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 § 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, 9-10, 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “a receiver bore within the restoration portion, the overdenture portion and the receiver portion” and depends from claim 5 which requires the portions to be offset relative to one another. Therefore, it is unclear how a bore extends through all of the portions. For examining purposes, it was understood that the “restoration bore” is within the restoration portion. Clarification is required.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the seam is located between a platform of the first portion”. It is unclear whether the recited “platform” is the same as the restorative platform recited in claim 1. It was understood that the platform of claim 6 is the restorative platform of claim 1.
Claim 14 recites thew limitation “wherein the plurality of restorative abutment components includes a resilient member”. It is unclear whether all of or at least one of the restorative abutment components includes a resilient member. For examining purposes, it was understood that at least one of the plurality of restorative abutment components includes a resilient member. Clarification is required.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “wherein the channel is removable from the neck”. It is unclear how the channel can be removable from the neck since a channel is a through opening (i.e. negative space). For examining purposes, it was understood that the first proximal portion and the second distal portion are removable from one another.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of dependency.
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.
First rejection:
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-13, 15, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sutter (WO2005058178 A2).
Regarding claim 1, Sutter teaches a hybrid abutment for a restorative dental system (abstract), the hybrid abutment (see Figure 1 and abstract) comprising:
a restoration portion (121) and an overdenture portion (123), wherein the restoration portion and the overdenture portion are each operable to couple to at least one restorative abutment component of a plurality of restorative abutment components (11, 15, 17) along a restorative axis (see Figures);
a receiver interface (105+107) comprising at least one region (107) operable to couple to a corresponding region on a receiver (implant 1, 3, 5) along an installation axis (161) (see abstract and Figures and pages 6-7); and
a restorative platform separating the restoration portion and the overdenture portion from the receiver interface (see annotated Figure below), wherein the plurality of restorative abutment components are interchangeable without changing the hybrid abutment (abstract and see page 10).
PNG
media_image1.png
456
405
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Sutter teaches the hybrid abutment of claim 1 (see rejection above), wherein the restorative axis and the installation axis are coaxial (see Figure 2), and wherein the restoration portion, the overdenture portion, and the receiver interface are substantially straight (see Figures).
Regarding claim 8, Sutter teaches the hybrid abutment of claim 1 (see rejection above), wherein the restoration portion, the overdenture portion, and the receiver interface are components of a main body for the hybrid abutment (see Figure 1), and wherein the main body comprises a first portion and a second portion separated by a seam (see annotated Figure below).
PNG
media_image2.png
456
466
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Sutter teaches the hybrid abutment of claim 8 (see rejection above), wherein the seam (lower perimeter of 121) is located between a platform of the first portion and a ridge sidewall (sidewalls of 121) of the restoration portion (121) on the second portion (see annotated Figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
456
466
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Sutter teaches the hybrid abutment of claim 8 (see rejection above), wherein the seam is located within a ridge sidewall of the restoration portion such that the ridge sidewall has sections in both the first portion and the second portion (the seam is formed by the lower perimeter of restorative portion 121 and therefore the sidewall of the restorative portion extend in the second portion and the seam is part of the first portion).
PNG
media_image3.png
456
466
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Sutter teaches the hybrid abutment of claim 1 (see rejection above), wherein a ridge sidewall of the restoration portion is an exterior tool interface (see Figure 28; such that tool 481 engages the sidewall of the restoration portion 121).
Regarding claim 12, Sutter teaches the hybrid abutment of claim 1 (see rejection above), wherein the receiver is an implant operable to be installed within a jawline of a patient (see 1, 3, 5; and abstract and page 10).
Regarding claim 13, Sutter teaches a restorative dental system (abstract), comprising:
a plurality of restorative abutment components (11, 15, 17); and
a hybrid abutment (7), comprising:
a restoration portion (121) and an overdenture portion (103), wherein the restoration portion and the overdenture portion are each operable to couple to at least one restorative abutment component of the plurality of restorative abutment components along a restorative axis (see Figures);
a receiver interface (105+107) comprising at least one region (107) operable to couple to a corresponding region on a receiver (1, 3, 5) along an installation axis (161) (see abstract and Figures and pages 6-7); and
a restorative platform separating the restoration portion (121) and the overdenture portion (103) from the receiver interface (105+107) (see rejection above), wherein the plurality of restorative abutment components are interchangeable without changing the hybrid abutment (abstract and see page 10).
PNG
media_image1.png
456
405
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Sutter teaches the restorative dental system of claim 13 (see rejection above), wherein the plurality of restorative abutment components (11, 15, 17) includes a restorative component that at least includes an interior cavity (see Fig. 1; each of the components has a cavity), wherein the restoration portion (121) includes a ridge sidewall that is contoured to conform to an interior surface of the restoration portion (via 165, 175, 197).
Regarding claim 17, Sutter teaches a method for installing a dental restorative system, the method (abstract) comprising:
coupling a hybrid abutment (7) to a receiver (1, 3, 5) (see Figure 1); and
coupling a restorative abutment component of a plurality of restorative abutment components (11, 15, 17) to at least one of a restoration portion (121) and an overdenture portion (103) of the hybrid abutment (see Figure 3),
wherein the restoration portion and the overdenture portion are each operable to couple to at least one restorative abutment component of the plurality of restorative abutment components (see Figures 2-3; such that the side walls of the restoration portion 121 engages with the inner sidewall 165 of the abutment component 11 and the overdenture is received within the cavity of the abutment component, such that the portions are “operable to couple” as functionally claimed) along a restorative axis (161) (see Figures 2-4), wherein the plurality of restorative abutment components are interchangeable without changing the hybrid abutment (see abstract and Figures and see page 10).
Second rejection:
Claim(s) 1, 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ilter et al. (US 10,052,179 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Ilter teaches a hybrid abutment for a restorative dental system (abstract), the hybrid abutment (see Figure 1 and abstract) comprising:
a restoration portion (see annotated Figure below) and an overdenture portion (66), wherein the restoration portion and the overdenture portion are each operable to couple to at least one restorative abutment component of a plurality of restorative abutment components along a restorative axis (see Figures; the restorative abutment components are functionally recited and therefore the restoration and overdenture portions are fully capable of receiving an abutment component (e.g. a prosthesis);
a receiver interface (62) comprising at least one region (62) operable to couple to a corresponding region on a receiver (implant 1, 3, 5) along an installation axis (161) (see abstract and Figures and Col. 4 lines 20-39); and
a restorative platform separating the restoration portion and the overdenture portion from the receiver interface (see annotated Figure below), wherein the plurality of restorative abutment components are interchangeable without changing the hybrid abutment (Col. 6 lines 31-68; the abutment is fully capable of receiving a variety of copings, prosthetics, and is described to benefit from commonality of parts between different cuff heights, angulation options, and being “universal”).
PNG
media_image4.png
540
692
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Ilter teaches the hybrid abutment of claim 1 (see rejection above), further comprising a restoration bore (70) at least within the restoration portion (see Figure 4A), wherein the restoration bore is operable to receive a restoration connector (54) to secure a restorative abutment component of the plurality of restorative abutment components to the restoration portion along the restorative axis (Col. 4 lines 47-67).
Regarding claim 4, Ilter teaches the hybrid abutment of claim 3 (see rejection above), wherein the restoration bore includes an interior tool interface (threaded portion 22; see Figure 4a and Col. 4 lines 39-45 such that screw is rotatably inserted into the threaded portion of the bore 22 using a driver).
Regarding claim 5, Ilter teaches the hybrid abutment of claim 1 (see rejection above), wherein the restorative axis and the installation axis are offset at an angle, and wherein the restoration portion (64+52) and the overdenture portion (66) are each offset at an angle from the receiver interface (62).
PNG
media_image5.png
610
504
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Ilter teaches the hybrid abutment of claim 5 (see rejection above), further comprising a receiver bore (70) within the restoration portion (see Figure 4A), the overdenture portion, and the receiver interface, wherein the receiver bore is operable to receive a receiver connector (54) to secure the receiver interface to the receiver (10) along the installation axis (see Fig. 4A).
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ilter et al. (US 10,052,179 B2), in view of Montero (US 11,213,372 B2).
Regarding claim 7, Ilter teaches the hybrid abutment of claim 5 (see rejection above), but is silent to wherein the receiver bore is operable to receive a plug that is configured to prevent matter from entering an interior of the hybrid abutment via the receiver bore.
Montero teaches a system comprising a dental implant (802), a dental abutment (806) secured to the implant via a retention screw (804). Montero further teaches a plug device (1200) may be inserted into a bore after the retention screw is inserted into the bore to prevent debris from entering into the interior of the implant and abutment before a crown or prosthetic is placed (see Figs. 12A-12B and Col 15 lines 60 – Col. 16 lines 22).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify system to include a plug to close off the bore, as taught by Montero, because it would prevent debris from entering into the system prior to placement of the prosthesis.
Claim(s) 14, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutter (WO2005058178 A2), in view of Boehm (US 9,907,629 B2).
Regarding claim 14, Sutter teaches the restorative dental system of claim 13 (see rejection above). Sutter teaches the plurality of abutment components comprise contact surfaces (165, 175, 197) along an annular surface of the components and configured to engage the abutment (see Figures and page 10 paragraph 3, page 11 paragraphs 4-5, page 12 paragraphs 2-4), but is silent to wherein the plurality of restorative abutment components includes a resilient member that defines an interior cavity with an interior arcuate surface,
wherein the overdenture portion includes an exterior sidewall that is contoured to conform to the interior arcuate surface of the resilient member, and wherein the resilient member is at least partially embedded within an overdenture.
Boehm teaches a multi-part abutment comprising an abutment portion (AB) and an abutment component/cap (KA) and the abutment portion and abutment component engage at a plurality of contact surfaces including contact surfaces (ZU, ZO), which are made having a depth for a precise fit (Col. 7 lines 1-53). Boehm teaches the abutment component further comprises a resilient O-ring consisting of elastically deformable material as to enhance the engagement forces between the cap and abutment (Col. 6 lines 24-39 and see Figures) and can be designed for removable or permanent connection (Col. 8 lines 31-43). Boehm teaches an overdenture portion of the abutment comprises annular surfaces (NU) configured to receive and retain the O-ring (see Figures 3, 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system to include a resilient insert or an o-ring, as taught by Boehm, because it would provide resilient forces between the abutment and abutment component that may provide sealing properties and a resilient connection between them.
Regarding claim 20, Sutter teaches the method of claim 17 (see rejection above). Sutter teaches the plurality of abutment components comprise contact surfaces (165, 175, 197) along an annular surface of the components and configured to engage the abutment (see Figures and page 10 paragraph 3, page 11 paragraphs 4-5, page 12 paragraphs 2-4), but is silent to specifically engaging a resilient insert within the restorative abutment component to the hybrid abutment; or
engaging the resilient insert within the restorative abutment component to the hybrid abutment and coupling the restorative abutment component to the hybrid abutment via a connector, wherein the restorative abutment component is interchangeable between being coupled to the hybrid abutment via the resilient insert and the connector to only being coupled to the hybrid abutment via the resilient insert.
Boehm teaches a multi-part abutment comprising an abutment portion (AB) and an abutment component/cap (KA) and the abutment portion and abutment component engage at a plurality of contact surfaces including contact surfaces (ZU, ZO), which are made having a depth for a precise fit (Col. 7 lines 1-53). Boehm teaches the abutment component further comprises a resilient O-ring consisting of elastically deformable material as to enhance the engagement forces between the cap and abutment (Col. 6 lines 24-39 and see Figures) and can be designed in various configuration as to alter it for removable or permanent connection (Col. 8 lines 31-43). Boehm teaches an overdenture portion of the abutment comprises annular surfaces (NU) configured to receive and retain the O-ring (see Figures 3, 6). In Figure 10, Boehm shows the abutment and an abutment cap coupled without a ring.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system to include a resilient insert or an o-ring, as taught by Boehm, because it would provide resilient forces between the abutment and abutment component that may provide sealing properties and a resilient connection between them.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutter (WO2005058178 A2), in view of Aravena (US 6,244,867 B1).
Regarding claim 16, Sutter teaches the restorative dental system of claim 15 (see rejection above), wherein the plurality of restorative abutment components (11, 15, 17) includes a restorative component (11, 17) with a first proximal portion with a channel (159) and a neck (see annotated Fig. below), and a second distal portion with the interior cavity that is operable to engage the hybrid abutment (see Figures 1-2), but does not teach wherein the channel is removable from the neck.
PNG
media_image6.png
427
554
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Aravena teaches an abutment having a first portion (9C) comprising a channel (220) and a second portion (1B) comprising a neck (211) and the two portions each being a separate part that frictionally engage together (Col. 4 lines 38-67) that way they can be removed as a unit from the implant and also be disengaged from one another (Col. 5 lines 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the abutment component to be separable into two parts such that each part of the multi-part system can be controlled individually.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutter (WO2005058178 A2), in view of Montero (US 11,213,372 B2).
Regarding claim 18, Sutter teaches the method of claim 17 (see rejection above), the method further comprising: inserting a connector (25) into a receiver bore to couple the hybrid abutment to the receiver (see Figures 2-3) but does not teach inserting a plug within the receiver bore of the hybrid abutment after insertion of the connector.
Montero teaches a system comprising a dental implant (802), a dental abutment (806) secured to the implant via a retention screw (804). Montero further teaches a plug device (1200) may be inserted into a bore after the retention screw is inserted into the bore to prevent debris from entering into the interior of the implant and abutment before a crown or prosthetic is placed (see Figs. 12A-12B and Col 15 lines 60 – Col. 16 lines 22).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method to include inserting a plug into the bore after the connector/screw, as taught by Montero, because it would prevent debris from entering into the system prior to placement of the prosthesis.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutter (WO2005058178 A2), in view of Spindler (US 2022/0183798 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Sutter teaches the method of claim 17 (see rejection above), wherein coupling the hybrid abutment (7) to the receiver (1) comprises:
coupling a first portion (portion formed by lower part of 7) of the hybrid abutment to the receiver (1) (see Figures 2-3);
inserting a connector (25) into a receiver bore and a cavity within the first portion of the hybrid abutment (see Figures 2-3).
Sutter does not teach coupling a second portion of the hybrid abutment to the first portion of the hybrid abutment. Spindler teaches a system having a superstructure/abutment (20+60) and comprising a restoration portion (35, Fig. 1), an overdenture portion (26, Fig. 1) and a platform (31, Fig. 1) between a first top part of the superstructure and a second lower part (6) of the superstructure and the first part and second part being separate/removable from the second part and engageable thereon via a threaded connection (72) (see Figures).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Sutter to have the first part (stem) and the second part be separable and connected by a threadable connection, as taught by Spindler, because it would provide increased stability due to the threaded connection and would allow material optimization in cases where different materials are desired to have different characteristics at different parts of the device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 attached to this office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINA FARAJ whose telephone number is (571)272-4580. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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.
/LINA FARAJ/ Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/HEIDI M EIDE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
3/23/2026