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 § 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 1-6,8,9,13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Martinez-Navarro 20160120582 (cited by applicant).
[AltContent: textbox (Radially enlarged region between base and distal end region)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Distal end region)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Base formed from the
Support structure )]
PNG
media_image1.png
192
512
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 1, Martinez Navarro discloses an implant comprising a support structure 3 which is prepared for anchoring, following the contours of the bone, at a jaw and/or cranial bone, wherein a plurality of integrally attached posts 6 project from the support structure, said plurality of posts 6 being configured for (capable of) anchoring a final denture thereto, wherein each post 6 of the plurality of posts has a base formed from the support structure (see above figure 9), which is completed by a distal end region and a radially enlarged region between the base and the distal end region.
The implant is configured to receive (capable of receiving) a holding down device having a gingival reconstruction region that surrounds the plurality of posts close to the implant and a tooth reconstruction region remote from the implant, such that the gingival reconstruction region is configured to be covered by soft tissue up to the radially enlarged region while the distal end region remains free. It is clear that the implant of Martinez Navarro could receive such a holding down device. Note that the distal end region is prepared for (capable of) anchoring a soft tissue holding-down device (the lower portion of element 2, fig. 3, see annotated fig. 3 below) and for anchoring a final denture (the teeth).
With regard to claim 2, note that the distal end region of each post has a retention form.
With regard to claim 3, note that the radially enlarged region is formed as a collar surrounding each post. See annotated figure above.
With regard to claim 4, note that the collar is received in a plane through which a center axis of each post runs perpendicular. See figure 9.
With regard to claim 5, note that several posts protrude from the support structure, wherein the radially enlarged regions of the several posts are arranged in a common plane. See fig. 5 which shows posts 6 at the end portions of the support structure 3, and intermediate posts in fig. 10.
With regard to claim 6, note that each post 6 of the plurality of posts is adapted to be inserted into the holding-down device (see fig. 3) and wherein the holding-down device is adapted to receive each post 6 of the plurality of posts.
With regard to claim 8, note that Martinez Navarro discloses a soft tissue displacement system having an implant 1 (fig. 7) which has a support structure 3 which is prepared for anchoring, following the contours of the bone, in a jaw and/or cranial bone, wherein a plurality of posts 6 protrude from the support structure 3, wherein each of post of the plurality of posts 6 has a base formed from the support structure and a distal end region, with a radially enlarged region between the base and the distal end region (see above annotated figure), wherein a gingiva reconstruction region surrounds the plurality of posts close to the implant (see below annotated figure), the gingiva reconstruction region being configured to be covered by soft tissue up to the radially enlarged region.
The soft tissue displacement system has a holding-down device (the lower portion of element 2 fig. 3, see below annotated figure) which can be anchored to the posts 6 of the plurality of posts and which is essentially plate-shaped, has at least one indentation (the cavities inside element 2 which receive posts 6) for receiving a distal end region of the posts 6 of the plurality of posts and is anchored to the posts 6 of the plurality of posts, wherein the holding-down device is optically and functionally adapted to adjacent teeth and adjacent soft tissue. Note that the holding down device includes a tooth reconstruction region 2 remote from the implant.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Gingiva reconstruction region surrounds the plurality of posts.)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Holding down element)]
PNG
media_image2.png
338
302
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 9, note that each post 6 of the plurality of posts is adapted to be inserted into the holding-down device wherein the holding-down device receives each post of the plurality of posts 6. See figure 3.
With regard to claim 13, note that the at least one indentation (in the underside of element 2) is designed in the manner of a blind hole or a through hole. These holes in the underside of element 2 accommodate posts 6.
With regard to claim 14, note that the at least one indentation is configured to accommodate a single post 6 of the plurality of posts.
With regard to claim 15, note that the at least one indentation is configured to accommodate several posts of the plurality of posts 6. Since the indentation in the underside of element 2 is in the form of a plurality of holes, the indentation can accommodate several posts 6.
With regard to claim 16, note that the holding-down device (underside of element 2, see above annotated figure) comprises several indentations spaced from each other. These indentations accommodate posts 6.
With regard to claim 17, note that the at least one indentation is surrounded or formed by side walls which, when the holding-down device (underside of element 2, see above annotated figure) is placed on the plurality of posts 6, are configured for contact of the distal end region of the posts 6. Each of the holes on the underside of element 3 inherently has side walls that contact posts 6.
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.
Claims 7,10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez-Navarro 20160120582 in view of Tramonte et al 20130196287.
With regard to these claims, Martinez-Navarro does not recite an anchoring sleeve between a post of the plurality of posts and the holding down device, wherein a post of the plurality of posts is inserted in the anchoring sleeve, nor that the anchoring sleeve has at least one radially protruding anchoring pin, or two pins pointing away from each other on opposite sides of the anchoring sleeve.
Tramonte et al discloses a system wherein a post 3 is inserted in an anchoring sleeve 1. See fig. 2. The anchoring sleeve has two radially protruding pins 4 pointing away from each other on opposite sides of the anchoring sleeve.
It would have been obvious to include an anchoring sleeve between a post of the plurality of posts and the holding down device, wherein a post of the plurality of posts is inserted in the anchoring sleeve, and with the anchoring sleeve including two radially protruding pins pointing away from each other on opposite sides of the anchoring sleeve, with the device of Martinez-Navarro, in view of the teaching of Tramonte et al that an anchoring sleeve may be used with a post in a denture anchoring device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are drawn to the newly presented limitation of the gingiva reconstruction region, which has been addressed in the modified grounds of rejection above. See annotated figure 3 above which clearly shows a “gingiva reconstruction region”.
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 NICHOLAS D LUCCHESI whose telephone number is (571)272-4977. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 800-430.
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.
/NICHOLAS D LUCCHESI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights