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 .
The previous 112 rejection of claims 10-13 is withdrawn in light of amendments.
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gahlert US 2005/0106534 in view of Branemark US 2008/0125868.
Regarding claim 1, Gahlert teaches a dental implant, comprising:
a crown portion [0001]; and
a base portion (12) connected with the crown portion and primarily formed of an electrically insulating (ceramic – zirconium ceramic [0071]) and biocompatible base material (zirconium ceramic is biocompatible), said base portion:
defining a base length extending from a tip of the base portion towards the crown portion; and,
having at least one screw thread (14), with a thread length, formed in an outer surface of the base portion [0063]; and
Gahlert teaches using a ceramic implant and coating it with titanium on a portion but fail(s) to teach a plurality of conductive titanium helical segments positioned on a surface of the insulating and biocompatible base material within the at least one screw thread the base portion, each conductive titanium helical segment of the plurality of titanium helical segments: resides entirely within the at least one screw thread; winds about the base portion for less than the length of the thread; and is spaced apart and electrically insulated from every other conductive titanium helical segment of the plurality of conductive titanium helical segments.
However, Branemark discloses a dental implant in FIG. 9 with a coating which is formed by a plurality of discontinuous regions (22-31, shown to be spaced apart in intervals) which are disposed entirely within the at least one screw thread (shown to be disposed between screw threads; [0055]; (claim 8) Branemark teaches that the discontinuous regions are spaced apart from one another by sections and via along a longitudinal axis and winds about the base portion for less than the length of the thread.
The combination of Gahlert and Branemark teaches is spaced apart and electrically insulated from every other conductive titanium helical segment of the plurality of conductive titanium helical segments as the titanium segments are spaced apart while the base portion is made of zirconium ceramic (insulating).
It 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 to modify the spacing of the titanium of Gahlert to be placed as taught by Branemark, as it would have been obvious of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the spacing of the discontinuous regions for the purpose of finding the best contact points to ensure Osseo-integration with different layers of the bone of the patient.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Gahlert and Branemark teaches a dental implant of claim 1, wherein each conductive titanium helical segment extends along a minor diameter channel defined in the outer surface by the at least one screw thread. Gahlert teaches using titanium over the portion of the implant [0076] that is anchored within the bone; thus the combination would result in the bands extending along the anchoring section of the length of the implant thus including a minor diameter channel. It is noted it appears Applicant intends for the minor diameter channel to be (228) in figure 2 – the distal most portion of the implant.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Gahlert and Branemark teaches a dental implant of claim 1, however fails to teach wherein each conductive titanium helical segment is separated from each other conductive titanium helical segment of the plurality of conductive titanium helical segments by at least 0.1mm.
As the spacing is a result effective variable (i.e that the greater the contacting surface area of the titanium with the bone the more osteogenic properties are present). The presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).That is optimizing the spacing of the discontinuous regions to have a minimum distance of 0.1mm. Furthermore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the shape of the discontinuous regions to provide varying level of surface area contact with the patient’s treatment area based on the size of the tooth being replaced with the implant. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2141.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Gahlert and Branemark teaches a dental implant of claim 1, however fails to teach wherein each conductive titanium helical segment has a vertical dimension along the base length direction of 1.0mm to 3.0mm.
As the spacing is a result effective variable (i.e that the greater the contacting surface area of the titanium with the bone the more osteogenic properties are present). The presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).That is optimizing the spacing of the discontinuous regions to have a vertical dimension along the base length direction of 1.0mm to 3.0mm. Furthermore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the shape of the discontinuous regions to provide varying level of surface area contact with the patient’s treatment area based on the size of the tooth being replaced with the implant. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2141.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Gahlert and Branemark teaches a dental implant of claim 1, wherein each conductive titanium helical segment comprises a conductive titanium surface coating bonded to the electrically insulating and biocompatible base material. Gahlert teaching applying titanium to the base [0044-0046]
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Gahlert and Branemark teaches a dental implant of claim 1, however fails to explicitly teach wherein the plurality of conductive titanium helical segments collectively covers 10% to 90% of the outer surface of the base portion.
As the coating percent is a result effective variable (i.e that the greater the contacting surface area of the titanium with the bone the more osteogenic properties are present). The presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). That is optimizing the percent coverage. Furthermore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the shape of the discontinuous regions to provide varying level of surface area contact with the patient’s treatment area based on the size of the tooth being replaced with the implant. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2141.
It is noted that a range of 10-90% does not imply any criticality to the range other than the implant must be less than fully coated and more than not covered.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Gahlert and Branemark teaches a dental implant of claim 1, wherein the electrically insulating and biocompatible base material comprises at least one of a material selected from the set of materials consisting of: single-crystal alumina ceramic; a porcelain; a polycrystalline alumina ceramic; a bioactive glass; a zirconium dioxide [0071 Gahlert]; a polymethyl-methacrylate; and a vitreous carbon.
Regarding claim 8, Gahlert teaches a method of creating an electrically discontinuous dental implant, comprising:
providing a threaded (14) implant base portion (12) formed of an electrically insulating and biocompatible material (ceramic – zirconium ceramic [0071]), said base portion defining a vertical length extending from a bottom point to an opposite connection for a crown portion [0001];
Gahlert teaches using a ceramic implant and coating it with titanium on a portion but fail(s) to teach a plurality of conductive titanium helical segments positioned on a surface of the insulating and biocompatible base material within the at least one screw thread the base portion, each conductive titanium helical segment of the plurality of titanium helical segments: resides entirely within the at least one screw thread; winds about the base portion for less than the length of the thread; and is spaced apart and electrically insulated from every other conductive titanium helical segment of the plurality of conductive titanium helical segments.
However, Branemark discloses a dental implant in FIG. 9 with a coating which is formed by a plurality of discontinuous regions (22-31, shown to be spaced apart in intervals) which are disposed entirely within the at least one screw thread (shown to be disposed between screw threads; [0055]; (claim 8) Branemark teaches that the discontinuous regions are spaced apart from one another by sections and via along a longitudinal axis and winds about the base portion for less than the length of the thread.
The combination of Gahlert and Branemark teaches is spaced apart and electrically insulated from every other conductive titanium helical segment of the plurality of conductive titanium helical segments as the titanium segments are spaced apart while the base portion is made of zirconium ceramic (insulating).
It 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 to modify the spacing of the titanium of Gahlert to be placed as taught by Branemark, as it would have been obvious of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the spacing of the discontinuous regions for the purpose of finding the best contact points to ensure Osseo-integration with different layers of the bone of the patient.
Regarding the steps of:
depositing a layer of an electrically conductive material upon a surface of said base portion;
applying a protective coating over the electrically conductive material within at least one thread of the threaded implant base portion, said coating not extending out of said thread and not extending along the entire thread;
removing the layer of electrically conductive material such that electrically conductive material underneath the protective coating is left behind; and,
removing the protective coating, thereby exposing a plurality of discontinuous helical segments of electrically conductive material within at least one thread of the threaded implant base that do not extend the entire length of the base portion.
Branemark describes the method of making the implant – one option including coating the implant, then applying a protective coating (the masking unit is placed over or applied), the material is then removed based on the placement of the protective coating [0052], removing the protective coating. It is noted it appears the method of Applicant and Branemark are obvious variants of each other by applying the coating then selectively removing portions of the coating. Branemark like Applicant teaches applying material within the threaded portion of the implant in discrete segments (see figure 9).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Gahlert and Branemark teaches a method of claim 8, wherein each conductive titanium helical segment extends along a minor diameter channel defined in the outer surface by the at least one screw thread. Gahlert teaches using titanium over the portion of the implant [0076] that is anchored within the bone; thus the combination would result in the bands extending along the anchoring section of the length of the implant thus including a minor diameter channel. It is noted it appears Applicant intends for the minor diameter channel to be (228) in figure 2 – the distal most portion of the implant.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Gahlert and Branemark teaches a dental implant of claim 8, however fails to teach wherein each conductive titanium helical segment is separated from each other conductive titanium helical segment of the plurality of conductive titanium helical segments by at least 0.1mm.
As the spacing is a result effective variable (i.e that the greater the contacting surface area of the titanium with the bone the more osteogenic properties are present). The presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).That is optimizing the spacing of the discontinuous regions to have a minimum distance of 0.1mm. Furthermore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the shape of the discontinuous regions to provide varying level of surface area contact with the patient’s treatment area based on the size of the tooth being replaced with the implant. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2141.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Gahlert and Branemark teaches a dental implant of claim 8, however fails to teach wherein each conductive titanium helical segment has a vertical dimension along the base length direction of 1.0mm to 3.0mm.
As the spacing is a result effective variable (i.e that the greater the contacting surface area of the titanium with the bone the more osteogenic properties are present). The presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).That is optimizing the spacing of the discontinuous regions to have a vertical dimension along the base length direction of 1.0mm to 3.0mm. Furthermore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the shape of the discontinuous regions to provide varying level of surface area contact with the patient’s treatment area based on the size of the tooth being replaced with the implant. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2141.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Gahlert and Branemark teaches a dental implant of claim 8, however fails to teach wherein the plurality of electrically conductive helical segments collectively covers 10% to 90% of the outer surface of the base portion.
As the coating percent is a result effective variable (i.e that the greater the contacting surface area of the titanium with the bone the more osteogenic properties are present). The presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). That is optimizing the percent coverage. Furthermore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the shape of the discontinuous regions to provide varying level of surface area contact with the patient’s treatment area based on the size of the tooth being replaced with the implant. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2141.
It is noted that a range of 10-90% does not imply any criticality to the range other than the implant must be less than fully coated and more than not covered.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Gahlert and Branemark teaches a dental implant of claim 8, wherein the electrically insulating and biocompatible base material comprises at least one of a material selected from the set of materials consisting of: single-crystal alumina ceramic; a porcelain; a polycrystalline alumina ceramic; a bioactive glass; a zirconium dioxide [0071 Gahlert]; a polymethyl-methacrylate; and a vitreous carbon.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/7/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that figure 8 fails to show discontinuous bands however the rejection does not cite figure 8, the rejection points to figure 9 which addresses the claimed subject matter.
Applicant is directed to previous application 15484632 final rejection 11/20/2020 where this same point was addressed in a related case that is now abandoned.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 AMY REGINA WEISBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-5500. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:15-4:15.
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.
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.
/AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612