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 2-7, 11-12, 15-17, 19, 21-24 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 1 recites the limitations “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”, which is functional and then “wherein the plurality of restorative abutment components are interchangeable without changing the hybrid abutment”, which appears to be positively claiming the plurality of restorative abutment components. Therefore, it is unclear whether the plurality of restorative abutment components are being positively claimed or required or whether the abutment must only be operable and therefore capable of functionally performing said limitation. For examining purposes, it was understood that the limitations are functional such that the overdenture portion and restoration portions should be operable and therefore fully capable of interchangeably receiving one of a plurality of restorative abutment components.
Claim 15 recites the limitations “wherein the restoration portion includes a ridge sidewall that is contoured to conform to an interior surface of the restoration portion”. It is unclear whether the restoration portion and ridge sidewall are the same as the structures recited in claim 13 or something else and how the sidewall can be contoured to conform to an interior surface of the same structure. For examining purposes, it was understood that the ridge sidewall is contoured to conform to the internal cavity of the restorative component. Clarification is required.
Claim 17 recites the limitations “wherein the first section of the ridge sidewall, the receiver interface, and the restorative platform form the first portion of the main body, and wherein the second section of the ridge sidewall and the overdenture portion form the second portion of the main body”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the first section of the ridge sidewall”, “the receiver interface”, “the restorative platform” and “the second section of the ridge sidewall”. For examining purposes, it was assumed that those limitations are positively claimed like independent claim 1. Clarification is required.
Claims 2-7, 11-12, 16 and 19 are 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 11-12, 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Benz (US 9,301,818 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Benz teaches a hybrid abutment (such that it is fully capable of functioning as a hybrid abutment) for a restorative dental system, the hybrid abutment comprising:
a main body including a first portion and a second portion that are removably attachable (see annotated Figure below), the main body comprising:
a restoration portion and an overdenture portion (RW) (see annotated Figure below), wherein the restoration portion and the overdenture portion are each operable to couple to at least one restorative abutment component (PR) of a plurality of restorative abutment components along a restorative axis (A1) (such that they are fully capable of functionally being coupled to at least one of a plurality of components, like for example, a prosthesis), and
wherein the restoration portion includes a ridge sidewall (see annotated Figure below) that is separated into a first section and a second section by a seam (such that SW and AG are separated by a vertical seam where they threadably engage);
a receiver interface (see annotated Fig. below) comprising at least one region operable to couple to a corresponding region on a receiver along an installation axis (A1) (see Figures); and
a restorative platform (AF) separating the restoration portion and the overdenture portion from the receiver interface (such that the platform AF is located between the restoration portion and overdenture portion and the receiver interface),
wherein the first section of the ridge sidewall, the receiver interface, and the restorative platform form the first portion of the main body, and wherein the second section of the ridge sidewall and the overdenture portion form the second portion of the main body (see annotated Figure below).
Benz’s abutment is fully capable of receiving a plurality of restorative abutment components that are interchangeable without changing the hybrid abutment.
PNG
media_image1.png
472
444
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
402
404
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
334
413
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Benz teaches the hybrid abutment of claim 1. Benz teaches it further comprising a restoration bore (WO) at least within the restoration portion (see Figures), wherein the restoration bore is operable to receive a restoration connector (WZ) to secure a restorative abutment component of the plurality of restorative abutment components to the restoration portion along the restorative axis (see Col. 4, such that the device is capable of functioning as claimed).
Regarding claim 4, Benz teaches the hybrid abutment of claim 3, wherein the restoration bore (WO) includes an interior tool interface (see Figure 2 and Col. 4; such that the interior of the bore is a screw channel that receives tool WZ in a region near the screw head BK to operate the screw).
Regarding claim 5, Benz teaches the hybrid abutment of claim 1. Benz teaches wherein the restorative axis (A2) and the installation axis (A1) are offset at an angle (see Figures), and wherein the restoration portion and the overdenture portion are each offset at an angle from the receiver interface (see Figures; SW and RW are angled relative to VS).
Regarding claim 6, Benz teaches the hybrid abutment of claim 5, further comprising a receiver bore within the restoration portion and the receiver interface (see WO in Figures 3 and 5; such that WO extends in both the restoration portion and the receiver portion), wherein the receiver bore is operable to receive a receiver connector (WZ) to secure the receiver interface to the receiver along the installation axis (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Benz teaches the hybrid abutment of claim 1, wherein the ridge sidewall of the restoration portion is an exterior tool interface (sidewalls of the bore WO that engage with the tool).
Regarding claim 12, Benz the hybrid abutment of claim 1. Benz teaches the receiver is an implant (IM) operable to be installed within a jawline of a patient (note that the limitation is functional and the receiver is not being positively claimed).
Regarding claim 21, Benz teaches the hybrid abutment of Claim 1 (see rejection above), wherein the ridge sidewall includes a sloped surface that is angled relative to the restorative platform (AF) (see annotated Figure below), and wherein the ridge sidewall connects a first greater diameter of the restorative portion located at a transition between the restorative portion and the restorative platform and a second lesser diameter of the restorative portion located a pre-determined distance from the restorative platform (see annotated Figure below).
PNG
media_image4.png
339
534
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22, Benz teaches the hybrid abutment of Claim 21, wherein the second lesser diameter is located at a transition between the restorative portion and the overdenture portion (see annotated Fig. below; such that when assembled, the region of lesser diameter is located at a transition region between the restoration portion and the overdenture portion).
PNG
media_image4.png
339
534
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 23, Benz teaches the hybrid abutment of Claim 1 (see rejection above), wherein the first portion of the main body is removably attachable to the second portion of the main body via an interlocking assembly (via threading AG3), wherein the interlocking assembly is partially located within the circumferential bounds of the ridge sidewall and is partially located within the circumferential bounds of the receiver interface (such that the threading is arranged radially between the sections of the ridge sidewall and connected to the receiver interface).
Regarding claim 24, Benz teaches the hybrid abutment of Claim 23, wherein the interlocking assembly includes complementary threading in the first portion of the main body and on the second portion of the main body (see Figures), wherein a first length of the complementary threading is located within the circumferential bounds of the ridge sidewall, and wherein a second length of the complementary threading is located within the circumferential bounds of the ridge sidewall (such that the threading is located between the first and second parts of the ridge sidewall).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benz (US 9,301,818 B2), in view of Courvoisier (US 2014/0205970 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Benz in view of Sutter teaches the hybrid abutment of claim 1, but does not teach the restorative axis and the installation axis are coaxial, and wherein the restoration portion, the overdenture portion, and the receiver interface are substantially straight.
Courvoisier teaches a dental abutment having a restorative axis and the installation axis that are coaxial, and a restoration portion, an overdenture portion, and the receiver interface are substantially straight (see Figures). In another embodiment, Courvoisier teaches the coronal portion may be angled with respect to the longitudinal axis of the attachment portion depending on the desired orientation of the final prosthesis ([0071], [0082]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first and second portions to be straight relative to one another, because it would alternatively accommodate installations that require straight placement of the final prosthesis.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benz (US 9,301,818 B2), in view of Montero (US 11,213,372 B2).
Regarding claim 7, Benz teaches the hybrid abutment of claim 5 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 (note that the limitation is functional and does not positively require the plug, but only that the bore must be fully capable of receiving a plug).
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 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 be fully capable of receiving a plug to close off the bore, as taught by Montero, because it would prevent debris from entering the system prior to placement of the prosthesis.
Claim(s) 13, 15, 17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benz (US 9,301,818 B2), in view of Sutter (WO2005058178 A2).
Regarding claim 13, Benz teaches a restorative dental system, comprising:
an abutment including a first portion and a second portion that are removably attachable (see annotated Figure below), comprising:
a restoration portion and an overdenture portion (RW) (see annotated Figure below), wherein the restoration portion and the overdenture portion are each operable to couple to at least one restorative abutment component (PR) of a plurality of restorative abutment components along a restorative axis (A1) (such that they are fully capable of functionally being coupled to at least one of a plurality of components, like for example, a prosthesis), and
wherein the restoration portion includes a ridge sidewall (see annotated Figure below) that is separated into a first section and a second section by a seam (such that SW and AG are separated by a vertical seam where they threadably engage);
a receiver interface (see annotated Fig. below) comprising at least one region operable to couple to a corresponding region on a receiver along an installation axis (A1) (see Figures); and
a restorative platform (AF) separating the restoration portion and the overdenture portion from the receiver interface (such that the platform AF is located between the restoration portion and overdenture portion and the receiver interface),
wherein the first section of the ridge sidewall, the receiver interface, and the restorative platform form the first portion of the main body, and wherein the second section of the ridge sidewall and the overdenture portion form the second portion of the abutment (see annotated Figure below).
Benz does not explicitly teach the abutment being a hybrid abutment and a plurality of restorative abutment components and wherein the plurality of restorative abutment components are interchangeable without changing the hybrid abutment.
Sutter teaches an abutment for use in a dental implantation system, the abutment comprising an overdenture portion configured for interchangeably receiving a plurality of restorative components or prosthesis (see at least Figures and page 10).
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 of Benz to be a hybrid abutment capable of interchangeably receiving different components, as taught by Sutter, because it would provide a modular configuration.
PNG
media_image1.png
472
444
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
402
404
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
334
413
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Benz in view of Sutter teaches the restorative dental system of claim 13. Benz teaches the overdenture portion is contoured to receive the restorative abutment component/prosthesis (see Figure 1). Sutter 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 includes a ridge sidewall that is contoured to conform to the cavity (via 165, 175, 197).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ridge sidewall to be contoured to engage a cavity of the restorative components, as taught by Sutter, because, depending on the component/prosthesis geometry or type, it would allow the sidewalls of the abutment to suitably engage with the prosthesis or component.
Regarding claim 17, Benz teaches a method for installing a dental restorative system, the method comprising:
coupling an abutment to a receiver (IM) (see Figures), wherein the hybrid abutment includes a first portion and a second portion that are removably attachable (see annotated Figure below); and
coupling a restorative abutment component to at least one of a restoration portion and an overdenture portion of the hybrid abutment (see Figure 1; such that the prosthesis is received on the abutment),
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 (A1) (see Fig. 1; such that they are fully capable of functionally being coupled to at least one of a plurality of components, like for example, a prosthesis),
wherein the first section of the ridge sidewall (SW), the receiver interface (VS), and the restorative platform (AF) form the first portion of the main body, and wherein the second section of the ridge sidewall and the overdenture portion form the second portion of the main body (see annotated Figure below), and
Benz does not explicitly teach the abutment being a hybrid abutment and the restorative abutment component being one of a plurality of restorative abutment components and wherein the plurality of restorative abutment components are interchangeable without changing the hybrid abutment.
Sutter teaches an abutment for use in a dental implantation system, the abutment comprising an overdenture portion configured for interchangeably receiving a plurality of restorative components or prosthesis (see at least Figures and page 10).
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 of Benz to be a hybrid abutment capable of interchangeably receiving different components, as taught by Sutter, because it would provide a modular configuration.
PNG
media_image1.png
472
444
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
402
404
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
334
413
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Benz in view of Sutter teaches the method of claim 17. Benz teaches wherein coupling the hybrid abutment to the receiver comprises:
coupling the first portion of the hybrid abutment to the receiver (see Figures);
inserting a connector (WZ) into a receiver bore (WO) and a cavity (channel beyond WO) within the first portion of the hybrid abutment (see Fig. 2); and coupling the second portion of the hybrid abutment to the first portion of the hybrid abutment (see Figures).
Claim(s) 14, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benz (US 9,301,818 B2), in view of Sutter (WO2005058178 A2), and further in view of Boehm (US 9,907,629 B2).
Regarding claim 14, Benz in view Sutter teaches the hybrid abutment of claim 13. Sutter teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of restorative abutment components comprise contact surfaces (165, 175, 197) along an annular surface of the component and being configured to engage the abutment (see Figs. and page 10 para. 3 and page 11 paras. 4-5, page 12 paras. 2-4) but is silent to it explicitly including 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, Benz in view Sutter teaches the method of claim 17. Sutter teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of restorative abutment components comprise contact surfaces (165, 175, 197) along an annular surface of the component and being configured to engage the abutment (see Figs. and page 10 para. 3 and page 11 paras. 4-5, page 12 paras. 2-4) but is silent to it explicitly including 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.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benz (US 9,301,818 B2), in view of Sutter (WO2005058178 A2), and further in view of Aravena (US 6,244,867 B1).
Regarding claim 16, Benz in view Sutter teaches the hybrid abutment of claim 15. Sutter teaches the plurality of restorative abutment components (11, 15, 17) includes a restorative component (11, 17) with a first proximal portion with a channel section (159) and a neck section (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 the channel section is removable from the neck section.
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 of Courvoisier to be a hybrid abutment capable of interchangeably receiving different components, as taught by Sutter, because it would provide a modular configuration.
PNG
media_image5.png
392
550
media_image5.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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7, 11-17, 19-24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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 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
9/17/2026
Prosecution Insights