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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Support for the maximum outer dimension shifting at least once entirely around a circumferent of the drill bit core is not support in the originally filed applicatio2.
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) 17, 21-22 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Budd (3,258,797).
With respect to claim 17, Budd teaches a drill bit (such that it is removing material by compression, therefore it is a drill bit as broadly claimed) comprising an apical end (pointed tip), a coronal end (end hear shaft 111), and a longitudinal axis extending between the apical end and the coronal end, a drill bit core (see figs. 6-11, such that the drill bit core is illustrated as the hatched section) circumferentially surrounding the longitudinal axis and having at least a portion with a non-round profile when viewed in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (see figs. 7-11, such that it is an oval cross section, col. 3, ll. 71-75, col. 4, ll. 1-9), a guide thread 115/116 which extends radially outward from the drill bit core (see figs. 6-11), wherein in the drill bit core comprises a maximum outer dimension that circumferentially shift about the longitudinal axis in at least two or more locations as the drill bit core extends towards the apical end (see figs. 6-11, col. 3, ll. 71-75, col. 4, ll. 1-9).
It is noted that the use of the relative terms “apical” and “coronal” are not limiting the claimed drill bit to be a dental drill bit, as the terms are relative as to how the drill bit would be used or arranged in use. The opposed ends of the drill bit taught by Budd read on the claimed directional terms and therefore, Budd anticipates the claimed drill bit as discussed in detail above
With respect to claim 21, Budd further discloses wherein the drill bit core is oval shaped (see figs. 7-11).
With respect to claim 22, Budd further discloses wherein the drill bit core tapers toward the apical end (see fig. 6, such that the very end is tapered).
With respect to claim 32, Budd further discloses the maximum outer dimension of the drill bit core circumferentially shift about the longitudinal axis at least once entirely around a circumference of the drill bit core as the drill bit core extends toward the apical end (see figs. 7-11, such that the ends of the oval are the maximum outer dimension and fig. 7 and fig. 10 show the oval in the same orientation such that the maximum outer dimension has shifted entirely around the core such that the core has shifted 180 degrees resulting in the maximum outer dimension, i.e. the two ends, having shifted entirely around the shaft).
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) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budd (3,258,797).
With respect to claim 32, Budd teaches the maximum outer dimensions of the drill bit core circumferentially shift about the longitudinal axis at least once entirely around a circumference of the drill bit core as the drill bit core extends toward the apical end (see figs. 7-11, such that the ends of the oval are the maximum outer dimension and fig. 7 and fig. 10 show the oval in the same orientation such that the maximum outer dimension has shifted entirely around the core such that the core has shifted 180 degrees resulting in the maximum outer dimension, i.e. the two ends, having shifted entirely around the shaft). In the alternative Budd teaches the maximum outer dimension shifting almost entirely around the outer core (see figs. 7-11), however, does not specifically teach it shifting entirely around the saft as claimed, however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to shift the maximum outer dimension entirely around the shaft in order to provide the desired relief along the drill bit.
Claim(s) 17, 19, 22-26, and 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohhashi et al. (9,138,819) in view of Glimpel et al. (2006/0121995).
Ohhashi teaches with respect to claim 17 a drill bit comprising an apical end (end near 24), a coronal end (end of section 26 near shaft 14), and a longitudinal axis 0 extending between the apical end and the coronal end (see fig. 1(a)), a drill bit core (see fig. 1(c), annotated figure below, such that the core is the shaded section) circumferentially surrounding the longitudinal axis (see annotated fig., fig. 1(c)) and having at least a portion with a non-round profile when viewed in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (see fig. 1(c), annotated figure below), wherein the drill bit core comprises a maximum outer dimension (see annotated figure below, col. 8, ll. 1-2, such that maximum outer diameter is the maximum outer diameter in the area with the relief 44). It is noted that the use of the relative terms “apical” and “coronal” are not limiting the claimed drill bit to be a dental drill bit, as the terms are relative as to how the drill bit would be used or arranged in use. The opposed ends of the drill bit taught by Ohhashi read on the claimed directional terms and therefore, Ohhashi teaches the claimed drill bit as discussed in detail above. Ohhashi teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the maximum outer dimension circumferentially shifts about the longitudinal axis in at least two or more locations.
PNG
media_image1.png
248
241
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
249
230
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Glimpel teaches a drill bit comprising an apical end, a coronal end, and a longitudinal axis extending between the apical end and the coronal end, a drill bit core circumferentially surrounding the longitudinal axis and having at least a portion with a non-round profile when view in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (see figs. 14, 18 such that the body/core is non-round such as surface 25 and the threads extend from the body), a guide thread 1’/3’ which extends radially outward from the drill bit core, wherein the drill bit core comprises a maximum outer dimension that circumferentially shifts about the longitudinal axis in at least two or more locations as the drill bit core extends toward the apical end (see fig. 18-19, pars 108-109, 121). It is noted that Glimpel teaches a different embodiment in which the maximum outer dimension does not shift about the longitudinal axis (see figs. 1-2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Ohhashi with the circumferentially shifting of the maximum outer diameter as taught by Glimpel in order to provide a smoother operation and improve the process of transportation the removed material away in the direction of the rotation (see par. 121). It is further noted that Glimpel teaches the two arrangements are known equivalents (i.e. a straight shaft vs a twisted shaft so that the maximum outer dimension is shifted about the axis), therefore, because these two arrangements were art recognized equivalents before the effective filling date of the invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the straight shaft with the twisted shaft.
Ohhashi/Glimpel teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Ohhashi further teaches with respect to claim 19, the drill bit further comprising a first cutting edge, wherein the first cutting edge 40 (col. 3, ll. 62-67, col. 7, ll. 64-67) is a first radial distance from the longitudinal axis and the maximum outer dimension of the drill bit core is a second radial distance from the longitudinal axis, the second radial distance being larger than the first radial distance (see annaoted figure below). It is noted that the cutting edge does not extend to the hashed line that indicates a portion of the body being removed, such that it is closer to the center/longitudinal axis than the portion of the body that extends/is the hashed line and has not been removed.
PNG
media_image3.png
262
259
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Ohhashi/Glimpel teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Ohhashi further teaches with respect to claim 22, wherein the drill bit core tapers toward the apical end (see fig. 1(a), such that it tapers at end 24 to taper towards apical end).
Ohhashi/Glimpel teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Ohhashi further teaches with respect to claim 23, wherein the non-round profile is tri-lobed (see fig. 1(c), annotated figure below, such that in the area with the relief 44, it is a tri-lobed with only protruding portions 20b, 20d, and 20f).
PNG
media_image4.png
248
258
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Ohhashi/Glimpel teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Ohhashi further teaches with respect to claim 24, wherein the drill bit core further comprises a second cutting edge 40 (see fig. 1(c)).
Ohhashi/Glimpel teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Ohhashi further teaches with respect to claim 25, wherein the drill bit core further comprises a cutting flute 42 (such that the edge of the flute is the cutting edge 40).
Ohhashi/Glimpel teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Glimpel further teaches with respect to claim 26, wherein the cutting flute wraps circumferentially around the longitudinal axis as the cutting flute extends between the apical end and the coronal end of the drill bit (see fig. 18). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Ohhashi with the helical cutting flute as taught by Glimpel in order to provide a smoother operation and improve the process of transportation the removed material away in the direction of the rotation (see par. 121). It is further noted that Glimpel teaches the two arrangements are known equivalents (i.e. a straight flute vs a twisted flute), therefore, because these two arrangements were art recognized equivalents before the effective filling date of the invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the straight flute with the twisted flute.
Ohhashi/Glimpel teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Ohhashi further teaches with respect to claim 27, wherein the drill bit core has a no-cutting zone defined as the difference between the second radial distance and the first radial distance (such that outer edge of the body extending from the cutting edge 40 to the maximum radial outer diameter (20b, 20d, 20f) is a no-cutting zone and the different between the second radial distance and the first radial distance).
Ohhashi/Glimpel teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Ohhashi further teaches with respect to claim 28, wherein the no-cutting zone remains constant between the apical and coronal ends of the drill bit (see figs. 1(a), 1(c)). Such that the no-cutting zone is consistent between the ends, in that it does not change. It is noted that the applicant does not require the no-cutting zone to extend entirely from the apical to coronal end and be consist from one end to the other, only that it is consist between the ends, therefore, Ohhashi teaches the limitations as claimed since the no-cutting zone is constant between the ends.
Claim(s) 17, 21-22 and 29-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porter et al. (2003/0036036) in view of Budd (3,258,797).
Porter teaches a drill bit 50 (see fig. 3, pars. 27-28, such that it is a drill bit as it is connected to a tool for rotation and shapes a cavity) comprising an apical end (tip end), a coronal end (end near shaft 52) and a longitudinal axis extending between the apical end and the coronal end (see fig. 3), a drill bit core circumferentially surrounding the longitudinal axis (see fig. 3, such that the threads 60 extend from the core) and a guide thread 60 which extends radially outward from the drill bit core (see fig.3). Porter teaches the drill bit as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the drill bit core has at least a portion with a non-round profile when viewed in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis and the drill bit core comprises a maximum outer dimension that circumferentially shift about the longitudinal axis in at least two or more locations as the drill bit core extends toward the apical end.
Budd teaches a drill bit (such that it is attached to a tool for rotation and forms a portion of a cavity) that is analogous art because it is forming threads within a bore, comprising an apical end (pointed tip), a coronal end (end hear shaft 111), and a longitudinal axis extending between the apical end and the coronal end, a drill bit core (see figs. 6-11, such that the drill bit core is illustrated as the hatched section) circumferentially surrounding the longitudinal axis and having at least a portion with a non-round profile when viewed in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (see figs. 7-11, such that it is an oval cross section, col. 3, ll. 71-75, col. 4, ll. 1-9), a guide thread 115/116 which extends radially outward from the drill bit core (see figs. 6-11), wherein in the drill bit core comprises a maximum outer dimension that circumferentially shift about the longitudinal axis in at least two or more locations as the drill bit core extends towards the apical end (see figs. 6-11, col. 3, ll. 71-75, col. 4, ll. 1-9). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Porter with the drill bit having a non-round profile and a maximum outer dimension that circumferentially shifts about the longitudinal in at least two or more locations as the drill bit core extends towards the apical end so as to provide a gradual relief when forming the threads (see col.3, ll. 71-75).
With respect to claim 21, Porter/Budd teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Budd further teaches wherein the drill bit core is oval shaped (see figs. 7-11).
With respect to claim 22, Porter/Budd teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Porter further teaches wherein the drill bit core tapered toward the apical end (see fig. 3, such that portion 58 is tapered, par. 27).
With respect to claim 29, Porter/Budd teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Porter teaches a kit of parts (see claim 14) comprising the drill bit as discussed above with respect to claim 17 (see claim 14, such that the drill bit is the claimed compression tap) and an implant (see claim 14). It is noted that Porter/Budd teach the drill bit as claimed in claim 17 as discussed above.
With respect to claim 30, Porter/Budd teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Porter further teaching the implant is a dental implant (see claim 14).
With respect to claim 31, Porter/Budd teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Porter further teaching the implant comprises a thread and the guide thread different from the thread of the implant in pitch and/or height and/or width (see par. 29, such that they differ in pitch).
With respect to claim 32, Porter/Budd teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Budd teaching the maximum outer dimensions of the drill bit core circumferentially shift about the longitudinal axis at least once entirely around a circumference of the drill bit core as the drill bit core extends toward the apical end (see figs. 7-11, such that the ends of the oval are the maximum outer dimension and fig. 7 and fig. 10 show the oval in the same orientation such that the maximum outer dimension has shifted entirely around the core such that the core has shifted 180 degrees resulting in the maximum outer dimension, i.e. the two ends, having shifted entirely around the shaft). In the alternative Budd teaches the maximum outer dimension shifting almost entirely around the outer core (see figs. 7-11), however, does not specifically teach it shifting entirely around the saft as claimed, however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to shift the maximum outer dimension entirely around the shaft in order to provide the desired relief along the drill bit.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 17, 19, 23, 25-26 and 29-31 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 11-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,045,287. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of patent ‘287 are broad and anticipate the claims of the current application.
Claim 17 of the current application is anticipated by claims 1 and 4 of ‘287 as detailed below:
(claim 1) 1. A drill bit comprising: an apical end, a coronal end, and a longitudinal axis extending between the apical end and the coronal end; a drill bit core circumferentially surrounding the longitudinal axis and having at least a portion with a non-round profile when viewed in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, the portion with a non-round profile forming a plurality of lobes, each of the plurality of lobes forming at least one first compression zone, the drill bit core having a maximum radii at each of the plurality of lobes, wherein the drill bit core comprises a no-cutting zone at the maximum radii at each of the plurality of lobes; a plurality of flutes, each of the plurality of flutes corresponding with one of the plurality of lobes, each of the plurality of flutes positioned on a circumference of the drill bit core and at a circumferential distance away from the maximum radii of a corresponding one of the plurality of lobes, wherein each of the plurality of flutes comprises a first cutting edge formed on the drill bit core and positioned inwardly from the maximum radii of the corresponding one of the plurality of lobes of the drill bit core; a cutting zone extending inwardly from at least one of the cutting edges, wherein a position of the at least one cutting edge allows a hard bone to be positioned within the cutting zone and allows a soft bone to be positioned within the no-cutting zone, in use; and a guide thread which extends radially outward from the drill bit core.
(claim 4) The drill bit of claim 1 wherein the maximum radii of at least one of the plurality of lobes circumferentially shifts about the longitudinal axis as the drill bit core extends toward the apical end.
Claim 19 of the current application is taught by claim 1 of ‘ 287
(claim 1) A drill bit comprising: an apical end, a coronal end, and a longitudinal axis extending between the apical end and the coronal end; a drill bit core circumferentially surrounding the longitudinal axis and having at least a portion with a non-round profile when viewed in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, the portion with a non-round profile forming a plurality of lobes, each of the plurality of lobes forming at least one first compression zone, the drill bit core having a maximum radii at each of the plurality of lobes, wherein the drill bit core comprises a no-cutting zone at the maximum radii at each of the plurality of lobes; a plurality of flutes, each of the plurality of flutes corresponding with one of the plurality of lobes, each of the plurality of flutes positioned on a circumference of the drill bit core and at a circumferential distance away from the maximum radii of a corresponding one of the plurality of lobes, wherein each of the plurality of flutes comprises a first cutting edge formed on the drill bit core and positioned inwardly from the maximum radii of the corresponding one of the plurality of lobes of the drill bit core; a cutting zone extending inwardly from at least one of the cutting edges, wherein a position of the at least one cutting edge allows a hard bone to be positioned within the cutting zone and allows a soft bone to be positioned within the no-cutting zone, in use; and a guide thread which extends radially outward from the drill bit core.
With respect to the limitations above, while it is noted that different terminology is used, the claimed radial distances are still claimed since the first cutting edge is radially inward relative to the maximum outer diameter.
Claim 17 of the current application is taught by claim 11 of ‘287:
(claim 11) A drill bit comprising: an apical end, a coronal end, and a longitudinal axis extending between the apical end and the coronal end; a drill bit core circumferentially surrounding the longitudinal axis and having at least a portion with a non-round profile when viewed in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, the portion with a non-round profile forming at least one compression zone; a cutting edge disposed within the at least one compression zone of the drill bit core, wherein the cutting edge is a first radial distance from the longitudinal axis and a maximum outer dimension of the drill bit core is a second radial distance from the longitudinal axis, the second radial distance being larger than the first radial distance, wherein the drill bit core comprises a no-cutting zone at the maximum outer dimension, and wherein the no-cutting zone at the maximum outer dimension spirally wraps circumferentially around the longitudinal axis as the no-cutting zone at the maximum outer dimension extends between the apical portion and the coronal portion of the drill bit such that the maximum outer dimension shifts circumferentially along the length of the drill bit; a cutting zone extending inwardly from the cutting edge, wherein a position of the cutting edge allows a hard bone to be positioned within the cutting zone and allows a soft bone to be positioned within the no-cutting zone, in use; and a guide thread which extends radially outward from the drill bit core.
Claim 19 of the current application is taught by claim 11 of ‘287:
(claim 11) A drill bit comprising: an apical end, a coronal end, and a longitudinal axis extending between the apical end and the coronal end; a drill bit core circumferentially surrounding the longitudinal axis and having at least a portion with a non-round profile when viewed in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, the portion with a non-round profile forming at least one compression zone; a cutting edge disposed within the at least one compression zone of the drill bit core, wherein the cutting edge is a first radial distance from the longitudinal axis and a maximum outer dimension of the drill bit core is a second radial distance from the longitudinal axis, the second radial distance being larger than the first radial distance, wherein the drill bit core comprises a no-cutting zone at the maximum outer dimension, and wherein the no-cutting zone at the maximum outer dimension spirally wraps circumferentially around the longitudinal axis as the no-cutting zone at the maximum outer dimension extends between the apical portion and the coronal portion of the drill bit such that the maximum outer dimension shifts circumferentially along the length of the drill bit; a cutting zone extending inwardly from the cutting edge, wherein a position of the cutting edge allows a hard bone to be positioned within the cutting zone and allows a soft bone to be positioned within the no-cutting zone, in use; and a guide thread which extends radially outward from the drill bit core.
Claim 23 of the current application is taught by claim 16 of ‘287:
(claim 16) The drill bit of claim 11 wherein the non-round profile forming the plurality of lobes is tri-lobed.
Claim 25 of the current application is taught by claim 12 of ‘287:
(claim 12) The drill bit of claim 11, wherein the drill bit core further comprises a cutting flute, wherein the cutting flute comprises the cutting edge.
Claim 26 of the current application is taught by claim 13 of ‘287:
The drill bit of claim 12 wherein the cutting flute wraps circumferentially around the longitudinal axis as the cutting flute extends between the apical portion and the coronal portion of the drill bit.
Claims 29-30 of the current application are taught by claim 14 of ‘287:
(claim 14) A kit of parts comprising a drill bit of claim 11 and a dental implant.
Claim 31 of the current application is taught by claim 15 of ‘287:
(claim 15) The kit of parts of claim 14 wherein the dental implant comprises a thread, the guide thread of the drill bit differs from the thread of the dental implant in pitch and/or height and/or width.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) 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.
Applicant's arguments filed July 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the prior art of Ohhashi does not does not teach the protruding parts taught by Ohhashi are the outer thread portion and not the core. The applicant’s arguments are not persuasive as the figure clearly shows the body portion in the hatched cross sectional view, with the threads extending form the body in a non-hatched view. Ohhashi teaches forming the thread by moving a tool towards and away from the workpiece and the workpiece is of a prism shape and the protruding parts and relief parts are formed by griding the workpiece. Such that as can be clearly seen in fig. 1C, a portion of the workpiece, which is interpreted as the core, has been ground away to from relief portion (i.e. portion 44), and the cutting edge (i.e. finishing edge 40) is a first radial distance as claimed which is less than the second radial distance which is a distance from the axis to the maximum outer dimension of the body (see annaoted figure above), such that the second radial distance is larger. As see in fig. 1(a), the portion with the relief 44 extends along a portion of the body, such that the core between the threads would have the claimed diameter without the thread extending from it also, such as only the hatched section.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The prior art of Neumeyer has been cited to teach non-round cross-sectional tools with a thread extending from it (see figs. 5-7).
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 whose telephone number is (571)270-3081. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-4:00.
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.
/HEIDI M EIDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772 9/11/2026
Prosecution Insights