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 .
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 “facial surface of the interface,” the “interproximal surface of the interface,” and the “palatal surface of the interface” of Claim 9 must be shown or the features canceled from the claim. Additionally, the limitation of Claim 10 requiring the “distance from the facial surface to the interproximal surface is 3.0mm,” and the limitation of Claim 11 requiring the “distance from the interproximal surface to the palatal surface is 1.5mm” are not shown in the drawings. 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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the first direction of the first threads and the second direction of the second threads in opposite directions as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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.
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 1-12 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.
Regarding Claims 1, 9, and 12, the term “scalloped” is used to describe the implant-abutment interface. It is unclear from the specification and the drawings what is meant by “scalloped.” It is unclear what could and could not be considered “scalloped” from the specification and the figures. For the purpose of examination, this limitation will be interpreted broadly.
Regarding Claim 2 it is unclear what is meant by the “second direction is opposite to the first direction.” As seen in the drawings, the slope of the threads differ, but it is unclear from the drawings or the specification what is meant by “opposite.”
Regarding Claim 6, it is unclear what is meant by “a decreased thread pitch of between 0.5 and 0.7mm from a bottom of the apical portion to a top of the coronal portion.” The specification describes a “decreased thread pitch of 0.5 - 0.7 mm throughout the length of the dental implant,” ([0028]) but is silent as to the requirement for the decreased thread pitch to occur from a bottom of the apical portion to a top of the coronal portion. It is unclear if this requirement is for the decreased thread pitch to progress in the range and along the direction claimed, or just have a thread pitch in that range.
Regarding Claims 9-11, the specification and drawings do not describe the “facial surface,” the “interproximal surface,” and the “palatal surface” in a way to clearly lend understanding to where these surfaces occur in the implant (see drawing objection above). As it is unclear what these surfaces are, it is also unclear how the distances between the surfaces can be interpreted.
All claims not specifically addressed above are rejected based on their dependency on Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ABBOUD (US 2013/0065198 A1, hereinafter “Abboud”).
Regarding Claim 1, Abboud discloses a dental implant (abstract), comprising a coronal portion (Figure 1, 16) forming an upwardly converging tapered cylinder (as seen in Figure 2, the top end 16 is an upwardly converging tapered cylinder) , with first threads (40) in a first direction on an outer surface of the coronal portion, and a scalloped implant-abutment interface (as seen in Figure 2, edge 22 is scalloped with respect to oval opening 20) at an upper end of the coronal portion. Abboud further discloses an apical portion (12) forming a downwardly converging tapered cylinder (as seen in Figure 2), with second threads (30) in a second direction on an outer surface of the apical portion.
Regarding Claim 2, Abboud discloses the dental implant of claim 1, and further discloses that the second direction is opposite to the first direction (as much as the present invention threads are “opposite” one another, so are the threads of Abboud as they diverge in differing directions).
Regarding Claim 3, Abboud discloses the dental implant of claim 1, and further discloses that the first threads are shallower than the second threads (as seen in Figure 1).
Claims 1 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wohrle et al. (US 2009/0239195 A1, hereinafter “Wohrle”).
Regarding Claim 1, Wohrle discloses a dental implant (abstract), comprising a coronal portion (Figure 1A, 36) forming an upwardly converging tapered cylinder (as seen in Figure 1B) , with first threads (46) in a first direction on an outer surface of the coronal portion, and a scalloped implant-abutment interface (as seen in Figures 1A-1C) at an upper end of the coronal portion. Whorle further discloses an apical portion (34) forming a downwardly converging tapered cylinder (as seen in Figure 1A), with second threads (38) in a second direction on an outer surface of the apical portion.
Regarding Claim 9, Whorle disclose the dental implant of claim 1, and further discloses that the scalloped implant-abutment interface is asymmetric and not equidistant from a facial surface of the interface to an interproximal surface of the interface to a palatal surface of the interface (as seen in Figures 1A-1C). Please note: as structure or parameters are not claimed or provided in the specification or figures for the surfaces, any portion or surface can be considered the “facial surface” “interproximal surface” and “palatal surface” thus meeting the claim limitations.
Regarding Claim 10, Whorle discloses the dental implant of claim 9, and further discloses that a distance from the facial surface to the interproximal surface is 3.0 mm (as seen in Figure 1C and described in [0040] the size of the implant is greater than 2mm and therefore a distance meeting this limitation can be determined).
Regarding Claim 11, Whorle discloses the dental implant of claim 9, and further discloses that a distance from the interproximal surface to the palatal surface is 1.5 mm (as seen in Figure 1C and described in [0040] the size of the implant is greater than 2mm and therefore a distance meeting this limitation can be determined).
Regarding Claim 12, Wohrle discloses the dental implant of claim 1, and further discloses that the scalloped implant-abutment interface follows a natural scallop of a bone crest of an extraction socket in a mouth of a patient ([0007]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abboud in view of Chu et al. (US 10,617,492 B2, hereinafter “Chu”).
Regarding Claims 4-6, Abboud discloses the implant of Claim 1 as described above, but does not disclose specific ranges for the depth of the threads. In the same art of dental implants, Chu teaches a dental implant with a coronal portion (Figure 1a, 111a) with a first thread and an apical portion (111b) with a second thread that have differing thread depths and pitches (Column 8, lines 22-49 discloses differing thread depth with the first thread as a micro thread and the second thread as a macro thread) that include ranges from 2.0 to 2.6 (Column 4, lines 5-8 discloses that the thread depth of a macro thread can be 2mm) for the second thread, 0.3 to 0.5mm for the first thread (Column 8, lines 22-49), and a decreased thread pitch of between 0.5 and 0.7 mm from a bottom of the apical portion to a top of the coronal portion (Column 8, lines 22-49, where a thread pitch for the entire implant can be between 0.5 and 0.7mm). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize the thread depths as taught by Chu with the device of Abboud in order to supply an implant capable of the intended purchase for bone based on the needs of the specific patient.
Regarding Claims 7 and 8, Abboud discloses the implant of Claim 1 as described above, but does not disclose that the coronal portion has a height consisting of 30% to 50% of the predetermined height and the apical portion has a height consisting of 50% to 70% of the predetermined height. Chu teaches specific ranges for percentage of the implant height that is the coronal portion (111a) and the percentage that is the apical portion (111b). Chu teaches a dental implant with a coronal portion with a height of 10% to 50% of the overall height of the implant (Column 9, lines 20-33, where the height is defined as a length as seen in Figure 1B) and an apical portion with a height of 50% to 90% of the overall height of the implant (Column 9, lines 34-46, where the height is defined as a length as seen in Figure 1B). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the device of Abboud with the ranges for the heights of the coronal and apical portions as taught by Chu in order to supply an implant capable of the intended purchase for bone based on the needs of the specific patient.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE L NELSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5368. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 7:30-4:30 PT.
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.
/CHRISTINE L NELSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/EDWARD MORAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772