Status under America Invents Act
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Rejections based on 35 U.S.C. 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 5-7 and 14-16 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.
In claims 5-7 and 14-16, the “type” language (carabiner-type, lobster-type, sub-elemental-type) is indefinite as it is unclear what kind of structures or elements would fall within the scope of the terminology. See specifically MPEP 2173.05(b)(III)(E). With particular regard to claims 7 and 16, the examiner is at a loss in interpreting the “sub-elemental type clasp mechanism.” The drawings and written specification provide little guidance.
Rejections based on Prior Art
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, 2, 4, 10-12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Agnone (US 4,828,492).
Agnone discloses a non-crestal dental implant system comprised of at least one dental implant 12 (Figure 1) that is configured to be inserted into a patient’s in a horizontal orientation (Figure 1). The Agnone system further includes a retentive element 10 having a proximal end for attachment to the dental implant 12 and a distal end 24 for attachment of a dental prosthesis (note column 3, lines 64-68). In regard to the “helical thread extending along the outside region between the said proximal end and the said distal end” limitation of claim 11, Agnone discloses that a helical thread extends at least partially along the outside region between the two ends in order to accommodate nut 14.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 10, 11, 13, 15-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Abdulrazzaq (US 11,331,174).
Abdulrazzaq discloses a non-crestal dental implant system comprised of at least one dental implant 110, 112 (e.g. Figure 3) having a helical thread configured to be mounted horizontally in a patient’s jaw. The Abdulrazzaq system further includes at least on retentive element 134 having a proximal end for attaching to the dental implant 110, 112 and a distal end for attachment to a dental prosthesis 120. In regard to claims 3 and 13, note the concavities 134 (Figures 3 and 10) to which the ball element 130 of prosthesis 120 is attached. In regard to claims 6, 7, 15, and 16, the curved clasp members 134 of Abdulrazzaq meet the vague “lobster-type” and “sub-elemental type clasp mechanism” limitations. In regard to claims 8 and 17, Abdulrazzaq at column 6, line 67 indicates that the attachment mechanisms may be slid together.
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.
Claims 5-7, 14-16 and 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdulrazzaq (US 11,331,174).
In regard to claims 5 and 14, and to the limited extent that one would determine that Abdulrazzaq does not anticipate the “lobster-type” or “sub-elemental-type clasp mechanism” limitations of claims 6, 7, 15 and 16, then it is noted Abdulrazzaq explicitly states that the attachment components 130 may be from different manufacturers, be of different types, functions or styles (column 6, lines 56-60). Merely selecting other known prior art attachment mechanisms for the attachment mechanisms 130 of Abdulrazzaq would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In regard to claim 19, one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily found it obvious as a matter of routine ordinary practice in performing the Abdulrazzaq procedure to evaluate the patient, determine if the procedure was proper, determine the trajectory of the implants, select the proper sizes that fit the patient and allow for healing of the implant site before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agnone (US 4,828,492) in view of Sutter et al (US 4,484,570).
In Agnone the dental implant 12 is described as a hollow bolt (column 3, line 26) that apparently has a fixed head at one end and a threaded nut 14 at the other and does not meet the claim requirements having “2 orifices . . . whereby a dental implant abutment can attach to both the proximal and the distal end.” Sutter et al, however, for a similar hollow implant 151 (Figure 19) to that of Agnone that is also used to secure a retentive element 159 at both ends of the implant teaches that the hollow implant 151 may be open at both ends to which securing abutments 153 and 155a may be inserted to secure the retentive element 159 on both ends of the implant. To have formed the Agnone hollow implant 12 with open ends so that fastening element abutments can be inserted at both ends to hold the retentive elements 16, 18 in place would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as taught by Sutter et al.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agnone (US 4,828,492).
In regard to claim 19, one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily found it obvious as a matter of routine ordinary practice in performing the Agnone procedure to evaluate the patient, determine if the procedure was proper, determine the trajectory of the implants, select the proper sizes that fit the patient and allow for healing of the implant site before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ralph Lewis whose telephone number is (571)272-4712. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9AM-4PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Eric Rosen, at (571) 272-4964. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
/RALPH A LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772 (571) 272-4712