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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/14/2025 and 04/14/2025 were filed after the mailing date of the application on 11/13/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species C, corresponding to Figures 7A-9D, in the reply filed on 01/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/23/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 5-6, reads “a connecting portion, which are arranged in the axial direction”, it should read “a connecting portion, which is arranged in the axial direction”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/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.
Claims 4, 5 and 6 recite respectively: “wherein the drill blade element is formed integrally from … a metallic material, in particular, from high-strength high-grade steel or surgical steel”, “wherein the drill blade element is produced by means of eroding, in particular, by means of spark eroding” and “wherein the drill blade element has a substantially constant thickness, preferably in the range from approximately 0.25 to approximately 0.8 mm, more preferably from approximately 0.5 to approximately 0.7 mm”; the claims limit the limitations broadly and narrowly at the same time. Said broad and narrow limitations differ in their application and precision levels. Therefore, the scope of said claims is indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7-8 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Skeppmark (US 5505617 A).
Regarding claim 1, Skeppmark discloses an implant drill for producing bores in the jaw bone for dental implants (Abstract and Figure 10; note that the tool has all the necessary structures to be able to produce bores in the jaw bone for dental implants), comprising - a drill blade element (22) which consists of a flat material (col 3, line 49) and is configured substantially mirror-symmetrical relative to a rotation axis of the implant drill (note that the blade is symmetrical with respect to a longitudinal axis that would divide it in two equal parts; e.g. the blade of Figure 10), comprising a blade portion (24) with bevelled edges (see bevelled edges in Figures 12 and 14) for producing the bore in the jaw bone and a connecting portion (30), which is arranged in the axial direction at opposite ends of the drill blade element (Figure 10); and - a holding apparatus (156) which is configured substantially rotationally symmetrical relative to the rotation axis (note that the holding apparatus is symmetrical with respect to a longitudinal axis that would divide it in two equal parts; e.g. the holding apparatus of Figure 6), wherein the holding apparatus comprises a holding portion (301) and an actuating portion (303) (col 4, lines 66-67), which are arranged in the axial direction at opposite ends of the holding apparatus (note that the holding portion 301 is above the actuating portion 303 in the axial vertical direction), and wherein the holding portion has a slot-shaped receptacle (bore of the holding apparatus) that is mirror-symmetrical relative to the rotation axis (note that the slot-shaped receptacle is symmetrical with respect to a longitudinal axis that would divide it in two equal parts; e.g. the slot-shaped receptacle of Figures 8; col 5, lines 52-55), with two mutually parallel receptacle surfaces (305), wherein the connecting portion (30) of the drill blade element (22) is introducible in the axial direction into the receptacle of the holding portion of the holding apparatus (156), in order to connect the drill blade element non-rotatably to the holding apparatus (Figure 7).
Regarding claim 2, Skeppmark discloses wherein the holding portion (301) has a cylindrical outer surface (see the cylindrical shape 301) to be received in a drilling sleeve with a corresponding cylindrical inner surface (since there would be a reciprocal shape in the receiving drill sleeve 152; see Figure 10).
Regarding claim 4, Skeppmark discloses wherein the drill blade element is formed integrally from a ceramic material or a metallic material, in particular, from high-strength high-grade steel or surgical steel (col 3, lines 47-48).
Regarding claim 7, Skeppmark discloses wherein the receptacle surfaces of the slot-shaped receptacle in the holding portion have a spacing that corresponds to the thickness of the drill blade element in order to receive the connecting portion of the drill blade element substantially play-free (see claim 2).
Regarding claim 8, Skeppmark discloses wherein the actuating portion is configured for non-rotatable, releasable connection to a handle (col 4, line 63 to col 5, line 9).
Regarding claim 12, Skeppmark discloses wherein the drill blade element is releasably connectable to the holding apparatus (since it is a removable tool, see col 5, lines 59-62).
Regarding claim 13, Skeppmark discloses wherein the drill blade element is connectable to the holding apparatus by means of a latching connection or snap-fit connection (see snap-fit connection between protrusions 46, 48 and annular recess 170; see col 5, lines 50-55).
Regarding claim 14, Skeppmark discloses wherein the connecting portion of the drill blade element has a central guide portion (74) and two lateral wing portions (38 and 40) spaced from the guide portion (74), wherein the wing portions each have a latching nose (46 and 48) oriented toward the rotation axis (Figure 5), wherein the slot-shaped receptacle (bore of the holding apparatus) does not extend over the whole diameter of the holding portion (301), but rather has a width that substantially corresponds to the width of the central guide portion (74) (since central guide portion and two lateral wing portions are compressed inside the holding portion when introduced into the slot-shaped receptacle; see Figure 8), and wherein the holding portion (301) has two recesses (bottom edges of annular ring 172) disposed opposite one another on its outer periphery for receiving the latching noses (col 5, lines 55-60).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C.
103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or
nonobviousness.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skeppmark.
Regarding claim 3, Skeppmark fails to specifically disclose wherein the holding apparatus (156) is made from high-grade steel. However, Skeppmark discloses wherein the drill blade element is formed integrally from high-strength high-grade steel (col 3, lines 47-48). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Skeppmark’s holding apparatus in order to make it from high-grade steel as well, since such modification would be a case of applying a known technique to a known device (i.e. making parts of the implant drill of high-grade steel) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (i.e. the parts of the implant drill would have a strong resistance during prolong use; see MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skeppmark in view of Nagel (US 20020009340 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Skeppmark fails to disclose wherein the drill blade element is produced by means of eroding, in particular, by means of spark eroding.
Nagel discloses a method for the manufacture of a drilling tool by abrasion on the drilling tool. Abrasion preferably takes place by erosion (Abstract). Wherein the drill element is produced by means of eroding, in particular, by means of spark eroding ([0009]).
Skeppmark and Nagel are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because they are in the same field of drill elements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Skeppmark’s drill blade element to make it through the process of spark eroding, since such modification makes it possible to produce a uniform, precisely drill element ([0009]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skeppmark in view of Yeung (US 20060111724 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Skeppmark discloses wherein the drill blade element has a substantially constant thickness, preferably in the range from approximately 0.25 to approximately 0.8 mm, more preferably from approximately 0.5 to approximately 0.7 mm.
Yeung a bone harvesting drill bit has a longitudinal axis and includes a proximal end portion adapted to be mounted for rotation in a chuck of a surgical handpiece (Abstract). Wherein the drill blade element has a substantially constant thickness, preferably in the range from approximately 0.25 to approximately 0.8 mm, more preferably from approximately 0.5 to approximately 0.7 mm (since the distal end portion 20 generally comprises a boring tip including, as illustrated, a flat or platelike blade with a transverse thickness from about 0.35 mm to about 0.60 mm and preferably about 0.45 mm [0033]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Skeppmark’s drill blade element to make it comprising a thickness of for example 0.45 mm, since such modification would create an adequate dimension for boring into cortical and cancellous bone in the oral cavity ([0033]).
In an alternative interpretation claim(s) 1 and 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Courvoisier (US 7559765 B2) in view of Yeung.
Regarding claim 1, Courvoisier discloses an implant drill for producing bores in the jaw bone for dental implants (Abstract), comprising - a drill blade element (14) which consists of a flat (Figure 18) material and is configured substantially mirror-symmetrical relative to a rotation axis of the implant drill (note that the blade is symmetrical with respect to a longitudinal axis that would divide it in two equal parts; e.g. the blade of Figure 18), comprising a blade portion for producing the bore in the jaw bone (col 2, lines 1-5) and a connecting portion (18a), which is arranged in the axial direction at opposite ends of the drill blade element (14); and - a holding apparatus (12) which is configured substantially rotationally symmetrical relative to the rotation axis (note that the holding apparatus is symmetrical with respect to a longitudinal axis that would divide it in two equal parts; e.g. the holding apparatus of Figure 18), wherein the holding apparatus (12) comprises a holding portion (16) and an actuating portion (56), which are arranged in the axial direction at opposite ends of the holding apparatus (Figure 18), and wherein the holding portion (16) has a slot-shaped receptacle (38) that is mirror-symmetrical relative to the rotation axis (note that the slot-shaped receptacle is symmetrical with respect to a longitudinal axis that would divide it in two equal parts; e.g. the slot-shaped receptacle of Figure 3), wherein the connecting portion (18a) of the drill blade element is introducible in the axial direction into the receptacle (38) of the holding portion (16) of the holding apparatus (12), in order to connect the drill blade element (14) non-rotatably to the holding apparatus (Figure 18). However, Courvoisier fails to specifically disclose “comprising a blade portion with bevelled edges” and “the slot-shaped receptacle … with two mutually parallel receptacle surfaces”.
On the other hand, Courvoisier discloses an additional embodiment wherein the holding apparatus (12) has a cleaning bore (50) which connects the end of the slot-shaped receptacle orientated in the direction of the actuating portion to the outer periphery of the holding portion (See Figure 25). Therefore, the slot-shaped receptacle has two mutually parallel receptacle surfaces (opposite sides of bore 50). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify the holding and the slot-shaped receptacle to make it comprising the cleaning bore, as taught by Courvoisier in Figures 5-7 and col 4, lines 54-61, since such modification would make it possible to check whether the tool has been used or not (col 4, line 60).
Yeung a bone harvesting drill bit has a longitudinal axis and includes a proximal end portion adapted to be mounted for rotation in a chuck of a surgical handpiece (Abstract). comprising a blade portion with bevelled edges (obliquely honed cutting edges [0033]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Courvoisier’s blade portions to make it with bevelled edges, since such modification would produce the desired cutting action when the drill bit rotates in the given direction of rotation, i.e. clockwise or counterclockwise, ([0033]).
Regarding claim 12, Courvoisier and Yeung discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Courvoisier discloses wherein the drill blade element is releasably connectable to the holding apparatus (since the blade is connectable via force fitting; see col 6, lines 47-50).
Regarding claim 13, Courvoisier and Yeung discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Courvoisier discloses wherein the drill blade element is connectable to the holding apparatus by means of a latching connection or snap-fit connection (force fitting stability to the small tongue-like parts of the cut-outs 18a, 18b arranged radially outside of the pipe section 16; see col 6, lines 47-50).
Regarding claim 14, Courvoisier and Yeung discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Courvoisier discloses wherein the connecting portion of the drill blade element (14) has a central guide portion and two lateral wing portions spaced from the guide portion, wherein the wing portions each have a latching nose oriented toward the rotation axis (Annotated Figure below), wherein the slot-shaped receptacle (38) does not extend over the whole diameter of the holding portion (since it is the interion through bore of the holding apparatus), but rather has a width that substantially corresponds to the width of the central guide portion (see central guide portion in the Annotated Figure below), and wherein the holding portion has two recesses (52) disposed opposite one another on its outer periphery for receiving the latching noses (Annotated Figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
675
1170
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 1. Annotated Figure 1. )]
Regarding claim 15, Courvoisier and Yeung discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Courvoisier discloses wherein, adjoining each of the recesses (52), the holding portion has a respective contact surface for an unlocking tool, in order to move the lateral wing portions apart and to release the connection between the drill blade element and the holding apparatus (since the connection between the drill blade element and the holding apparatus is a via force fitting; see col 6, lines 47-50; and the recesses 52 are annular protuberances that have all the necessary structures to be capable of having respective contact surface for an unlocking tool, in order to move the lateral wing portions apart and to release the connection between the drill blade element and the holding apparatus).
Regarding claim 16, Courvoisier and Yeung discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Courvoisier discloses wherein the holding apparatus (12) has a cleaning bore (50) which connects the end of the slot-shaped receptacle orientated in the direction of the actuating portion to the outer periphery of the holding portion (See Figures 5-7).
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skeppmark in view of Mansueto (US 20170049531 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Skeppmark disclose an implant drill set comprising the implant drill according to claim 12 (see the rejection of claim 12 above), but fails to disclose “and one or more further drill blade elements, wherein each drill blade element has a connecting portion which is introducible in the axial direction into the receptacle of the holding portion of the holding apparatus, in order to connect the drill blade element non-rotatably to the holding apparatus”.
Mansueto discloses an implant-dentist kit, generally has at least a tri-echeloned set, wherein are included progressions of drill-bit lengths (Abstract). Wherein “one or more further drill blade elements” (plurality of drill bits of different lengths Figure 1, [0005]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Skeppmark’s implant drill set to make it comprising one or more further drill blade elements, as taught by Mansueto, since such modification would create an implant drill set that accommodates to the critical fitting of and ultimately successful osseointegration of a tiny dental-implants ([0005]).
The Examiner notes that the implant drill set, created by the combination above, would require a mere duplication of parts (i.e. drill blade elements having a connecting portion which is introducible in the axial direction into the receptacle of the holding portion of the holding apparatus, in order to connect the drill blade element non-rotatably to the holding apparatus) which has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP 2144).
Regarding claim 18, Skeppmark and Mansueto discloses wherein the connecting portions of all the drill blade elements are configured identically, and wherein the blade portions of the drill blade elements are configured identically (see the duplication of part analysis in the rejection of claim 17 above).
Regarding claim 19, Skeppmark and Mansueto discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Mansueto discloses wherein the blade portions of the drill blade elements are configured differently, in order to produce and/or widen different partial regions of a bore in the jaw bone sequentially. Since it teaches drill-bits of different lengths (e.g.: 8 mm, 10 mm, 12 mm, and 14 mm) generally provided in three or more different diameters (e.g.: 3.4 mm, 4.1 mm and 5.1 mm); the subtle dimensional differences between these dental tools become vitally important in relationship to the critical fitting of and ultimately successful osseointegration of a tiny dental-implant [0005]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS MIGUEL RUIZ MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)270-0839. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 Am - 5 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 on (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.
/LUIS RUIZ MARTIN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772