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
Claims 15, 17-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/25/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “minimum” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “minimum” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-9, 11-14, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (“Success Factors of Additive Manufactured Root Analogue Implants”) in view of Clare et al. (US 2024/0354454 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches:
An at least semi-automated method of modeling a patient-specific root analog dental implant, (Abstract) said method comprising:
(a) obtaining a digital 3D model that includes at least a digitally modeled root body representative of a physical root of a patient's scanned tooth root; (page 368, section 4.2: “Generally, the initial shape of RAI is determined by a CBCT scan. The oral cavity is scanned by the CBCT system, and the selected tooth is segmented from the surrounding environment using a threshold-based segmentation method.24 The marching cube algorithm is used to convert all segmented data sets into 3D surface models.24 In theory, the 3D surface model has the same shape as the natural tooth”)
(b) using … modeling software, automatically applying a …volume lattice function to the digitally modeled root body to impart a lattice throughout a volume of said root body to achieve a latticed digital root model; (FIG. 9 shows a lattice shape added at root surface (LT) of the root model.) and
(c) after finalization of the latticed digital root model, storing a finalized fully- latticed digital root model in computer readable memory as a resource for said additive manufacturing of a root analog dental implant of latticed character. (abstract: “
PNG
media_image1.png
144
472
media_image1.png
Greyscale
”
Although Liu does not explicitly teach storing the model in a memory as a resource for later manufacturing, it would have been well-known in the art that a data can be saved in memory for later use. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teaching of Liu with the well-known knowledge in the art to store the model for later manufacturing. The benefit would be to provide users a flexibility.)
However, Liu does not explicitly, but Clare teaches:
The lattice function can be stochastic volume lattice function ([0037], “Describe here is a method to design a stochastic lattice.”) implicit modeling software ([0038])
Liu teaches applying lattice function to a model. Clare teaches the lattice function can be stochastic volume lattice function.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teaching of Liu with the specific teachings of Clare to with reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Liu in view Clare teaches:
The method of claim 1wherein step (b) comprises applying stochastic lattice that mimics bone-like spatial partitioning lattice, or minimal surface lattice, to the digitally modeled root body.(Liu FIG. 9, “lattice shape added at root surface (LT),”)
Regarding claim 3, Liu in view Clare teaches:
The method of claim 1wherein step (b) comprises, after applying the volume lattice function, thickening a strut diameter of the lattice, effectively implementing a desired pore size thereof. (Liu FIG. 9, after add lattice shape, the modified RAIs adjusts the porous surface. Also, page 368, right bottom.)
Regarding claim 6, Liu in view Clare teaches:
The method of claim 1 wherein an average pore size of the lattice of the finalized digital root model, resides within a range of 100 to 600 microns.(Liu
PNG
media_image2.png
218
428
media_image2.png
Greyscale
)
Regarding claim 7, Liu in view Clare teaches:
The method of claim 6 wherein said average pore size resides, more specifically, within a range of 100 to 300 microns. (Liu page 369:
PNG
media_image2.png
218
428
media_image2.png
Greyscale
)
Regarding claim 8, Liu in view Clare teaches:
The method of claim 1 wherein a porosity of the finalized digital root model, ranges resides within a range of 40 to 80 percent. (Liu page 370, left: “
PNG
media_image3.png
150
432
media_image3.png
Greyscale
”
Liu teaches the porosity for RAI does not have a standard value. It would be a design choice to choose a range of 40-80%. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teaching of Liu in view of Clare with the design choice with reasonable expectation of success. )
Regarding claim 9, Liu in view Clare teaches:
The method of claim 1wherein step (b) comprises imparting varying lattice density among different volumetric regions of the digitally modeled root body.(Clare [0029], “FIG. 6: Six parameters of an FCC lattice were randomised by six different randomisation parameters” It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teaching of Liu with the specific teaching of Clare with reasonable expectation of success.)
Regarding claim 11, Liu in view Clare teaches:
The method of claim 1 wherein step (b) further comprises using the latticed digital root model to evaluate anticipated performance, and modifying the latticed character of the latticed digital root model to improve said anticipated performance.( Liu page 369:
“
PNG
media_image4.png
112
410
media_image4.png
Greyscale
”
FIG. 9)
Regarding claim 12, Liu in view Clare teaches:
The method of claim 11 comprising use of finite element analysis in evaluation of the anticipated performance of the latticed digital root model.( Liu page 368, left middle: “A study on CFR-PEEK (elastic modulus was about 17.4 GPa) dental implant finite element (FE) analysis noted that PEEK dental implants had higher stress concentration at the neck and adjacent bone areas than the Ti implant.133”)
Regarding claim 13, Liu in view Clare teaches:
The method of claim 1further comprising (d) producing said physical root analog dental implant of through additive manufacturing. (Liu page 360, top right: “In terms of the fabrication of RAI,AM is a more interesting approach. Dental models obtained through cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) or magnetic resonance imaging(MRI) can be printed layer-by-layer before extraction, without fixtures, tools, coolants, and other auxiliary tools, reducing the waste of materials and energy.3,8 Moreover, AM enable sone to create personalized implants and porous and gradient structures that are difficult to achieve by subtractive manufacturing.”)
Regarding claim 14, Liu in view Clare teaches:
The method of claim 1wherein latticization of the digitally modelled root body is at least partially automated, via execution, by one or more processors, of statement and instructions stored in non-transitory computer readable memory.( Liu FIG. 3 shows the working principle of the method. Although Liu does not explicitly teach storing the model in a memory as a resource for later manufacturing, it would have been well-known in the art that a data can be saved in memory for later use. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teaching of Liu with the well-known knowledge in the art to store the model for later manufacturing. The benefit would be to provide users a flexibility.)
Regarding claim 23, Liu in view of Clare teaches:
The method of claim 1wherein step (b) comprises imparting the lattice throughout a full volume of said root body, and the latticed digital root model is a fully-latticed digital root model of latticed character entirely throughout said latticed digital root model.( Liu FIG. 9)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
“subsequent to said thickening of the lattice, trimming protrusive extremities of the lattice that exceed former topological limits of the digitally modeled root analog implant prior to incorporation of the thickened lattice.” Recited in claim 4.
“imparting a greater lattice density in an interior region of the digitally modeled root body than at one or more exterior regions thereof outside said interior region.” Recited in claim 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YANNA WU whose telephone number is (571)270-0725. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:30 ET.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at 5712722330. 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.
/YANNA WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights