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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 6/30/26.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/30/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and additionally do not address the new grounds of rejection and/or interpretation below necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the structures listed below must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
a) The dental restoration of claim 8
b) The partially superimposed threads encompassed by claim 1
c) The integral fastener and abutment of claim 20
d) The kit of claim 15
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2 and 18-19 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art, either alone or in proper combination, fails to teach a dental implant having bidirectional internal threads within the longitudinal bore therein, the threads comprising a first and second thread set having right and left handedness, respectively, and the right and left hand threads being superimposed on each other along at least a portion of the bore, along with all other features of the claimed invention.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “coupling features” in claims 7 and 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 3-8, 15-16 and 20 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 3, the specific meets and bounds of the claim are indefinite as it is unclear whether or not the recited “threaded fastener” is intended to be positively recited and part of the claimed assembly, or if the abutment must only be capable of being assembled to the implant thereby. As best understood by the Examiner, the threaded fastener is interpreted to be part of the claimed assembly, however the term should be positively recited as the second threaded fastener is positively recited in claim 5. Additionally, it is unclear if the recited “threaded fastener” intends to refer back to the previously recited “right hand threaded fastener”, “left hand threaded fastener” (of claim 1) or another fastener. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 4, it is unclear if the recited “threaded fastener” intends to refer back to the previously recited “right hand threaded fastener”, “left hand threaded fastener” (of claim 1) or another fastener. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 5, it is unclear if the recited “first abutment screw” is the same or different screw as the previously recited “abutment screw”. As best understood by the Examiner the first abutment screw of claim 5 intends to correspond to the abutment screw of claim 4. That is, the threaded fastener is a first abutment screw. Additionally, it is unclear if the recited “first threaded fastener” or “second threaded fastener” intends to refer back to the previously recited “right hand threaded fastener”, “left hand threaded fastener” (of claim 1) or another fastener. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 6, it is unclear if the recited “first and second threaded fasteners” intends to refer back to the previously recited “right hand threaded fastener”, “left hand threaded fastener” (of claim 1) or another fastener. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 7, it is unclear if the recited “first and second threaded fasteners” intends to refer back to the previously recited “right hand threaded fastener”, “left hand threaded fastener” (of claim 1) or another fastener. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 8, the term “the abutment having a first portion secured to the bi-directional internal threads of the implant by the threaded fastener” is indefinite as it is unclear whether the threaded fastener is intended to be recited as part of the abutment or another structure. Specifically, it is unclear how the first portion of the implant can be secured to the threads, if it is the abutment which is connected thereto. As best understood, the first portion would be connected to the implant, through the fastener, but not connected to the threads, as the fastener is connected to the threads. If the fastener is intended to be recited as an integral part of the abutment, then the claim should be amended as such. Additionally, it is unclear if the recited “threaded fastener” intends to refer back to the previously recited “right hand threaded fastener”, “left hand threaded fastener” (of claim 1) or another fastener. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 15, the specific meets and bounds of the claim are indefinite as it is unclear specifically what structures the claim intends to recite and what structures are intended to be recited as part of the kit. Specifically, the claim recites a kit for use “for repairing” with a dental restoration of claim 8. The Examiner notes that restoration additionally includes the assembly of claim 3 and the implant of claim 1. However, the specific components of the kit, to be used with the restoration, are not recited. It is unclear if Applicant intends to claim the assembly as part of the kit, and if so, what other features are specifically required or part of the kit. As best understood, this does appear to be the case, however, the claim then defines the threaded fastener to comprise two fasteners. It is unclear how a single fastener can comprise two structures. As best understood the kit comprises the threaded fastener and an additional second threaded fastener. Further, as the claim incorporates or makes reference to claim 1, it is unclear if the recited fasteners in claim 15 intend to refer back to the right hand and left hand threaded fasteners in claim 1, or other threaded fasteners. Additionally, it is unclear if the recited “threaded fastener” and “second threaded fasteners” intends to refer back to the previously recited “right hand threaded fastener”, “left hand threaded fastener” (of claim 1) or another fastener. In order to overcome the rejection above, the Examiner suggest removing the reference to claim 8, and specifically writing out what features are part of the kit, then reciting any functional language directed to the use thereof. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 20, it is unclear if the recited “threaded fastener” intends to refer back to the previously recited “right hand threaded fastener”, “left hand threaded fastener” (of claim 1) or another fastener. Clarification is required.
All other claims not specifically addressed above are rejected based on their dependency on a previously rejected claim.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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