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 7,9,13-15,17 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.
In claim 7, line 2 is unclear. Line 2 recites the holding-down device positively, while claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, only recites the holding-down device functionally. For purposes of this office action it is assumed the claim 7 is intended to recite the holding-down device functionally, as well. Therefore, lines 1 and 2 will be treated as to recite –an anchoring sleeve adapted to be between a post of the plurality of posts and the holding down device--.
In claim 9, line 2, since the holding-down device has already been recited in claim 8 it is unclear if “a” holding device is referring back to the “at least one” in claim 8, or a different one. It appears that “a” should be changed to –the--,
In claim 13, line 1, “the indentation” is unclear which indentation is being referred to. It appears that this should be –the at least one indentation--.
In claim 13, lines 2 and 3, “designed in the manner” is unclear. It is suggested that lines 2 and 3 be amended to recite –a blind hole, a through hole, or a trough--.
In claim 14, line 1, “the indentation” should be –the at least one indentation--.
In claim 15, line 1, “the indentation” should be –the at least one indentation--.
In claim 17, line 1, “the indentation” should be –the at least one indentation--.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5,8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2-6,8 of U.S. Patent No. 12053348. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-5,8 of the instant application are broader than claims 2-6,8 of the above identified patent. Thus, the claims of the patent “anticipate” instant claims 1-5,8 because claims 2-6,8 of the patent contain all limitations recited in instant claims 1-5,8.
Claims 6 and 9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12053348 in view of Berger 20140178839.
Claims 2 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12053348 do not recite wherein each post of the plurality of posts is adapted to be inserted into the holding down device and wherein the holding down device receives each of the plurality of posts.
Berger discloses a similar system in which a holding down device 14 is received by a plurality of posts 43. See fig. 2A.
It would have been obvious to recite that each post of the plurality of posts is adapted to be inserted into the holding down device and wherein the holding down device receives each of the plurality of posts with claims 2 and 8 of the U.S. Patent No. 12053348, in view of the teaching of Berger that a holding down device may be received by a plurality of posts in a plate type denture device.
Claims 7,10,11,12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12053348 in view of Tramonte et al 20130196287.
With regard to these claims, claims 2 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12053348 do 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 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, and with the anchoring sleeve including two radially protruding pins pointing away from each other on opposite sides of the anchoring sleeve, with claims 2 and 8 of the U.S. Patent No. 12053348, in view of the teaching of Tramonte et al that an anchoring sleeve may be used with a post in a denture anchoring device.
Claims 13-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12053348 in view of Berger 20140178839.
With regard to claims 13-17, claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12053348 does not recite that the indentation is designed in the manner of a blind hole, or alternatively in the manner of a through hole, or in the manner of a trough (claim 13), nor that the indentation is configured to accommodate a single post of the plurality of posts (claim 14), nor that the indentation is configured to accommodate several posts of the plurality of posts (claim 15), nor that the holding-down device comprises several indentations spaced from each other (claim 16), nor that the indentation is surrounded or formed by side walls which, when the holding-down device is placed on the plurality of posts, are configured for contact of the distal end region of the posts or the interposition of an intermediate medium (claim 17).
Berger discloses a similar system in which at least one indentation in the holding down device 14 is a blind hole or a through hole or a trough (see fig. 2A), where the indentation is configured to accommodate a single post of the plurality of posts (see fig. 2A), where the indentation is configured to accommodate several posts of the plurality of posts (see fig. 2A), where the holding down device comprises several indentations spaced from each other (see fig. 2A, element 90), where the indentation is surrounded or formed by side walls which, when the holding down device is placed on the plurality of posts, are configured for contact of the distal end region of the posts of the interposition of an intermediate medium (see fig. 2A, note how holding down device comprises sidewalls that form the indentation underneath that receives the posts).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to recite that the indentation is designed in the manner of a blind hole, or alternatively in the manner of a through hole, or in the manner of a trough, and that the indentation is configured to accommodate a single post of the plurality of posts, and that the indentation is configured to accommodate several posts of the plurality of posts, and that the holding-down device comprises several indentations spaced from each other, and that the indentation is surrounded or formed by side walls which, when the holding-down device is placed on the plurality of posts, are configured for contact of the distal end region of the posts or the interposition of an intermediate medium, in view of the teaching of Berger that these features are known to be part of a holding down device in a denture mounting system.
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: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Distal end region)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Radially enlarged region)][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 with the interposition of a radially enlarged region, wherein 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 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.
[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 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 indentation is configured to accommodate a single post 6 of the plurality of posts.
With regard to claim 15, note that the 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 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.
.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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