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 § 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 1-6, 15-18 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JEONG (KR 20150068555) in view of THOME et al (US 2017/0281318).
Regarding claim 1, JEONG discloses a dental implant (fixture 100/200), comprising:
a core body having an apical end, a coronal end, and an outer surface, the core body extending along a longitudinal axis between said apical end and said coronal end (see annotated figure 5);
a first thread (111) extending from the outer surface of the core body and formed at least partially along the core body between the coronal end and the apical end (see annotated figure 5),wherein the first thread (111) comprises an apical thread end (see figure 5 or annotated figure 5), a coronal thread end, and a front face (third incision surface 211) at the apical thread end ( see annotated figure 5),wherein the first thread (111) does not extend apically toward the apical end beyond the front face (see figure 5).
JEONG 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 JEONG 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, JEONG discloses the core body comprises a first portion (110) and a second portion (120), the first portion (110) and second portion (120) extending along the longitudinal axis (L), the second portion (120) being located apically of the first portion (110),wherein the first thread (111) extends at least partially along the first portion (see figure 5).
Regarding claim 3, JEONG discloses wherein the apical thread end is located within the first portion (see annotated figure 5).
Regarding claim 4, JEONG discloses the second portion (120) extends from the apical end towards the coronal end (see annotated figure 5).
Regarding claim 5, JEONG discloses the second portion (120) comprises a substantially tapered, conical, or frustoconical outer shape (see figure 5).
Regarding claim 6, JEONG discloses the dental implant (100/200) further comprises a spiral groove extending at least partially along the core body (see figure 5, wherein the groove is the space between the implant threads).
Regarding claim 15, JEONG discloses wherein the first thread (111) comprises an outer radius measured from the longitudinal axis (see annotated figure 5), the front face (211) being where the outer radius (r1) is minimal (in view of the front face being angles towards the incision surface 212 which is adjacent to the outer surface of the core body).
Regarding claim 16, JEONG/THOME disclose the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 1. JEONG further discloses the front face (211), but fails to explicitly recite the front face comprises a positive or negative rake angle and/or comprises a positive or negative relief angle.
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, JEONG/THOME disclose the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 1. JEONG further discloses the core body comprises cross-sections along the longitudinal axis (see annotated figure 5), the cross-sections being perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (see figure 3-5), 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 JEONG/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, THOME discloses the apical end (106) is formed as a rounded tip (see figure 1A).
Regarding claim 21, JEONG discloses the front face (211) has a height (hl) equal to a maximum height of the first thread (see figure 5).
Regarding claim 22, JEONG discloses the first thread (110) comprises an outer radius , the front face (211) being formed at a point along the longitudinal axis (L) where the outer radius is at a minimum (see figure 5, where the outer envelope is frustoconical and therefore the outer radius being the smallest at the apical end of the thread which includes the surface 211), and wherein the front face (221) has a height (hl) equal to a maximum height of the first thread (110, based on the thread being the maximum height at the position of the cutting groove 210, see figure 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
687
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 5
Claims 7-8, 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JEONG et al in view of THOME et al as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Arni (US 2011/0045437).
Regarding claim 7, JEONG/THOME disclose the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 6. JEONG discloses the spiral groove forms a root of a second thread (121, see figure 5). JEONG/THOME fail to disclose the second thread preferably being shifted by half a pitch relative to the first thread.
Arni teaches a first and second thread set (114/116) which are shifted off set by half of a pitch (par 42) for the purpose of minimizing the damage of moment and tensile force which damage dental implant (par 42)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify JEONG/THOME to have the second thread preferably being shifted by half a pitch relative to the first thread as taught by Arni for the purpose of minimizing the damage of moment and tensile force which damage dental implant.
Regarding claim 8, JEONG further discloses the second thread (121) and/or the spiral groove extend at least partially along the second portion (see figure 5).
Regarding claim 10, JEONG/THOME disclose the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 7, JEONG further discloses the first thread (110) is formed helically around the core body with a first pitch (figure 5) and the second thread (120) is formed helically around the core body with a second pitch (figure 5),but fails to disclose the first pitch (p1) is substantially equal to the second pitch (p2). However, Arni further teaches the first and second pitch being an equal value that is offset by half (par 42), for the reasons set forth above.
Regarding claim 20, JEONG/THOME disclose the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 1, JEONG further discloses the core body comprises a second thread (121),wherein the second thread extends at least partially along the second portion (120, see figure 5), wherein the first thread (111) is formed helically around the core body with a first pitch (p1) and the second thread (121) is formed helically around the core body (2) with a second pitch (p2), and wherein the first pitch (p1) is substantially equal to the second pitch (p2).
Arni teaches a first and second thread set (114/116) which have pitches of equal value pitch (par 42) for the purpose of minimizing the damage of moment and tensile force which damage dental implant (par 42)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify JEONG/THOME to have the first pitch (p1) is substantially equal to the second pitch (p2) as taught by Arni for the purpose of minimizing the damage of moment and tensile force which damage dental implant.
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BARTON et al in view of THOME et al and Arni et al as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Vrespa (EP 0 424 734).
Regarding claim 9, JEONG/THOME/Arni disclose the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 7, but fails to disclose a height (hl) of the first thread is larger than a height (h2) 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.
Claims 11-14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JEONG et al in view of THOME et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of BARTON et al (US 2019/0105131).
Regarding claim 11, JEONG/THOME disclose the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 1. JEONG further discloses a cutting flute (cutting edge 122/cutting groove 210), the cutting flute (122) comprising at least one cutting edge (see figure 3), fails to disclose the at least one cutting edge of the front face forms part of the at least one cutting edge of the cutting flute.
However, BARTON teaches a 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(a))
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date to modify JEONG/THOME to have the at least one cutting edge of the front face form part of the at least one cutting edge of the cutting flute as taught by BARTON for the purpose of extending a cutting path along the implant to enable better positioning during implantation.
Regarding claim 12, JEONG/THOME fail to disclose the cutting flute (14) extends along the first portion (10) and the second portion (11). However, BARTON further teaches cutting flute (190) extends along the first portion and the second portion (see figures 5-6), for the reason set forth above.
Regarding claim 13, JEONG further discloses wherein the cutting flute (122) extends from the apical end towards the coronal end (see annotated figure 5).
Regarding claim 14, JEONG further discloses the cutting flute (122) intersects one of three, preferably two, and one turn of the first thread (see figure 5).
Regarding claim 19, JEONG/THOME disclose the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 1. JEONG discloses the core body comprises a first portion (110) and a second portion (120), the first portion (110) and second portion (120) extending along the longitudinal axis (see annotated figure 5), the second portion (120) being located apically of the first portion (110),wherein the first thread (111) extends at least partially along the first portion (110),wherein the dental implant (100/200) further comprises a spiral groove (space between threads 121) extending at least partially along the core body (see figure 5),wherein the dental implant (100/200) further comprises a cutting flute (122/210), the cutting flute (122/210) comprising at least one cutting edge (122), but fails to disclose wherein the at least one cutting edge (9) of the front face (8) forms part of the at least one cutting edge (15) of the cutting flute (14).
However, BARTON teaches a 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(a))
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date to modify JEONG/THOME to have the at least one cutting edge of the front face form part of the at least one cutting edge of the cutting flute as taught by BARTON for the purpose of extending a cutting path along the implant to enable better positioning during implantation.
PNG
media_image2.png
868
680
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 5(a)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at (571) 270-5614. 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
8/24/2026
Prosecution Insights