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 .
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 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhao 20100055646.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Lateral surface)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Concave surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Planar drive surface)][AltContent: textbox (Greater distance)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Side flanks)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (superstructure)][AltContent: textbox (implantt)]
PNG
media_image1.png
363
266
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
438
437
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 1, Zhao discloses a superstructure 2 (fig. 8) comprising:
an opening 21 extending along a central longitudinal axis of the superstructure 2 and having an interface for fixing the superstructure 2 to a dental implant (fig. 7) , wherein the interface comprises an extension 24 that is arranged on a lower side of the superstructure 2, surrounds the opening 21 and has a lateral surface which forms an outer side of the extension, wherein the lateral surface is interrupted by a recess 25 which leads into the opening 21, and wherein the recess 25 has two mutually opposite side flanks which, in a cross section oriented orthogonally with respect to the longitudinal axis, are at a first distance from each other in a first region and, in a second region which is at a greater distance from the longitudinal axis than the first region, are at a second distance from each other, the second distance being smaller than the first distance. See above annotated figure.
With regard to claim 2, note that each of the two mutually opposite side flanks (see above) of the recess 25 comprises a planar drive surface.
With regard to claim 3, note that each of the two mutually opposite side flanks of the recess 25 (see above) comprises a planar drive surface and an adjacent, concavely curved surface, wherein the planar drive surfaces are each arranged in the first region of the side flanks, and the concavely curved surfaces are each arranged in the second region of the side flanks.
With regard to claim 4, note how the planar drive surfaces are oriented parallel to each other and parallel to the longitudinal axis. See above annotated figure.
With regard to claim 5, note that the recess 25 is arranged at a lower free end of the extension 24 and is open toward the lower free end. See above annotated figure.
With regard to claim 6, it is noted that the term “tunnel-like” is being interpreted as described in the instant specification, paragraph 97. Thus, the recess of 25 of Zhao is clearly “tunnel-like”.
With regard to claim 7, note that the recess 25 extends in a radial direction orthogonally to the longitudinal axis. See above figure.
With regard to claim 9, Zhao discloses a dental prosthesis, comprising: a dental implant (fig. 7); a superstructure (2, fig. 8, see above); and a fastening element 3 (see fig. 11) configured to fasten the superstructure 2 to the dental implant, the superstructure 2 comprising an opening 21 extending along a central longitudinal axis of the superstructure 2 and having an interface for fixing the superstructure 2 to a dental implant (fig. 7) , wherein the interface comprises an extension 24 that is arranged on a lower side of the superstructure 2, surrounds the opening 21 and has a lateral surface which forms an outer side of the extension, wherein the lateral surface is interrupted by a recess 25 which leads into the opening 21, and wherein the recess 25 has two mutually opposite side flanks which, in a cross section oriented orthogonally with respect to the longitudinal axis, are at a first distance from each other in a first region and, in a second region which is at a greater distance from the longitudinal axis than the first region, are at a second distance from each other, the second distance being smaller than the first distance. See above annotated figure.
With regard to claim 10, note that each of the two mutually opposite side flanks (see above) of the recess 25 comprises a planar drive surface.
With regard to claim 11, note that each of the two mutually opposite side flanks of the recess 25 (see above) comprises a planar drive surface and an adjacent, concavely curved surface, wherein the planar drive surfaces are each arranged in the first region of the side flanks, and the concavely curved surfaces are each arranged in the second region of the side flanks.
With regard to claim 12, note how the planar drive surfaces are oriented parallel to each other and parallel to the longitudinal axis. See above annotated figure.
With regard to claim 13, note that the recess 25 is arranged at a lower free end of the extension 24 and is open toward the lower free end. See above annotated figure.
With regard to claim 14, it is noted that the term “tunnel-like” is being interpreted as described in the instant specification, paragraph 97. Thus, the recess of 25 of Zhao is clearly “tunnel-like”.
With regard to claim 15, note that the recess 25 extends in a radial direction orthogonally to the longitudinal axis. See above figure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 16 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
/NICHOLAS D LUCCHESI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights