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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 15, 18, and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/26/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I directed to claims 1-19 and Species A directed to claims 1-14, 16, 17, and 19 in the reply filed on 05/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
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:
Reference numbers 201a, 201b, 201c, 208, 405, 412, 415, 416, 422, 905, 907, 915, 918, 925, and 927
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
reference characters "405" and "408" have both been used to designate the same part in figure 16.
reference characters "415" and "416" have both been used to designate the same part in figures 1 and 16.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-19 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation in lines 11 and 13 “the engagement portion” which should read either “ an engagement portion” or “the engagement surface”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation in lines 2-3 of “the drill guidance tube” which should read either “the guidance tube”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “security feature” and “attachment feature” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-5, 10-14, 16, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hale et al. (US 20220183732 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hale discloses a dental implant guidance apparatus (title), comprising:
a fixation plate including:
a contoured portion (Fig. 7a element 715 having a round contour) attached to a planar portion (Figs. 7a/b element 702 being planar),
an alignment sleeve disposed on the contoured portion, the alignment sleeve including an opening extending at least partially into the contoured portion of the fixation plate (Fig. 7a/b element 715 having an opening into which 710c would enter),
a security feature disposed on the contoured portion (Fig. 7a showing a security feature of threading in the alignment sleeve, Applicant discloses the security feature as comprising a threads or a magnet in paragraph [0065] Hale discloses the security feature of the threading in the alignment for the function claimed as being threading as shown in fig. 7a. Because both applicant’s disclosure and Hale disclose the security feature as a threads for performing the same function, the structures are considered to be identical structures under the 112f analysis. Should applicant disagree the structures are identical, examiner maintains the threads of Hale would be functionally equivalent structure), and
an aperture disposed on the planar portion (fig. 7a/b elements 705); and
a drill guidance apparatus (Fig. 7a element 701) including:
an engagement surface (Fig. 7a/b bottom surface of 701b) attached to an extension arm (Fig. 7a/b element 701a), the engagement surface configured to abut the contoured portion of the fixation plate (Fig. 7a/b bottom of 701b would abut the top of the contoured plate 715 upper surface),
an alignment pin disposed on the engagement portion and configured to be inserted into the alignment sleeve, the alignment pin protruding from the engagement surface (Fig. 7a/b element 701c),
an attachment feature disposed on the engagement portion, the attachment feature configured to couple with the security feature (fig 7a element 701c having an attachment feature of threading on the external surface of the alignment pin on the engagement portion to couple with the complementary threading inside 715, Applicant discloses the attachment feature as comprising screw threads or a magnet in paragraph [0068]. Hale discloses the threading for the function claimed as being screw threading if figure 7a. Because both applicant’s disclosure and Hale disclose the attachment feature as screw threading for performing the same function, the structures are considered to be identical structures under the 112f analysis. Should applicant disagree the structures are identical, examiner maintains the screw threading of Hale would be functionally equivalent structure),
and
a guidance tube disposed on the extension arm, the guidance tube configured to receive an object therein through a length of the guidance tub (fig. 8b showing the tube interior of 701a).
Regarding claim 2, Hale further discloses wherein the alignment sleeve includes a cross-sectional shape and the alignment pin includes a cross-sectional shape complementary to the cross- sectional shape of the alignment sleeve (Fig. 7a/b the pin of 701c matched the sleeve inside 715).
Regarding claim 3, Hale further discloses wherein the cross-sectional shape of the alignment sleeve and the cross-sectional shape of the alignment pin is a shape not having rotational symmetry (A cross section taken parallel to a vertical axis of Fig. 7a/b elements 710c and the sleeve inside 715 would result in their being no rotational symmetry, there is no recitation which direction the cross-sectional shape is taken along).
Regarding claim 4, Hale further discloses wherein an offset of the alignment sleeve from the security feature is a same offset as an offset of the alignment pin from the attachment feature (Fig. 7a/b the inside surface of the threads of 715 that are offset by the depth of the thread match the depth of the thread and thus offset of 701c).
Regarding claim 5, Hale further discloses wherein the security feature is a threaded opening and the attachment feature is a screw configured to thread into the threaded opening (Fig. 7a/b element 701c and opening in the aperture is formed as a matching screw and thread).
Regarding claim 10, Hale further discloses wherein the alignment sleeve is disposed along a central portion of the contoured portion (Fig. 7a/b sleeve of 715 is in the center of the fixation plate).
Regarding claim 11, Hale further discloses wherein the alignment pin is disposed along a central portion of the engagement surface (Fig. 7b showing element 701c in along the central portion of the bottom of 701b).
Regarding claim 12, Hale further discloses wherein the alignment sleeve is disposed along an edge of the contoured portion (Fig. 7a/b the opening in 715 is also disposed along an edge of 715).
Regarding claim 13, Hale further discloses wherein the alignment pin is disposed along an edge of the engagement surface (Fig. 7a/b element 710c is also disposed along an edge of 701b)
Regarding claim 14, Hale further discloses wherein the drill guidance apparatus further includes an extension plate attached to the engagement surface (Fig. 7a/b element 701b), the extension plate including an aperture and the drill guidance tube being aligned with the aperture of the extension plate (Fig. 7b element 701b having a central aperture aligned with that of 701a).
Regarding claim 16, Hale further discloses wherein the extension arm is detachable from the engagement surface (paragraph [0114] all disclosing the guide is made of polymers and the extension arm could thus be detached by cutting).
Regarding claim 17, Hale further discloses wherein the extension arm is detached from the engagement surface upon completion of formation of a first opening(paragraph [0114] all disclosing the guide is made of polymers and the extension arm could thus be detached by cutting it away).
Regarding claim 19, Hale further discloses wherein the guidance tube is configured to receive a drill bit inserted therein prior to the drill guidance apparatus coupling to the fixation plate (Fig. 7a/b element 701a configured to receive a drill bit even prior to be coupled to the fixation plate).
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-14, 16, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huebner et al. (US 2005/0085818 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Huebner discloses a dental implant guidance apparatus (Fig. 12 element 210 capable of functioning for a dental implant), comprising:
a fixation plate (Fig. 5 element 80) including:
a contoured portion (Fig. 6/7 elements to the left of 84) attached to a planar portion (Fig. 6/7 elements to the right of 84),
an alignment sleeve disposed on the contoured portion, the alignment sleeve including an opening extending at least partially into the contoured portion of the fixation plate (Fig. 5 element 122),
a security feature disposed on the contoured portion ( Applicant discloses the security feature as comprising a threads or a magnet in paragraph [0065]. Huebner discloses the security feature of the threading in the alignment sleeve for the function claimed as being threading in paragraph [0082] lines 1-3. Because both applicant’s disclosure and Huebner disclose the security feature as a threads for performing the same function, the structures are considered to be identical structures under the 112f analysis. Should applicant disagree the structures are identical, examiner maintains the threads of Huebner would be functionally equivalent structure), and
an aperture disposed on the planar portion (fig. 5 element 96 or 98); and
a drill guidance apparatus (Fig. 12 elements 212/218) including:
an engagement surface (Fig. 14 bottom surface of 212) attached to an extension arm (Fig. 12 portion of 212 having 224) the engagement surface configured to abut the contoured portion of the fixation plate (Fig. 12 bottom of element 212 would abut the top of the contoured plate upper surface),
an alignment pin disposed on the engagement portion and configured to be inserted into the alignment sleeve, the alignment pin protruding from the engagement surface (Fig. 14 element 232),
an attachment feature disposed on the engagement portion, the attachment feature configured to couple with the security feature ( Applicant discloses the attachment feature as comprising screw threads or a magnet in paragraph [0068]. Huebner discloses the coupling member 214 for the function claimed as being threaded screw in paragraph [0091] lines 1-4. Because both applicant’s disclosure and Huebner disclose the attachment feature as screw threading for performing the same function, the structures are considered to be identical structures under the 112f analysis. Should applicant disagree the structures are identical, examiner maintains the screw threading of the coupling member of Huebner would be functionally equivalent structure),
and
a guidance tube disposed on the extension arm configured to receive an object therein through a length of the guidance tub (fig. 12 extension arm 220 extending from 218 to 224 and guide tube element 218).
Regarding claim 2, Huebner further discloses wherein the alignment sleeve includes a cross-sectional shape and the alignment pin includes a cross-sectional shape complementary to the cross- sectional shape of the alignment sleeve (Fig. 5 element 122 complements Fig. 14 element 232).
Regarding claim 3, Huebner further discloses wherein the cross-sectional shape of the alignment sleeve and the cross-sectional shape of the alignment pin is a shape not having rotational symmetry (A cross section taken between parallel and perpendicular to a vertical axis through Fig. 8 element 122 and Fig. 14 element 232 would result in their being no rotational symmetry, there is no recitation which direction the cross-sectional shape is taken along).
Regarding claim 4, Huebner further discloses wherein an offset of the alignment sleeve from the security feature is a same offset as an offset of the alignment pin from the attachment feature (Fig. 8 element 122 having the inside surface of the threads would be offset by the depth of the thread matching the depth of the thread and thus offset the threaded portion of 214).
Regarding claim 5, Huebner further discloses wherein the security feature is a threaded opening and the attachment feature is a screw configured to thread into the threaded opening (paragraph [0082] lines 1-5 disclosing the security feature and attachment feature are screw threads that threadably engage each other).
Regarding claim 7, Huebner further discloses wherein the fixation plate includes at least two of the alignment sleeve (Fig. 5 element 122 and 102) and the drill guidance apparatus includes at least two of the alignment pin (fig. 14 elements 234).
Regarding claim 8, Huebner further discloses wherein the cross-sectional shape of a first alignment sleeve is different than the cross-sectional shape of a second alignment sleeve (Fig. 5 element 122 being stepped and threaded and 102 not being threaded as per paragraph [0082]), and the cross-sectional shape of a first alignment pin is different than the cross-sectional shape of a second alignment pin (Fig. 14 elements 232 and 234 having different cross sections by one being a hollow cylinder and the other being solid), the cross-sectional shape of the first alignment sleeve being complementary to the cross-sectional shape of the first alignment pin (Fig. 5 element 122 complementing fig. 14 element 232), the cross-sectional shape of the second alignment sleeve being complementary to the cross-sectional shape of the second alignment pin (Fig. 5 element 124 complementing Fig. 14 element 234).
Regarding claim 9, Huebner further discloses wherein a first alignment sleeve and a second alignment sleeve are disposed on the contoured portion according to a predetermined arrangement (Fig. 5 elements 122 and 124), and a first alignment pin and a second alignment pin are disposed on the engagement surface according to a predetermined arrangement complementary to the predetermined arrangement of the first alignment sleeve and the second alignment sleeve (Fig. 14 elements 232 and 234 complement Fig. 5 elements 122 and 124).
Regarding claim 10, Huebner further discloses wherein the alignment sleeve is disposed along a central portion of the contoured portion (Fig. 5 element 122 is in the center of a long axis of the fixation plate).
Regarding claim 11, Huebner further discloses wherein the alignment pin is disposed along a central portion of the engagement surface (Fig. 14 showing element 232 in along the central portion of the long axis of element 212).
Regarding claim 12, Huebner further discloses wherein the alignment sleeve is disposed along an edge of the contoured portion (Fig. 5 the opening in 122 is also disposed along a side edge of 88 or 87).
Regarding claim 13, Huebner further discloses wherein the alignment pin is disposed along an edge of the engagement surface (Fig. 14 element 232 is also disposed along a side edge of 212)
Regarding claim 14, Huebner further discloses wherein the drill guidance apparatus further includes an extension plate attached to the engagement surface (Fig. 12 element of 212 extending past 220 towards 80), the extension plate including an aperture and the drill guidance tube being aligned with the aperture of the extension plate (Fig. 12 element 224 having a central aperture aligned with that of 218).
Regarding claim 16, Huebner further discloses wherein the extension arm is detachable from the engagement surface (paragraph [0091] lines 8-10 disclosing 218 is removable).
Regarding claim 17, Huebner further discloses wherein the extension arm is detached from the engagement surface upon completion of formation of a first opening(paragraph [0091] lines 8-10 disclosing 218 is removable).
Regarding claim 19, Huebner further discloses wherein the guidance tube is configured to receive a drill bit inserted therein prior to the drill guidance apparatus coupling to the fixation plate (Fig. 12 element 222 is configured to receive a drill bit even prior to be coupled to the fixation plate).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hale et al. (US 20220183732 A1) view of Jin et al. (US 2022/0330955 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Hale discloses structure substantially identical to the instant application as discussed above but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the security feature is a first magnet disposed in an opening in the contoured portion and the attachment feature is a complementary second magnet configured to attract the first magnet.
However Jin discloses a guide plate (Figs. 4/5 element 1) with a drill guidance apparatus (Fig. 4/5 element 5) where the guide plate has an alignment sleeve (Fig. 4/5 element 5) and a security feature that is a magnet (fig. 4/5 element 8/9, paragraph [0041] lines 3-13 disclosing the guide plate has a securing feature of a magnet A8) and the drill guidance apparatus includes an attachment feature of a complementary second magnet configured to attract to the first magnet (Fig. 4/5 element A9, paragraph [0041] lines 3-13 disclosing a second magnet in the drill guide A9).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the security feature and the attachment feature to be first and second complementary magnets as taught by Jin into the security feature and attachment feature as taught by Hale for the purpose of providing for a drill guide apparatus that would retain the plate and drill guide together in an enhance firmness that would also provide for convenience of combining the two parts as taught by Jin (paragraph [0041] lines 16-18).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huebner et al. (US 2005/0085818 A1) in view of Jin et al. (US 2022/0330955 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Huebner discloses structure substantially identical to the instant application as discussed above but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the security feature is a first magnet disposed in an opening in the contoured portion and the attachment feature is a complementary second magnet configured to attract the first magnet.
However Jin discloses a guide plate (Figs. 4/5 element 1) with a drill guidance apparatus (Fig. 4/5 element 5) where the guide plate has an alignment sleeve (Fig. 4/5 element 5) and a security feature that is a magnet (fig. 4/5 element 8/9, paragraph [0041] lines 3-13 disclosing the guide plate has a securing feature of a magnet A8) and the drill guidance apparatus includes an attachment feature of a complementary second magnet configured to attract to the first magnet (Fig. 4/5 element A9, paragraph [0041] lines 3-13 disclosing a second magnet in the drill guide A9).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the security feature and the attachment feature to be first and second complementary magnets as taught by Jin into the security feature and attachment feature as taught by Huebner for the purpose of providing for a drill guide apparatus that would retain the plate and drill guide together in an enhance firmness that would also provide for convenience of combining the two parts as taught by Jin (paragraph [0041] lines 16-18).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW P SAUNDERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3250. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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.
/M.P.S/ Examiner, Art Unit 3772 07/28/2026
/EDELMIRA BOSQUES/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights