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
Newly submitted claims 34-35 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: The claims would have been subject to a lack of unity restriction from original claims 1-20 as lacking a shared special technical feature of the screw as claimed in original claims 1, 2, and 10 over the previously cited prior art.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 34 and 35 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 7-9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference or combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 2, 4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Henkel et al. (DE 102013100140 A1, translation cited).
Regarding claim 2, Henkel discloses a screw capable of securing a dental structure to an implant fixture within the jawbone of a dental patient (Fig. 1 element 1) comprising:
a main body (Fig. 1 element 1) having a first end including a head (Fig. 1 element 4) defining a drive socket (fig 1 showing drive socket in head),
the head having a bottom end configured to seat against a shoulder within a cavity of the dental structure (Fig. 1 bottom of element 4),
the main body also having a second end including a tip (fig. 1 tip opposite end from 4), and a shank extending from the head to the tip, wherein at least a portion of the shank is threaded and configured to pass through an unthreaded cavity of the dental structure by being a shank that is threaded(Fig. 1 element 3 showing the threading);
and a magnetic insert, carried with the main body, making up less than the entirety of the screw and is separate from the main body and fixed within the drive socket at a bottom of the drive socket an being spaced away from the first end of the main body (Fig. 1 the magnetizable particles 6 that would be at the bottom of the drive socket as there are particles mixed into the plastic, thus those at the bottom of the socket would read on the magnetic insert) the magnetic insert being ferromagnetic and configured to at least partially retain the screw to a tip of a hand driver by magnetic attraction (page 2 lines 4-8 disclosing the magnetizable particles can allow the screw to be retained by a magnetic screwdriver, lines 22-23 disclosing the particles are iron or iron ferrite and thus a ferromagnetic material).
Regarding claim 4, Henkel discloses where the magnetic insert forms a portion of the drive socket (fig. 1 certain of elements 6 are in the walls of the drive socket and thus form part of the drive socket).
Regarding claim 7, Henkel discloses where the shank is non-magnetic (Fig. 1 element 2 shank is made of plastic, page 1 lines 12-15 disclosing the plastic itself cannot be taken with a magnetic screwdriver).
Claims 2-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Archbold et al. (US 2020/0330256 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Archbold discloses a screw capable of securing a dental structure to an implant fixture within the jawbone of a dental patient (Fig. 5a all) comprising:
a main body (Fig. 5a element 500-a) having a first end including a head (Fig. 5a element 566) defining a drive socket (fig. 5a element 524),
the head having a bottom end configured to seat against a shoulder within a cavity of the dental structure (Fig. 5a curved bottom of element 566),
the main body also having a second end including a tip (fig. 5a tip opposite end from 566), and a shank extending from the head to the tip, wherein at least a portion of the shank is threaded and configured to pass through an unthreaded cavity of the dental structure by being a shank that is threaded(Fig. 5a element 564 showing the threading);
and a magnetic insert, carried with the main body, making up less than the entirety of the screw and is separate from the main body and fixed within the drive socket at a bottom of the drive socket an being spaced away from the first end of the main body (Fig. 5a element 526-a) the magnetic insert being ferromagnetic (paragraph [0040] lines 16-17 disclosing the insert is made of neodymium which has a chemical formula of Nd2Fe14B and thus a ferromagnetic material by the presence of iron Fe) and configured to at least partially retain the screw to a tip of a hand driver by magnetic attraction (by the presence of the strong magnetic material of the neodymium magnet the screw would be able to be at least partially retained on an appropriately magnetizable hand driver).
Regarding claim 3, Archbold further discloses where the screw is non-ferromagnetic and includes either gold or titanium (paragraph [0040] lines 23-27 disclosing the screw itself is made from titanium which is non-ferromagnetic).
Regarding claim 4, Archbold discloses where the magnetic insert forms a portion of the drive socket (fig. 5a element 526-a forming a base when in the drive socket).
Regarding clam 5, Archbold further discloses where the insert is removable from the drive socket of the screw (paragraph [0041] lines 9-11 disclosing the magnet can be replaced and is removable).
Regarding claim 7, Archbold discloses where the shank is non-magnetic (paragraph [0040] lines 23-27 disclosing the screw itself is made from titanium which is non-magnetic).
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.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodman et al. (US 2012/0077150 A1) in view of Henkel et al. (DE 102013100140 A1, translation cited).
Regarding claim 1, Goodman discloses a dental assembly (title and abstract), comprising:
a screw (Fig. 1 element 40) comprising:
a main body (Fig. 4a element 43) having a first end adjacent a head (Fig. 4a element 42), the defining a drive socket (fig 1a showing drive socket in head), the main body also having a second end adjacent a tip (fig. 4a element 41b), and a shank extending from the head to the tip, wherein at least a portion of the shank is threaded (Fig. 4a element 44);
and having a bottom of a drive socket (Fig. 7 showing head of screw with hexagon drive socket),
the screw made of a non-magnetic main body (paragraph [0041] lines 5-8 disclosing the body made of any of plastic, titanium, gold alloys, or ceramics),
an implant fixture configured to be installed into a jawbone of a patient (fig. 6 element 60), the implant fixture having a threaded outer region configured to engage the jawbone (fig. 6 element 60 having external threads), the implant fixture having a threaded cavity configured to engage the screw (Fig. 7 showing the threading 69), the entrance to the threaded cavity having a tapered perimeter (Fig 7 showing tapering near 32); and
an implant structure (fig. 7 elements 20/50/35 forming an implant structure) , the implant structure having a tapered outer portion (Fig. 7 tapering of element 35 matching at element 32), the implant structure having an unthreaded cavity, (Fig. 7 inside of 20 and 35 being unthreaded) the implant structure having a shoulder within the unthreaded cavity configured to contact an underside of the head of the screw (Fig. 7 element 50 having a shoulder with 20 to contact underside of the head of screw 40);
wherein the screw is configured to pass through the unthreaded cavity of the implant structure until the underside of the head contacts the shoulder, wherein the screw is configured to thread into the implant fixture thereby seating the implant structure such that the tapered perimeter of the implant fixture cavity aligns with the tapered outer portion of the implant structure (Fig. 7 all).
Goodman discloses structure substantially identical to the instant application as discussed above but fails to explicitly disclose where the screw further includes a magnetic insert, carried with the main body, making up less than the entirety of the screw and is separate from the main body and fixed within the drive socket at a bottom of the drive socket an being spaced away from the first end of the main body the magnetic insert being ferromagnetic and configured to at least partially retain the screw to a tip of a hand driver by magnetic attraction.
However, Henkel discloses a screw capable of securing a dental structure to an implant fixture within the jawbone of a dental patient (Fig. 1 element 1) comprising:
a main body (Fig. 1 element 1) having a first end including a head (Fig. 1 element 4) defining a drive socket (fig 1 showing drive socket in head),
the head having a bottom end configured to seat against a shoulder within a cavity of the dental structure (Fig. 1 bottom of element 4),
the main body also having a second end including a tip (fig. 1 tip opposite end from 4), and a shank extending from the head to the tip, wherein at least a portion of the shank is threaded and configured to pass through an unthreaded cavity of the dental structure by being a shank that is threaded(Fig. 1 element 3 showing the threading);
and a magnetic insert, carried with the main body, making up less than the entirety of the screw and is separate from the main body and fixed within the drive socket at a bottom of the drive socket an being spaced away from the first end of the main body (Fig. 1 the magnetizable particles 6 that would be at the bottom of the drive socket as there are particles mixed into the plastic, thus those at the bottom of the socket would read on the magnetic insert) the magnetic insert being ferromagnetic and configured to at least partially retain the screw to a tip of a hand driver by magnetic attraction (page 2 lines 4-8 disclosing the magnetizable particles can allow the screw to be retained by a magnetic screwdriver, lines 22-23 disclosing the particles are iron or iron ferrite and thus a ferromagnetic material).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the magnetic insert as taught by Henkel into the bottom of the drive socket of the screw as taught by Goodman for the purpose of providing a non-magnetic material type screw to retain its ability to be light during used while also being magnetic for use with a screwdriver for one handed retention as taught by Henkel (page 2 lines 1-8).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 204364152 U-translation cited for text) in view of Wegmueller et al. (EP 0347510 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Archbold discloses structure substantially identical to the instant application as discussed above but fails to explicitly disclose where magnetic insert is secured to the bottom of the socket with an adhesive or a press-fit with the drive socket.
However Wegmueller discloses a post for securing a dental structure to an implant fixture within the jawbone of a dental patient (Fig. 1 element 6) comprising:
a main body (Fig. 2 element 6) having a first end including a head (Fig. 2 element 14) defining a drive socket (fig. 2/3 element 17/20),
the main body also having a second end including a tip (fig.2 distal tip of 6), and a shank extending from the head to the tip (Fig. 2 element 6 having a length of shank),
and a magnetic element, carried with the main body, making up less than the entirety of the screw, and configured to at least partially retain the screw to a tip of a hand driver by magnetic attraction; (Fig. 2/3 element 16), where the majority of the post is made of non-ferromagnetic material of titanium (abstract lines 4-5 disclosing the post is made of titanium),
where the magnetic element is press-fit into the head of the screw (page 2 lines 18-23 disclosing the ferromagnetic insert is press into the head).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the magnetic insert being press-fit into the head as taught by Wegmueller into the screw head magnet insert as taught by Archbold for the purpose of being an know alternative for screw in retention as taught by Wegmueller (page 2 lines 18-23 disclosing press-fitting being an obvious alternative to screw fitting)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henkel et al. (DE 102013100140 A1, translation cited).
Henkel discloses the claimed invention except for the length between the first end and the second end is 10 millimeters or less nor that the head includes a top surface that is 5 mm or less across.
However, there is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the dimensions of the screw would result in a difference in function of the Henkel et al. device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the screw of Henkel, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being within the claimed dimensions. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, indicating that the angle “may” be within the claimed range, and offering other acceptable ranges and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, 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 dimensions of the screw of Henkel et al. to have a length between the first end and the second end is 10 millimeters or less and that the head includes a top surface that is 5 mm or less across as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Archbold et al. (US 2020/0330256 A1).
Archbold discloses the claimed invention except for the length between the first end and the second end is 10 millimeters or less nor that the head includes a top surface that is 5 mm or less across.
However, there is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the dimensions of the screw would result in a difference in function of the Archbold et al. device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the screw of Archbold, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being within the claimed dimensions. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, indicating that the angle “may” be within the claimed range, and offering other acceptable ranges and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, 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 dimensions of the screw of Archbold et al. to have a length between the first end and the second end is 10 millimeters or less and that the head includes a top surface that is 5 mm or less across as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW P SAUNDERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3250. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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.
/M.P.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3772 07/16/2026
/EDELMIRA BOSQUES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights