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 e present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of the Application
Claims 1-6 and 8-17 have been examined in this application. This communication is a Final Rejection in response to the "Amendment" and Remarks" filed on 02/12/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6 and 9-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9775690 to Cheetham in view of US 20040020796 to Cheetham et al (referred to herein as “Cheetham2”).
As per claim 1, and as the examiner can understand the claim, Cheetham discloses mixing and dispensing container (Fig. 1-9) for mixing and dispensing dental materials comprising:
a plunger (18);
an open-ended liquid receptacle (14) adapted to receive the plunger (Fig. 1); and
a main body (12) with a proximal end and distal end (Fig. 1), a chamber (17) open at the proximal end and an aperture in the distal end (Fig. 1);
an end cap (24) secured to the distal end of the main body, wherein the end cap provides a nozzle (26);
wherein the chamber is adapted to receive the liquid receptacle (Col. 1, Ln. 67- Col. 2, Ln. 2); and
wherein, in use, the dental capsule mixes various components of the dental materials and forms a dental paste for dispensing (Col. 2, Ln. 42-49 & 60-63).
Cheetham does not disclose: a maximum external width of the end cap does not exceed the width of a portion of the distal end of which the end cap engages. Cheetham2 teaches a mixing a dispensing container for mixing and dispensing dental materials (Fig. 1-4) comprising: a main body having a distal end (13); an end cap (50) having a maximum external width that does not exceed a width of a portion of the distal end of which the end cap engages (Fig. 2-4). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Cheetham according to the aforementioned teachings from Cheetham2 for reasons including to provide a continuous flush surface at a joint between the end cap and the distal end.
As per claims 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, Cheetham further discloses
the liquid receptacle comprises a centrally weakened portion (38);
the plunger has a forwardly projecting protrusion (42) adapted to break the centrally weakened portion of the liquid receptacle (Fig. 1-2);
a liquid is housed within the liquid receptacle and a powder is housed within the chamber, wherein the plunger is in engagement with the liquid receptacle such that upon the plunger being depressed the liquid in the receptacle is pushed into the chamber and a front portion of the liquid receptacle being broken away by depression of the plunger so as to push a mixture of liquid and powder in the chamber to form a dental paste for dispensing through the aperture (Col. 2, Ln. 1-2 & 42-53 & 60-67; Fig. 1-5).
As per claim 9, Cheetham further discloses the dental capsule further comprises a nozzle (26) connected over the aperture at the distal end of the main body (Col. 2, ln. 20-22).
As per claim 10, Cheetham further discloses the dental capsule further comprises a frangible membrane (22) covering the aperture (Fig. 1).
As per claim 11, Cheetham further discloses the chamber comprises a vent feature (46) for allowing entrapped air to escape from the mixed paste during extrusion (Col. 4, Ln. 24-40).
As per claim 12-13, Cheetham further discloses wherein the central weakened portion of the liquid receptacle has a thickness of less than 0.03 mm (Col. 2, Ln. 16-17).
As per claim 14, Cheetham further discloses the central weakened portion of the liquid receptacle is formed of a unitary sheet of material that is integral to the liquid receptacle (Col. 2, Ln. 30-36).
As per claim 15, Cheetham further discloses the frangible membrane has a thickness of less than 0.02 mm (Col. 2, ln. 16-19).
As per claim 16, Cheetham further discloses the frangible membrane is formed of a unitary sheet of material (Col. 2, ln. 16-19).
As per claim 17, Cheetham further discloses the dental capsule further comprises a seal located on an external surface of the plunger (Col. 2, Ln. 2-5).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9775690 to Cheetham in view of US 20040020796 to Cheetham et al in view of US 5026283 to Osanai et al.
As per claim 8, the Cheetham-Cheetham2 combination discloses the claimed invention except for the dental capsule being made from a transparent material. Osanai teaches a dental capsule made from a transparent material (Col. 3, Ln. 17-21). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to provide the dental capsule of the Cheetham-Cheetham2 combination in a transparent material to ensure easy sight of the material contained therein (Col. 3, ln. 18-21).
The combination does not explicitly disclose the transparent material of the dental capsule “allowing an operator to view how far the plunger has been depressed”. However, the transparent material of the capsule of the Cheetham-Cheetham2-Osanai combination allows a view of internal components during operation, including the movable plunger (Cheetham: Fig. 3-4) – i.e. allowing an operator to view how far the plunger has been depressed, as required by the claim.
Response to Arguments
In regards to the claim rejections under 35 USC § 112, the amendments filed 02/12/26 appropriately overcome all and the rejections are withdrawn.
In regards to the claim rejections under prior art, the remarks filed 02/12/26 have been fully considered but are not found persuasive. Applicant requests withdrawal of the claim rejections by providing the following arguments:
In both citations to Cheetham, the maximum external width of the end cap exceeds the width of the distal end of the capsule because the wider portion 54 of the end cap fits over the distal end wall 46 until it abuts projection portion 13 on the body 11. The projection 13 is a portion of the body 11 and not a portion of distal end 46.
In response to (A), and as previously set forth, Cheetham2 teaches a mixing a dispensing container comprising an end cap (50) having a maximum external width that does not exceed a width of a portion of the distal end of which the end cap engages (maximum width of end cap does not appear to exceed any width of features of the container/capsule to which the cap is engaged Fig. 2-4; See Figure A, below).
PNG
media_image1.png
581
887
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A: US 2004/0020796 Figure 4 - annotated
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
The prior art made of record in FORM PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period with expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(A) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Randy Gruby, whose telephone number is (571) 272-3415. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM.
If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Paul Durand, can be reached at (571) 272-4459.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Data Portal (PDP). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PDP) system. For more information about the PDP system, see https://opsg-portal.uspto.gov/OPSGPortal/. Should you have questions on access to the PDP system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/R.A.G/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/PAUL R DURAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 March 3, 2026