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
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-10, 12-13, and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coopersmith (US Pub No.: 2005/0118552) in view of Piotrowicz (US Pub No.: 2021/0268543).
Regarding claim 1, Coopersmith (US Pub No.: 2005/0118552) teaches a subgingival deep dental implant oral surgical retraction article (retraction in the abstract, with a dental implant in [0002]) and is configured in size and shape for retracting a gingival flap at an incision site during a subgingival implant surgery (retraction of gingival tissue for an dental prosthesis implanting in in the abstract. As a dental implant is present in the abstract and with a taking of an impression of sub-gingival abutment margins in [0080], said implants shown in figure 1 have subgingival components).
Coopersmith does not teach, a comprising of a polymeric foam sponge that is autoclavable at 250˚F and has a porosity not less than a porosity of polyurethane
Instead, Piotrowicz (US Pub No.: 2021/0268543) teaches a polymeric foam sponge (polymeric surface on a sponge in [0028]) that is autoclavable at 250˚F (sterilization via autoclave in [0434]. As polymers are is disclosed in [0130] that are known to be autoclavable. As an autoclaving usually occurs at 250°F (131°C) and as the melt temperatures of the polymers can be up to 220°C as per [0127], an autoclaving as disclosed in [0434] is possible at 250°F ) and has a porosity not less than a porosity of polyurethane (as polyurethane is present in [0130], a porosity of a polyurethane is present) Said sponge of Piotrowicz will be used in place of the generic sponge in [0028] of Coopersmith. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to for the purpose of providing a polymeric surface for a dental implant (in [0029] of Piotrowicz) where said surface will reduce the risk of infection as per [0030].
Regarding claim 2, Coopersmith in view of Piotrowicz teach the subgingival deep dental implant oral surgical retraction article of claim 1, wherein Coopersmith discloses said polymeric foam sponge includes an elongated shape (as the retraction material is defined as part 170 in [0073] and as the retraction material is disclosed as a sponge in [0028], the sponge of Coopersmith has an elongated shape).
Regarding claim 4, Coopersmith in view of Piotrowicz teach the subgingival deep dental implant oral surgical retraction article of claim 1, wherein Piotrowicz teaches the polymeric foam sponge comprises thermoplastic foam, reactive resin foam, reaction injection molding plastic foam, flexible foam, mica-particulated polyurethane, resin-particulated polyurethane, resin-blended polyurethane, porous polyurethane, or polyurethane blend, or combinations thereof (polyurethane resin and related compounds in [0372] and [0399] of Piotrowicz).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to for the purpose of providing a polymeric surface for a dental implant (in [0029] of Piotrowicz) where said surface will reduce the risk of infection as per [0030].
Regarding claim 5, Coopersmith in view of Piotrowicz teach the subgingival deep dental implant oral surgical retraction article of claim 1, wherein Piotrowicz teaches the polymeric foam sponge comprises said polyether type polyurethane blended with one or more additives (in [0399] and [0402] of Piotrowicz, generic additives in [0124]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to for the purpose of providing a polymeric surface for a dental implant (in [0029] of Piotrowicz) where said surface will reduce the risk of infection as per [0030].
Regarding claim 6, Coopersmith in view of Piotrowicz teach the subgingival deep dental implant oral surgical retraction article of claim 5, wherein Piotrowicz teaches the one or more additives comprise ethylene glycol, 1,4-butanediol (1,4-BDO or BDO), 1,6-hexanediol, cyclohexane dimethanol or hydroquinone bis(2-hydroxy ethyl) ether (HQEE), or combinations thereof (1,6 hexanediol in [0140]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to for the purpose of providing a polymeric surface for a dental implant (in [0029] of Piotrowicz) where said surface will reduce the risk of infection as per [0030].
Regarding claim 7, Coopersmith in view of Piotrowicz teach the subgingival deep dental implant oral surgical retraction article of claim 5, wherein Piotrowicz teaches the one or more additives comprise one or more difunctional, trifunctional or tetrafunctional Hydroxyl compounds or one or more difunctional amine compounds, or combinations thereof (in [0140], poly(diethylene glycol)adipate will have two functional Hydroxyl compounds. Other hydroxyl compounds in [0304]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to for the purpose of providing a polymeric surface for a dental implant (in [0029] of Piotrowicz) where said surface will reduce the risk of infection as per [0030].
Regarding claim 8, Coopersmith in view of Piotrowicz teach the 8. The subgingival deep dental implant oral surgical retraction article of claim 5, wherein Piotrowicz teaches the one or more additives comprise one or more difunctional hydroxyl compounds including Ethylene glycol, Diethylene glycol, Triethylene glycol, Tetraethylene glycol, Propylene glycol, Dipropylene glycol, Tripropylene glycol, 1,3 -Propanediol, 1,3-Butanediol, 1,4-Butanediol, Neopentyl glycol, 1,6-Hexanediol, 1,4-Cyclohexanedimethanol, HQEE, Ethanolamine, Diethanolamine, Methyldiethanolamine, or Phenyldiethanolamine, or combinations thereof (triethylene glycol in [0366], 1,6-Hexanedoil in [0280]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to for the purpose of providing a polymeric surface for a dental implant (in [0029] of Piotrowicz) where said surface will reduce the risk of infection as per [0030].
Regarding claim 9, Coopersmith in view of Piotrowicz teach the subgingival deep dental implant oral surgical retraction article of claim 5, wherein Piotrowicz teaches the one or more additives comprise one or more trifunctional hydroxyl compounds including Glycerol, Trimethylolpropane, 1,2,6-Hexanetriol, or Triethanolamine, or combinations thereof ( trimethylolpropane ethoxylate in [0327]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to for the purpose of providing a polymeric surface for a dental implant (in [0029] of Piotrowicz) where said surface will reduce the risk of infection as per [0030].
Regarding claim 10, Coopersmith in view of Piotrowicz teach the subgingival deep dental implant oral surgical retraction article of claim 5, wherein Piotrowicz teaches the one or more additives comprise one or more tetrafunctional hydroxyl compounds including Pentaerythritol, N,N,N',N'-Tetrakis, (2-hydroxypropyl), or ethylenediamine, or combinations thereof (pentaerythritol ethoxylate in [0327], ethylenediamine solution in [0352]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to for the purpose of providing a polymeric surface for a dental implant (in [0029] of Piotrowicz) where said surface will reduce the risk of infection as per [0030].
Regarding claim 12, Coopersmith discloses a subgingival deep dental implant oral surgical retraction article (retraction in the abstract, with a dental implant in [0002]), configured in size and shape for retracting a gingival flap at an incision site during a subgingival deep dental implant oral surgery (retraction of gingival tissue for an dental prosthesis implanting in in the abstract. As a dental implant is present in the abstract and with a taking of an impression of sub-gingival abutment margins in [0080], said implants shown in figure 1 have subgingival components),
However, Coopersmith does not teach a polymeric foam sponge that is autoclavable at 250˚ F and has a porosity not less than a porosity of polyurethane wherein the polymeric foam sponge comprises polyolefin, polyamide-imide, polymethylpentene (PMP), polyoxymethylene (POM), polyaryletherketone (PAEK), polyetheretherketone (PEEK), partially reticulated polyether type polyurethane, thermoplastic foam, reactive resin foam, polyurethane foam, reaction injection molding plastic foam, flexible foam, thermoplastic polyurethane, mica-particulated polyurethane, resin-particulated polyurethane, resin-blended polyurethane, or porous polyurethane.
Piotrowicz teaches a polymeric foam sponge that is autoclavable at 250˚ F (sterilization via autoclave in [0434]. As polymers are is disclosed in [0130] that are known to be autoclavable. As an autoclaving usually occurs at 250°F (131°C) and as the melt temperatures of the polymers can be up to 220°C as per [0127], an autoclaving as disclosed in [0434] is possible at 250°F ) and has a porosity not less than a porosity of polyurethane and has a porosity not less than a porosity of polyurethane (as polyurethane is present in [0130], a porosity of a polyurethane is present) wherein the polymeric foam sponge comprises polyolefin, polyamide-imide, polymethylpentene (PMP), polyoxymethylene (POM), polyaryletherketone (PAEK), polyetheretherketone (PEEK), partially reticulated polyether type polyurethane, thermoplastic foam, reactive resin foam, polyurethane foam, reaction injection molding plastic foam, flexible foam, thermoplastic polyurethane, mica-particulated polyurethane, resin-particulated polyurethane, resin-blended polyurethane, or porous polyurethane (polymer materials including PEEK in [0034] and [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to for the purpose of providing a polymeric surface for a dental implant (in [0029] of Piotrowicz) where said surface will reduce the risk of infection as per [0030].
