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 “core” in claim 1 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 1 line 2, add a colon after “comprising”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-14 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.
In claims 1, 6-10, 13, the term “each time” is unclear. It is confusing as to what is exactly intended to be the scope of this term. For examining purposes, it was understood as referring to “each” recess.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the intermediate portion, if present”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the intermediate portion and therefore it is unclear. It was assumed that said limitation is omitted. It is also unclear what the term “if present” requires in the claim, such that it makes it unknown whether the intermediate portion being positively claimed. Clarification is required.
Claim 1 also recites the limitation “a base defined as a region of the recess surface that is planar and forming a flat base of the recess”. It is unclear what the recess surface is and whether it is the same structure as the base or something different. For examining purposes, it was understood that the recess surface is the base and it is referring to a flat/planar face of the recess. Clarification is required.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the surface of each of the plurality of recesses is planar and extends in the plane of the base”. In claim 1, it is recited that the “base defined as a region of the recess surface” and therefore it appears that the surface of the recess is the base. Therefore, it is unclear what is exactly being recited with regards to the limitations of claim 2 and how the surface would be in the plane of the base if it is the base. Claim 2 also recites “the surface”, which is unclear whether this is referring to the recess surface or another surface. It was understood that the recess surface and the base are the same structure. Clarification is required. Also, please note that depending on the interpretation of said limitation, the limitations may be not further limiting if they have already been claimed with respect to the same structure in claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the recesses extend axially on each side of the thread crest by up to 50% of a thread pitch”. It is unclear whether this is referring to the recess thickness being up to 50% of the thread pitch height or if this is referring to the recess width or depth relative to the thread pitch. For examining purposes, it was understood that the recess thickness is up to 50% of the height of the thread pitch.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “extend circumferentially over a circular sector having an angle of 30 to 150, measured in a transverse plane to the longitudinal axis, the transverse plane forming an angle corresponding to the helix angle with the longitudinal axis”. It is unclear how the recesses extend circumferentially as claimed and what the circular sector is. For examining purposes, it was understood that sides of the recess form an angle along the circumference of the angle that ranges between 30 and 150 degrees.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the circular sector angles” and depends from claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for said limitation. Additionally, it is unclear what the circular sector structurally is. Furthermore, the limitation “an angle subtended by two consecutive recesses overlap each time by 10% to 30% of the circular sector angles” is unclear such that how exactly do they overlap and how do they relate to the circular sector angles. For examining purposes, it was understood that two adjacent recesses have sides that overlap to form an angle.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the angle subtended by the radii crossing corresponding points of two consecutive recesses is each time constant over the length of the implant and chosen in a range from 60 to 120, measured in a plane perpendicular to the central longitudinal axis”. It is unclear what the angle is and which radii are being referred to. It is also unclear what is meant by “consecutive” in and how exactly it relates to the length of the implant, such that are the recesses “stacked” or on top of each other or are they next to each other. Clarification is required. For examining purposes, it was understood that the recesses are positioned offset relative to each other and two recesses, one above the other relative to implant length, each have sides that form an angle between 60 and 120 degrees.
Claims 3-5, 11-15 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of dependency.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-8, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beaty (WO1997003621 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Beaty teaches a dental implant (10) for implantation in bone tissue, comprising
an implant body (12) having an apical portion (21), a coronal portion (see annotated Figure below);
a central longitudinal axis (A-A) extending from the apical portion to the coronal portion (see Figure 1);
a threaded portion extending along the central longitudinal axis (see 12 in Figure 1), the threaded portion comprising a core (23) having a core surface from which at least one thread extends radially outwards (see Figure 1), the at least one thread having a thread crest, a thread root arranged at a thread depth from the thread crest, and thread flanks extending between the thread crest and the thread root (see annotated Figure below);
the thread extending in a helical manner over the apical portion, and at least a portion of the coronal portion (see Figure 1);
the thread comprising a plurality of recesses (22, 24, 26, 28) interrupting the thread (see Figures),
wherein recesses of the plurality of recesses have each time a base defined as a region of the recess surface that is planar and forming a flat base of the recess (see Figures 1 and 3 and annotated Figure below), the flat base extending in a plane parallel to the central longitudinal axis or to a plane parallel to a plane tangent to the core surface at a point corresponding to the intersection of the core surface with a radius of the core crossing a radially inner most point of the recess (see Figures 1, 3-4; the recesses have planar and flat surfaces that are lie in a plane parallel to the central axis).
PNG
media_image1.png
752
716
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
220
408
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
266
1002
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Beaty teaches the dental implant according to claim 1 (see rejection above), wherein the surface of each of the plurality of recesses is planar and extends in the plane of the base (see Figure 1; the recesses are planar surfaces and extend down to a base of the recesses).
Regarding claim 7, Beaty teaches the dental implant according to claim 1 (see rejection above), wherein the recesses extend each time circumferentially over a circular sector having an angle of 30° to 130°, measured in a transverse plane to the longitudinal axis, the transverse plane forming an angle corresponding to the helix angle with the longitudinal central axis (see Figure 4; the side of each recess of the recesses create a 90° with the circumference of the implant).
Regarding claim 8, Beaty teaches the dental implant according to claim 1 (see rejection above), wherein two consecutive recesses of the plurality of recesses are each time free of an intersection zone (see Figures; the recesses do not intersect).
Regarding claim 15, Beaty teaches the dental implant according to claim 1 (see rejection above), wherein the thread is a multiple lead thread (see page 5 paragraph 10).
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) 3-6, 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaty (WO1997003621A1), in view of Trisi (WO2022/101760A1).
Regarding claims 3 and 5, Beaty teaches the dental implant according to claim 1 (see rejection above), but does not teach the base of each of the plurality of recesses is at a radial distance from the longitudinal axis that is equal or greater than the radius of the core at the axial location of the radially inner most point and the radial distance being substantially equal to the radius of the core.
Trisi teaches a dental implant comprising a core (1) from which helical threads (4) extend (see Figures and abstract) and a series of recesses (5, 6) each realized at a portion of a respective turn (40) of a thread (abstract and see Figures). Trisi teaches the recesses each extend at a radial distance greater than a radial distance of the core from the center innermost point of the implant (see Figures 2A-2B, 6A-6B, 8). Trisi teaches the recesses can have varying depth along the body and that the recesses facilitate the penetration of the implant into the bone and not creating an insurgence of any resistance force or friction (page 9 lines 22 –34 and page 10 lines 1-22).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the recesses to be at a greater or substantially equal distance from the innermost point as compared to the core, as taught by Trisi, because it would allow controlling the cutting and penetration friction and/or resistance forces of the implant as suitable for the intended application.
Regarding claim 4, Beaty in view of Trisi teaches the dental implant according to claim 3 (see rejection above). Trisi teaches the radial distance is greater than the radius of the core (see Figures 2A-2B, 6A-6B, 8), but is silent to explicitly wherein the difference between the radial distance and the radius of the core can range from 30% to 5% of the thread depth.
Trisi further teaches that the recesses can have varying depth along the body and that the recesses facilitate the penetration of the implant into the bone and not creating an insurgence of any resistance force or friction (page 9 lines 22 –34 and page 10 lines 1-22). Trisi also teaches that the depth of the threads is variable and that the objective is to enable the turns of the threading to make the grooves in the bone and therefore the implant simultaneously creates a piercing, a threading and a screwing to significantly reduce installation time in addition to enhanced bonding (page 11 lines 11-34 and page 12 lines 1-16). The instant disclosure does not establish any criticality for the claimed range.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the radial depth of the implant to be between the claimed range of the thread depth, because Trisi shows its recesses to be cutouts within the thread and therefore their depth is a portion of the thread depth and variation of said depths would achieve desirable outcomes depending on the intended applications.
Regarding claim 6, Beaty teaches the dental implant according to claim 1 (see rejection above, but is silent to the recesses extend axially on each side of the thread crest by up to 50% of a thread pitch.
Trisi teaches a dental implant comprising a core (1) from which helical threads (4) extend (see Figures and abstract) and a series of recesses (5, 6) each realized at a portion of a respective turn (40) of a thread (abstract and see Figures). Trisi teaches the recesses each extend at a radial distance greater than a radial distance of the core from the center innermost point of the implant (see Figures 2A-2B, 6A-6B, 8). Trisi teaches the recesses can have varying depth along the body and that the recesses facilitate the penetration of the implant into the bone and not creating an insurgence of any resistance force or friction (page 9 lines 22 –34 and page 10 lines 1-22). Trisi further teaches the thread pitch may vary -along the implant (page 11 lines 7-10). The Figures of Trisi also appear to show the thread thickness being smaller than the thickness/height of the thread pitch.
The instant disclosure does not establish any criticality for the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the recesses to extend at a reduced thickness as compared with the thread pitch, because they are part of the thread pitch, which appear to be thinner than the thread pitch. Additionally, both the thread pitch depth and the thread depth are variable and therefore it would be obvious that they can be designed/dimensioned accordingly as to achieve an intended outcome.
Regarding claims 11-12, Beaty teaches the dental implant according to claim 1 (see rejection above). Trisi teaches wherein the plurality of recesses are arranged along a helical path running in the same direction as the thread or in the opposite direction as the thread (see Figures; the recesses are arranged along a helical path with the thread and therefore depending on where one is starting from, the recesses run in the same direction as the thread if starting at the top of the implant, and they run in the opposite direction if starting at the bottom of the helical path).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the recesses to extend along a helical path as the threads, as taught by Trisi, because it would allow controlling the cutting and penetration friction and/or resistance forces of the implant as suitable for the intended application along the entire length of the implant.
Regarding claim 13, Beaty teaches the dental implant according to claim 1 (see rejection above). Trisi teaches wherein the plurality of recesses are arranged in a plurality of groups, wherein the recesses of each group are arranged each time along a straight line associated to each group and extending from apical to coronal (see annotated Figure below; the recesses are arranged in series extending as a group along an imaginary line that extends from the apical to the coronal direction).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the recesses to extend along a helical path as the threads, as taught by Trisi, because it would allow controlling the cutting and penetration friction and/or resistance forces of the implant as suitable for the intended application along the entire length of the implant.
PNG
media_image4.png
700
560
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Beaty in view of Trisi teaches the dental implant according to claim 13 (see rejection above). Trisi teaches wherein the recesses of each group are present on the straight line associated to the group every two thread turns of the thread (see Figure 6A; each recess lies on a thread crest and therefore it takes two thread turns since a recess is surrounded by the thread it’s on from one side and the adjacent thread from the other side since it is a helical thread each thread continuously transitions into the next thread).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the recesses to extend along a helical path as the threads, as taught by Trisi, because it would allow controlling the cutting and penetration friction and/or resistance forces of the implant as suitable for the intended application along the entire length of the implant.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaty (WO1997003621A1), in view of Grafelman (EP1563802A2).
Regarding claim 9, Beaty teaches the dental implant according to claim 1 (see rejection above), but does not teach wherein the circular sector angles subtended by two consecutive recesses overlap each time by 10% to 30% of the circular sector angles.
Grafelman teaches a dental implant comprising helical threads and recesses/notches (9) thereon (see Figures). Grafelman teaches two consecutive notches are arranged at an angle of 5 to 90degrees offset from one another such that this would ensure that the thread has a self-tapping property along its entire length and would allow varying insertion depth (see at least [0009], [0028-0029]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the recesses to extend along the length of the implant such that consecutive recesses are offset relative to one another, as taught by Grafelman, because it would provide the implant with self-tapping properties along its entire length. Please note that the instant disclosure does not establish criticality for the claimed range and therefore the oblique offset of Grafelman’s notches may be designed to be offset within the claimed range as to achieve an intended outcome/performance.
Regarding claim 10, Beaty teaches the dental implant according to claim 1 (see rejection above), but does not teach wherein the plurality of recesses are circumferentially offset with respect to each other and wherein an angle subtended by the radii crossing corresponding points of two consecutive recesses is each time constant over the length of the implant, and chosen in a range from 60° to 120°, measured in a plane perpendicular to the central longitudinal axis.
Grafelman teaches a dental implant comprising helical threads and recesses/notches (9) thereon (see Figures). Grafelman teaches two consecutive notches are arranged at an angle of 5 to 90degrees offset from one another such that this would ensure that the thread has a self-tapping property along its entire length and would allow varying insertion depth (see at least [0009], [0028-0029]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the recesses to extend along the length of the implant such that consecutive recesses are offset relative to one another, as taught by Grafelman, because it would provide the implant with self-tapping properties along its entire length. Please note that the instant disclosure does not establish criticality for the claimed range and therefore the oblique offset of Grafelman’s notches may be designed to be offset within the claimed range as to achieve an intended outcome/performance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 attached to this office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINA FARAJ whose telephone number is (571)272-4580. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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.
/LINA FARAJ/ Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/HEIDI M EIDE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
6/10/2026
Prosecution Insights