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 of Group I in the reply filed on 6/15/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 10-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/15/26.
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 6, 7 and 9 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 6, the term “smooth” is a term of degree which renders the claim indefinite. Specifically, the specification does not provide any clarification as to what “smooth” would or would not specifically correspond to, and as such what one user considers to be smooth may be different than another. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 7, the term “are integrally formed” is indefinite as it contradicts the limitation of claim 1, which requires an abutment “configured to be attached” to the implanted portion. As such it is unclear how the abutment can be both attached to and integrally formed with the implanted portion. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 9, the term “supracrestal fibers” is limited by the special definition listed at [0028] of the instant disclosure, requiring the fibers to contain only collagen molecules, water and ions. As such, claim 9 appears to contradict such limitation as it specifies that the fibers also contain one of growth factors, analgesics and antibiotics therein. As such it is unclear how the term can be interpreted under the special definition, while also including the agents listed in claim 9. Clarification is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gretzer et al (US 2012/0316646 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gretzer et al discloses a dental implant (see [0004], [0009]. [0026], [0053]-[0054], [0094]) for facilitating interdental papilla growth (capable of being used as such, see citations above), comprising: an implanted portion configured to be inserted into a jawbone (e.g. “fixture” see citations above); an abutment (300; see citations above) configured to be attached to an exposed end of the implanted portion (see citations above); and supracrestal fibers (303) extending laterally from an exterior surface of the abutment (attached thereto via 302, see Fig. 3b) to form a scaffold between the dental implant and an adjacent tooth for facilitating interdental papilla growth in a supracrestal region of the dental implant (see citations above and abstract, [0013]-[0014], [0016], [0021]-[0024], [0065], [0071]-[0073], [0082], [0089], [0095], [0097]). The Examiner notes that the term “supracrestal fibers” is interpreted based on the special definition at [0028] of the instant disclosure, requiring sub-micron diameter collagen fibrils (see citations above disclosing the diameter), containing only collagen molecules, water and ions (fibrils are disclosed as just collagen); the Examiner does not interpret the linker molecule as part of the claimed supracrestal fibers). Further, the Examiner notes that as the fibers are attached to the abutment they would be located supracrestal and in the soft tissue.
Gretzer et al further discloses wherein the supracrestal fibers are covalently attached to the abutment to extend substantially perpendicularly from the exterior surface of the abutment (see citations above, Fig. 3 and [0082], [0097]; per claim 2); further comprising a tooth-shaped crown configured to be mounted over the abutment and adhered thereto (see [0004], [0054]; per claim 4); wherein the abutment is formed of titanium (see [0024] per claim 5); wherein the abutment includes a smooth, machined surface (see [0095]; per claim 6; the term “machined surface” is a product by process limitation, which is not limited by the particular steps (machining) and only by the structure imparted thereby (smooth surface); in the instant case Gretzer discloses the smooth surface, meeting the limitations of the claim, see MPEP 2113); wherein the implanted portion and abutment are integrally formed (see [0094] per claim 7); and wherein the supracrestal fibers are incorporated with one of growth factors, analgesics and antibiotics (see [0089]; per claim 9).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gretzer et al in view of Hurson et al (US 2006/0199152 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Gretzer discloses the use of an implanted portion, but does not specifically teach that it is configured as a screw threadable into the jawbone as required.
Hurson et al, however, teaches a similar implant portion configured as a screw threadable into the jawbone (via threads 118). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Gretzer to include Hurson’s teaching of providing the implanted portion as a screw, as such modification would improve primary stability and anchorage of the implanted portion.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gretzer et al in view of Toroian et al (“The Essential Role of Fetuin in the Serum-Induced Calcification of Collagen”, 2007; cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 8, Gretzer does not teach wherein the fibers are mineralized using fetuin as required.
Toroian et al, however, teaches providing mineralized collagen fibrils using fetuin (see abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Gretzer, to include Toroian teaching of providing mineralized collagen fibrils, as such modification would improve the biomimetics of the fibril and improve integration thereof with the tissue. Further the Examiner notes that the term “using fetuin” is a product by process limitation; that is the collage is mineralized in a process using fetuin. The Examiner notes that product by process limitations are not limited by the particular steps of the process (e.g. applying fetuin) but only by the structure imparted thereby (e.g. the mineralized collagen fibrils). While Gretzer/Toroian discloses the specific steps, only the structure (mineralized fiber) is explicitly required by the claim (see MPEP 2113).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached PTO892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD MORAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 AM-4 PM EST.
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.
/EDWARD MORAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights