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 without traverse of claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 05/30/2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
Applicant claims priority to 63551415, filed 02/08/2024 and 63636677, filed 04/19/2024.
Claim 6 states, “the polished or smooth outer side surface extends from the distal end to the apical end comprising completely encircling threads”. This is not supported by the specification of 63551415, as Paragraph [0038] states, “Where the threads do not completely encircle the implant fixture body, a smooth or polished area 105 is formed”, and Fig. 5 further demonstrates this feature.
Claim 12 states, “the implant system is provided for performing a Palatal Approach Technique or whenever a patient has a lingual or buccal concavity defect”. Paragraphs [0012] and [0018] of the specification of 63551415 described using the Palatal Approach Technique with an implant fixture and method, but do not describe using the implant system, thus, this claim is not supported.
For the purpose of examination, the priority date for claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-16 is 02/08/2024. The priority date for claims 6 and 12 is 02/07/2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the system of claims 10-12 comprising an implant fixture, abutment, connecting screw and prosthetic tooth, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 11, 1002, is designating different structures from Fig. 10. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
-401, (Paragraph [0077])
-700, (Paragraph [0107])
-706, (Paragraph [0108])
-208, Paragraph [0107]
-1100, Paragraph [0121]
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
-901, Figs. 9, 12
-602, Figs. 6A, 6B, 7
-708, Fig. 7
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claim 6 states, “the polished or smooth outer side surface extends from the distal end to the apical end comprising completely encircling threads”. This is not supported by Paragraphs [0071] and [0072] which describe a polished or smooth area formed by removing threads, thus the polished or smooth outer side surface cannot also comprise completely encircling threads. Examiner understands this limitation in light of Fig. 1 of the specification as the polished or smooth outer side surface extends along a portion of the implant fixture from the distal to apical end.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 5, 9, 11, 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 2, “an apical end”, should be corrected to, “an apical proximal end”.
Claim 5:
Line 1: A comma is missing after, “The implant fixture of claim 1”.
Lines 1-2, “implant fixture body”, should be “the implant fixture body”.
Claim 9 should be corrected to, “wherein said partially threaded side surface is coated”. Examiner understands this limitation as a positive recitation of coating the threads, rather than functional language, and further, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the threaded portion” in the claim.
Claim 11:
Line 1, “optionally”, should be omitted. Further, Examiner understands this limitation as positively reciting the system comprising “a healing cap”.
Line 2, “an implant fixture”, should be “the implant fixture”.
Claim 13:
Line 3, “an implant fixture”, should be, “the implant fixture”.
Line 4, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the fully threaded surface” in the claim. Claim 1 only recites a partially threaded surface. Examiner understands this limitation as, “a fully threaded surface”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-3, 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Daftary et al. (US 20170224446 A1), herein referred to as Daftary’1.
Regarding claim 1, Daftary’1 discloses an implant fixture (1004) configured as an elongated post (1004) forming a body of the implant fixture (1004) having a distal end (1015), a proximal end (1025), and an outer side surface, said side surface being partially threaded on a portion of the outer side surface and having a smooth or polished portion of the outer side surface (1075) (refer to Paragraphs [0084], [0089], annotated Fig. 9 below).
Regarding claim 2, Daftary’1 discloses the implant fixture of claim 1 (1004), wherein the proximal end of the implant fixture body (1025) is tapered to form an apical end (1025) (refer to Paragraph [0084]; the elongated shaft section 1020 is tapered).
Regarding claim 3, Daftary’1 discloses the implant fixture of claim 2 (1004) wherein the apical proximal end (1025) comprises threads (1080) completely encircling the implant fixture body (1000) (refer to Paragraph [0090]; the shaft section 1020 comprises an outer screw thread 1080 extending along at least a portion of its length; the outer screw thread 1080 is continuous)
Regarding claim 5, Daftary’1 discloses the implant fixture of claim 1 (1004) wherein the distal end of implant fixture body (1015) comprises a recess (1030) formed therein for matingly receiving a drill bit for tightening or loosening the implant fixture (1000) (refer to Paragraph [0085]; the stepped interior closed bore 1030 is configured to accommodate a dental tool for orienting the implant fixture).
Regarding claim 6, Daftary’1 discloses the implant fixture of claim 1 (1004) wherein the polished or smooth outer side surface (1075) extends from the distal end (1015) to the apical end (1025) comprising completely encircling threads (refer to annotated Fig. 9 below; Examiner understands this limitation in light of Fig. 1 of the specification as the polished or smooth outer side surface extending along a portion of the implant fixture from the distal to apical end).
PNG
media_image1.png
566
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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) 7, 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daftary et al. (US 20170224446 A1), herein referred to as Daftary’1.
Regarding claim 7, Daftary’1 discloses the implant fixture of claim 1 (1004); Daftary’1 wherein the threads of the partially threaded outer surface (1080) extend along at least a portion of the length (refer to Paragraph [0090]); however, Draftary’1 does not explicitly teach wherein the threads of the partially threaded outer surface (1080) extend about 50% to about 99% around the implant fixture body (1004).
Although this limitation is not explicitly taught, Draftary’1 teaches forming a longitudinal groove (1075) which interrupts the threads (1080) (refer to annotated Fig. 9 from claim 1 above) to allow bone growth (refer to Paragraphs [0089]-[0090]). Thus, the size of the longitudinal groove (1075) is taught as a results effective variable in that changing the size of the longitudinal groove (1075) and therefore, the circumference that the threads of the partially threaded outer surface (1080) extend about the implant fixture body (1004), changes the area where bone can grow (refer to Paragraphs [0089]-[0090]). Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the implant fixture (1004) of Daftary’1 to have a circumference within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the implant fixture (1004) of Daftary’1 by making the threads of the partially threaded outer surface (1080) extend about 50% to about 99% around the implant fixture body (1004) as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 10, Daftary’1 discloses a dental implant system (1000) comprising the implant fixture (1004) of claim 1, and comprising an abutment (1003) affixable to the implant fixture (1004), a connecting screw (1002) (refer to Paragraph [0082], annotated Fig. 9 below).
Daftary’1 does not explicitly teach this implant system (1000) as comprising a
prosthetic tooth affixable to the abutment (1003).
PNG
media_image2.png
787
503
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Although this is not taught as part of this implant system (1000), Daftary’1 does disclose a tooth analogue (50) coupled to an abutment (45) and dental implant fixture (35) as being known in the art (refer to Paragraph [0042], Fig. 2a). Daftary’1 further discloses tooth analogues (30) as coupled to an abutment (1610, 1710, 1910) in alternative embodiments (1600, 1700, 1900), to enable a complete dental restoration (refer to Paragraphs [0135], [0144], [0157]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the dental implant system (1000) with a tooth analogue (50) as this is a known means of creating a complete dental restoration (refer to Paragraphs [0042], [0135], [0144], [0157]).
Regarding claim 11, Daftary’1 discloses the dental implant system of claim 10 (1000); Daftary’1 does not explicitly teach the dental implant system of claim 10 (1000) optionally comprising a healing cap for temporary placement over an implant fixture.
In an alternative embodiment of a dental implant system (1200), Daftary’1 teaches the system (1200) optionally comprising a healing cap (1263) for temporary placement over an implant fixture (1260) (refer to Paragraphs [0097], [0113], Figs. 12a-b; the healing cap 1263 is configured to couple with the head section 1265 of the implant; by definition, healing caps are configured to be removed prior to the installation of a permanent abutment and crown (https://www.implantcenternearme.com/glossary/healing-cap)). The addition of a healing cap to a dental implant system permits healing of the patient’s tissue after an implant procedure is performed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the dental implant system of claim 10 (1000) with a healing cap (1263) as taught by the alternative embodiment of a dental implant system (1200) in order to facilitate healing of a patient’s gum tissue.
Regarding claim 12, Daftary’1 discloses the dental implant system of claim 10 (1000) wherein the implant system (1000) is provided for performing a Palatal Approach technique or whenever a patient has a lingual or buccal concavity defect (refer to Paragraph [0095]; Examiner understands a “concavity defect” as loss or deterioration of bone; the facial-side surface area 1110 and/or the lingual-side surface area 1120 provide a concave shaped area for bone and soft tissue formation therein to compensate for jawbone deterioration; thus, the implant system (1000) is capable of being used for lingual concavity defect).
Claim(s) 4, 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daftary et al. (US 20170224446 A1), herein referred to as Daftary’1, in view of Friedman et al. (US 5209659 A), herein referred to as Friedman.
Regarding claim 4, Daftary’1 discloses the implant fixture of claim 3 (1004), wherein the threads (1080) completely encircle the implant fixture body (1004) from the apical end (1025) extending along at least a portion of the length (refer to Paragraph [0090]). Draftary’1 does not explicitly disclose the threads (1080) extending to about 3-5 mm from the apical end (1025).
Friedman discloses a dental implant (100) in the same field of endeavor with a threaded portion (19) and smooth outer surface (surface of 112). The threads (111) completely encircle the implant fixture body (112) from the apical end (refer to annotated Fig. 2 below) to about 2.5-10 mm from the apical end (refer to annotated Fig. 2 below) (refer to col. 4, lines 4-5, 33-25; the length of body 112, including threaded portion 119, typically ranges from about 5-20 millimeters; the threaded portion 119 preferably does not exceed one-half the length of body 112), an overlapping range with 3-5mm. Further, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.) MPEP § 2144.05-I. The provided ranges for the threaded portion (119) provides a dental implant which threadably engages the hard bone which is at approximately the apical third of the implant body, but which does not threadably engage softer bone near the gingiva or alveolar mucosa of the patient (refer to col. 2, lines 65-68, col. 3, line 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the length of the full threads of Daftary’1 with the range of values as taught by Friedman, to effectively engage the hard bone, while not engaging the softer bone on the smooth upper surface (refer to col. 2, lines 65-68, col. 3, line 1)
PNG
media_image3.png
624
698
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Daftary’1 discloses the implant fixture of claim 1 (1004); Draftary’1 does not disclose wherein the implant fixture body (1004) is titanium or titanium alloy.
Friedman discloses a dental implant (100) in the same field of endeavor with a threaded portion (19) and smooth outer surface (surface of 112) (refer to annotated Fig. 2 above). The dental implant (100) is made of commercially pure titanium (refer to col. 5, lines 24-27).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the material of the implant fixture body (1004) of Daftary’1 with titanium as taught by Friedman, as this is a known material for dental implants (refer to col. 5, lines 24-27).
Regarding claim 9, Daftary’1 discloses the implant fixture of claim 1 (1004); Draftary’1 does not disclose wherein the threaded portion of the implant fixture body (refer to annotated Fig. 9 above) can be coated (Examiner understands this limitation as positively reciting the threaded portion as being coated rather than a functional limitation).
Friedman discloses a dental implant (100) in the same field of endeavor with a threaded portion (114) and smooth outer surface (surface of 112) (refer to annotated Fig. 2 above). The threaded portion (114) is disclosed as being coated to aid in bio-integration of the body with the surrounding bone (162) (refer to col. 5, lines 28-33).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the threaded portion of the implant fixture body (refer to annotated Fig. 9 above) of Daftary’1 with coating as taught by Friedman, to aid in bio-integration of the body with the surrounding bone (162) (refer to col. 5, lines 28-33).
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daftary et al. (US 20170224446 A1), herein referred to as Daftary’1, in view of Daftary (US 5209659 A), herein referred to as Daftary’2.
Regarding claim 13, Daftary’1 discloses:
a) providing an implant fixture (1004) of claim 1 (refer to Paragraph [0082]);
Daftary’1 does not explicitly disclose providing this implant fixture (1004) as part of a method for implanting a prosthetic tooth or plurality of teeth in a patient in need thereof, said method comprising the steps of:
b) placing the implant fixture within the jawbone of the patient at a desired depth such that the fully threaded surface is oriented within the bone and the polished or smooth surface is oriented to be at least partially exposed outside the bone;
d) affixing a prosthetic tooth or plurality of teeth to the abutment.
As part of a method (Fig. 6) of using an alternative implant embodiment (1600), Daftary’1 discloses:
b) placing the implant fixture (1600) within the jawbone of the patient at a desired depth such that the fully threaded surface is oriented within the bone (2710) and the polished or smooth surface (1636) is oriented to be at least partially exposed outside the bone (2710) (refer to Paragraph [0142], annotated Fig. 16 below; first portion of the implant fixture 1600 is positioned in a patient's jaw bone 2710 and a second portion of the implant fixture 1600 is positioned in the patient's gingival tissue 2720);
d) affixing a prosthetic tooth (30) or plurality of teeth to the abutment (1610) (refer to Paragraph [0135]; the protrusion 1610 is coupled with the tooth analogue 30).
This method facilitates placement of the implant in the patient’s teeth for a dental restoration procedure (refer to Paragraph [0135]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the method of using an alternative implant embodiment (1600) with using the implant fixture (1004) of claim 1 to facilitate placement of the implant (1004) in the patient’s teeth for a dental restoration procedure (refer to Paragraph [0135]).
PNG
media_image4.png
750
801
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Although Daftary’1 teaches the abutment member (1003) is configured to couple with the implant (1004) (refer to Paragraph [0094], annotated Fig. 9 above), Daftary’1 does not explicitly teach c) affixing an abutment to the implant fixture (1600).
Draftary’2 discloses a method for implanting tooth analogues in the same field of endeavor (refer to col. 1, lines 65-67). The method includes the steps of affixing an abutment (4/6/8) to the implant fixture (12) (refer to col. 5, lines 20-22, 40-42). The engagement of the abutment (4/6/8) and implant fixture (12) enables permanent insertion of the tooth analogue after a healing period (refer to lines 16-19).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Draftary’1 with the step of affixing an abutment to the implant fixture (1600) as taught by Draftary’2 in order to enable permanent insertion of the tooth analogue after a healing period (refer to lines 16-19).
Regarding claim 14, Draftary’1 and Draftary’2 disclose the method of claim 13.
In an alternative embodiment of a dental implant system (1200), Daftary’1 teaches the system (1200) optionally comprising a healing cap (1263) for temporary placement over an implant fixture (1260) (refer to Paragraphs [0097], [0113], Figs. 12a-b; the healing cap 1263 is configured to couple with the head section 1265 of the implant; by definition, healing caps are configured to be removed prior to the installation of a permanent abutment and crown (https://www.implantcenternearme.com/glossary/healing-cap)). The addition of a healing cap to a dental implant system permits healing of the patient’s tissue after an implant procedure is performed. However, Draftary’1 is silent to the method further comprising the step of temporarily affixing a healing cap (1263) to the implant fixture (1004) prior to affixing the abutment (1003) to the implant fixture (1004).
Draftary’2 further discloses the step of temporarily affixing a healing cap (30) to the implant fixture (12) prior to affixing the abutment (4/6/8) to the implant fixture (12) (refer to col. 4, lines 19-23, col. 5, lines 20-22). This step allows the gingival tissues (37), surgically displaced during removal of the cover screw, to heal around the cap (30) in a shape which is dimensionally similar to the tooth previously removed or lost (refer to col. 4, lines 35-40).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Draftary’1 with the step of affixing an abutment to the implant fixture (1600) as taught by Draftary’2 in order to allow the gingival tissues (37) to heal around the cap (30) in a shape which is dimensionally similar to the tooth previously removed or lost (refer to col. 4, lines 35-40).
Regarding claim 15, Draftary’1 and Draftary’2 disclose the method of claim 13; Draftary’1 demonstrates that the periodontal tissue is placed over the exposed polished or smooth face of the implant fixture (refer to annotated Fig. 16 above).
Draftary’1 does not explicitly disclose the method further comprising the step of surgically placing or replacing periodontal tissue over the implant fixture (1004), without bone reconstruction.
Draftary’2 further discloses the method further comprising the step of surgically placing or replacing periodontal tissue over the implant fixture (12), without bone reconstruction to enable osteointegration prior to installing a healing cap (30) (refer to col. 4, lines 14-24).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Draftary’1 with the step of surgically placing or replacing periodontal tissue over the implant fixture (12), without bone reconstruction as taught by Draftary’2 in order to enable osteointegration prior to installing a healing cap (30) (refer to col. 4, lines 14-24).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daftary et al. (US 20170224446 A1), herein referred to as Daftary’1, in view of Daftary (US 5209659 A), herein referred to as Daftary’2 as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Bassi et al. (Full Arch Rehabilitation in Severe Maxillary Atrophy with Palatal Approach Implant Placement: A Case Report), herein referred to as Bassi
Regarding claim 16, Draftary’1 and Draftary’2 disclose the method of claim 13; neither reference discloses wherein the steps are carried out using a Palatal Approach technique.
Bassi discloses a full arch rehabilitation technique in the same field of endeavor (refer to Abstract), further teaching that performing implant based full arch procedures with this method influences clinical outcomes in patients with reduced bone on their maxilla (Page 116, col. 1, first paragraph, Page 120, Discussion), the same function of the device (1000) of Draftary’1 (refer to Paragraph [0087]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Draftary’1 with a Palatal Approach technique without bone reconstruction as taught by Bassi in order to influence clinical outcomes in patients with reduced bone on their maxilla (Page 116, col. 1, first paragraph, Page 120, Discussion).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Thomé et al. (US 20220133444 A1) discloses a partially threaded implant with a smooth surface (refer to Paragraph [0021], Fig. 6).
Weitzel et al. (US 20190008614 A1) discloses a series of implants with a fully threaded portion and a partially threaded portion (Paragraph [0301], Figs. 13-15)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adriena J Webb Lyttle whose telephone number is (571)270-7639. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10:00-7:00 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, 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.
/ADRIENA J WEBB LYTTLE/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/EDELMIRA BOSQUES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights