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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schone (US 2022/0226080 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Schone discloses an implant structure (see Fig. 1) comprising: an upper structure (3 and 2) comprising a gingival portion (2) and a prosthesis support (3); and a lower structure (1) provided integrally with the upper structure (see [0034]), wherein the lower structure has a greater surface roughness than the upper structure (see [0011]-[0013]).
Schone further discloses wherein the prosthesis support has a greater surface roughness than the gingival portion (see [0011]-[0013], per claim 2); wherein the surface roughness increases in the order of the gingival portion, the prosthesis support, and the lower structure (see [0011]-[0013], per claim 3); wherein the surface roughness of the lower structure ranges from 1.5 to 2.5 μm (see [0011], per claim 4); and wherein the surface roughness of the prosthesis support ranges from 0.3 to 0.6 μm (see [0013], per claim 5).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schone in view of Kazuyoshi et al (JP2021083752, cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 6, Schone discloses all the features of the claimed invention, including wherein the roughness of the gingival portion is 0.04 microns (see [0012]), but does not explicitly teach wherein the roughness of the gingival portion ranges from 0.01 to 0.03 microns as required.
Kazuyoshi et al, however, teaches a similar ceramic dental implant with a gingival tissue contacting neck (13b) having a surface roughness that ranges from 0.01 to 0.03 microns (see page 19, Machine Translation). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Schone to include Kazuyoshi’s surface roughness for the gingival portion, as such modification would provide enhanced anchorage to the gums, thereby reducing the risk of bacterial infection, peri implantitis and mucositis (see Kazuyoshi, citations above). Further, the Examiner notes that where a prior art range overlaps or lies inside a claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(I)). Still further, the Examiner notes that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close such that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect them to have the same properties (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 7, the Examiner notes the term “wherein the gingival portion is treated with acid” is a product by process limitation. That is, the specific roughness achieved is formed by an acid treatment. The Examiner notes that product by process limitations are not limited by the specific steps of the process (e.g. acid treatment), but only by the structure imparted thereby (e.g. the specific surface roughness). In the instant case Schone/Kazuyoshi, as combined above, discloses all required structural limitations required by the process (e.g. roughness of the gingival portion, see above), thereby meeting the limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2113.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schone in view of Harada et al (US 2022/0047364 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Schone discloses all the features of the claimed invention, including wherein the implant may be formed of a ceramic including zirconium oxide, yttrium oxide and cerium oxide and combinations thereof (see [0034]). Schone however, does not teach the inclusion of Niobium oxide or Erbium oxide, and the specific percentages of each oxide as required.
Harada et al, however, teaches a similar zirconia based ceramic material for a dental implant which contains stabilizers including one or more of yttrium oxide, niobium oxide, cerium oxide, and erbium oxide (see [0049]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Schone to include Harada’s teaching of stabilizing the zirconia ceramic with a combination of yttrium, cerium, erbium and niobium oxides, as such modification would improve stabilization of the zirconia, improve or optimize desired mechanical properties of the material and allow for optimization of desired pigmentation of the material.
Schone/Harada, as combined above, does not explicitly teach 82-84% zirconium oxide, 7.25-7.75% yttrium oxide, 6.75-7.25% niobium oxide, 0.75-1.25% Erbium oxide, and 0.75-1.25% cerium oxide as required. However, the Examiner notes that the specific weight percents of each of the materials are result effective variables dependent on the desired mechanical and aesthetic properties of the implant and its material. Additionally the instant specification does not provide any criticality for the specific weight percentages and additionally describes such values as merely preferable (see pages 3 and 13). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the weight percents of the different oxides in the ceramic material of Schone/Harada, as combined above, to include 82-84% zirconium oxide, 7.25-7.75% yttrium oxide, 6.75-7.25% niobium oxide, 0.75-1.25% Erbium oxide, and 0.75-1.25% cerium oxide, as required, as such modification would merely involve the optimization of a result effective variable, which has been held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results (see MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached PTO892 form describing several dental implants with variable surface roughness.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD MORAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 AM-4 PM EST.
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.
/EDWARD MORAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights