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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 7/7/26 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.97(c) because it lacks a timing statement as specified in 37 CFR 1.97(e). It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The information disclosure statement filed 7/7/26 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.97(c) because it lacks the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p). It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Withdrawal Of Indication Of Allowability
The previous indication of allowability of claims 7-15 has been withdrawn, in view of newly discovered prior art.
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.
In claims 2,8, and 10, “boring means” is being interpreted under 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 1,3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Solbrig WO 2010091839.
With regard to claim 1, Solbrig discloses a guide sleeve (see fig. 1) comprising: a guide body 1 formed so that one side is open, and having a hollow structure having a guide hole (the top hole), with which an outer peripheral surface of a drill head of a drill device is adapted to come into contact with, formed in the center thereof; and a pair of anti-separation parts (see below annotated figure) extending respectively from the left and right ends of the guide body along the circumference of the guide body and spaced apart from each other to have an oblique slit formed therebetween.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Guide hole)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Oblique slit)][AltContent: textbox (Anti-separation part)]
PNG
media_image1.png
247
331
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Anti-separation part)]
Figure 1 Of Solbrig
With further regard to claim 1, note that the pair of anti-separation parts are spaced apart by a distance greater than or equal to the diameter of a boring means of the drill device and less than or equal to the outer diameter of the drill head.
With regard to claim 3, note that the first anti-separation part is formed to have a decreasing circumferential length as it goes down along the axial direction of the guide hole, and the second anti-separation part is formed to have a decreasing circumferential length as it goes up along the axial direction of the guide hole. See figure 1.
With regard to claim 4, note that the opposing surfaces of the pair of anti-separation parts facing each other are formed as flat surfaces 2. See fig. 1.
With regard to claim 5, note that the opposing surfaces of the pair of anti-separation parts facing each other are formed as curved surfaces having a predetermined curvature. See figure 3A as annotated below:
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Curved surfaces)]
PNG
media_image2.png
352
532
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 6, note that the guide body 1 and the pair of anti-separation parts are formed to have the same curvature. See fig. 1.
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.
Claims 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solbrig WO 2010091839 in view of Wu et al 20200121427.
With regard to claim 8, Solbrig discloses an implant surgery guide device comprising a guide part 41 having an oblique slit 4 through which a boring means of the drill device may obliquely pass, formed therein (regarding claim 7, Solbrig also discloses the guide sleeve of claim 1). See fig. 1 above.
Solbrig does not disclose the implant surgery guide device comprising:
a support configured to cover a buccal surface, a lingual surface, and an occlusal surface of a tooth; a surgical part corresponding to an implant surgical position, having a through hole with which the outer peripheral surface of a drill head of a drill device comes into contact, and having an opening formed in one side thereof.
Wu et al discloses a similar device comprising a support 11 (see fig. 3) configured to cover a buccal surface, a lingual surface, and an occlusal surface of a tooth; a surgical part 2 corresponding to an implant surgical position, having a through hole with which the outer peripheral surface of a drill head of a drill device comes into contact, and having an opening 3 formed in one side thereof; the opening 3 accommodating a guide part 41 formed therein.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Guide part/sleeve)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Through hole)]
PNG
media_image3.png
492
487
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to include the support 11 of Wu et al, which is configured to cover a buccal surface, a lingual surface, and an occlusal surface of a tooth; including a surgical part 2 corresponding to an implant surgical position, having a through hole with which the outer peripheral surface of a drill head of a drill device comes into contact, and having an opening 3 formed in one side thereof; the opening 3 accommodating a guide part 41 formed therein, with the guide part 41 having an oblique slit 4 through which a boring means of the drill device may obliquely pass, of Solbrig, if one wished to provide a support that covers the buccal, lingual and occlusal surfaces of a patient, while using the guide part of Solbrig.
With regard to claim 9, note that the guide part/sleeve of Solbrig comprises first and second anti-separation parts extending respectively from left and right ends of the opening along the periphery of the opening and spaced apart from each other to have the oblique slit formed therebetween. See annotated figure 1 of Solbrig above.
With regard to claim 10, note that the first and second anti-separation parts of Solbrig are spaced apart by a distance greater than or equal to the diameter of the boring means of the drill device and less than or equal to the outer diameter of the drill head when used therewith. See above rejection over Solbrig.
With regard to claim 11, note that the first anti-separation part is formed to have a decreasing circumferential length as it goes down along the axial direction of the through hole, and the second anti-separation part is formed to have a decreasing circumferential length as it goes up along the axial direction of the through hole. See above rejection over Solbrig.
With regard to claim 12, note that Solbrig discloses opposing surfaces of the first and second anti-separation parts facing each other are formed as flat surfaces. See above rejection over Solbrig.
With regard to claim 13, note that Solbrig discloses opposing surfaces of the first and second anti-separation parts facing each other are formed as curved surfaces having a predetermined curvature. See above rejection over Solbrig.
With regard to claim 14, note that Solbrig as modified by Wu et al discloses the surgical part and the first and second anti-separation parts are formed to have the same curvature. See fig. 3 of Wu et al.
With regard to claim 15, note that in the guide device of Solbrig/Wu et al, the surgical part 2 and the guide part 4 are formed integrally (the term “integral” includes in its breadth “attached”, which Solbrig/Wu et al clearly shows. See fig. 3 of Wu et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS D LUCCHESI whose telephone number is (571)272-4977. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 800-430.
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.
/NICHOLAS D LUCCHESI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights