DETAILED ACTION
Applicants' arguments, filed 09/23/2025, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
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 .
Priority
The instant application claims domestic priority to PRO 63/020,036 filed on 05/05/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) dated 08/06/2025 and 12/09/2025 both comply with provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP §609. Accordingly, they have been placed in the application file and the information therein has been considered as to the merits.
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 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.
A) Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deckner et al. (U.S. Patent Application 2012/0219606 A1).
Deckner ‘606 teaches a dentifrice that may contain stannous fluoride (Deckner at 0106-0107]), polyphosphates (Deckner at [0105]), zinc oxide (Deckner at [0184-0185]), polydentate ligands (Deckner at [0138-0151]), monodentate ligands (Deckner at [0131-0137]), precipitated silica(Deckner at [0083]), calcium pyrophosphate (Deckner at [0083]), arginine (Deckner at [0120]), humectants (Deckner at [0173]), and water (Deckner at [0173]). Deckner further teaches that the composition may include gluconate (Deckner at [0185] and [0137]), lactate (Deckner at [0107], [0153], [0185]), and orthophosphates (Deckner at [0086]). Deckner further teaches that some embodiments optimized for improved cleaning, the composition may further comprise precipitated silica (Deckner at [0083]). Deckner teaches that the fluoride ions may be present in an amount sufficient to give a fluoride ion concentration in the composition at 25° C., and/or in one embodiment can be used at levels of from about 0.0025% to about 5.0% by weight, in another embodiment from about 0.005% to about 2.0% by weight, to provide anticaries effectiveness (Deckner at [0102]). Deckner further teaches that for formulations comprising fused silica, stannous, and fluoride, it may be desired to have a pH of less than 5.0. A pH of less than 5.0 may enable more of the SnF3 stannous species to be formed (Deckner at [0104]).
Deckner ‘606 differs from the instant claims in this rejection insofar as it does not teach the combination of the instantly recited components with sufficient specificity for anticipation. Deckner teaches the components of the instant recited composition and uses each component of their established function in the art but does not explicitly combine the components together into a single embodiment or a preferred composition. However, given the disclosure of each component individually, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the filing of the present patent application and following the teachings of Deckner to have selected and combined known components for their established functions with predictable results. MPEP §2143 and §2144.06(I).
Regarding instant claim 32, Deckner teaches a dentifrice composition comprising stannous fluoride (Deckner at 0106-0107]), polydentate ligands including citric acid (Deckner at [0138-0151]), monodentate ligands (Deckner at [0131-0137]), and precipitated silica (Deckner at [0083]). Deckner teaches the use of gluconate (Deckner at [0185] and [0137]). Deckner further teaches that the dentifrice may include zinc and further offers alternatives including copper and tin (Deckner at [0116-0120], which would allow for a zinc free composition to be produced. The inclusion of zinc is optional (Deckner at [0184-0185]). Deckner further teaches that the pH of the composition may be from about 3 to about 10. This range of pH about 3 to about 10 overlaps with the instantly claimed pH range of at least about 6. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I). Deckner teaches that the dentifrice may contain stannous ions in a range from about 0.0001% to about 11% (Deckner at [0106-0107]), tartronic acid (as a monodentate ligand) from about 0.01% to about 20% (Deckner at [0160-0166]), and polyphosphates (as a polydentate ligand) in a range from about 0.1% to about 35% (Deckner at [0138-0151]). The ratio of tin to monodentate ligand to polydentate ligand within these ranges would be able to overlap with the instantly claimed range of about 1 to 1 to 0.5 to about 1 to 2.5 to 2.5. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I). Deckner teaches that the fluoride ions may be present in an amount sufficient to give a fluoride ion concentration in the composition at 25° C., and/or in one embodiment can be used at levels of from about 0.0025% to about 5.0% by weight,to provide anticaries effectiveness (Deckner at [0102]), this range overlaps with the instantly claimed range of at least 1000ppm (about 0.1%). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I).
B) Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deckner et al (U.S. Patent Application 2014/0127145 A1).
Deckner ‘145 teaches an oral care composition comprising precipitated silica and stannous ions (Deckner at claim 7). Decker teaches the use of phthalic acid (Deckner at [0073]) and stannous oxalate (Deckner at claim 9). Deckner teaches the use of precipitated silica (Deckner at claim 7) and calcium carbonate (Deckner at [0046]). Deckner teaches that the composition has a pH of 3 to 10 (Deckner at [0103]). Deckner teaches that the composition has a pellicle cleaning ratio of 121 or 127 (Deckner at [0118]). Deckner teaches the use of stannous fluoride (Deckner at [0012]). Deckner teaches the use of polymer thickening agents (Deckner at [0111-0117]). Deckner teaches the optional use of zinc citrate (Deckner at [0102]). Deckner teaches the use of amino acids and more specifically basic amino acids including arginine (Deckner at [0047]). Deckner teaches the use of whitening agents like peroxides (Deckner at [0065]). Deckner teaches the use of glycerin, sorbitol, xylitol, butylene glycol, propylene glycol, and polyethylene glycol (Deckner at [0124]).
Deckner ‘145 differs from the instant claims in this rejection insofar as it does not teach the combination of the instantly recited components with sufficient specificity for anticipation. Deckner teaches the components of the instant recited composition and uses each component for their established function in the art, but does not explicitly combine the components together into a single embodiment or a preferred composition. However, given the disclosure of each component individually, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the filing of the present patent application and following the teachings of Deckner to have selected and combined known components for their established functions with predictable results. MPEP §2143 and §2144.06(I).
Regarding instant claim 32, Deckner teaches an oral care composition comprising precipitated silica and stannous ions (Deckner at claim 7). Decker teaches the use of citric acid (Deckner at [0090]), phthalic acid (Deckner at [0073]) and stannous oxalate (Deckner at claim 9). Deckner teaches the use of gluconate (Deckner at [0185] and [0137]). Deckner teaches the use of precipitated silica (Deckner at claim 7) and calcium carbonate (Deckner at [0046]). Deckner teaches that the composition has a pH of 3 to 10 (Deckner at [0103]). Deckner teaches the use of zinc-based ingredients as optional alternatives as well as other suitable alternatives. It would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art following the teachings of Deckner to choose alternative ingredients and exclude zinc. Upon doing so, it would be expected that the composition would be successfully formulated without any zinc. Deckner teaches stannous oxalate in an amount of about 0.001% to about 11%, by weight of the oral care compositions (Deckner at [0058]). Deckner teaches citric acid in a range of about 0.1% to about 30% (Deckner at [0103]). Deckner teaches, stannous fluoride in a range of about 0.001% to about 11%, by weight of the oral care compositions (Deckner at [0058]). The ratio of tin to monodentate ligand to polydentate ligand within these ranges would be able to overlap with the instantly claimed range of about 1 to 1 to 0.5 to about 1 to 2.5 to 2.5. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I). Deckner teaches that fluoride ion may be present in an amount sufficient to give a fluoride ion concentration in the composition at 25° C., and/or in one embodiment can be used at levels of from about 0.0025% to about 5.0% by weight (Deckner at [0062]) this range overlaps with the instantly claimed range of at least 1000ppm (about 0.1%). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I).
C) Claims 1, 4-5, 8, 10-29 and 31-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deckner et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0219606 A1) in view of Takamatsu (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20180147131A1).
The teachings of Deckner ‘606 are discussed above.
The teachings of Deckner ‘606 differ from claim 1 insofar as they do not teach the use of aldonic acids. The teachings of Takamatsu cure this deficit.
Takamatsu recites an oral composition (Takamatsu at claim 1). Takamatsu recites wherein the composition is a paste dentifrice, a powder dentifrice, a liquid dentifrice, a mouthwash, an oral cleaning agent, or a troche (Takamatsu at claim 5). Takamatsu teaches the use of stannous fluoride (Takamatsu at [0068]).Takamatsu teaches the use of silica abrasives and calcium pyrophosphate (Takamatsu at [0049]).Takamatsu teaches the use of organic acids which can include an organic acid such as citric acid, isocitric acid, malic acid, acetic acid, oxalic acid, malonic acid, succinic acid, glutaric acid, maleic acid, fumaric acid, aconitic acid, lactic acid, tartaric acid, pyruvic acid, ascorbic acid, aldonic acid, and uronic acid, and ume vinegar (Takamatsu at [0056]).Takamatsu teaches the use of water in a paste dentifrice (Takamatsu at [0043]).Takamatsu teaches the use of calcium gluconate(Takamatsu at [0080]).Takamatsu teaches the use of glycine (Takamatsu at [0067]).Takamatsu teaches sodium stearoyl lactate(Takamatsu at [0053]).Takamatsu does not require the use of zinc.
The teachings of Takamatsu differ from instant claim 1 insofar as they do not specifically teach how much fluoride to use in the oral composition. The teachings of Deckner cure this deficit.
It would have been prima facie obvious to have included the uronic acid with the aldonic acid, citric acid and succinic acid of Deckner as Takamatsu teaches uronic acid to be an acceptable organic acid for use in an oral composition. See MPEP 2144.06(I). One would have a reasonable expectation of success because Takamatsu teaches the use of uronic acid, aldonic acid,citric acid and succinic acid in an oral composition. Both Takamatsu and Deckner teach oral compositions comprising stannous, fluoride, silica, calcium pyrophosphate, gluconate, lactate, amino acid and organic acids, therefore there is a reasonable expectation of success in including the organic acid of Takamatsu with the organic acids of Deckner.
Regarding instant claim 1, Deckner teaches a dentifrice composition comprising stannous fluoride (Deckner at 0106-0107]), polydentate ligands (Deckner at [0138-0151]), monodentate ligands (Deckner at [0131-0137]), and precipitated silica (Deckner at [0083]). Deckner further teaches that the dentifrice may include zinc and further offers alternatives including copper and tin (Deckner at [0116-0120], which would allow for a zinc free composition to be produced. The inclusion of zinc is optional (Deckner at [0184-0185]). Deckner further teaches that the pH of the composition may be from about 3 to about 10. This range of pH about 3 to about 10 overlaps with the instantly claimed pH range of at least about 6. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I). Deckner teaches that the dentifrice may contain stannous ions in a range from about 0.0001% to about 11% (Deckner at [0106-0107]), tartronic acid (as a monodentate ligand) from about 0.01% to about 20% (Deckner at [0160-0166]), and polyphosphates (as a polydentate ligand) in a range from about 0.1% to about 35% (Deckner at [0138-0151]). The ratio of tin to monodentate ligand to polydentate ligand within these ranges would be able to overlap with the instantly claimed range of about 1 to 1 to 0.5 to about 1 to 2.5 to 2.5. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I). Takamatsu teaches the use of organic acids which can include an organic acid such as citric acid, isocitric acid, malic acid, acetic acid, oxalic acid, malonic acid, succinic acid, glutaric acid, maleic acid, fumaric acid, aconitic acid, lactic acid, tartaric acid, pyruvic acid, ascorbic acid, aldonic acid, and uronic acid, and ume vinegar (Takamatsu at [0056]). Deckner teaches that the fluoride ions may be present in an amount sufficient to give a fluoride ion concentration in the composition at 25° C., and/or in one embodiment can be used at levels of from about 0.0025% to about 5.0% by weight,to provide anticaries effectiveness (Deckner at [0102]), this range overlaps with the instantly claimed range of at least 1000ppm (about 0.1%). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I).
Regarding instant claim 4, Deckner teaches a dentifrice composition comprising stannous fluoride (Deckner at 0106-0107]). Takamatsu teaches the use of stannous fluoride (Takamatsu at [0068]).
Regarding instant claim 5, Deckner teaches the use of calcium pyrophosphate (Deckner at [0083]). Takamatsu teaches the use of silica abrasives and calcium pyrophosphate (Takamatsu at [0049]).
Regarding instant claim 8, Deckner teaches that the dentifrice may contain stannous ions in a range from about 0.0001% to about 11% (Deckner at [0106-0107]), tartronic acid (as a monodentate ligand) from about 0.01% to about 20% (Deckner at [0160-0166]), and polyphosphates (as a polydentate ligand) in a range from about 0.1% to about 35% (Deckner at [0138-0151]). The ratio of tin to monodentate ligand to polydentate ligand within these ranges would be able to overlap with the instantly claimed range of about 1 to 1 to 1 to about 1 to 2.5 to 2.5. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I).
Regarding instant claim 10, Deckner teaches a dentifrice composition comprising stannous fluoride (Deckner at 0106-0107]). Takamatsu teaches the use of stannous fluoride (Takamatsu at [0068]).
Regarding instant claim 11, Deckner teaches that the dentifrice which can be produced with humectants other than water (Deckner at [0173]) including edible polyhydric alcohols such as glycerin, sorbitol, xylitol, butylene glycol, polyethylene glycol, and propylene glycol (Deckner at [0173]).
Regarding instant claim 12, Deckner teaches that the dentifrice may contain water (Deckner at [0173]).
Regarding instant claim 13, Deckner teaches that the dentifrice may contain about 1% to about 90% water (Deckner at [0173]). This range overlaps with the instantly claimed range of up to 45%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I).
Regarding instant claims 14-16, and 18, Deckner teaches the use of gluconate (Deckner at [0185] and [0137]).
Regarding instant claim 17, Takamatsu teaches the use of organic acids which can include an organic acid such as citric acid, isocitric acid, malic acid, acetic acid, oxalic acid, malonic acid, succinic acid, glutaric acid, maleic acid, fumaric acid, aconitic acid, lactic acid, tartaric acid, pyruvic acid, ascorbic acid, aldonic acid, and uronic acid, and ume vinegar (Takamatsu at [0056]).
Regarding instant claims 19 and 20, Deckner teaches the use of arginine (Deckner at [0120]). Takamatsu teaches the use of glycine (Takamatsu at [0067]).
Regarding instant claim 21, Deckner teaches the use of lactate (Deckner at [0107], [0153], [0185]). Takamatsu teaches sodium stearoyl lactate (Takamatsu at [0053]).
Regarding instant claims 22-27, Deckner teaches that the dentifrice may contain malic acid, succinic acid, or tartronic acid (Deckner at [0137]). Takamatsu teaches the use of organic acids which can include an organic acid such as citric acid, isocitric acid, malic acid, acetic acid, oxalic acid, malonic acid, succinic acid, glutaric acid, maleic acid, fumaric acid, aconitic acid, lactic acid, tartaric acid, pyruvic acid, ascorbic acid, aldonic acid, and uronic acid, and ume vinegar (Takamatsu at [0056]).
Regarding instant claim 28, Deckner teaches the use of citric acid (Deckner at [0137]). Takamatsu teaches the use of organic acids which can include an organic acid such as citric acid (Takamatsu at [0056]).
Regarding instant claim 29, Deckner teaches the use of polyphosphates (Deckner at [0105]) and more specifically pyrophosphates (Deckner at [0086]). Takamatsu teaches the use of silica abrasives and calcium pyrophosphate (Takamatsu at [0049]).
Regarding instant claim 31, Deckner teaches that the pH of the composition may be from about 3 to about 10. This range of pH about 3 to about 10 overlaps with the instantly claimed pH range of at least about 6.5. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I).
Regarding instant claim 32, Deckner teaches a dentifrice composition comprising stannous fluoride (Deckner at 0106-0107]), polydentate ligands including citric acid (Deckner at [0138-0151]), monodentate ligands (Deckner at [0131-0137]), and precipitated silica (Deckner at [0083]). Deckner teaches the use of gluconate (Deckner at [0185] and [0137]). Deckner further teaches that the dentifrice may include zinc and further offers alternatives including copper and tin (Deckner at [0116-0120], which would allow for a zinc free composition to be produced. The inclusion of zinc is optional (Deckner at [0184-0185]). Deckner further teaches that the pH of the composition may be from about 3 to about 10. This range of pH about 3 to about 10 overlaps with the instantly claimed pH range of at least about 6. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I). Deckner teaches that the dentifrice may contain stannous ions in a range from about 0.0001% to about 11% (Deckner at [0106-0107]), tartronic acid (as a monodentate ligand) from about 0.01% to about 20% (Deckner at [0160-0166]), and polyphosphates (as a polydentate ligand) in a range from about 0.1% to about 35% (Deckner at [0138-0151]). The ratio of tin to monodentate ligand to polydentate ligand within these ranges would be able to overlap with the instantly claimed range of about 1 to 1 to 0.5 to about 1 to 2.5 to 2.5. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I). Deckner teaches that the fluoride ions may be present in an amount sufficient to give a fluoride ion concentration in the composition at 25° C., and/or in one embodiment can be used at levels of from about 0.0025% to about 5.0% by weight,to provide anticaries effectiveness (Deckner at [0102]), this range overlaps with the instantly claimed range of at least 1000ppm (about 0.1%). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I).
Regarding instant claim 33, Deckner teaches the use of calcium pyrophosphate (Deckner at [0094]).
Regarding instant claim 34, Deckner teaches the use of buffering agents in a range of 0.1% to 30% including alkali metal hydroxides, ammonium hydroxide, organic ammonium compounds, carbonates, sesquicarbonates, borates, silicates, phosphates, imidazole, and mixtures thereof (Deckner at [0185]).
Regarding instant claim 35, Deckner further teaches that the pH of the composition may be from about 3 to about 10. This range of pH about 3 to about 10 overlaps with the instantly claimed pH range of 6 to 8. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/23/2025 with regards to Deckner I and Deckner II have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended claim 1 limitations are not provided for in Decker I and Deckner II, therefore the obviousness rejections should be withdrawn.
The Examiner does not agree. Independent claim 32 has not been amended. As such the obviousness rejections are maintained. The amended independent claim 1 is addressed in Deckner in view of Takamatsu above. As such, Applicants arguments are not persuasive and the obviousness rejection of claim 32 in view of Deckner I and Deckner II stand.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 09/23/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims under Deckner and Holliday have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Deckner and Takamatsu.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 4-5, 8, 10-29 and 31-35 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over:
claims 1-11,13-24, and 33 of copending Application No. 17/308,086,
claims 1, 3, 5-6, 9-28, and 30-32 of copending Application No. 17/308,085, and
claims 1, 4-5, 7-10, 12-22, 25-41 of copending Application No. 17/308,078,
each taken in in view of Deckner et al. (U.S. Patent App. No. 2012/0219606 A1) and Takamatsu (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20180147131A1).
While the instant claims are not identical to the copending claims, all of the copending applications recite a dentifrice composition wherein the dentifrice composition comprises a monodentate ligand, a polydentate ligand, tin, and an abrasive wherein the pH is at least about 6 and the inclusion of zinc is optional. See MPEP 2143.
The teachings of Deckner and Takamatsu are discussed above.
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art following the copending claims to include the reagents of Deckner and Takamatsu in order to produce the predictable result of a dentifrice. One would have a reasonable expectation of success because both Deckner, Takamatsu, and the copending applications produce a dentifrice comprising a monodentate ligand, a polydentate ligand, tin, and an abrasive wherein the pH is at least about 6 and the inclusion of zinc is optional.
Reference claims and prior art combine to produce a prima facie case of obviousness type non-statutory double patenting.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Double Patenting Remarks
Applicant argues that upon indication of allowable subject matter but for the non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection, the Applicant will consider filing a terminal disclaimer if necessary.
Since required terminal disclaimers has not yet been filed, the non-statutory double patenting rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
No claims are presently allowable.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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 will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA MICHELLE PETRITSCH whose telephone number is (571)272-6812. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 08:30-17:00 EST ALT Fridays.
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, Sahana S. Kaup, can be reached at 571-272-6897. 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.
/AMANDA MICHELLE PETRITSCH/Examiner, Art Unit 1612
/SAHANA S KAUP/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612