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
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-10, drawn to a method for full mouth reconstruction using one or more one-piece zirconia dental implants, classified in A61C13/0006.
II. Claims 11-20, drawn to a system of one or more zirconia dental implants, classified in A61C13/225
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the process could be practiced by hand and the apparatus could be used to practice a full dental implant immediate load prosthesis.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries); and/or the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention; and/or the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Jason Cameron on 06/11/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-10. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
- reference character “300” has been used to designate both the dental implant in figures 3a-c and a crown in figure 3d
- reference character “40” has been used to designate multiple different steps in figure 4
- reference character “41” has been used to designate multiple different steps in figure 4
- reference character “42” has been used to designate multiple different steps in figure 4
The drawings are objected to because the label Fig. 4 has been used twice, once on page 7/8 of drawings and again on page 8/8 of drawings, the figure on page 8/8 should be label Fig. 5 and the specification updated to match.
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 numerals 40, 41, and 42 in fig. 4.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
The abstract contains the legal phrase(s): comprises. Appropriate correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the limitation of “adapting one or more medical professionals for administering anesthesia to the one or more patients”, which should be written more clearly as simply “administering anesthesia to the patient”.
Further regarding claim 1 the phrasing “one or more patients” is used which should be clarified to the singular “the patient” as the procedure of a full mouth reconstruction would only occur in one patient’s mouth at a time regardless of how many times the method would be separately repeated on different patients.
Claim 3 recites the limitation of “optimizing sculpting and preparing” which should just read “sculpting and preparing”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation of “in areas of inadequate bone width” which should be clarified as to what an inadequate bone width would be in relation too, such as the width of the implant, or could be deleted.
Claim 6 recites the limitation of “arranging each ceramic crown of the one or more ceramic crowns” which should read “arranging a ceramic crown of one or more ceramic crowns”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation of “implants are immediately placed after tooth extraction”, but should read “implants are placed after a tooth extraction” as immediately is unclear and there needs to be an establishment than an extraction would occur.
Claim 9 recites the limitation of “implant are placed without significant bone reduction” which should be clarified if this is to exclude an active step of reducing bone by cutting or removing or if it is meant as a result of some manner by which the implants are placed which would not cause some “significant bone reduction” as a physiological result.
Claim 9 further recites the limitation of “dental implants are placed properly using a surgical guide” which should be clarified as “dental implants are place using a surgical guide” to remove the subjective term “properly”.
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 1-10 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation of “for optimizing an amount of keratinized tissue” which renders the claim unclear as The term “optimizing an amount of keratinized tissue” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “optimized” 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. The amount of keratinized tissue that would be considered optimized by the suturing step is rendered unclear by the indefinite term “optimized”.
The term “analyzing at least one of: aesthetics” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “aesthetics” 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. How one would analyze some persons aesthetics is a relative as subjective term and as such the claim is rendered indefinite due the subjective nature of some person’s personal preference of aesthetics.
Any claim depending upon an indefinite claim is itself indefinite as also including the indefinite limitation from the indefinite base claim.
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 1-3, 6, 7, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garrubba et al. (US 2024/0033053 A1) in view of Medgaus et al. (US 2022/0096210 A1) in view of Layton et al. (US 2010/0304334 A1) in view of Boiangiu et al. (WO 2010/023665 A2) in view of Raby et al. (US 2020/0253696 A1) and further in view of Shumskij et al (RU 2360643-C1, translation cited for pages).
Regarding claim 1, Garrubba discloses a full-mouth zirconia implant method for full mouth reconstruction using one or more one-piece ceramic zirconia dental implants (title, abstract and paragraph [0032] lines 1-6 disclosing the method include management and preparation for dental implants for crowns, bridges, or dentures and thus would treat a full mouth reconstruction), the full-mouth zirconia implant method comprising:
acquiring one or more analog impressions and one or more digital impressions of one or more tooth of one or more patients (paragraph [0043] all disclosing the acquiring of digital impressions/scan of the patient’s dentition prior to extraction of any teeth);
fabricating a temporary restoration based on at least one of: the acquired one or more analog impressions and the acquired one or more digital impressions (paragraph [0011] lines 1-12 disclosing the fabrication of a temporarily used restoration appliance, paragraph [0034] lines 13-14 disclosing a restoration made form the digital data, paragraph [0068] lines 1-6 disclosing the temporary restoration appliance is fabricated from the model);
adapting one or more medical professionals for performing an implantation procedure on a patient (paragraph [0062] lines 1-3 a medical professional of a dentist is adapted to perform the procedure) ;
creating one or more incision lines before Mucocutaneous Junctions (MCJs) on a face of the one or more patients (paragraph [0038] lines 1-5 disclosing cutting/incising the gingiva to exposed the jawbone which is an incisor before the mucocutaneous junctions);
placing the one or more dental implants in a jaw of the one or more patients (paragraph [0016] lines 2-4);
preparing at least four unextracted tooth for anchoring the temporary restoration (paragraph [0044] lines 1-15 disclosing the preparation of the teeth by scanning the unextracted teeth, Fig. 5e element 560 showing the unextracted teeth being at least 4);
anchoring and seating the temporary restoration on the at least four unextracted tooth for avoiding premature contact with dental implants (paragraph [0062] lines 7-26 disclosing the seated temporary restoration is placed on the teeth to only provide repositioning forces to adjacent teeth and thus not the implant and only applying desired/mature pressure on the gums around the implant);
performing post-operative care, wherein the post-operative care involves employing one or more hygiene protocols on the temporary restoration to prevent infections (paragraph [0052] lines 7-9 disclosing a post-operative care of cleaning the implant site);
initiating a prosthodontic phase after the healing period upon performing the post-operative care (paragraph [0059] lines 1-9 disclosing assessing the patient progress after the operation);
assessing smile of the one or more patients (paragraph [0059] lines 1-5 assessing the patient’s tooth positions); and
placing a final restoration for the full mouth reconstruction (paragraph [0065] lines 1-4 disclosing the placement of the crown prosthesis thus finishing a full mouth reconstruction).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Garrubba discloses structure substantially identical to the instant application as discussed above but fails to explicitly disclose where the creating of the incisions includes vertical incisions and suturing gum tissue around the one or more one-piece ceramic zirconia dental implants and at least four unextracted tooth or performing suturing around the temporary restoration to support optimized gum healing and shaping around the temporary restoration as per claim 1, nor further performing a bone augmentation prior to the placing of the one or more implants as per claim 2.
However, Medgaus discloses a method of installing a dental implant in a patient which would need a particular number of implants based on their presenting anatomy (title and abstract, paragraph [0056] lines 1-5 disclosing that it was known to place the number of implants based on a particular patient’s anatomical needs), where the procedure includes vertical incisions (Fig. 1 incision distal to the posterior implant sites is a vertical incision a the MCJ) and where after cutting open the gums the procedure includes placing implants (fig. 1 elements 16/18) and then suturing the gum tissue around the one or more dental implants and around where a temporary healing appliance is place (Fig. 7 showing element 58 placed to protect sutures for optimizing healing in paragraph [0050] all, Fig. 1 showing suturing around any flap that was cut during the incision and placement of implants and further discloses performing a bone augmentation prior to the placing of the one or more implants (paragraph [0049] lines 9-13).
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 use of vertical incisions and the suturing around the implants and thus the around the temporary restoration and to further perform a bone augmentation prior to the placing of the one or more implants as taught by Medgaus into the method of implanting dental implants the involve cutting open the gingiva an placing implants in bone as taught by Garrubba for the purpose of being able to make incisions, place implants, and close up the cut open gingiva as needed based on a patients anatomy and for the benefit of bone grafting material for assisting in osseointegration as taught by Medgaus ( paragraph [0030]n disclosing that it was known that during implant surgery incisions that are made would be sutured closed, paragraph [0056] lines 1-7 disclosing the type of implant site treatment would be based on the particular patient’s anatomical needs, paragraph [0049] lines 9-13 disclosing that based on a patient’s anatomical needs the grafting of bone for bone augmentation would assist in osseointegration).
Further regarding claims 1, 3, and 6, Garrubba/Medgaus as combine discloses structure substantially identical to the instant application as discussed above, including placing a final crown on the one or more implants (paragraph [0039] lines 7-8) but fails to explicitly disclose where the abutment is a one piece ceramic implant as per claim 1 nor performing sculpting and preparing of the one-piece ceramic zirconia implant for adapting one or more ceramic crowns to be placed on the implant, as per claim 3, nor where the placing of the final restoration comprises arranging a ceramic crown for each of the dental implants.
However, Layton discloses a dental implant system and method of use (title and abstract) that uses one-piece ceramic zirconia implants (paragraph [0018] the implant itself is zirconia) that are also disclosed as being sculpted and prepared for adapting to the eventual placement of a ceramic crown (fig. 6a-6c zirconia implant element 52 with a sculpted and prepared upper surface 50 that is countered to the particular placement needs of the patient’s bone), and where the crown that is placed is a ceramic crown (paragraph [0087] lines 4-9 disclosing the crown is made of the same material as the implant system which is a zirconia system [0018] all).
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 use of ceramic zirconia dental implants and to sculpted/prepare the implants as taught by Layton into the method of implanting and the type of dental implants as taught by Garrubba/Megdaus for the purpose of being able to provide for customized mill-able dental implants and crowns that would be able to be adapted to a particular configuration of location in a patient’s mouth as taught by Layton ( paragraph [0062]n disclosing that it was known that during implant surgery incisions that are made would be sutured closed, paragraph [0056] lines 1-7 disclosing the type of implant site treatment would be based on the particular patient’s anatomical needs).
Further regarding claim 1, Garrubba/Megdaus/Layton as combine discloses steps substantially identical to the instant application as discussed above but fails to explicitly disclose where the method of cutting the gingiva include the medical professional administering anesthesia to the patient, nor providing a post-operative care of a warm salt water rinse of the temporary restoration.
However, Boiangiu discloses a dental implant system and method of use (title and abstract) that places bone grafts for supporting dental implants (figs. 9b/c showing bone grafts to be place on exposed bone that needs grafting and dental implants, page 28 lines 1-9 disclosing the placement of bone grafts for then supporting dental implants) where the method includes adapting a medical professional to administer anesthetic (page 32 line 18-page 33 line 5 disclosing the use of anesthesia before any cutting into the patient) and further discloses performing post-operative care, wherein the post-operative care involves employing one or more hygiene protocols including a warm salt water, on the temporary restoration to prevent infections (page 38 lines 4-13 disclosing the use of saline, salt water which being water would be warm to some degree, for post operational cleaning).
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 administering anesthesia to the patient, and providing a post-operative care of a warm salt water rinse of the temporary restoration as taught by Boiangiu into the method of implanting as taught by Garrubba/Megdaus/Layton for the purpose of being able to provide for minimal discomfort during an treatment that involves cutting open a patient’s gingiva and for maintaining oral hygiene as taught by Boiangiu (page 33 lines 9-13 and page 38 lines 8-9).
Further regarding claim 1, Garrubba/Megdaus/Layton/Bioangiu as combine discloses steps substantially identical to the instant application as discussed above but fails to explicitly disclose utilizing a cement for the temporary restoration for providing stability during a healing period.
However, Raby discloses a system and method placing a temporary restoration of a shell on a patient’s teeth (abstract disclosing a shell that is place on teeth for a treatment) and that utilizing a cement for the temporary shell for providing stability during the treatment (paragraph [0060] all disclosing the use of a weak band cement for affixing the shell to teeth).
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 utilization of cement during a treatment period to affix a temporary shell to teeth as taught by Raby into the method of implanting as taught by Garrubba/Megdaus/Layton/Bioangiu for the purpose of being able to provide for a manner of temporarily affixing the shell during the treatment as taught by Raby (paragraph [0060] lines 1-6).
Further regarding claim 1, Garrubba/Megdaus/Layton/Bioangiu/Raby as combine discloses steps substantially identical to the instant application as discussed above but fails to explicitly disclose a step of determining whether an occlusal plane is parallel to a line connecting a tragus of an ear to an ala of the nose of the one or more patients.
However, Shumskij discloses a system and method for accessing and designing prostheses (abstract) including a step of assessing a smile of the patient to determine whether an occlusal plane is parallel to a line connecting a tragus of an ear to an ala of the nose of the one or more patients (Fig. 3 showing the assessment of the relation of a line between the targus of an ear element 14 and an ala of a nose, element 13 aligned with the sides of the nose are parallel to an occlusal plane at 17).
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 determining whether an occlusal plane is parallel to a line connecting a tragus of an ear to an ala of the nose of the one or more patients as taught by Shumskij into the method of assessing the smile as taught by Garrubba/Megdaus/Layton/Bioangiu/Raby for the purpose of raising accuracy when defining a prosthetic plane for use in mounting of a prosthesis as taught by Shumskij (page 1 effect section).
Regarding claim 7, Garrubba discloses where the dental implant is placed immediately after the tooth extraction (fig. 7 showing the steps of implanting the dental implant is immediately after the step of extracting the tooth).
Regarding claim 10, Garrubba discloses the temporary restoration is fabricated as a u-shaped piece (Fig. 5e showing the restoration being u-shaped to match the full arch).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garrubba et al. (US 2024/0033053 A1) in view of Medgaus et al. (US 2022/0096210 A1) in view of Layton et al. (US 2010/0304334 A1) in view of Boiangiu et al. (WO 2010/023665 A2) in view of Raby et al. (US 2020/0253696 A1) in view of Shumskij et al (RU 2360643-C1, translation cited for pages) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Zakhary et al. (US 2016/0100901 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Garrubba/Megdaus/Layton/Bioangiu/Raby/Shumskij as combine discloses steps substantially identical to the instant application as discussed above but fails to explicitly disclose performing a ridge splitting technique to accommodate the one or more one-piece ceramic zirconia dental implants in areas of inadequate bone width.
However, Zakhary discloses a system and method for oral surgery (title and abstract) including when a surgical site has inadequate bone thickness the bone can be split (paragraphs [0044]-[0045] disclosing the bone of the alveolar ridge is expanded by splitting).
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 a step of performing a ridge splitting technique to accommodate an implant in a region of inadequate bone width as taught by Zakhary into the method of treatment as taught by Garrubba/Megdaus/Layton/Bioangiu/Raby/Shumskij for the purpose providing for a manner of ingrowth of new tissue in the alveolar ridge as taught by Zakhary(paragraph [0046] lines 3-5).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garrubba et al. (US 2024/0033053 A1) in view of Medgaus et al. (US 2022/0096210 A1) in view of Layton et al. (US 2010/0304334 A1) in view of Boiangiu et al. (WO 2010/023665 A2) in view of Raby et al. (US 2020/0253696 A1) in view of Shumskij et al (RU 2360643-C1, translation cited for pages) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Papaspyridakos et al. (Transition from failing dentition to complete-arch implant rehabilitation with a staged approach: A 3-year clinical report, J Prosthet Dent 2014;112:423-428).
Regarding claim 5, Garrubba/Megdaus/Layton/Bioangiu/Raby/Shumskij as combine discloses steps substantially identical to the instant application as discussed above but fails to explicitly disclose wherein initiating the prosthodontic phase after the healing period, comprises: evaluating osseointegration of the one or more one-piece ceramic zirconia dental implants, after the healing period; analyzing at least one of: aesthetics, phonetics, and occlusion, of the temporary restoration worn by the one or more patient during the healing period; performing at least one of: intraoral scans of upper and lower temporary restorations, and one or more scans of upper and lower teeth in maximum intercuspation; extracting the at least four unextracted tooth that anchored the temporary restoration during healing; sculpting and modifying the one or more one-piece ceramic zirconia dental implants to create proper spacing, alignment, and margins, for the final restoration; taking one or more impressions of the prepared one or more one-piece ceramic zirconia dental implants for fabrication of the final restoration; constructing the one or more ceramic crowns based on at least one of: the one or more impressions and one or more digital scans; and placing the one or more ceramic crowns onto the one or more one-piece ceramic zirconia dental implants.
However, Papasphyridakos discloses a system and method for a staged approach to repairing failed dentition (title and abstract) that includes the steps of preparing several unextracted teeth (fig. 3a showing two unextracted maxillary teeth and fig.1b showing a radiograph with 5 unextracted mandibular teeth ) and placing a temporary restoration on the unextracted teeth (Fig. 3b, page 425 “insert the mandibular FDP, which was supported by the 6 anterior teeth and the retro molar pads.”) with dental implants placed in the jaw that are allowed to integrate (page 425 column 1 line 14-column 2 line 9 disclosing implants where placed and allowed to integrate with not supporting the temporary prosthesis) initiating the prosthodontic phase after the healing period, comprises: evaluating osseointegration of the one or more one-piece ceramic zirconia dental implants, after the healing period (page 425 column 2 lines 13-16 upon evaluation one implant was found to be mobile and removed);
analyzing at least one of: aesthetics, phonetics, and occlusion, of the temporary restoration worn by the one or more patient during the healing period (page 425 column 1 lines 7-10 and column 1 line 24-column 2 line 2 analyzing the aesthetics and occlusion by the patient expressing satisfaction with the temporary restoration);
performing at least one of: intraoral scans of upper and lower temporary restorations, and one or more scans of upper and lower teeth in maximum intercuspation (Fig. 1a/b showing the scan of the upper and lower teeth in maximum intercuspation by imaging and radio graph);
extracting the at least remaining non-viable unextracted tooth that anchored the temporary restoration during healing (page 425 column 3 lines 11-13 the remaining teeth were extracted );
taking one or more impressions of the prepared one or more one-piece ceramic zirconia dental implants for fabrication of the final restoration (page 427 column 1 lines 7-32 disclosing the use of putty impressions on a temporary frame on the implants to be used in the fabrication of the final restoration);
constructing the one or more ceramic crowns based on at least one of: the one or more impressions and one or more digital scans; and placing the one or more ceramic crowns onto the one or more one-piece ceramic zirconia dental implants(page 427 column 1 line 32-column 2 line 20 the dental technician used the impression in the fabrication of the final restoration).
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 a post operative step including the evaluating osseointegration of the one or more one-piece ceramic zirconia dental implants, after the healing period; analyzing at least one of: aesthetics, phonetics, and occlusion, of the temporary restoration worn by the one or more patient during the healing period; performing at least one of: intraoral scans of upper and lower temporary restorations, and one or more scans of upper and lower teeth in maximum intercuspation; extracting the at least four unextracted tooth that anchored the temporary restoration during healing; taking one or more impressions of the prepared one or more one-piece ceramic zirconia dental implants for fabrication of the final restoration; constructing the one or more ceramic crowns based on at least one of: the one or more impressions and one or more digital scans; and placing the one or more ceramic crowns onto the one or more one-piece ceramic zirconia dental implants as taught by Papaspyridakos into the method of treatment as taught by Garrubba/Megdaus/Layton/Bioangiu/Raby/Shumskij for the purpose providing for treatment of teeth where a patient would present having failing dentition that would need staged treatment and to overcome a patient’s discomfort with treatment as taught by Papaspyridakos (page 423 “patients object to the complete denture for psychological, functional, or esthetic reasons and request fixed provisionalization throughout the rehabilitation process” and “This treatment option offers the benefits of having fixed interim restorations throughout the treatment, maximum patient comfort, and enhanced prosthodontic control”).
Regarding the limitation of sculpting and modifying the one or more one-piece ceramic zirconia dental implants to create proper spacing, alignment, and margins, for the final restoration, it would have further been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the use of ceramic zirconia dental implants and to sculpted/prepare the implants as taught by Layton above into the method of implanting and the type of dental implants for the final restoration as taught by Garrubba/Megdaus/Layton/Bioangiu/Raby/Shumskij for the purpose of being able to provide for customized mill-able dental implants and crowns that would be able to be adapted to a particular configuration of location in a patient’s mouth as taught by Layton ( paragraph [0062]n disclosing that it was known that during implant surgery incisions that are made would be sutured closed, paragraph [0056] lines 1-7 disclosing the type of implant site treatment would be based on the particular patient’s anatomical needs).
Further regarding the limitation of extracting four previously unextracted teeth it instead of the two disclosed in the clinical study of Papaspyridakos it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have extracted any number of hopeless teeth that the patient would present with clinically which would have still been usable for the temporary prosthesis phase as taught by Papaspyridakos into the method of treatment as taught by Garrubba/Megdaus/Layton/Bioangiu/Raby/Shumskij/Papaspyridakos for the purpose of treating the patient as they would clinically present while using whatever number of teeth would be possible for supporting the temporary prosthesis as generally disclosed in Papaspyridakos (page 424 column 3 lines 2-15 disclosing that while the maxillary only had two residual teeth to serve as provisional abutments, the mandible had 6 and thus where a patient would had have 4 teeth that would serve for provisional abutments that would need to ultimately be extracted then to do so would have been clinically obvious).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garrubba et al. (US 2024/0033053 A1) in view of Medgaus et al. (US 2022/0096210 A1) in view of Layton et al. (US 2010/0304334 A1) in view of Boiangiu et al. (WO 2010/023665 A2) in view of Raby et al. (US 2020/0253696 A1) in view of Shumskij et al (RU 2360643-C1, translation cited for pages) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of VonSee et al. (US 2021/0282894 A1).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Garrubba/Megdaus/Layton/Bioangiu/Raby as combine discloses steps substantially identical to the instant application as discussed above, including regarding claim 9 where the impaling is placed without significant bone reduction (paragraph [0036] lines 10-15 disclosing bone loss/reduction would occur with tooth thin of gingiva and paragraph [0037] lines 1-5 disclosing the procedure creates a good emergence profile in the gingiva and thus would not result in significant bone loss/reduction) but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the temporary restoration is configured to avoid occlusion with the one or more one-piece ceramic zirconia dental implants during the healing period as per claim 8, nor wherein the one or more one-piece ceramic zirconia dental implants are properly placed using a surgical guide as per claim 9
However, VonSee discloses a system and method for oral surgery using a temporary dental device also as a drill jig that is secured over a dental implant and is configured to avoid occlusion with the dental implant during the healing/integration phase (Fig. 4 element 1, having a drill jig guide of 7 paragraph [0012] lines 1-3 disclosing the drill guide comprises the temporary tooth, paragraph [0015] lines 11-12 the temporary teeth are not connected to the implant during integration,
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 configuration of the temporary restoration to avoid occlusion with the implant and for the placement of the implants with a surgical guide of the temporary restoration as taught by VonSee into the method of treatment as taught by Garrubba/Megdaus/Layton/Bioangiu/Raby/Shumskij for the purpose of improving adaptation of the temporary restoration and reducing the during and complexity of the treatment as taught by Von See(paragraph [0012] lines 9-20).
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 06/13/2026
/EDELMIRA BOSQUES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
