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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, and 9-19 in the reply filed on 03/28/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that species A, B, and C of the claimed invention as described in the Office Action mailed on 02/20/2026 are similar in configuration and have a generic claim (claim 1 of the claims filed 12/26/2024). Applicant’s argument is acknowledged and considered. Applicant’s argument is found persuasive. In this Office Action, the Examiner have examined species A, B, and C as described in the Office Action mailed on 02/20/2026 and their corresponding claims.
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(s) 1-3 and 12 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1 and 2 of co-pending Application No. 19/002,614. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of co-pending Application No. 19/002,614 recites a threaded dental implant comprising: a fastener body defining a longitudinal axis, the fastener body comprising: a proximal end comprising a threaded socket configured to receive a dental component; and a distal end; and a first helical thread (a helical thread) disposed about the fastener body along (and extending) the longitudinal axis, the first helical thread (the helical thread) comprising a major thread diameter (while not explicitly disclosed in co-pending Application No. 19/002,614, a major thread diameter is an intrinsic characteristic of a thread disposed about a fastener body such as screws and screw-like devices), a minor thread diameter (while not explicitly disclosed in co-pending Application No. 19/002,614, a minor thread diameter is an intrinsic characteristic of a thread disposed about a fastener body such as screws and screw-like devices), a first and second thread forms comprising a distal-facing side and a proximal-facing side;
Claim 2 of co-pending application 19/002,614, dependent on claim 1 of the co-pending application 19/002,614, recites the device of claim 1, wherein: the fastener body comprises a distal portion that is tapered such that a first diameter at the distal end is less than a second diameter at the proximal end (the distal portion of the fastener body comprises the intrinsic property, a minor thread diameter, which is inherently tapered since the distal portion is tapered; although the claim 2 of the co-pending application did not explicitly define the first diameter, the claim language as written can be interpreted as the minor diameter or the major diameter at the distal end being the first diameter thus, anticipating the claim 1 of the current application); and
the first helical thread (the helical thread) comprises a first thread form comprising a distal-facing side that is generally concave.
Therefore, claim 1 and 2 of co-pending Application No. 19/002,614 are in essence a “species” of the generic invention of application claim 1. It has been held that a generic invention is “anticipated” by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding claim 2, claim 1 of co-pending Application No. 19/002,614 anticipates application claim 1, on which application claim 2 is dependent on. Regarding application claim 2, claim 2 of co-pending Application No. 19/002,614 further recites the threaded dental implant, wherein the first distal-facing side is generally concave and the first proximal-facing side is generally convex.
Therefore, claim 1 of co-pending Application No. 19/002,614 is in essence a “species” of the generic invention of application claim 2. It has been held that a generic invention is “anticipated” by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding claim 3, claim 2 of co-pending Application No. 19/002,614 anticipates application claim 1, on which application claim 3 is dependent on. Regarding application claim 3, claim 2 of co-pending Application No. 19/002,614 further recites the threaded dental implant, wherein the fastener body comprises a distal portion that is tapered such that a first diameter at the distal end is less than a second diameter at the proximal end (the distal portion of the fastener body comprises the intrinsic property, a major thread diameter, which is inherently tapered since the distal portion is tapered thus, the major thread diameter would be inherently smaller at the tapered distal portion compared to the proximal end).
Therefore, claim 2 of co-pending Application No. 19/002,614 is in essence a “species” of the generic invention of application claim 3. It has been held that a generic invention is “anticipated” by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding claim 12, claim 1 of co-pending Application No. 19/002,614 anticipates application claim 1, on which application claim 12 is dependent on. Regarding application claim 12, claim 1 of co-pending Application No. 19/002,614 further recites the threaded dental implant, wherein the proximal end comprises a threaded socket configured to receive the dental component. Therefore, claim 1 of co-pending Application No. 19/002,614 is in essence a “species” of the generic invention of application claim 12. It has been held that a generic invention is “anticipated” by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim(s) 14 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1 and 9 of co-pending Application No. 19/002,614. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 9 of co-pending Application No. 19/002,614 incorporates all the limitations of claim(s) 1 of Application No. 19/002,614.
Regarding claim 14, claim 9 of co-pending Application No. 19/002,614 recites a threaded dental implant comprising: a fastener body defining a longitudinal axis, the fastener body comprising: a proximal end comprising a threaded socket configured to receive a dental component; and a distal end; and a first helical thread (a helical thread) disposed about the fastener body along (and extending) the longitudinal axis, the first helical thread comprising: a first thread form comprising a first distal-facing side that is generally concave and a first proximal-facing side that is generally convex; wherein the distal portion comprises a second helical thread along the longitudinal axis, the second helical thread comprising a thread form that lacks a concave side.
Therefore, claim 9 of co-pending Application No. 19/002,614 is in essence a “species” of the generic invention of application claim 14. It has been held that a generic invention is “anticipated” by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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) 1- 3, 5, 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rocci et al. (US 20200214807 A1) in view of Hyer et al. (WO 2022109338 A1).
Rocci et al. discloses a dental implant (10 Figs. 1 and 2) comprising: a fastener body (11 Fig. 2) defining a longitudinal axis (Z Fig. 1), the fastener body comprising:
a proximal end (13 Figs. 1 and 2) comprising an internal pocket (25/27/26 Fig. 2) configured to receive a dental component (paragraph 0104)h; and
a distal end (12 Figs. 1 and 2); and a helical thread (14 Figs. 1 and 2) disposed about the fastener body and extending along the longitudinal axis (see Figs. 1 and 2), the helical thread (14 Figs. 1 and 2) comprising a major thread diameter, a minor thread diameter, a distal-facing side and a proximal-facing side (see annotated Fig. 1);
wherein:
the minor thread diameter is tapered such that the minor thread diameter is smaller at the distal end than at the proximal end (see annotated Fig. 1; see that the minor diameter at the distal side is significantly tapered such that the minor thread diameter at the distal end is smaller than the minor thread diameter at the proximal end); and
PNG
media_image1.png
555
392
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Rocci et al. is silent regarding claim 1, wherein the helical thread comprises a first thread form comprising a generally concave side.
Hyer et al. teaches a fastener (5300 Fig. 48D) comprising a fastener body (5305 Figs. 48A-D) defining a longitudinal axis (5303 Fig. 48D), the fastener body comprising: a proximal end (5301 Figs. 48A-B) comprising an internal pocket (5306 Fig. 48B); and a distal end (5302 Fig. 48B); and a helical thread (5310/5320 Figs. 48A-D). Regarding claim 1, Hyer et al. further teaches the fastener (5300 Fig. 48D), wherein the helical thread comprises a first thread form (5310 Fig. 48D) comprising a generally concave side (see that element 5310 has a recessed side that forms the concave side).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the helical thread of the device of Rocci et al. to be configured such that the helical thread comprises a first thread form comprising a generally concave side, as taught by Hyer et al., in order to create a dental implant device that can effectively distribute force and stress to achieve optimal fixation with a given tissue/bone.
Regarding claim 2, Rocci et al. as modified by Hyer et al. discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 1. Rocci et al. is silent regarding claim 2, wherein the distal-facing side is generally concave and the proximal-facing side is generally convex.
Hyer et al. teaches a fastener (1400 Figs. 14A-D) comprising a fastener body (1405 Figs. 14A-D) defining a longitudinal axis (1403 Fig. 14D), the fastener body comprising: a proximal end (1401 Figs. 14A-B) comprising an internal pocket (1406 Fig. 14B); and a distal end (1402 Fig. 14B); and a helical thread (1410 Figs. 48A-D) comprising a distal-facing side and a proximal-facing side (see annotated Fig. 14D). Regarding claim 2, Hyer et al. further teaches the fastener (1400 Fig. 14D), wherein the distal-facing side is generally concave and the proximal-facing side is generally convex (see annotated Fig. 14D).
PNG
media_image2.png
758
515
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the helical thread of the device of Rocci et al. to be configured such that the distal-facing side is generally concave and the proximal-facing side is generally convex, as taught by Hyer et al., in order to create a dental implant device that can effectively distribute force and stress to achieve optimal fixation with a given tissue/bone.
Regarding claim 3, Rocci et al. as modified by Hyer et al. discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 1. Rocci et al. further teaches the analogous dental implant (Figs. 1 and 2), wherein the major thread diameter is tapered such that the major thread diameter is smaller at the distal end than at the proximal end (see annotated Fig. 1; see that the major diameter at the distal side is significantly tapered such that the major thread diameter at the distal end is smaller than the major thread diameter at the proximal end; see that the “outline along the major thread” shows the tapering trajectory of the major thread as it extends towards the distal end).
PNG
media_image1.png
555
392
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
543
421
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Rocci et al. as modified by Hyer et al. discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Rocci et al. further discloses the threaded dental implant of claim 1, wherein a first portion (17 Fig. 1) of the helical thread (14 Fig. 1), proximate the proximal end (13 Fig. 1), comprises a second thread form (21 Fig. 1; see that the portion of element 14 disposed at a portion proximate the proximal end comprises a second threading portion, 21 [0081]. Element 21 can be a double or dual-lead threading [0083]).
Rocci et al. is silent regarding claim 5, wherein the second thread form lacks the generally concave side.
Hyer teaches an analogous device (100 [00167]) wherein a first portion of the helical thread, proximate the proximal end, comprises a second thread form lacking the generally concave side ([00167]: discloses that a first portion of the fastener can be configured to comprise dual threading which can comprise two distinct thread forms (first thread form and second thread form) and a single threading (comprising a third thread form) along a second portion. [00172]: further discloses the fastener 100 may include multiple threading (e.g., dual helical threading, etc.) with any of the shapes disclosed herein located proximate one of the proximal end and the distal end of the fastener 100, as well as single threading with any of the shapes disclosed herein with the second threading located proximate the other of the proximal end and the distal end of the fastener 100 (not shown); see that the single threading (third thread form) can be configured with any of the shapes as disclosed by Hyer et al. including shapes lacking a concave side).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Rocci et al. to be configured such that the first portion of the helical thread, proximate the proximal end, comprises a second thread form lacking the generally concave side, as taught by Hyer et al., in order to create a dental implant device that can effectively distribute force and stress to achieve optimal fixation with a given tissue/bone.
Regarding claim 8, Rocci et al. as modified by Hyer et al. discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 1. Rocci et al. further teaches the analogous dental implant (Figs. 1 and 2), wherein the helical thread (14 Figs. 1 and 2) extends from the distal end (12 Figs. 1 and 2) to the proximal end (13 Figs. 1 and 2) (paragraph 0058: the threading 14 extends from the tip portion 15 (part of the distal end; see Figs. 1 and 2) and extends toward the coronal end 13.).
Regarding claim 9, Rocci et al. as modified by Hyer et al. discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 1. Rocci et al. further teaches the analogous dental implant (Figs. 1 and 2), wherein the fastener body (11 Fig. 2) comprises a tapered lead-in portion (see that the end with element 15 is tapered (Figs. 1 and 2)) proximate the distal end (12 Figs. 1 and 2) (paragraph 0057: The apical end 12 can have, in its end part, a tip portion 15 suitable to facilitate the insertion and screwing of the shaft 11 into the bone part of a patient).
Regarding claim 10, Rocci et al. as modified by Hyer et al. discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 9. Rocci et al. further teaches the analogous dental implant (Figs. 1 and 2), wherein the tapered lead-in portion (15 Figs. 1 and 2) lacks the helical thread (see Figs. 1 and 2: element 15 lacks the helical thread (14)).
Regarding claim 12, Rocci et al. as modified by Hyer et al. discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 1. Rocci et al. further teaches the analogous dental implant (Figs. 1 and 2), wherein the proximal end comprises a threaded socket (25/26/27 Fig. 2) configured to receive the dental component (paragraph 0104: The connection seating 25 is provided with at least a threaded portion 26 configured to allow the screwing, for example with threaded elements, of the abutment).
Regarding claim 11, Rocci et al. as modified by Hyer et al. discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 9. Rocci et al. further discloses the analogous dental implant (Figs. 1 and 2), wherein the tapered lead-portion (see that the end with element 15 is tapered (Figs. 1 and 2)) comprises a second thread form (20 Fig. 1; see that element 20 extends into the tapered portion (the end proximate element 15)) (20 Fig. 1; see that the portion of element 14 disposed at a portion proximate the tapered end comprises a second threading portion, 20 [0081]. Element 20 can be a double or dual-lead threading [0083]).
Rocci et al. is silent regarding claim 11, wherein the second thread form lacks the generally concave side.
Hyer further teaches an analogous device (100 [00167]) comprising a second thread form lacking the generally concave side ([00167]: discloses that a first portion of the fastener can be configured to comprise dual threading which can comprise two distinct thread forms (first thread form and second thread form) and a single threading (comprising a third thread form) along a second portion. [00172]: further discloses the fastener 100 may include multiple threading (e.g., dual helical threading, etc.) with any of the shapes disclosed herein located proximate one of the proximal end and the distal end of the fastener 100, as well as single threading with any of the shapes disclosed herein with the second threading located proximate the other of the proximal end and the distal end of the fastener 100 (not shown); see that the single threading (third thread form) can be configured with any of the shapes as disclosed by Hyer et al. including shapes lacking a concave side).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thread form disposed at the tapered lead-in portion of the device of Rocci et al. to be configured to comprise a second thread form lacking a generally concave side, as taught by Hyer et al., in order facilitate effective engagement of the device with the bone tissue during implantation through improved stability.
Claim(s) 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rocci et al. (US 20200214807 A1) in view of Hyer et al. (WO 2022109338 A1) and further in view of Arni (US 20110045437 A1).
PNG
media_image6.png
543
421
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Rocci et al. as modified by Hyer et al. discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 1. Rocci et al. further discloses the analogous device (10 Fig. 1) wherein a first portion (L2 Fig. 1) of the helical thread (21 Fig. 1 [0081]), proximate the proximal end (13 Fig. 1), comprises a major thread diameter and a minor thread diameter (see annotated Fig. 1). Rocci et al. is silent regarding claim 4, wherein the first portion of the helical thread, proximate the proximal end, comprises the major thread diameter that is generally constant and the minor thread diameter that is generally constant.
Arni teaches an analogous dental implant (100 Fig. 1) comprising: comprising a fastener body defining a longitudinal axis (122 Fig. 1), the fastener body comprising: a proximal end (106 Fig. 3) comprising an internal pocket (128/130/136 Fig. 3); and a distal end (102 Figs. 1 and 3); and a helical thread (116/114 Fig. 1). Regarding claim 4, Arni further teaches the analogous device, wherein a first portion of the helical thread (110 Figs. 1 and 3), proximate the proximal end (106 Fig. 3), comprises the major thread diameter (D1 Figs. 1-3) that is generally constant and the minor thread diameter (D3 Figs. 3; paragraph 0035) that is generally constant (see abstract: a primary thread (114/116) with a constant pitch and a constant major diameter (D1), runs along both the finely threaded portion (110) and the coarsely threaded portion (112); see Fig. 3: see that the minor diameter is generally constant in the 110 section proximate to the proximal end (106)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Rocci et al. to be configured such that a first portion of the helical thread, proximate the proximal end, comprises the major thread diameter that is generally constant and the minor thread diameter that is generally constant, as taught by Arni, in order to create a dental device with a finely threaded proximate portion with lesser stress area, suitable for nesting within the cancellous bone of the jawbone.
Regarding claim 6, Rocci et al. as modified by Hyer et al. and Arni discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 4. Rocci et al. further discloses the analogous dental implant (Figs. 1 and 2), wherein the first portion (L2 Figs. 1) of the helical thread (14 Figs. 1 and 2), proximate the proximal end (13 Figs. 1 and 2), comprises the first thread form (21 Figs. 1, 2 and 5) and a second portion (L1 Figs. 1) of the helical thread (14 Figs. 1 and 2), proximate the distal end (12 Figs. 1 and 2), comprises a second thread form (20 Figs. 1,2, and 5) that is generally equal to the first thread form (see annotated Fig. 1: see that the first portion (L2) comprises 7 element 21 and second portion (L1) also comprise 7 element 20, thus the disclosed device has second thread form (20) which is generally equal to the first thread
PNG
media_image7.png
388
296
media_image7.png
Greyscale
form (21)).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rocci et al. (US 20200214807 A1) in view of Hyer et al. (WO 2022109338 A1) and Arni (US 20110045437 A1), and further in view of Hwang (EP 2845561 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Rocci et al. as modified by Hyer et al. and Arni discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 6. Rocci et al. further discloses the analogous dental implant (Figs. 1 and 2), wherein the fastener body (11 Fig. 2; paragraph 0096) comprises a cutting flute (22 Fig. 1; paragraphs 0096-97). Rocci et al. is silent regarding claim 7 wherein the cutting flute extends from the distal end to the proximal end.
Hwang (EP 2845561 A1) teaches an analogous device (Implant fixture A, Fig. 14a) comprising a fastener body (51 Fig. 14a), the fastener body comprising: a proximal end (60Fig. 14a); a distal end (10 Fig. 14a); and a helical thread (52 Fig. 14a) disposed about the fastener body. Regarding claim 7, Hwang further teaches the analogous device (Implant fixture A, Fig. 14a), wherein the fastener body (51 Fig. 14a) comprises a cutting flute (70 Fig. 14a) extending from the distal end to the proximal end (Fig. 14a: see that element 70 extends from the distal end (10) to the proximal end (60)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the device of Rocci et al. to be configured such the fastener body comprises a cutting flute extending from the distal end to the proximal end, as taught by Hwang, in order to provide guide grooves for produced bone particles to be discharged outside in the initial stage of implantation or be housed in the guide grooves thus preventing the bone particles from being discharged in the late stage of implantation.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rocci et al. (US 20200214807 A1) in view of Hyer et al. (WO 2022109338 A1) and further in view of Barui et al. (US 20220160472 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Rocci et al. as modified by Hyer et al. discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 1. Rocci et al. further discloses the analogous device (10 Fig. 1), wherein the distal portion (the portion proximate to the distal end (12) which majorly falls in the section labeled “L1” as shown Fig. 1) comprises a second helical threading (20 Fig. 1).
Rocci et al. is silent regarding claim 13 wherein the second helical thread comprises a thread form lacking a concave side.
Hyer further teaches an analogous device (100 [00167]) comprising a second thread form lacking the generally concave side ([00167]: discloses that a first portion of the fastener can be configured to comprise dual threading which can comprise two distinct thread forms (first thread form and second thread form) and a single threading (comprising a third thread form) along a second portion. [00172]: further discloses the fastener 100 may include multiple threading (e.g., dual helical threading, etc.) with any of the shapes disclosed herein located proximate one of the proximal end and the distal end of the fastener 100 (see that the single thread can be configured to be disposed at the distal end of the fastener), as well as single threading with any of the shapes disclosed herein with the second threading located proximate the other of the proximal end and the distal end of the fastener 100 (not shown); see that the single threading (third thread form) can be configured with any of the shapes as disclosed by Hyer et al. including shapes lacking a concave side).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thread form disposed at the tapered lead-in portion of the device of Rocci et al. to be configured to comprise a second thread form lacking a generally concave side, as taught by Hyer et al., in order facilitate effective engagement of the device with the bone tissue during implantation through improved stability.
Furthermore, Rocci et al. silent regarding claim 13, wherein the proximal portion of threaded dental implant comprises a third helical thread comprises a micro-thread form.
Barui et al. teaches an analogous device ( Fig. 1) comprising a proximal end (MR Fig. 1) comprising an internal pocket (TH/FSP/IC Fig. 2) configured to receive a dental component; and a distal end (base end of element AR Fig. 1); and a helical thread (1/2/3 Fig. 1) disposed about the fastener body. Regarding claim 13, Barui et al. further teaches the analogous device (Fig. 1), wherein the proximal portion (CP Fig. 1) comprises a third helical thread (1 Fig. 1) comprising a micro-thread form (see that element 1 is a fine or micro-thread form compared to elements 2 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Rocci et al. to be configured such that the proximal portion comprises a third helical thread comprising a micro-thread form, as taught by Barui et al., in order to provide a device with a proximal portion designed to effectively sink into a cortical shell of the jaw-bone.
Claim(s) 14, 15, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barui et al. (US 20220160472 A1) in view of Hyer et al. (WO 2022109338 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Barui et al. teaches an analogous device ( 101 Figs. 1-4 and 12) comprising:
a fastener body (defined by the surface on which elements 1/2/3 are disposed along) defining a longitudinal axis (an imaginary line running through the center of the device from MR end through to the opposite end) , the fastener body comprising:
a proximal end (MR Fig. 1) comprising an internal pocket (TH/FSP/IC Fig. 2) configured to receive a dental component (see Figs. 12 and 13);
a distal end (base end of element AR Fig. 1);
a first portion (MP Fig. 1) comprising a first helical thread (2 Fig. 1) disposed about the first portion along the longitudinal axis and comprising a first thread form (paragraph 0055: second thread profile is configured as a buttress shaped threads); and
a second portion (AR Fig. 1) comprising a second helical thread (3 Fig. 1) disposed about the second portion along the longitudinal axis and comprising a second thread form (paragraph 0055: macro threads (3));
wherein:
the second thread form (paragraph 0055: macro threads (3)) lacks a generally concave side (see Fig. 1: the macro threads (3) lacks generally a concave side).
Barui et al. is silent regarding claim 14, wherein: the first thread form comprises a distal-facing side that is generally concave and a proximal-facing side that is generally convex.
PNG
media_image8.png
664
451
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Hyer et al. teaches a fastener (1400 Figs. 14A-D) comprising a fastener body (1405 Figs. 14A-D) defining a longitudinal axis (1403 Fig. 14D), the fastener body comprising: a proximal end (1401 Figs. 14A-B) comprising an internal pocket (1406 Fig. 14B); and a distal end (1402 Fig. 14B); and a helical thread (1410 Figs. 48A-D) comprising a distal-facing side and a proximal-facing side (see annotated Fig. 14D). Regarding claim 14, Hyer et al. further teaches the thread (1410 Figs. 48A-D) of the fastener (1400 Fig. 14D) has a thread form, wherein the distal-facing side is generally concave and the proximal-facing side is generally convex (see annotated Fig. 14D) ([00351-00353]: while the Fig. 14D illustrates the claimed invention, paragraphs [00351-00353] teaches that the shape of the thread can change along the length of the implant and can be configured with varying features and morphologies as further described in Hyer et al.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the first helical thread of the device of Barui et al. to be configured to have a thread form, wherein the distal-facing side is generally concave and the proximal-facing side is generally convex, as taught by Hyer et al., in order to create a dental implant device that can effectively distribute force and stress to achieve optimal fixation with a given tissue/bone.
Regarding claim 15, Barui et al. as modified by Hyer et al. discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 14. Regarding claim 15, Barui et al. further discloses the analogous device, wherein the second helical thread (3 Fig. 1) comprises a major thread diameter and a minor thread diameter that is tapered (see annotated Fig. 2, see that the annotated 1st major diameter and 1st minor diameter of element 3 is greater than the annotated 2nd major diameter and 2nd minor diameter of element 3 thus, illustrating that
PNG
media_image9.png
405
652
media_image9.png
Greyscale
the major diameter and the minor diameter of element 3 is tapered)
Regarding claim 17, Barui et al. as modified by Hyer et al. discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 14. Barui et al. further teaches the device of claim 17, wherein the second portion (AR Fig. 1) further comprises a tapered lead-in portion (see annotated Fig. 1) comprising the second thread form (paragraph 0055: macro threads (3)).
PNG
media_image10.png
382
667
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Barui et al. as modified by Hyer et al. discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 17. Regarding claim 18, Barui et al. further the analogous device ( 101 Figs. 1-4 and 12), wherein the fastener body (defined by the surface on which elements 1/2/3 are disposed along) further comprises a third portion (CP Fig. 1), proximate the proximal end (MR Fig. 1), comprising a third helical thread (1 Fig. 1) disposed about the third portion along the longitudinal axis and comprising a third thread form lacking the generally concave side (see that element 1 is configured with v-groove shaped threads lacking generally concave side; Figs. 1 and 2; [0055]).
Regarding claim 19, Barui et al. as modified by Hyer et al. discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 18. Regarding claim 19, Barui et al. further teaches the third thread form (1 Fig. 1; v-groove shaped threads) is a micro-thread form (see that element 1 is a fine or micro-thread form compared to elements 2 and 3).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barui et al. (US 20220160472 A1) in view of Hyer et al. (WO 2022109338 A1) and further in view of Arni (US 20110045437 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Barui et al. as modified by Hyer et al. discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 14. Barui et al. is silent regarding claim 4, wherein the first helical thread comprises the major thread diameter that is generally constant and the minor thread diameter that is generally constant.
Arni teaches an analogous dental implant (100 Fig. 1) comprising: comprising a fastener body defining a longitudinal axis (122 Fig. 1), the fastener body comprising: a proximal end (106 Fig. 3) comprising an internal pocket (128/130/136 Fig. 3); and a distal end (102 Figs. 1 and 3); and a first portion (110 Fig. 1) comprising a first helical thread (116 Fig. 1); and a second portion (112 Fig. 1) comprising a second helical thread (114 Fig. 1). Regarding claim 16, Arni further teaches the analogous device, wherein the first helical thread (110 Figs. 1 and 3), comprises a major thread diameter (D1 Figs. 1-3) that is generally constant and the minor thread diameter (D3 Figs. 3; paragraph 0035) that is generally constant (see abstract: a primary thread (114/116) with a constant pitch and a constant major diameter (D1), runs along both the finely threaded portion (110) and the coarsely threaded portion (112); see Fig. 3: see that the minor diameter is generally constant in the 110 section proximate to the proximal end (106)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Barui et al. to be configured such that the first helical thread comprises a major thread diameter that is generally constant and a minor thread diameter that is generally constant, as taught by Arni, in order to create a dental device with a finely threaded proximate portion with lesser stress area, suitable for nesting within the cancellous bone of the jawbone.
Claim(s) 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hori et al. (US 2013/0177874 A1) in view of Hyer et al. (WO 2022109338 A1) and further in view of Hwang (EP 2845561 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Hori et al. teaches an analogous device ( 56 Figs. 10) comprising:
a fastener body (the core body along which the helical threading are disposed; Figs. 10 ) defining a longitudinal axis (11 Figs. 10) , the fastener body comprising:
a proximal end (9 Fig. 10) comprising an internal pocket (60 Fig. 1C; [0128]: Aspects of Embodiment 6 (Fig. 10) other than those described above are the same as in Embodiment 1 (Figs. 1A-C)) configured to receive a dental component ([0092]: The abutment (not shown) is inserted into the cavity 60 and fitted with the cavity 60);
a distal end (the end proximate element 15 and opposite element 9; Fig. 1A);
a first portion ( 6 Fig. 10) comprising a first helical thread (see Fig. 10) disposed about the first portion along the longitudinal axis and comprising a first thread form (see that the thread along element 5 can be interpreted to be a fine thread; Fig. 10); and
a second portion (4 Fig. 10) comprising a second helical thread (see Fig. 10) disposed about the second portion along the longitudinal axis and comprising a second thread form (see that the thread form of the thread along element 4 is distinct and can be interpreted as a macro-thread compared to the thread form of the thread of element 6);
a cutting flute (15 Fig. 10) extending from the distal end towards the proximal end.
Hori et al. is silent regarding claim 20, wherein: at least one of the first thread form and the second thread form comprises a distal-facing side that is generally concave and a proximal-facing side that is generally convex.
PNG
media_image2.png
758
515
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hyer et al. teaches a fastener (1400 Figs. 14A-D) comprising a fastener body (1405 Figs. 14A-D) defining a longitudinal axis (1403 Fig. 14D), the fastener body comprising: a proximal end (1401 Figs. 14A-B) comprising an internal pocket (1406 Fig. 14B); and a distal end (1402 Fig. 14B); and a helical thread (1410 Figs. 48A-D) comprising a distal-facing side and a proximal-facing side (see annotated Fig. 14D). Regarding claim 20, Hyer et al. further teaches the thread (1410 Figs. 48A-D) of the fastener (1400 Fig. 14D) has a thread form, wherein the distal-facing side is generally concave and the proximal-facing side is generally convex (see annotated Fig. 14D).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the first thread form or the second thread form of the device of Hori et al. to be configured such that at least one of the first thread form and the second thread form comprises a distal-facing side that is generally concave and a proximal-facing side that is generally convex, as taught by Hyer et al., in order to create a dental implant device that can effectively distribute force and stress to achieve optimal fixation with a given tissue/bone.
Furthermore, Hori et al. is silent regarding claim 20, wherein the cutting flute extends from the distal end to the proximal end.
Hwang teaches an analogous device (Implant fixture A, Fig. 14a) comprising a fastener body (51 Fig. 14a), the fastener body comprising: a proximal end (60Fig. 14a); a distal end (10 Fig. 14a); and a helical thread (52 Fig. 14a) disposed about the fastener body. Regarding claim 20, Hwang further teaches the analogous device (Implant fixture A, Fig. 14a), wherein the fastener body (51 Fig. 14a) comprises a cutting flute (70 Fig. 14a) extending from the distal end to the proximal end (Fig. 14a: see that element 70 extends from the distal end (10) to the proximal end (60)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the device of Hori et al. to be configured such the fastener body comprises a cutting flute extending from the distal end to the proximal end, as taught by Hwang, in order to provide guide grooves for produced bone particles to be discharged outside in the initial stage of implantation or be housed in the guide grooves thus preventing the bone particles from being discharged in the late stage of implantation.
Regarding claim 21, Hori et al. as modified by Hyer et al. and Hwang discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 20. Hori et al. further discloses the analogous device (56 Fig. 1), wherein the first helical thread (the thread along element 6; Fig. 10) comprises a first major thread diameter that is generally constant and a first minor thread diameter that is generally constant (see annotated Fig. 10; see that the first major thread diameter and the first minor thread appears generally constant in element 6; also see element 16a); and the second helical thread (the thread along element 4; Fig. 10) comprises a second major thread diameter and a second minor thread diameter that is tapered (see annotated Fig. 10; see that the annotated 1st major diameter and 1st minor diameter are greater than the 2nd major
PNG
media_image11.png
699
524
media_image11.png
Greyscale
diameter and 2nd minor diameter; also see element 18a).
Regarding claim 22, Hori et al. as modified by Hyer et al. and Hwang discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 20. Hori et al. further discloses the analogous device (56 Fig. 10), wherein the second portion (4 Figs. 10) extends from the first portion (6 Figs. 10; see that element 4 extends from element 6) to the distal end (the edge proximate to element 15 and opposite element 9). However, Hori et al. is silent regarding claim 21, wherein the second portion comprises the second thread form comprising the distal-facing side that is generally concave and the proximal-facing side that is generally convex.
PNG
media_image2.png
758
515
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hyer et al. teaches a fastener (1400 Figs. 14A-D) comprising a fastener body (1405 Figs. 14A-D) defining a longitudinal axis (1403 Fig. 14D), the fastener body comprising: a proximal end (1401 Figs. 14A-B) comprising an internal pocket (1406 Fig. 14B); and a distal end (1402 Fig. 14B); and a helical thread (1410 Figs. 48A-D) comprising a distal-facing side and a proximal-facing side (see annotated Fig. 14D). Regarding claim 22, Hyer et al. further teaches the thread (1410 Figs. 48A-D) of the fastener (1400 Fig. 14D) has a thread form, wherein the distal-facing side is generally concave and the proximal-facing side is generally convex (see annotated Fig. 14D).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the second portion of the device of Hori et al. to be configured with a thread form comprising the distal-facing side that is generally concave and the proximal-facing side that is generally convex, as taught by Hyer et al., in order to create a dental implant device that can effectively distribute force and stress to achieve optimal fixation with a given tissue/bone.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIEMERIE C AZUBUOGU whose telephone number is (571)272-0664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00 AM - 6:00PM.
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.
/C.A./ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/HEIDI M EIDE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
4/28/2026
Prosecution Insights