius is at a point along the longitudinal axis, is this relative to the winding along the implant or along the first thread, such as a crest of the thread. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted as the outer radius of the thread along the length of the implant body. Specifically, the front face is at a minimal outer radius of the first thread that extends along the longitudinal axis of the implant.
Additionally, claim 17 recites the broad recitation “a substantially round”, and the claim also recites “preferably substantially circular, cross-section” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 19, line 10 discloses “the front face”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted as the front face of a first thread.
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 1-8, 11-15, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BARTON et al (US 2019/0105131) in view of THOME et al (US 2017/0281318).
Regarding claim 1, BARTON discloses a dental implant (100), comprising:
a core body (body 112) having an apical end (116), a coronal end (114), and an outer surface (exterior surface of the body 112),
the core body (112) extending along a longitudinal axis (Y) between said apical end and said coronal end (see figures 5-7);
a first thread (thread 130) extending from the outer surface of the core body and formed at least partially along the core body (see figure 6, where the threads 130 extend within the lateral portion 170), wherein the first thread comprises an apical thread end, a coronal thread end, and a front face at the apical thread end, and wherein the front face comprises at least one edge (see annotated figure 5, the edge being partially defined by the thread 130 intersecting the interruptions 192 creating an edge).
BARTON fails to explicitly disclose the at least one edge of the front face is a cutting edge.
However, THOME teaches a front face (curved notch 142) on a thread (113) , the front face comprising a cutting edge (cutting edge 150 or 152) for the purpose of cutting through the biological material during installation of the implant (par 53).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify BARTON to have the at least one edge of the front face is a cutting edge as taught by THOME for the purpose of cutting through the biological material during installation of the implant.
Regarding claim 2, BARTON further discloses the core body (112) comprises a first portion (lateral portion 170 and transition portion 174) and a second portion (apical portion 172), the first portion (170/174) and second portion (172) extending along the longitudinal axis (see figures 6), the second portion (172) being located apically of the first portion (170/174, see figure 6), wherein the first thread (130) extends at least partially along the first portion (see figure 6).
Regarding claim 3, BARTON further discloses wherein the apical thread end is located within the first portion (see annotated figure 5, and par 55 discloses the transition into the second thread 160 within the transitional portion 174).
Regarding claim 4, BARTON further discloses the second portion (172) extends from the apical end towards the coronal end (see figure 6).
Regarding claim 5, BARTON further discloses the second portion (172) comprises a substantially tapered, conical, or frustoconical outer shape (par 55 discloses the apical portion being tapered, see figure 5-6).
Regarding claim 6, BARTON further discloses the dental implant further comprises a spiral groove (groove between threads of 130 and 160) extending at least partially along the core body (see figure 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 7, BARTON discloses the spiral groove forms a root of a second thread 160 (see figure 6, where the groove between threads extends along the implant)
Regarding claim 8, BARTON discloses the second thread (160) and/or the spiral groove extend at least partially along the second portion (172, see figure 6).
Regarding claim 11, BARTON/THOME disclose the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 1. BARTON further discloses the dental implant (100) further comprises a cutting flute (190), the cutting flute (190) comprising at least one edge (the intersection of the interruptions 192 with the threads of the apical region 172 threads), wherein the at least one of the edge of the front face forms part of the at least one of the edge of the cutting flute (see annotated figure 5), but fails to disclose the cutting flute edge being cutting. However, THOME teaches an edge (edge 150) that is a cutting edge (150/152), for the reasons set forth above.
PNG
media_image1.png
694
544
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 5
Regarding claim 12, BARTON further discloses cutting flute (190) extends along the first portion and the second portion (see figures 5-6).
Regarding claim 13, BARTON further discloses the cutting flute (190) extends from the apical end towards the coronal end (see figure 5).
Regarding claim 14, BARTON further discloses the cutting flute (190) intersects three, preferably two and most preferably one turn of the first thread (see figure 5).
Regarding claim 15, BARTON further discloses the first thread (130) comprises an outer radius (see figure 5), the front face being formed at a point along the longitudinal axis where the outer radius is minimal (see annotated figure 5 which shows the front face is positioned at the end of the first thread 130 prior to the transition to the second thread 161, since the implant is disclosed as tapered par 11, the diameter of the outer radius reduces from the coronal to apical end. Therefore, the front face which is located at the apical end of the first thread 130 is at the minimal outer radius of the first thread section along the longitudinal axis of the implant).
Regarding claim 16, BARTON/THOME disclose the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 1. Barton further discloses the at least one edge (192) of the front face (see annotated figure 5), but fails to explicitly recite the front face comprises a positive or negative rake angle and/or comprises a positive or negative relief angle (see figure 5).
However, THOME further teaches the front face (142) having a positive or negative rake angle (provided by the semi-spherical surface 148 which is angle to the intersection point 152 of the notch 142 see figure 1D; par 54 discloses the engagement of the semi-spherical face with cutting edge 150 creating a rake angle) and a positive or negative relief angle (provided by the semi-cylindrical face 149 which is at an angle to the intersection point 152 of the notch 142 see figure 1D; an par 57 discloses angle to the intersection point 152 of the notch 142 the semi-spherical face(s) of the notch(es) may have a portion of the normal vectors pointing with a deviation angle in the opposite direction of implant installation direction, creating a relief angle) for the reasons set forth above.
Regarding claim 17, BARTON/THOME disclose the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 1. BARTON further discloses the core body (112) comprises cross-sections along the longitudinal axis (Y), the cross-sections being perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (see figures 6-7), but fails to explicitly disclose the apical end comprises a substantially round, preferably substantially circular, cross-section.
However, THOME teaches an apical end (below A line in figure 1B) comprises a substantially round, preferably substantially circular, cross-section (see figure 1C, which shows a substantially rounded cross section, also seen in figure 1G as a circular cross section and par 15 discloses the apical end having a rounded shape) for the purpose of anchoring the implant within the bone (par 21).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify BARTON/THOME to have the apical end comprises a substantially round, preferably substantially circular, cross-section as taught by THOME for the purpose of anchoring the implant within the bone.
Regarding claim 18, BARTON discloses the apical end (116) is formed as a rounded tip (116, see figure 5).
Regarding claim 19, BARTON discloses the core body (112) comprises a first portion (170/174) and a second portion (172), the first portion (170/174) and second portion (172) extending along the longitudinal axis (Y), the second portion (172) being located apically of the first portion (170/174, see figure 6), wherein the first thread (130) extends at least partially along the first portion (170/174), wherein the dental implant (100) further comprises a spiral groove (groove between threads of 130 and 160) extending at least partially along the core body (see figures 5-6), wherein the dental implant (100) further comprises a cutting flute (190), the cutting flute (190) comprising at least one edge (192), and wherein an at least one edge (see annotated figure 5) of the front face forms part of the at least one edge of the cutting flute (see annotated figure 5, the edges of the flute 190 defined by the thread 130 intersecting the interruptions 192 creating an edge, wherein the exemplary flutes 90 that include the interruptions 92 in figure 1 are disclosed as being a cutting flute see par 54 and therefore the edge created by the interruption of the cutting flute and the thread create a cutting edge, par 55 discloses the general similarity between implant 10 of figure 1 and implant 100 of figures 5-7).
Barton fails to explicitly disclose the edges of the flute and the front face being a cutting edge.
However, THOME teaches a front face/flute (curved notch 142) on a thread (113) , that comprises a cutting edge (cutting edge 150 or 152) for the purpose of cutting through the biological material during installation of the implant (par 53).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify BARTON to have the front face edge and flute edge be cutting edges as taught by THOME for the purpose of cutting through biological material during installation of the implant.
Claims 9-10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BARTON et al in view of THOME et al as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Vrespa (EP 0 424 734).
Regarding claim 9, BARTON/THOME fails to disclose a height of the first thread is larger than a height of the second thread.
However, Vrespa teaches a height of a first thread (26) being larger than the height of the second thread (28, see figure 1) for the purpose of providing a frustoconical envelope (see col 17, lines 20-25).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify BARTON/THOME to have a height of the first thread is larger than a height of the second thread as taught by Vrespa for the purpose of providing frustoconical envelope that provides a desired support of a prosthesis.
Regarding claim 10, BARTON discloses the first thread (130) is formed helically around the core body (112) with a first pitch (see figure 5) and the second thread (160) is formed helically around the core body (112) with a second pitch (see figures 5-6). BARTON/THOME fails to disclose the first pitch is substantially equal to the second pitch.
However, Vrespa teaches a first thread (26) with a first pitch that equals a second thread (28) with a first pitch (see col 17, lines 16-19 discloses the first and second thread have the same pitch).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify BARTON/THOME to have the first pitch is substantially equal to the second pitch as taught by Vrespa for the purpose of securely attaching the implant to the bone tissue.
Regarding claim 20, BARTON discloses the core body (112) comprises a second thread (160), wherein the second thread extends at least partially along the second portion (172), wherein the first thread (130) is formed helically around the core body (112) with a first pitch (see figures 5-6) and the second thread (130) is formed helically around the core body (112) with a second pitch (see figures 5-6). BARTON/THOME fail to disclose wherein the first pitch (pl) is substantially equal to the second pitch (p2).
However, Vrespa teaches a first thread (26) with a first pitch that equals a second thread (28) with a first pitch (see col 17, lines 16-19 discloses the first and second thread have the same pitch).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify BARTON/THOME to have the first pitch is substantially equal to the second pitch as taught by Vrespa for the purpose of securely attaching the implant to the bone tissue.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached references cited.
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, 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.
/S.N.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/HEIDI M EIDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
1/12/2026