DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
2. 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.
3. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it currently contains legal phraseologies, e.g. “comprising” (in at least lines 1, 2, 4, 5); and it is currently a single run-on sentence of claim format. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
4. Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the drive” (line 1) appears to be a typographical error for “the driver”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-16 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 “a mechanical or electrical mechanisms” which is indefinite because “a” indicate singular form but “mechanisms” indicate plural form. It is unclear whether there is a singular or plural mechanism.
Claim 1 recites “a coronal end comprising a plurality of engaging features configured to removably engage with the plurality of complementary engaging features” (lines 8-9), which is indefinite because it is unclear whether it is the coronal end or the plurality of engaging features being configured to engage with the plurality of complementary engaging features
Claim 2 recites “an outer shape disposed on the apical end of the driver” which is indefinite because it is unclear whether the outer shape is a property of the apical (i.e. the apical end having an outer shape), or the outer shape is a distinct element disposed on the apical end (e.g. an outer sleeve outfitting the apical end).
Claim 3-6 recite the term “substantially rounded” which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially rounded” 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.
Claims 4 and 7 each recites “a pair of curved parallel flat bearing surfaces” (lines 2-3) which is indefinite because it is unclear how the surfaces can be both curved and flat; or are some surfaces curved and some other surfaces flat? It is also unclear what is the reference point (i.e. relative to what element or plane) that the surfaces are parallel.
Claims 5-6 and 8-9 each recites “a pair of curved angled flat bearing surfaces” (line 2 -3) which is indefinite because it is unclear how the surfaces can be both curved and flat; or are there some curved surfaces and some flat surfaces? It is also unclear what is the reference point (i.e. relative to what element or plane or axis?) that the surfaces are angled.
Claims 4-9 each variously recites that each of the plurality of complementary engaging features disposed on the substantially rounded outer shape comprises a pair of… flat bearing surfaces configured to engage or interact with plurality of the engaging features of the screw”; claims 5 and 8 further include “a middle surface”; claim 9 further includes “a triangular recess”. The claims are indefinite because it is unclear whether it is the each complementary engaging feature, the outer shape, the bearing surfaces, the middle surface, or the triangular recess that is engaging or interacting with the engaging features on the screw.
Claim 16 recites “a pair of curved flat bearing surfaces” (lines 6-7) and “a pair of independent angled flat bearing surfaces (lines 14-15) which are indefinite because it is unclear how the surfaces are both curved and flat, or are there some surfaces that are curved and some other surfaces that are flat? It is also unclear what is the reference point(s) from which the surfaces are angled.
Claim 16 recites “each of the plurality of engaging features comprises a pair of independent angled flat bearing surfaces and a middle surface configured to interact with each of the plurality of complementary engaging features of the driver” (lines 14-16) which is indefinite because it is unclear whether it is each engaging feature or the middle surface that is configured to interact with each complementary engaging features of the driver.
All other dependent claims are rejected herein based on dependency of the rejected based claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-10, 12-13, and 16, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bjorn et al. (US 2003/0162149).
Regarding claim 1, Bjorn et al. discloses a dental drive system (Fig. 3) comprising:
a driver 13 comprising: a coronal end (toward 15 shown in Fig. 3) configured to be engaged by a mechanical or electrical mechanisms (i.e. rotational mechanism 15); an apical end 13a comprising a plurality of complementary engaging features 13a”; (see Fig. 9, [0045] “wing-shaped elements 13a”’); and a body 13c/13d connecting the coronal end 15 and the apical end 13a (Fig. 5; [0040]-[0042]); and
a screw 3 comprising: an apical end 3b configured to couple into an abutment or an implant 10; and a coronal end 3a comprising a plurality of engaging features 3a configured to removably engage with the plurality of complementary engaging features 13a, 13b, disposed on the apical end of the driver 13 (Figs. 1 and 3; [0031] “screw 3 which has a head 3a…”; [0040] “screwdriver 13 is applied with its front parts 13a against the screw head... Said front parts 13a of the screwdriver are thus arrange so that the front parts can penetrate into the groove on the top face of the screw head 3a”),
wherein the driver 13 is configured to removably engage with the screw 3 at a substantial angle α’ from a vertical axis 8 of the screw 3 to affix the screw into the abutment or the implant (see Fig. 3; [0040] “the screwdriver can assume an angle α’ in relation to the direction of screwing 8”).
As to claims 2-3, Bjorn et al. discloses the plurality of complementary engaging features 13a’, 13a’’, 13b, 13b’, being disposed on an outer shape disposed on the apical end of the driver, wherein the outer shape is substantially rounded (Figs. 5-7).
As to claim 4, each of the plurality of complementary engaging features (wing-shaped elements 13”’) disposed on the substantially rounded outer shape comprises a pair of curved (at outer edge defining diameter D best shown in Fig. 7) flat bearing surfaces parallel to each other (opposing parallel side surfaces 13a defining thickness a, best shown in Fig. 9), configured to engage with plurality of the engaging features of the screw.
As to claims 5-6, each of the plurality of complementary engaging features (wing-shaped elements 13”’) comprises a pair of curved (at outer edge) angled (relative to central axis or other surfaces) flat bearing surfaces and a curved middle surface (at 13b’’ best shown in Fig. 8) and configured to engage with plurality of the engaging features of the screw.
As to claims 7-9, Bjorn et al. discloses the screw 3 having corresponding grooves 3a” to interact with the plurality of complementary engaging features 13a’’’ of the driver (Figs. 3, 13-14; [0050]). Fig. 13a shows flat bearing surfaces 3’’ (opposing side walls of groove 3a”) being parallel along the longitudinal axis. Fig. 13b shows the flat bearing surfaces 3’’ being angled along a horizontal plane. There is a middle surface between the opposing side bearing surfaces 3”, forming a triangular recess/groove 3a” configured to interact with the wing shaped element 13”’ of the driver.
As to claim 10, Bjorn et al. discloses the angle α’ (Fig. 3) to be 10° to 45° or preferable about 15° to 20° ([0040]), both of which ranges are within the claimed range of between 10° to 80°.
As to claim 12, Bjorn et al. discloses the screw 3 having a plurality of threads 3b configured to removably couple with a plurality of complementary threads in the implant or the abutment (Fig. 1).
As to claim 13, the body and the apical end of the driver and the screw is made of metal ([0049] “conventional materials… screw of gold… screwdriver of steel”).
Regarding claim 16, Bjorn et al. discloses a dental drive system comprising:
a driver 13 comprising: a coronal end (toward 15 shown in Fig. 3) configured to be engaged by a mechanical or electrical mechanisms (rotational mechanism 15); an apical end (toward 13a) comprising a substantially rounded outer shape comprising plurality of complementary engaging features (wing-shaped elements 13a”’);
each of the plurality of complementary engaging features (wing-shaped element 13a”) comprises a pair of opposite side surfaces defining width a (Fig. 9), the side surfaces are curved at outer edge defining diameter D (as shown Figs. 7-8) and flat as shown in Fig. 9); and
a screw 3 comprising: an apical end 3b configured to couple into an abutment or an implant; and a coronal end 3a comprising a plurality of engaging features 3a configured to removably engage with the plurality of complementary engaging features disposed on the apical end of the driver 13 (Figs. 1 and 3; [0031] “screw 3 which has a head 3a…”; [0040] “screwdriver 13 is applied with its front parts 13a against the screw head... Said front parts 13a of the screwdriver are thus arrange so that the front parts can penetrate into the groove on the top face of the screw head 3a”);
wherein each of the plurality of engaging features comprises a pair of independent angled flat bearing surfaces (opposing side surfaces 3a” shown in Fig. 13b to be angled) and a middle surface (between the side surfaces 3a”) configured to interact with each of the plurality of complementary engaging features 13a”’ of the driver (Fig. 13b);
wherein the driver 13 is configured to removably engage with the screw 3 at a substantial angle α’ from a vertical axis 8 of the screw 3 to affix the screw into the abutment or the implant (see Fig. 3; [0040] “the screwdriver can assume an angle α’ in relation to the direction of screwing 8”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bjorn et al. (US 2003/0162149).
Bjorn et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed as applied to claims 1 and 10 as detailed above. However, per claim 11, Bjorn et al. fails to disclose the substantial angle is selected from a range of angles between 30° to 60°. Nonetheless, note that Bjorn et al. discloses the substantial angle α’ (Fig. 3) to be 10° to 45° or preferable about 15° to 20° (see Bjorn et al. paragraph [0040]), effectively indicating that such angle is of optimizable variable. Therefore, the claimed range of angles between 30° to 60s would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in art at the time the invention was made since it has been held that discovering optimum or workable ranges is well within the skill of an artisan via routine experimentation in order to improve upon what is already generally known. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Bjorn et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed as applied to claim 1 and 13 as detailed above. However, per claim 14, Bjorn et al. discloses the driver and the screw being made from metal, namely steel or alloy, and gold or alloy, respectively, failing to disclose the driver and the screw being made from metal comprising specifically stainless steel and titanium. Nonetheless, note that Bjorn et al. discloses the various components can be made from conventional materials such as metals including steel or alloy; Bjorn et al. also lists titanium as a conventional material for the dental implant (see Bjorn et al. paragraph [0049]). Therefore, in view of Bjorn et al., it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to select stainless steel and titanium as a suitable metal alloy for the screw and the driver. Note that such modification is a selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use which has been held to be within the routine skill of an artisan. See MPEP § 2144.07.
11. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bjorn et al. in view of Farre Berga (US 2011/0217675).
Bjorn et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed as applied to claim 1 and 13 as detailed above. However, per claim 15, Bjorn et al. fails to disclose the coronal end of the driver is made of a plastic polymer. Farre Berga discloses a surgical driver 400 made of rigid plastic (see Farre Berga Figs. 1-2, paragraphs [0035] and [0075]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bjorn et al. by making the coronal end of the driver of rigid plastic polymer as taught by Farre Berga to be a suitable material with the same or predictable results. Note that such modification is a selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use which has been held to be within the routine skill of an artisan. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner HAO D. MAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3002. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:00-4:30. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eric Rosen can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HAO D MAI/
Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights