`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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species XI, Fig. 29A-29B, claims 1-10 and 12-20 (now claims 21-30 and 32-39) in the reply filed on 5 March 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that allegedly there is not serious burden to examine all the claims as originally submitted. This is not found persuasive because the reasons for insisting upon election on one species, are the facts relied upon for the conclusion that there are claims restricted respectively to two or more patentably different species that are disclosed in the application. The breath of the single disclosed species does not necessitate the examination of the other disclosed species their concomitant features. The examination of other species would include a determination of the patentability of the species additional features in combination with the sub-combination common to all species, which determination amounts to an examination of multiple inventions. The lection requirement is hereby deemed proper, and made FINAL.
Examiner’s Note
Applicant has indicated that claims 1-10 and 12-20 are related to the elected Species XI in the reply filed on 5 March 2026. However, the set of claims received on 5 March 2026, the claims 1-20 are canceled and claims 21-40 are new.
Furthermore, Applicant indicated that claim 11 will be reserved to be pursued in a subsequent divisional/continuation application.
Claim 11 includes the same subject matter as claim 31 of the set of claims received on 5 March 2026. Furthermore, claim 40 includes the same subject matter as in claim 31. Therefore, it is understood that will be reserved to be pursued in a subsequent divisional/continuation application as with claim 31.
Therefore, claim 31 and 40 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 5 March 2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character "20" has been used to designate both proximal end and Interior bore.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "20" and "26" have both been used to designate Interior bore.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference characters not mentioned in the description: reference number 59 of Fig. 3B, L2 of Fig. 5B; D1 of Fig. 8; D₁ of Fig. 19B and D₂ of Fig. 19C and in Fig. 21B are not found.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference characters in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: In Fig. 29A and 29B uses the following reference character 716, but in par. [0117] describing Figs. 39A and 29B, it refers to the dental component as 716’, not 719 as in the drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: each figure must be described separately in the Brief Description of the Drawings, wherein Figures 12A, 12B and 28A-36D are not. Appropriate correction is required.
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 23-26, 28, 29, 32 and 35-40 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.
Regarding claim 23, the claim is indefinite because it is describing the engagement portion of the restation screw when it is within the dental component interference portion and where each of the centerlines of the retention screw and the dental component interference portion are located relative to each other, but then it is described a comparison of diameters between the screw head portion and another engagement portion of the dental component, that it is not understood where it is located in the dental component and what it is the interaction between the two structure that said comparison between the diameters needs to be described.
Claims 24 recites the limitation "engagement portion of the dental component" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Regarding claim 25, the use of the term “shoulder” in line 2 is indefinite. It is not understood if said structure is part of the retention screw, or from the dental component. For examination purposes, the term will be interpreted as that is part of the dental component.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "shoulder" in line 1 and “interference wall” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for those limitations in the claim.
Regarding claims 28 and 29, the use of the term “implant” in line 8 and 3 respectively is indefinite. It is not understood if said “implant” refers to the implant described in line 22 of claim 21, or if said “implant” is another structure used in combination with the dental implant system. For examination purposes, the term will be interpreted as it refers to the same implant described of claim 21.
Regarding claim 32, the recitation that the “bore” includes an “engagement portion” in lines 1-2 is indefinite. It is not understood if the recitation refers to the coronal engagement portion of claim 21, in which said coronal engagement portion is part of the retention screw that at the same time is part of the dental component, or that the “engagement portion” is another engagement portion located at the bore. For examination purposes, the term will be interpreted as engagement portion in the claim is another engagement portion located at the bore.
Claim 35 recites the limitation "plurality of grooves" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 35, the use of the term “plurality of grooves in line 12 is indefinite. It is not understood if it is a grammatical error in which the intention is to indicate the groove described in line 11, or that the post section in addition of the groove in line 11 it includes another set of plurality of grooves. For examination purposes, the term will be interpreted as is a grammatical error in which the intention is to indicate the groove described in line 11.
Regarding claims 37 and 38, the use of the term “implant” in line 7 and 3 respectively is indefinite. It is not understood if said “implant” refers to the “implant” described in last line of claim 35, or if it refers to another implant. For examination purposes, the term will be interpreted as said “implant” refers to the “implant” of claim 35.
Claim Objections
Claims 21 and 35 are objected to because of the following informalities: Even when the claims use line indentation to separate each of the plurality of elements described in it. It is also used a sub-indentation inside the line indentation, in which it should be shifted further to the right than the previous margin, in order to be able to identify the main structure from the sub-structures, e.g. of claim 21 and 35 seen below. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21. A dental implant system, comprising:
a prosthetic assembly including:
a dental component comprising:
a bore extending from a distal end to a proximal end, the bore comprising an interference portion;
an implant engagement section at the distal end and comprising a first anti-rotation portion extending distally from the implant engagement section; and
a post section at the proximal end and comprising a second anti-rotation portion extending longitudinally from the proximal end of the post section towards the implant engagement section and configured to interlockingly engage a bore of a mating component, wherein the second anti-rotation portion comprises a projection configured to engage a groove in the mating component; and
a retention screw configured to extend through the bore of the dental component, the retention screw including:
a head;
a shaft extending from the head;
an apical threaded portion positioned at a distal end of the retention screw; and
a coronal engagement portion positioned between the apical threaded portion and a proximal end of the retention screw,
wherein the engagement portion is configured to engage the interference portion of the dental component when a removal torque is applied to the retention screw to remove the retention screw from an implant.
Claim 35. A dental implant system, comprising:
a prosthetic assembly including:
a dental component comprising:
a bore extending from a distal end to a proximal end, the bore comprising a threaded interference portion;
an implant engagement section at the distal end and comprising a first anti-rotation portion extending distally from the implant engagement section; and
a post section at the proximal end and comprising a second anti-rotation portion extending longitudinally from the proximal end of the post section towards the implant engagement section and configured to interlockingly engage a bore of a mating component, wherein the second anti-rotation portion comprises a projection configured to engage a groove in the mating component, the plurality of grooves extending circumferentially around the post section; and
a retention screw configured to extend through the bore of the dental component, the retention screw including:
a head;
a shaft extending from the head;
an apical threaded portion positioned at a distal end of the retention screw; and
a coronal threaded engagement portion positioned between the apical threaded portion and a proximal end of the retention screw,
wherein the threaded engagement portion is configured to engage the threaded interference portion of the dental component when a removal torque is applied to the retention screw to remove the retention screw from an implant.
Claim 25-26 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims use a generic reference character (D#) in lines 4 and 3 respectively. Even when the reference character does not have any effect in the scope of the claims, if the intention of the applicant is to use reference characters in association with the different diameters, it is suggested to avoid generic characters. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 1-2 uses of the term “interference and engagement portions”. Even when the Office understands that the term refers to the “interference portion” and the “engagement portion” described in claim 22, it is suggested to maintain the same nomenclature across the claims, in order to avoid potential confusion. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 33 and 34, is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2 uses the term “dental implant”. Even when the Office understands that the term refers to the “implant” used in line 23 of claim 21. It is suggested to maintain the same nomenclature across the claims.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claims 23-26 and 28-29, the reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description and the drawings may be used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims. However, the use of reference characters is to be considered as having no effect on the scope of the claims. (See MPEP 608.01(m) - Form of Claims [R-07.2015]).
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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook et al. (US 5217685 A) in view of Rogers et al. (US 5702252 A).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Prosthetic assembly)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Distal end)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Second anti-rotation portion including a projection)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Bore of mating component)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Retention screw)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Bore of dental component)][AltContent: textbox (Fig. 1)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Interference portion)][AltContent: textbox (Proximal end)][AltContent: textbox (Post section)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Implant engagement section)][AltContent: textbox (Dental component)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
574
396
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Interference portion)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Retention screw )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Proximal end of the retention screw)][AltContent: textbox (Coronal engagement portion)][AltContent: textbox (Fig. 1 zoomed portion)][AltContent: textbox (Retention screw )][AltContent: ][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Shaft )][AltContent: textbox (Head )][AltContent: ][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image2.png
530
422
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, Cook et al. discloses a dental implant system, including:
a prosthetic assembly including:
a dental component (see annotated Fig. 1 above) including:
a bore extending from a distal end to a proximal end, the bore including an interference portion (28) (see annotated Fig. 1 above);
an implant engagement section at the distal end (see annotated Fig. 1 above – where the distal end is the surface surrounding the bore and facing the proximal surfaces of the implant, it is considered to be the implant engagement section); and
a post section at the proximal end and comprising a second anti-rotation portion extending longitudinally from the proximal end of the post section towards the implant engagement section and configured to interlockingly engage a bore of a mating component (10) (see annotated Fig. 1 above), wherein the second anti-rotation portion includes a projection configured to engage a groove in the mating component (10) (see annotated Fig. 1 above – where the post section includes grooves and protrusions to engage the internal part of the dental prosthesis, in this way locking it rotationally); and
a retention screw (26) configured to extend through the bore of the dental component, the retention screw (26) (see annotated Fig. 1 above and col. 3, lines 51-52) including:
a head (see annotated Fig. 1 zoomed portion);
a shaft extending from the head (see annotated Fig. 1 zoomed portion);
an apical threaded portion positioned at a distal end of the retention screw (see annotated Fig. 1 zoomed portion); and
a coronal engagement portion positioned between the apical threaded portion and a proximal end of the retention screw (see annotated Fig. 1 zoomed portion),
wherein the engagement portion is configured to engage the interference portion (28) of the dental component when a removal torque is applied to the retention screw to remove the retention screw from an implant (see annotated Fig. 1 above and col. 3, lines 51-56 – “A head of the screw 26 clamps against a shoulder 28 on the abutment base to force a precision formed abutment surface 29 into seated contact with the gingival surface 22 of the implanted fixture”; therefore, if a force is applied to clamp the screw against the shoulder, it is understood that a force in the form of torque is required to rotate the retention screw, in order to remover it).
However, Cook et al. does not disclose that the implant engagement section includes a first anti-rotation portion extending distally from the implant engagement section.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Anti-rotation hexagonal recess)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Dental component)]
PNG
media_image3.png
336
428
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image4.png
226
334
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Rogers et al. teaches a dental component (10) configured to be attached to a coronal portion of an implant (30), where the dental component includes an implant engagement section in its distal end of the bore and extends distally forming a recess (22) having a hexagonal form configured for mating with an anti-rotation hexagonal projection (32) on the coronal portion of the implant (30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the implant engagement section of Cook, with the anti-rotation portion of Rogers, in order to avoid any rotation between the dental component and the implant through the anti-rotation portion.
Claims 28 and 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook et al. (US 5217685 A) in view of Rogers et al. (US 5702252 A), in further view of DENTAMECHANIK (DE 20303653 U1).
Regarding claim 28, Cook/Rogers discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 21.
However, Cook/Rogers does not disclose including that the interference and engagement portions are interlocking threaded portions, wherein the engagement portion and apical threaded portion of the retention screw are differently handed, wherein, in a first mode, a first direction of rotation is applied to the retention screw to cause the engagement portion to engage the interference portion of the dental component and distally advance the retention screw through the interference portion and, in a second mode, an opposite second direction of rotation is applied to the retention screw to cause the apical threaded portion to engage a threaded bore of an implant and distally advance the retention screw through the threaded bore to form a friction fit between the dental component and the implant.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Threaded interference portion)][AltContent: textbox (Coronal threaded engagement portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Apical threaded portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Bore)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Retention screw)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Dental component)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Implant)]
PNG
media_image5.png
634
498
media_image5.png
Greyscale
DENTAMECHANIK teaches a dental implant (1), and a dental component (2) connected to the dental implant (1) through a retention screw (3). The retention screw (3) includes a coronal threaded engagement portion (9) and an apical threaded portion (10). The dental component (2) includes a bore with a threaded interference portion (11) configured to engage with the coronal threaded engagement portion (9) of the retention screw (3), and where the coronal threaded engagement portion (9) and the apical threaded portion (10) includes threads (7 and 8) extending in opposing direction (see annotated Fig. 1 and 2 above, and page 3, lines 13-20 – where the retention screw 3 with the coronal threaded engagement portion 9 forms a “form-locking connection between the base part 1 and abutment 2 in practice and serves the function of a clamping lock”, and page 2, last line through page 3 line 2 – “abutment into position to secure against an undesired twisting, is in its head portion, for example, an inner polygon, combined with an inner cone is provided. This inner polygon forms with the outside wall surfaces of the abutment friction surfaces in the case of a rigid assembly” therefore forming a friction fit connection).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coronal engagement portion at the head of the retention screw of Cook/ Rogers, with the threads at the lateral surface of the retention screw head of DENTAMECHANIK, in order to form a “form-locking connection” between the implant and the dental component forming a “clamping lock” between the two structures.
Regarding claims 35-37, Cook et al. discloses a dental implant system, including:
a prosthetic assembly (see annotated Fig. 1 above) including:
a dental component (see annotated Fig. 1 above) including:
a bore extending from a distal end to a proximal end (see annotated Fig. 1 above);
an implant engagement section at the distal end (see annotated Fig. 1 above – where the distal end is the surface surrounding the bore and facing the proximal surfaces of the implant, it is considered to be the implant engagement section); and
a post section at the proximal end and including a second anti-rotation portion extending longitudinally from the proximal end of the post section towards the implant engagement section and configured to interlockingly engage a bore of a mating component, wherein the second anti-rotation portion includes a projection configured to engage a groove in the mating component (10) (see annotated Fig. 1 above), the groove extending circumferentially around the post section (see Fig. 1 – where the groove of the mating component extends around the post section); and
a retention screw (26) configured to extend through the bore of the dental component, the retention screw (26) (see annotated Fig. 1 above and col. 3, lines 51-52) including:
a head (see annotated Fig. 1 zoomed portion);
a shaft extending from the head (see annotated Fig. 1 zoomed portion); and
an apical threaded portion positioned at a distal end of the retention screw (26) (see annotated Fig. 1 zoomed portion).
However, Cook et al. does not disclose that the bore includes a threaded interference portion; that the implant engagement section including a first anti-rotation portion extending distally from the implant engagement section; and that the retention screw includes a coronal threaded engagement portion positioned between the apical threaded portion and a proximal end of the retention screw, wherein the threaded engagement portion is configured to engage the threaded interference portion of the dental component when a removal torque is applied to the retention screw to remove the retention screw from an implant (for claim 35); that the engagement portion and apical threaded portion of the retention screw are differently handed (for claim 36); and wherein, in a first mode, a first direction of rotation is applied to the retention screw to cause the engagement portion to engage the interference portion of the dental component and distally advance the retention screw through the interference portion and, in a second mode, an opposite second direction of rotation is applied to the retention screw to cause the apical threaded portion to engage a threaded bore of an implant and distally advance the retention screw through the threaded bore to form a friction fit between the dental component and the implant (for claim 37).
Rogers et al. teaches a dental component (10) configured to be attached to a coronal portion of an implant (30), where the dental component includes an implant engagement section in its distal end of the bore and extends distally forming a recess (22) having a hexagonal form configured for mating with an anti-rotation hexagonal projection (32) on the coronal portion of the implant (30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the implant engagement section of Cook, with the anti-rotation portion of Rogers, in order to avoid any rotation between the dental component and the implant through the anti-rotation portion.
However, Cook/Rogers does not disclose that the bore includes a threaded interference portion; and that the retention screw includes a coronal threaded engagement portion positioned between the apical threaded portion and a proximal end of the retention screw, wherein the threaded engagement portion is configured to engage the threaded interference portion of the dental component when a removal torque is applied to the retention screw to remove the retention screw from an implant (for claim 35); that the engagement portion and apical threaded portion of the retention screw are differently handed (for claim 36); and wherein, in a first mode, a first direction of rotation is applied to the retention screw to cause the engagement portion to engage the interference portion of the dental component and distally advance the retention screw through the interference portion and, in a second mode, an opposite second direction of rotation is applied to the retention screw to cause the apical threaded portion to engage a threaded bore of an implant and distally advance the retention screw through the threaded bore to form a friction fit between the dental component and the implant (for claim 37).
DENTAMECHANIK teaches a dental implant (1), and a dental component (2) connected to the dental implant (1) through a retention screw (3). The retention screw (3) includes a coronal threaded engagement portion (9) and an apical threaded portion (10). The dental component (2) includes a bore with a threaded interference portion (11) configured to engage with the coronal threaded engagement portion (9) of the retention screw (3), and where the coronal threaded engagement portion (9) and the apical threaded portion (10) includes threads (7 and 8) extending in opposing direction (see annotated Fig. 1 and 2 above, and page 3, lines 13-20 – where the retention screw 3 with the coronal threaded engagement portion 9 forms a “form-locking connection between the base part 1 and abutment 2 in practice and serves the function of a clamping lock”, and page 2, last line through page 3 line 2 – “abutment into position to secure against an undesired twisting, is in its head portion, for example, an inner polygon, combined with an inner cone is provided. This inner polygon forms with the outside wall surfaces of the abutment friction surfaces in the case of a rigid assembly” therefore forming a friction fit connection).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coronal engagement portion at the head of the retention screw of Cook/ Rogers, with the threads at the lateral surface of the retention screw head of DENTAMECHANIK, in order to form a “form-locking connection” between the implant and the dental component forming a “clamping lock” between the two structures.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-23, 26-27, 30-31, 33-34, and 39-40 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 22, the prior arts of Cook, Rogers and DENTAMECHANIK do not describe a dental implant system including that the dental component has a longitudinal centerline, wherein the bore includes a screw head portion that has a longitudinal centerline aligned with the longitudinal centerline of the dental component, wherein the interference portion defines an interference ledge, wherein the engagement portion defines an interference shoulder, wherein the interference portion, positioned distal to the screw head portion, has a longitudinal centerline that is offset spatially from the longitudinal centerline of the dental component, and wherein, when the retention screw shaft is positioned in the interference portion, the engagement portion is configured to engage the interference ledge of the dental component when the removal torque is applied to the retention screw.
Regarding claim 30, the prior arts of Cook, Rogers and DENTAMECHANIK do not describe that the retention screw including the engagement portion has a major diameter greater than a major diameter of the apical threaded portion.
Regarding claim 31, the prior arts of Cook, Rogers and DENTAMECHANIK do not describe that the retention screw including the coronal engagement portion comprises a notched first thread to remove thin thread start that rolls over during removal, and wherein the post of the dental component includes one or more grooves therein, and wherein the dental component is one of: a connection, straight abutment, angled, low profile, tapered abutment, mini conical abutment, UCLAs, analogues, transfers, straight post, and angled post.
Regarding claim 33, the prior arts of Cook, Rogers and DENTAMECHANIK do not describe a dental implant system including that when the dental component is coupled to the dental implant, the anti-rotation portion of the dental component is received within an anti-rotation chamber of the dental implant, the implant engagement section of the dental component engages the dental component engagement portion of the dental implant, and the retention screw extends through the dental component such that the threaded portion engages the threaded portion of the dental implant and wherein, when the dental component is coupled to the dental implant, a center line of the dental implant aligns with the center line of the dental component, and the centerline of the interference portion of the dental component is offset from the center line of the dental implant.
Regarding claim 34, the prior arts of Cook, Rogers and DENTAMECHANIK do not describe a dental implant system including that wherein the coronal engagement portion comprises a plurality of flexible interference fingers, each interference finger comprising an interference shoulder, that engages an interference ridge in the interference portion during separation of the dental component and the dental implant, wherein, in an uncompressed state of the plurality of interference fingers, a diameter of the plurality of interference fingers is greater than a diameter of the shaft and a minimum diameter of the interference ridge, wherein the plurality of flexible interference fingers bend inward to a compressed state to allow the retention screw to pass through the bore of the dental component, wherein, once the plurality of flexible interference fingers pass the interference ridge, the plurality of flexible interference fingers transition back to the uncompressed state and are positioned within the interference portion to engage the interference ridge, and wherein, in response to application of the removal torque, the retention screw causes the interference shoulder of each of the plurality of flexible interference fingers to push up on the interference shoulder to overcome the friction fit of the dental component with the dental implant.
Regarding claim 39, the prior arts of Cook, Rogers and DENTAMECHANIK do not describe that the retention screw including the engagement portion has a major diameter greater than a major diameter of the apical threaded portion.
Regarding claim 40, the prior arts of Cook, Rogers and DENTAMECHANIK do not describe that the retention screw including the coronal engagement portion comprises a notched first thread to remove thin thread start that rolls over during removal, and wherein the post of the dental component includes one or more grooves therein, and wherein the dental component is one of: a connection, straight abutment, angled, low profile, tapered abutment, mini conical abutment, UCLAs, analogues, transfers, straight post, and angled post
Claims 24-25, 29, 32 and 38 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 24, the prior arts of Cook, Rogers and DENTAMECHANIK do not describe a dental implant system including that the bore includes engagement portion of the dental component, positioned distal to the interference portion, and configured to receive the engagement portion of the retention screw, wherein the screw head portion is positioned proximal to the interference portion, wherein a diameter (D3) of an interference wall, positioned in the bore between the screw head portion and the dental component engagement portion, is less than a diameter (D4) of the dental component engagement portion.
Regarding claim 32, the prior arts of Cook, Rogers and DENTAMECHANIK do not describe a dental implant system including that the bore includes a screw head portion, positioned proximal to the interference portion, and an engagement portion, positioned distal to the interference portion, wherein screw head portion terminates at a shoulder, and wherein the interference portion extends distally from the shoulder and terminates at an interference ledge, and wherein one or both of the shoulder and interference ledge extends around less than a total circumference of the shoulder and wherein the interference ledge and/or shoulder extends around about fifty percent of the total circumference of the shoulder and wherein the retention screw includes a plurality of lobes.
Regarding claim 38, the prior arts of Cook, Rogers and DENTAMECHANIK do not describe a dental implant system including a third mode, the first direction of rotation is applied to the retention screw to cause the apical threaded portion to engage the threaded bore of an implant and proximally advance the retention screw through the threaded bore to overcome the friction fit, and, in a fourth mode, the second direction of rotation is applied to the retention screw to cause the engagement portion to engage the interference portion of the dental component and proximally advance the retention screw through the interference portion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIRAYDA ARLENE APONTE whose telephone number is (571)270-1933. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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.
/MIRAYDA A APONTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3772 /ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights