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 .
This office action is in response to the reply filed 12/18/2025.
Priority
As a certified English translation of the foreign priority document, CH01750/14, has not been filed, the claims are awarded an effective filing date of 11/10/2015.
Response to Arguments
All of Applicant’s arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant arguments regarding dichloroxide and Ratcliff not making obvious the treatment of gingival bleeding on pages 14-17 are persuasive. A new rejection has been presented below to address treating gingival bleeding.
Applicant argues that Lee does not teach the required method comprising carboxylic acid, chlorides and persulfate to treat periodontitis and the claimed active is limited to ones similar to those taught by Wollage. Lee and Ratcliff have different mechanisms of action to bring about disinfection.
This is not persuasive as the rejection is not based on using the composition of Lee or Ratcliff in the claimed methods. The rejection is based on using the composition of Wollage to treat periodontitis.
Applicant argues that Lee depends on the addition of TUDCA and this substance is not required in the inventive method and Ratcliffe depends on the addition of chlorine dioxide which is also not requires.
This is not persuasive as the rejection is not based on adding either of these component to the composition of Wollage and even if it were the claims reciting “comprising” language which allows for the inclusion of additional non-recited components. As discussed below, it would have been prima facie obvious for a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to treat periodontitis induced by streptococcus mutans by applying the composition of Wollwage to the oral cavity of a subject in need in the manner taught by Lee and Ratcliff (gargling or rinse with vigorous swishing of rinse between the teeth for 30 seconds), reading on the claimed “method of topical application” . One of skill in the art would have been motivated to use the solution or Wollage for this purpose as Wollwage teaches the solution can be used to treat body parts contaminated with streptococcus mutans and Lee teaches periodontitis can be induced by streptococcus mutans. As such the composition of Wollage on its own is expected to treat periodontitis.
Maintained Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 17 is 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 17 recites “the at least one organic or inorganic chlorine compound” however the claims from which they depend recite “the at least one chlorine compound”, as such the dependent claims are indefinite as it’s unclear if “the at least one chlorine compound” is referring to one, more than one or all of the chlorine compounds.
New Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-13, 15-17, 19 and 22-32 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.
Claims 1 and 10 recite “treatment of periodontitis, gingivitis, and/or gingival inflammation” in the preamble, however, the body of the claim recites “to treat at least one of periodontitis, gingivitis, and/or gingival inflammation and/or reduce gingival bleeding,” the inclusion of gingival bleeding renders the claim indefinite as its unclear of the methods of treatment are limited to periodontitis, gingivitis, and/or gingival inflammation or if it includes gingival bleeding. For purpose of examination the claim will be examined as being limited to treating periodontitis, gingivitis, and/or gingival inflammation.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-13, 15-17, 19 and 31 are rejected in view of their dependency on claim 1 as they do not cure the deficiencies listed above and thus are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "wherein the at least one substance being a carbonate…". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the claim from which it depends (i.e. claim 1) does not recite a substance being a carbonate.
Claims 19 is rejected in view of its dependency on claim 8 as it does not cure the deficiencies listed above and thus is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 10 recites “said carboxylic acid” however the claim previously states “the at least one carboxylic acid”, as such it’s unclear if “said carboxylic acid” is referring to one, more than one or all of the carboxylic acids.
Claim 21 recites “at least one chlorine compound selected being sodium chloride,” the use of “selected from” implies a list of suitable alternatives, but “being” implies one specific compound. The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Claim 21 recites “said carboxylic acid” however the claim previously states “the at least one carboxylic acid”, as such it’s unclear if “said carboxylic acid” is referring to one, more than one or all of the carboxylic acids.
Claim 22 recites “at least one chlorine compound selected being sodium chloride,” the use of “selected from” implies a list of suitable alternatives, but “being” implies one specific compound. The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Regarding claim 22, the phrase "such as e.g." renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 31 recites the limitation "wherein the at least one surfactant…". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the claim from which it depends (i.e. claim 1) does not recite a surfactant.
Claim 32 recites “at least one oxidizing agent selected being potassium,” the use of “selected from” implies a list of suitable alternatives, but “being” implies one specific compound. The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Claim 32 recites “at least one chlorine compound selected being sodium chloride,” the use of “selected from” implies a list of suitable alternatives, but “being” implies one specific compound. The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
New Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 19 defines the carbonate to be sodium carbonate or sodium bicarbonate, however this does not further limit claim 8 as claim 8 already defines the carbonate to be sodium carbonate or sodium bicarbonate. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Modified 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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-10, 17, 19 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wollwage (US 2006/0013895), Ratcliffe (US 4,808,389) and Lee (WO2013/103250).
For ease of examination, the Examiner relied upon US Publication 2014/0369942 as an equivalent English translation of the Korean WO 2013/103250 publication. All citations henceforth to Lee are locations in the US Publication.
Wollwage discloses a composition containing at least an organic or inorganic compound that releases chlorine in aqueous solutions (Abs).
Wollwage discloses an example wherein the composition (a tablet) comprises 5% potassium hydrogen monopersulfate (reading on persulfate compound and instant claim 5), 20% sodium bicarbonate (reading on claims 8, 10 and 19), 30% citric acid (reading on instant claims 3 and 10), 15% Na-lauryl sulphate (reading on instant claim 31), 20% binder and 10% sodium chloride (reading on instant claim 17) [0035]. This composition reads on the claimed active composition of instant claims 1 and 10.
Regarding the elected species of sodium carbonate and bicarbonate, Wollwage teaches that suitable effervescents include both sodium carbonate and sodium bicarbonate and while they are not taught to be used together, it is prima facie obvious to combine two art recognized equivalents, each taught by the prior art to be used for the same purpose to create a new composition for the same purpose.
Wollwage teaches that the tablet is self-dissolving (Wollwage – claim 25) and the tablet is dissolved in an aqueous solution (water) in the presence of the object or body part that is to be disinfected (Wollwage – claim 27). Wollwage also teaches that tablet is dissolved in water to form a test solution and then the solution is used to treat a toothbrush, it is noted that Wollwage teaches a composition comprising as separate components a) tablet and b) water, wherein the tablet and water are mixed together to form an aqueous solution prior to use.
Wollwage further teaches that the composition can be used to treat parts of the body affected with candida, such as candida albicans, such as the mucous membranes of the mouth cavity.
Regarding claim 7: Claims 7 recites a property of the claimed oxidizing agent, as the prior art teaches the elected and claimed agent (potassium hydrogen monopersulfate), the compound of the prior art and the compound claimed are expected to have the same properties of oxidation potential in aqueous solutions as a compound and its properties are inseparable.
Regarding claim 4: Wollwage teaches that the acid (i.e. citric acid) is used in such a quantity such that when the composition is dissolved in a certain quantity of an aqueous solution creates a pH value of less than 5.5 (Wollwage – claims 18 and 29).
Regarding claim 9: Wollwage does not teach the composition to comprise fluoride salts, thus the limitations of the claimed have been met.
It is noted that Wollwage further teaches that the composition is also suitable for fighting parts of the body contaminated with streptococcus mutans [0031]. Wollwage also teaches that the chlorine ions in the solution when combined with a suitable oxidizing agent such as potassium hydrogen monopersulfate can form dichloroxide [0022 and 0025].
Wollwage doesn’t teach application of the solution to the teeth, gingival and gingival margins to treat periodontitis in a person in need.
Lee teaches method for preventing or treating periodontal disease and methods for improving oral hygiene (Abs). Lee teaches that microorganisms inducing periodontal diseases and dental caries in oral cavity, are known Streptococcus mutans, Streptococcus sanguis, Actinobacillus viscosus, Lactobacillus acidophilus, etc. It is known that anaerobic microorganisms, among the microorganisms inducing periodontal diseases, produce inflammatory toxins; and therefore, it is also important to inhibit or prevent the resulting immune responses [0003]. Lee teaches the treatment of periodontitis-inducing streptococcus mutans [0013]. Lee further teaches that the formulation can be formulated as a liquid for oral rinse (for example, a gargling liquid form), by dissolving the active compound in water [0024].
Ratcliffe teaches a method for reducing gingivitis comprising the steps of killing and reducing S.mutans and other gram positive bacteria by topically applying to the oral cavity the desired solution (Ratcliffe – claim 1). Ratcliffe teaches that the composition is a wash or rinse in solution and teaches that the subjects were instructed to rinse with vigorous swishing of rinse between the teeth for 30 seconds with the test mouthwash (Abs and Col. 4, lines 25-35).
In view of the teachings of Lee, it would have been prima facie obvious for a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to treat periodontitis induced by streptococcus mutans by applying the composition of Wollwage to the oral cavity of a subject in need in the manner taught by Lee and Ratcliff (gargling or rinse with vigorous swishing of rinse between the teeth for 30 seconds), reading on the claimed “method of topical application” . One of skill in the art would have been motivated to use the solution or Wollage for this purpose as Wollwage teaches the solution can be used to treat body parts contaminated with streptococcus mutans and Lee teaches periodontitis can be induced by streptococcus mutans.
While the art doesn’t specifically teach application to the gingival and gingival margins, the art teaches vigorous swishing of the solution between the teeth (i.e. in the mouth), therefore the solution is being applied evenly through all mouth surfaces, in particular those which are in close proximity to the teeth, such as the teeth, gingival and gingival margins.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-10, -11-13, 15-16, 17, 19 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wollwage (US 2006/0013895), Ratcliffe (US 4,808,389) and Lee (WO2013/103250), as applied to claims 1, 3-5, 7-10, 17, 19 and 31 above, and further in view of Rudy (US 4,971,782), De Vreese (US 2008/0233541), Connelly (US 5,738,113) and Sasson (US 6,280,775).
The prior art above make obvious the limitations of claims 1, 3-5, 7-10, 17, 19 and 31, however, the above reference do not teach the additional steps recited by claims 11-13 and the required polysaccharide of instant claims 15-16.
Rudy discloses compositions for treating oral bacterial in the mouth, such as a toothpaste or a gel comprising a peroxide, a bicarbonate salt and a stabilizer (Abs). Rudy further teaches that the peroxide can be included in the composition in compound form, e.g. as a solid organic peroxide, solid inorganic peroxide, or mixtures thereof. A suitable solid inorganic peroxide includes ammonium persulfate and zinc persulfate (reading on oxidizing agent selected from a persulfate compound). Rudy teaches that the peroxide component is present in amounts sufficient to inhibit the mobility of oral bacterial, e.g. in the treatment of gingivitis (Col. 3, lines 1-20 and 40-45). Rudy teaches that the viscosity of the gel or paste should be between 2000-200,000cps and if the selected vehicle itself doesn’t not provide the desired viscosity, viscosity modified and other vehicle agents can be added to provide such desired viscosity (Col. 4, lines 25-35). Rudy exemplifies vehicles comprising xanthate gum and sodium carboxy methyl cellulose (Examples 30 and 33). Rudy also exemplifies a composition comprising ammonium persulfate and sodium chloride (Example 27) and teaches that the composition of the examples can be mixed with paste or gel vehicles.
De Vreese teaches devices for treating teeth and/or gums, such as whitening, treating bacteria, etc. (Abs). De Vreese teaches the compositions to comprise to comprise agents such as potassium monopersulfate [0238], other cleaning agents [0239]. De Vreese teaches that agents such as xanthan gum and carboxymethylcellulose can be added in amounts ranging from 0.1-15% to create a highly viscous gel [0261], reading on instant claims 15-16. De Vreese teaches that suitable formulations are any which provide the appropriate viscosity, stickiness, friction and are compatible with the teeth/gums [0266].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to mix the composition of Rudy of Ex. 27 with a gel or paste vehicle such as those comprising carboxy methyl cellulose and/or xanthan gum (in amounts of 0.1-15%) as these are taught by De Vreese to be suitable ingredients to formulating gels having the right viscosities which are compatible with teeth and gums and Rudy teaches that gums and carboxymethyl cellulose is a suitable ingredient for use.
Connelly teaches a method for the control and reduction of dental caries (Abs). Connolly teaches that part of the treatment includes the application of both a fluoride gel and a mouth rinse. The gel is taught to be applied before bed and the rinse is used after breakfast each day for 60-120days (Table 4).
In view of the teaching of above, it would have been prima facie obvious to combine the rinse of Wollwage with the gel of Rudy and De Vreese above and create a combined treatment protocol for treating gingivitis wherein the gel of Rudy and De Vreese is applied at night and the oral solution of Wollwage is used the following morning (and subsequently as needed) as both Wollwage and Rudy/De Vreese teaches the formulations to be oral formulations for treating gingivitis using persulfate and chloride compounds and its prima facie obvious to combine two separate composition into a single method of treatment as the prior art demonstrates that these types of treatment (gel at night and rinse in the morning) is known when treating dental conditions, and its prima facie obvious to pursue the known options within the technical grasp of the skilled artisan to formulate a methods of treating gingivitis. Furthermore, as discussed above by Sasson, the frequency of treatment may be varied depending on the type and severity of the disease and the mode of application (Col. 6, lines 10-15).
Regarding claims 11-12: As discussed above, the prior art makes obvious applying a gel at night and the solution/rinse the following day, thus reading on applying the gel at least a day before application of the aqueous solution.
Regarding claim 13: The prior art makes obvious applying the rinse over the course of a few days as necessary to treat said condition.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-10, 11-13, 17, 19, 22-26, 31 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wollwage (US 2006/0013895), Ratcliffe (US 4,808,389) and Lee (WO2013/103250), as applied to claims 1, 3-5, 7-10, 17-19 and 31 above, and further in view of EP2777708 and Mongardini (1999).
The prior art above make obvious the limitations of claims 1, 3-5, 7-10, 17, 19 and 31, however, the above reference do not the specific method of claim 22 and 32 requiring the step of after a scaling and root planning treatment (i.e. dental treatment), application of an adhesive composition and then an active composition , where both the adhesive and active composition comprise a chlorine compound and an oxidizing agent.
As discussed above, the previously discussed references make obvious the treatment of periodontitis-induced by s. mutans with an oral rinse.
Mongardini teaches treating periodontitis and measure the bleeding on probing at baseline and at 2, 4 and 8 months (pg. 632). Table 3 demonstrates that patients with chronic onset periodontitis (COP) and early onset periodontist (EOP) suffered bleeding at least 75 +/- 30% of the time at the baseline after probing. Treatment after scaling was effective at achieving a reduction in bleeding.
Mongardini teaches that prior to scaling and root planning treatment in subjects having periodontitis, the test subjects were given chlorhexidine gel to decrease bacteremia and then after the treatment additional mouth disinfection (twice within 24hrs) was sought by application of chlorhexidine gel, then rinsing with chlorhexidine solution and then spraying the pharynx with a chlorhexidine spray. The test group was further instructed to continue using the rinse and spray during twice daily for the next 2 months (Abs and pg. 634-635).
EP’708 teaches a composition comprising 5% potassium hydrogel monopersulfate, 15% lauryl sulfate, 20% sodium bicarbonate, 30% citric acid, 20% binder and 10% sodium chloride. This composition is dispersed into an adhesive cream or gel and mixed until a homogeneous mixture is obtained, reading on instant claim 24. The adhesive and pharmaceutical compositions are mixed in a weight ratio of 99:1 to 80:20, preferably 98:2 to 88:12, reading on instant claims 25-26. Ep’708 teaches the composition to form a barrier or protective layer on the moist oral mucosa and as the components dissolve slowly a good long-term effect can be achieved [0022-0023 and 0025].
It is noted that EP’708 teaches a composition that is identical to the working examples of Wollage, the difference being that Wollage formulated the composition as a tablet and then dissolved the tablet in water, while EP’708 teaches the composition to be dispersed into an adhesive gel or cream.
It would have been prima facie obvious to modify the teachings of the above references with those of EP’708 and Mongardini. As discussed above, one of skill in the art would have recognized that its well known in the art to apply to a subject with periodontitis, after a root and scaling treatment, a disinfectant in the form of a gel and then follow that up with a rinse to provide further disinfection. It is noted that EP’708 teaches a composition that is identical to the working examples of Wollage, the difference being that Wollage formulated the composition as a tablet and then dissolved the tablet in water, while EP’708 teaches the composition to be dispersed into an adhesive gel or cream, therefore, it would have been obvious to use the composition of EP’708 in conjunction with the solution of Wollage in the manner taught by Mongardini, thus it would have been prima facie obvious to apply the adhesive gel of EP’078 right after a scaling and root planning treatment and follow up with the rinse of Wollage afterwards and daily for the following 2 months (reading on instant claims 11-13). One of skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success as Mongardini shows that the use of both gel and rinse together is well-known and performed in order to get more mouth disinfection and Wollage teaches a composition that is expected to treat periodontitis.
Regarding claim 23: Mongardini teaches applying the gel twice within 24hrs, which reads on applying the composition for several hours to teeth as EP’078 teaches that the composition forms a barrier layer and releases the composition slowly. As discussed above, the prior art makes obvious applying the rinse daily for 2 months.
Regarding the preparation of the rinse new each day, Wollage teaches that the composition is dissolved in water in the presence of the body part that is to be disinfected (Wollage -claim 27) and teaches that an advantage of the composition, advantageously made as a tablet, is that the chlorine is released quickly and thus produced a quick effect [0022 and 0027], therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to prepare the composition freshly each time that its use is required to ensure an appropriate effect.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-13, 17, 19-26, 27-28 and 31-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wollwage (US 2006/0013895), Ratcliffe (US 4,808,389), Lee (WO2013/103250), EP2777708 and Mongardini (1999), as applied to claims 1, 3-5, 7-13, 17, 19-26 and 31-32 above, and further in view of Ha (US2007/0254067).
The prior art above make obvious the limitations of claims 1, 3-5, 7-13, 17, 19-21 and 31-32, however, they do not teach the viscosity of the adhesive composition recited by instant claims 27-28.
Ha teaches customizable oral care products such as tooth gel, subgingival gel, etc. (abs) and teaches that thickening agents can be added to the compositions to provide gels with appropriate viscosity, such that the gel, when placed on an applicator or finger, does not run off or prove too runny to use effectively. The gel viscosity is typically from about 0.1 Pa.s to about 300 Pa.s, preferably from about 30 Pa.s to about 200 Pa.s.
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to formulate the adhesive composition of EP’708 to have a viscosity ranging from 0.1 Pa.s to about 300 Pa.s, preferably from about 30 Pa.s to about 200 Pa.s, as Ha teaches this to be a viscosity wherein the gel when placed on an applicator or finger, does not run off or prove too runny to use effective. One of skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success as Ha teaches gel for use in the oral cavity.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-13, 17, 19-26, 29-30 and 31-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wollwage (US 2006/0013895), Ratcliffe (US 4,808,389), Lee (WO2013/103250), EP2777708 and Mongardini (1999), as applied to claims 1, 3-5, 7-13, 17, 19-26 and 31-32 above, and further in view of Bui (US 2004/0010055).
The prior art above make obvious the limitations of claims 1, 3-5, 7-13, 17, 19-26 and 31-32, however, they do not teach the consistency value of the adhesive composition as recited by instant claims 29-30.
Bui teaches dental fillers, pastes and composition therefrom which have a consistency value of at least 20mm (Abs and Bui – claims 17). Bui teaches consistency value of at least 30 to be an excellent handling and theological property [0070].
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to formulate the adhesive composition of EP’708 to have a consistency value of at least 30, which overlaps with the claimed 10-50 and 20-40, as Bui teaches this to be an advantageous handing an theological property, thus it would have been obvious to pursue the known options within the technical grasp of the skilled artisan.. One of skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success as Bui teaches compositions for use in the oral cavity.
New Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-13, 17, 19, 20-21 22-26, 31 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wollwage (US 2006/0013895), Ratcliffe (US 4,808,389) and Lee (WO2013/103250), EP2777708 and Mongardini (1999), as applied to claims 1, 3-5, 7-13, 17-19, 22-26 and 31 above, further in view of Haryana (2009)
The prior art above make obvious the limitations of claims 1, 3-5, 7-13, 17, 19, 22-26 and 31, however, the do not teach using the method made obvious above to reduce gingival bleeding.
As discussed above, the prior art makes obvious treating periodontitis with the composition of Wallage dissolved in water by gargling or with vigorous swishing of rinse between the teeth for 30 seconds. Mongardini also teach that patients with chronic onset periodontitis (COP) and early onset periodontist (EOP) suffered bleeding at least 75 +/- 30% of the time at the baseline after probing.
Haryana teaches that water swishing (i.e. swishing of water) is an easy means of maintaining oral hygiene and reducing bleeding and gingival inflammation and teaches that warming the water and adding table salt (also known as sodium chloride) can enhance its efficacy.
In view of these teachings a skilled artisan would recognize that the dissolved composition of Wollage would be effective at reducing gingival bleeding when used as an oral rinse as it comprises water and salt, as such it would have been prima facie obvious to use the composition made obvious above to treat gingival bleeding in a patient having periodontitis after a root and scaling dental treatment based on the teachings of Haryana showing that rinsing with water and salt if effective at reducing gingival bleed.
Conclusion
No claims are allowable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jennifer A Berrios whose telephone number is (571)270-7679. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 9am-4pm and Friday 9am-3:30pm.
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, Brian Kwon can be reached on (571) 272-0581. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/JENNIFER A BERRIOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613