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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.84 (u)(1), specifically they have different views within the same figure. In the instant drawings, figures 1-3 show multiple views.
Applicant is reminded that drawings must be numbered in consecutive Arabic numerals, starting with 1, independent of the numbering of the sheets and, if possible, in the order in which they appear on the drawing sheet(s), partial views intended to form one complete view, on one or several sheets, must be identified by the same number followed by a capital letter and/or view numbers must be preceded by the abbreviation "FIG."
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Vachtenberg (US 2023/0248482).
Regarding claim 1, Vachtenberg discloses a metallic dental implant body manufactured at least partially by an additive manufacturing process (par 60 discloses the implant body 112 is made of titanium and par 79 discloses the 3D printing of an implant body 212 using a metal material, while the prior art discloses part of the dental implant body being manufactured by additive manufacturing processes, applicant is advised that this statement is considered a product by process claim limitation and the determination of patentability is based on the product itself, See MPEP 2113), wherein the body (112/212) is provided with a cavity (gap 128) for receiving and sealable connecting to an inlay part (first portion 130, par 60 discloses the first and second portion of the dental implant body being welded together along connection 166) thereby forming an assembled dental implant (see figure 1-6).
Regarding claim 16, Vachtenberg discloses the body is made of titanium or titanium alloy (par 60 and 72).
Regarding claim 17, Vachtenberg discloses the inlay part (130) is made of titanium or titanium alloy (par 70 and 72).
Regarding claim 18, applicant is advised that “the cavity is formed by machining the body after the additive manufacturing process” is considered a product by process claim and the determination of patentability is based on the product itself, See MPEP 2113. In the instant case, Vachtenberg discloses the cavity is formed within the body and therefore achieves the implied structure of this limitation (see figure 2 and 10).
Regarding claim 19, Vachtenberg discloses the inlay part (130) has an inner bore (compartment 126).
Regarding claim 20, Vachtenberg discloses the inlay part (130) has a thread in the inner bore (140).
Regarding claim 2, Vachtenberg discloses an assembled dental implant (see figure 1-10):
a metallic body (112/212; par 60 and 79) manufactured at least partially via an additive manufacturing process (par 79 discloses the 3D printing of an implant body 212 using a metal material, while the prior art discloses part of the dental implant body being manufactured by additive manufacturing processes, applicant is advised that this statement is considered a product by process claim limitation and the determination of patentability is based on the product itself, See MPEP 2113);
wherein the body (112/212) is provided with a cavity (gap 128) having an opening on one end of the body (opening 124 on the coronal end 114; see figures 2 and 10); and
an inlay part (first portion 130) at least partly introduced within the cavity (see figures 1, 3, and 8-9) and sealable connected with the metallic body thereby sealing off the cavity (first portion 130, par 60 discloses the first and second portion of the dental implant body being welded together along connection 166).
Regarding claim 3, Vachtenberg discloses the body is made of titanium or titanium alloy (par 60 and 72).
Regarding claim 4, Vachtenberg discloses the inlay part (130) is made of titanium or titanium alloy (par 70 and 72).
Regarding claim 5, applicant is advised that “the cavity is formed by machining the body after the additive manufacturing process” is considered a product by process claim and the determination of patentability is based on the product itself, See MPEP 2113. In the instant case, Vachtenberg discloses the cavity is formed within the body and therefore achieves the implied structure of this limitation (see figure 2 and 10).
Regarding claim 6, applicant is advised that “the additive manufacturing process involves selective laser melting” is considered a product by process claim and the determination of patentability is based on the product itself, See MPEP 2113. In the instant case, Vachtenberg discloses the structure of previous claim 2 and therefore achieves the implied structure of this limitation.
Regarding claim 7, Vachtenberg discloses the sealable connection is at least partly formed by laser welding the inlay part to the body (par 81 and 85).
Regarding claim 11, Vachtenberg discloses the inlay part (130) has an inner bore (compartment 126).
Regarding claim 12, Vachtenberg discloses the inlay part (130) has a thread in the inner bore (140).
Regarding claim 13, Vachtenberg discloses the inner bore (130) provides indexing geometry (146/ hexagonal recess disclosed in par 50).
Regarding claim 14, Vachtenberg discloses the inner bore is adapted to connect to an abutment (see figure 7).
Regarding claim 15, Vachtenberg discloses a method for assembling a dental implant (dental implant 110 and 210), the method comprises:
providing a metallic body at least partially manufactured via an additive manufacturing process (par 79 discloses the 3D printing of the implant body 212);
providing a cavity with an opening in the body during the additive manufacturing process and/or by machining the body after the additive manufacturing process (see par 79 which discloses the 3D printing if the implant body which includes a cavity and opening into the body and figure 2);
inserting an inlay in the cavity via the opening (see figures 9-10),
connecting the inlay to the body and sealing off the cavity (par 78 discloses the welding of the second portion and the first portion hermetically sealing).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vachtenberg as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Vladila (WO 2012/165987).
Vachtenberg fails to disclose the sealable connection is at least partly formed by adhesive or epoxy.
Vladila teaches a sealable connection at least partly formed by adhesive or epoxy (where the inner bush 19 is attached to implant body 18, see figures 42-47 by epoxy or welding, page 26 paragraph 4).
As both Vachtenberg and Vladila disclose a sealable connection (Vachtenberg par 80 and Vladila page 26), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to substitute the welded sealable connection of Vachtenberg with the alternative epoxy sealable connection of Vladila to achieve the predictable results of permanently attaching the inlay to the implant body with a sealed connection.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vachtenberg as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Thijs et al (WO 2009/004069).
Regarding claim 9, Vachtenberg fails to disclose the body’s outer surface retains texture from the additive manufacturing process.
This teaches a body outer surface retaining texture from the additive manufacturing process (the porous body 12 is disclosed as being fabricated by a 3D fibre deposition technique, see par 55 which would result in a texture of the outer surface).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Vachtenberg to have the body’s outer surface retains texture from the additive manufacturing process as taught by Thijs for the purpose of enhancing bone adhesion and mechanical properties.
Regarding claim 10, Vachtenberg fails to disclose the additive manufactured body’s outer surface has a rougher surface than the inlay part’s surface.
Thijs taches an additive manufactured body (porous body 12 is disclosed as being created by 3D fibre deposition/rapid prototyping in par 21) has a rougher surface than an inlay part surface (dense member 11, where the surfaces of the porous body of the outer implant is rougher than the outer surface of a dense non-porous body).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicants filing to modify Vachtenberg to have the additive manufactured body’s outer surface has a rougher surface than the inlay part’s surface as taught by Thijs for the purpose of providing rigid support and biocompatibility.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached references cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANNEL N BELK whose telephone number is (571)272-9671. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. -Fri. 11:30 am - 3:30 pm.
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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at (571) 270-5614. 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.
/S.N.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/EDELMIRA BOSQUES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772