Regarding claim 13. Coopersmith in view of Piotrowicz teaches a subgingival deep dental implant oral surgical retraction article (retraction in the abstract, with a dental implant in [0002]), with Coopersmith disclosing a sponge configured in size and with an elongated shape (as the retraction material is defined as part 170 in [0073] and as the retraction material is disclosed as a sponge in [0028], the sponge of Coopersmith has an elongated shape as per figure 2) for retracting a gingival flap at said incision site (spongy material used for retraction of gingival tissue in [0008-[0009] and [0028]-[0029]), during a subgingival deep dental implant oral surgery (a dental implant is present in the abstract and with a taking of an impression of sub-gingival abutment margins in [0080], said implants shown in figure 1 have subgingival components).
However, Coopersmith does not teach that the sponge is comprising a polyether polyurethane foam sponge.
Instead, Piotrowicz teaches a polyurethane foam sponge (polyurethane is present in [0130], a porosity of a polyurethane is present. Said polyurethane is disclosed as a base polymer in [0130] that is incorporated into a sponge in [0028])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to for the purpose of providing a polymeric surface for a dental implant (in [0029] of Piotrowicz) where said surface will reduce the risk of infection as per [0030].
Regarding claim 15, Coopersmith in view of Piotrowicz teach the subgingival deep dental implant oral surgical retraction article of claim 13, wherein the polyether polyurethane foam sponge comprises thermoplastic foam, reactive resin foam, reaction injection molding plastic foam, flexible foam, mica-particulated polyurethane, resin-particulated polyurethane, resin-blended polyurethane, porous polyurethane, or polyurethane blend, or combinations thereof (polyurethane blended with resin and related compounds in [0372] and [0399] of Piotrowicz).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to for the purpose of providing a polymeric surface for a dental implant (in [0029] of Piotrowicz) where said surface will reduce the risk of infection as per [0030].
Regarding claim 16, Coopersmith in view of Piotrowicz teach the subgingival deep dental implant oral surgical retraction article of claim 13, wherein the polyether polyurethane foam sponge comprises polyether polyurethane blended with one or more additives (in [0399] and [0402] of Piotrowicz, generic additives in [0124]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to for the purpose of providing a polymeric surface for a dental implant (in [0029] of Piotrowicz) where said surface will reduce the risk of infection as per [0030].
Regarding claim 17, Coopersmith in view of Piotrowicz teach subgingival deep dental implant oral surgical method, with Coopersmith comprising retracting a first gingival flap (parts 106 in figures 13-16 are defined as being gingival tissue, where the left and right parts 106 with crests 108 comprise the flaps) including placing a first polyether polyurethane foam sponge as in claim 13 at a first incision site during a subgingival deep dental implant oral surgery (shown in figures 13-16 where part 170 is the sponge element).
Regarding claim 18, Coopersmith in view of Piotrowicz teach the subgingival deep dental implant oral surgical retraction method of claim 17, with Cooper comprising retracting a second gingival flap on an opposite side of a tooth as the first gingival flap (being the opposing part 106) including placing a second polyether polyurethane foam sponge at a second incision site opposite the first incision site during said subgingival deep dental implant oral surgery (in figure 12, a second and second foam element 170 are shown to interface with different parts 106, where the leftmost part 170 is a first sponge, and the middle part 170 is a second sponge).
Claim(s) 3 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coopersmith (US Pub No.: 2005/0118552) in view of Piotrowicz (US Pub No.: 2021/0268543) in further view of Rutherford (US Pub No.: 2005/0079470).
Regarding claim 3, Coopersmith in view of Piotrowicz teach the subgingival deep dental implant oral surgical retraction article of claim 2. However, Coopersmith in view of Piotrowicz does not teach wherein said polymeric foam sponge includes a cylindrical, ellipsoidal, tubular, wedge, prism, ovoid, triovoid, egg or pear shape, or combinations thereof.
Instead, Rutherford (US Pub No.: 2005/0079470) teaches wherein said polymeric foam sponge includes a cylindrical, ellipsoidal, tubular, wedge, prism, ovoid, triovoid, egg or pear shape, or combinations thereof (cylindrical sponge in [0190], as part 89).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the shape of the sponge presented in Rutherford into the sponge elements of Coopersmith and Piotrowicz as the cylindrical sponge part 89 is defined as a “wafer” in [0049] and [0190] where said wafer promotes regeneration and differentiation of healthy dental tissue in the abstract.
Regarding claim 14, Coopersmith in view of Piotrowicz teach the subgingival deep dental implant oral surgical retraction article of claim 13. However, Coopersmith in view of Piotrowicz does not teach wherein said polyether polyurethane foam sponge includes a cylindrical, ellipsoidal, tubular, wedge, prism, ovoid, triovoid, egg or pear shape, or combinations thereof.
Instead, Rutherford (US Pub No.: 2005/0079470) teaches wherein said polymeric foam sponge includes a cylindrical, ellipsoidal, tubular, wedge, prism, ovoid, triovoid, egg or pear shape, or combinations thereof (cylindrical sponge in [0190], as part 89).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the shape of the sponge presented in Rutherford into the sponge elements of Coopersmith and Piotrowicz as the cylindrical sponge part 89 is defined as a “wafer” in [0049] and [0190] where said wafer promotes regeneration and differentiation of healthy dental tissue in the abstract.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coopersmith (US Pub No.: 2005/0118552) in view of Piotrowicz (US Pub No.: 2021/0268543) in further view of Lin (US Pub No.: 2009/0270527).
Regarding claim 11, Coopersmith in view of Piotrowicz teach subgingival deep dental implant oral surgical retraction article of claim 5. However, Coopersmith in view of Piotrowicz, wherein the one or more additives comprise one or more difunctional amine compounds including Diethyltoluenediamine or Dimethylthiotoluenediamine, or both.
Instead, Lin (US Pub No.: 2009/0270527) teaches wherein the one or more additives comprise one or more difunctional amine compounds including Diethyltoluenediamine or Dimethylthiotoluenediamine, or both (DMTDA in the abstract and [0070] of Lin).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the material details of Lin into the combination of Coopersmith and Piotrowicz for the purpose of providing an “amine containing compound” in [0015]-[0016] that will reduce the risk of chemical tissue damage, as disclosed in [0016].
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coopersmith (US Pub No.: 2005/0118552) in view of Piotrowicz (US Pub No.: 2021/0268543) in further view of Drapeau (US Pug No.: 2012/0214127).
Regarding claim 19, Coopersmith in view of Piotrowicz teach the subgingival deep dental implant oral surgical retraction method of claim 18, with Coopersmith comprising embedding a subgingival deep dental implant, and placing a third polymeric sponge in a space next to said subgingival deep dental implant to preserve said space (in figures 3-6, the sponge element of Coopersmith pushes down on part 108, being the gingival crest in [0071]. As part 170 extends into the crest 108 and pushes it down, sponge 170 is considered to extend in a subgingival direction next to temporary implant 112 where a space between the implant and part 102 is preserved. Three different parts 170 in figure 12).
However, Coopersmith does not teach thereafter coupling an abutment to the subgingival deep dental implant after an osseointegration period.
Instead, Drapeau (US Pug No.: 2012/0214127) teaches coupling an abutment to the subgingival deep dental implant (coupling of an abutment 22 to part 12 in [0051] and figure 2) after an osseointegration period (bone growth occurs in the implant 12 before mounting of part 22. Part 20, that is the inner part of part 12 in figure 12, comprises sponges as per [0022]. Part 102 promotes bone growth in [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the abutment of Drapeau into Coopersmith for the purpose of providing an abutment with a means to mount a crown 62 (in [0053]), where an abutment is present in Coopersmith without a permanent crown. Said crown defines a cavity that is received from the abutment in [0042] where the securement means of Drapeau precents damage from an under tightened implant (in [0003])
Regarding claim 20, Coopersmith in view of Piotrowicz and Drapeau teach the subgingival deep dental implant oral surgical retraction method of claim 19, comprising removing said third polymeric sponge from said space next to said subgingival deep dental implant after said osseointegration period, and coupling said abutment to said implant (removal of the sponge in figure 11, which can occur before the coupling of an abutment in Drapeau. Removal of 170 in [0083]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Matheson (US Pub No.: 2007/0196785) considered for a dental appliance with a foam pad part 12. McAdams (US Pub No.: 2006/0089584) considered for a polymer sponge structure in the abstract, with the figures and background disclosing a dental usage.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AREN PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0144. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 - 4:30 M-Th.
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, Jerrah C. Edwards can be reached at (408) 918-7557. 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.
/AREN PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/JERRAH EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3774
