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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/28/2026 has been entered.
Applicants' arguments, filed 05/28/2026, 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 Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn.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.
Claim Status
Claims 36-39, 42-46, and 48-53 are pending and under examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 53 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “wherein, wherein” and the repeated wherein should be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) - New Matter
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 36-39, 42-46, and 48-53, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 36, as newly amended, recited “a first part…comprising a whitening agent and from about 6 to about 12 wt% of a first thickening agent with respect to the first part.” While the instant specification appears to have support for about 6 to about 12 wt% of a thickening agent by weight of the composition, it does not appear that there is support for the weight range with respect to the weight of the first part specifically (see ¶ 59 of the instant specification). In support, the examiner notes that the term “composition” is recited in claim 36 as referring to the combined first and second parts, rather than the individual parts.
Claims 37-39, 42-46, and 48-53, are rejected for the same reasons for depending upon rejected claim 36.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) or pre-AIA 2nd ¶
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 38 stands 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 38 recites the limitation "wherein the second part thickening agent comprises the crosslinked polyvinylpyrrolidone as the thickening agent" in lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 38 depends from claim 36, where a lightly to moderately crosslinked polyvinylpyrrolidone is recited as well as a crosslinked polyvinylpyrrolidone comprising a moderately crosslinked polyvinylpyrrolidone having an aqueous gel volume of 15-150 ml/g of polymer, and a Brookfield viscosity in 5% aqueous solution form 20,000 cps to 50,000 cps, and it is unclear which crosslinked polyvinylpyrrolidone the limitation “the crosslinked polyvinylpyrrolidone as the thickening agent” is referring to where there are multiple recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as wherein the second part thickening agent comprises a crosslinked polyvinylpyrrolidone comprising a moderately crosslinked polyvinylpyrrolidone having an aqueous gel volume of 15-150 ml/g of polymer, and a Brookfield viscosity in 5% aqueous solution form 20,000 cps to 50,000 cps.
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.
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.
Claims 36-39, 42-46, and 48-53, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiao et al. (US 2016/0095801) in view of Ahn et al. (KR 0163502) and Prosise et al (US 20130209376 A1).
Jiao et al. disclose multi-component dental whitening compositions comprising a bleaching agent and an activating agent (abs). The tooth whitening compositions of the present invention comprises a two-component system presented in dual-barrel syringes (¶ 23). The first component active bleaching agent, a peroxide, may be present at above about 15% by weight, preferably from about 15% by weight to about 40% by weight peroxide (¶ 46). The bleaching gel has a pH below 7, preferably between about 4 to about 6 (¶ 36). The activator gel has an alkaline pH from about 7.5 to about 8.9 (¶ 21, claim 15). The peroxide includes hydrogen peroxide, carbamide peroxide and urea peroxide (¶ 46). Second component is an activator gel (¶ 53, claim 1). The first and second component are in a ratio of 1:1 to 5:1 first to second component (¶ 47). The activating agents include potassium hydroxide, sodium carbonate and bicarbonate and can be used to adjust the pH (¶¶ 11, 41). When the two components are mixed, the resulting pH ranges from 7.0 to 8.5 (¶ 41). A kit includes a dual compartment syringe comprising bleaching gel in a first part and activator gel in a second part (¶ 20). Surfactants are used and include polyoxyethylene/polyoxypropylene block copolymer ranging from about 0.5% to about 15 wt%, and achieve effective whitening results (¶¶ 43, 50). Thickeners should be used to obtain a viscous gel so that it can cling to the surface of teeth, and include polyvinyl pyrrolidone (¶ 37) ranging from about 0.1% to about 35 wt% (¶ 47). Both components comprise a thickening agent (see Tables). In exemplified embodiments, the activator gel (i.e., second part) comprises from 1-8 wt% thickening agent (table 2). Water comprises 40-60 wt% of the activator gel (i.e., the second part), with embodiments disclosed comprising 50 wt% water (Tables 2, 3). Water is a suitable liquid carrier as evidenced by the instant specification (see instant specification pg. 9). Glycerin comprises 17% of the bleaching gel (Table 1). The compositions are in the form of a viscous gel (¶ 14).
Jiao et al. differ from the instant claims insofar as it does not disclose the crosslinked polyvinylpyrrolidone of claim 36 nor directly disclose the specific pH of the alkaline material as instantly claimed.
Ahn et al. disclose stable whitening liquid toothpaste compositions. The compositions comprise a peroxide containing component and a basic liquid toothpaste having a pH of 7.5 to 10.5. Since the basic liquid toothpaste having a pH of 7.5 to 10.5 is used simultaneously, it can promote the decomposition of peroxide in the oral cavity and exhibit the maximum whitening effect for a short brushing time, as well as the cleaning effect and tooth decay expected in a conventional toothpaste. Preventive effects can also be expected. That is, the basic liquid toothpaste is adjusted to a pH of 7.5 to 10.5 by using a pH adjuster in a conventional liquid toothpaste, and it is considered that the pH of the peroxide is changed to weak alkali when used to promote the decomposition of the peroxide, thereby increasing the whitening effect. pH adjusting agents include strong alkaline substances such as sodium hydroxide (page 3).
Ahn et al do not teach the first part thickening agent of claim 36.
Prosise et al teach oral care containing an oral care ingredient and a thickening agent (abs). The oral care compositions in the form of a gel, etc., contain a lightly to moderately crosslinked polyvinylpyrrolidone thickening agent (¶ 6), wherein the lightly to moderately crosslinked polyvinylpyrrolidone has an aqueous gel volume from about 15-150 ml/g, and a Brookfield viscosity of 5% crosslinked PVP in a liquid carrier comprising at least about 10,000 cP (¶ 9). Teeth bleaching actives can be used, including hydrogen peroxide (¶¶ 37, 39). The thickening agent is used to develop the desired viscosity for oral compositions so that they are suitable for their intended use (¶ 2). The amount of thickening agent can vary depending on the consistency and the desired thickness of the composition. The thickening agent may be used in a mounts from about 0.5 to about 10% (¶ 14). The compositions are produced as stable compositions.
Regarding the kit of claim 36, it would have obvious to formulate the whitening composition in the form of a kit with a first and second part, as taught by Jiao et al.
Regarding the pH of the first part, it would have been obvious to formulate the first part with a pH below 7, preferably between about 4 to about 6, as motivated by Jiao et al.
Regarding the amount of thickener in the first part, it would have been obvious to include the thickening agent in amounts ranging from about 0.1% to about 35 wt%, as taught by Jiao. 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 the hydrogen peroxide amount, it would have been obvious to formulate the first part with hydrogen peroxide in an amount above about 15 wt%, preferably from about 15% by weight to about 40% by weight peroxide, as taught by Jiao et al, overlapping the claimed range. 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 the pH of the alkaline material (i.e., second part), where Jiao et al teaches the second part has a pH up to about 8.9, where “about” is defined by Jiao as +/- 10% of the stated number, thereby resulting in a pH up to 9.79, it would have been obvious adjust the pH alkaline component of Jiao et al. with a pH of 10-10.5, because when mixed with the peroxide containing part, it would raise the pH of the peroxide part to promote the decomposition of peroxide in the oral cavity and would exhibit the maximum whitening effect, as taught by Anh et al. Further, it would have been well within the relative skills of the skilled artisan to have routinely optimized the pH in order to achieve desired whitening effect. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding the amount of thickener in the second part, it would have been obvious to include the thickener in amounts ranging from 1-8 wt%, as taught by Jiao et al.
Regarding the crosslinked polyvinylpyrrolidone thickeners, where Jiao et al teach thickeners can be included in both parts, including polyvinylpyrrolidone, it would have been obvious to include other thickeners that were known to be suitable for oral formulations comprising teeth whitening agents in both parts, such as a lightly to moderately crosslinked polyvinylpyrrolidone thickening agent, wherein the lightly to moderately crosslinked polyvinylpyrrolidone has an aqueous gel volume from about 15-150 ml/g, and a Brookfield viscosity of 5% crosslinked PVP in a liquid carrier comprising at least about 10,000 cP, as taught by Prosise et al, in order to obtain a viscous gel that can cling to the surface of teeth, as taught by Jiao et al. Generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07. 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 the pH when combined, Examiner notes that the claims are directed to a kit comprising a first and second part, and the combining of the two parts is directed to the intended use of the two parts in the kit. Nevertheless, where Jiao et al teach when the two parts are mixed, the resulting pH ranges from 7.0 to 8.5, the limitations are met.
Regarding the mixing ratio when combined, Examiner notes that the claims are directed to a kit comprising a first and second part, and the combining of the two parts is directed to the intended use of the two parts in the kit. Nevertheless, where Jiao et al teaches the mixing ratio of the first and second part ranges from 1:1 to 5:1, it would have been obvious to mix the first and second part within those ratios, overlapping the claimed range. 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 claim 37, where the combination made obvious by Jiao et al, Anh et al, and Prosise et al comprise the same components within the amounts claimed, it appears that the functional limitation of the pH increasing after activation is inherent to the combination itself. See MPEP 2112(II) and (III).
Regarding claim 38, it would have been obvious to formulate the teeth whitening kit made obvious above by Jiao et al, Anh et al, and Prosise et al where both components comprise a thickening agent, as taught by Jiao et al.
Regarding the type of thickener, it would have been obvious to select the crosslinked polyvinylpyrrolidone thickener made obvious above and for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 39, it would have been obvious to use a kit that includes a dual compartment syringe comprising bleaching gel in a first part and activator gel in a second part, as taught by Jiao et al.
Regarding claim 42, it would have obvious to include the activating agents potassium hydroxide, sodium carbonate and bicarbonate, in order to adjust the pH, as taught by Jiao et al.
Regarding claim 43, it would have been obvious to further include a polyoxyethylene/polyoxypropylene block copolymer in amounts ranging from about 0.5% to about 15 wt%, which were shown to be included to achieve effective whitening results, as taught by Jiao et al. 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 claim 44, where a dual barrel syringe is made obvious above by Jiao et al, and is used as a kit to mix the two parts, it appears that the two parts would be mixed at the tip, thereby reading on a “mixing tip.” Even if not, it would have been obvious to use a mixing tip to mix the components at the same time when using a dual barrel syringe.
Regarding claim 45, it would have been obvious to include water in an amount ranging from 40-60 wt%, as taught by Jiang et al, a suitable liquid carrier as evidenced by the instant specification above. 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 claim 46, the pH of each part would be expected to control the final pH when mixed. It would have taken no more than the relative skills of a skilled artisan to have adjusted the pH of each component to obtain the desired pH when mixed to achieve desired whitening effect, such as adjusting the pH of the second part to within the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding the type of kit of claims 48 and 49, the two component compositions made obvious above comprise the same components in the amounts instantly claimed, in the form of a kit, and would therefore be suitable for home or office use. Therefore, the compositions of the references meet the limitation of the claim.
Regarding claim 50, where the compositions of Jiao et al are disclosed as a viscous gel, the limitations are met.
Regarding claims 51 and 52, it would have been obvious to formulate the first part of Jiang et al with hydrogen peroxide in an amount about above 15 wt%, as taught by Jiang et al, which includes those amounts instantly claimed. 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 claim 53, Examiner notes that the claims are directed to a kit comprising a first and second part, and the combining of the two parts is directed to the intended use of the two parts in the kit. Nevertheless, where a first and second part thickening agent overlapping the claimed ranges are made obvious above, it would be reasonably expected that the amount of thickening agent upon mixing would also overlap the instantly claimed range. 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). Even if not, it would have been well within the relative skills of the skilled artisan to have routinely optimized the amount of thickening agent in the compositions in order to achieve desired and optimal viscosity for the intended use of clinging to teeth, etc. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Response to Arguments
First, Applicants assert Jiao et al do not disclose a first part comprising from about 40 wt% to about 50 wt% hydrogen peroxide, rather, Applicants assert Jiao et al teaches peroxide concentrations above about 15 wt% and preferably from about 15 wt% to about 40 wt%. Applicants assert Jiao et al does not teach the first thickening agent as instantly claimed, and instead broadly identifies thickening agents such as polyvinylpyrrolidone, etc. Applicants assert Jiao et al teaches an activator gel having a pH of about 7.5 to about 8.9, and does not disclose at least 10 as instantly claimed. Applicants assert Jiao et al does not disclose or suggest the volume ratio of between 3.5:1 and 4.5:1 in combination with the recited peroxide concentration and thickening agent.
Second, Applicants assert Ahn et al do not disclose a first part containing from about 40 wt% to about 50 wt% hydrogen peroxide, a dual component kit having the claimed thickening system, does not disclose the thickening agents as instantly claimed, nor the claimed volume ratio of between 3.5:1 and 4.5:1.
Third, Applicants assert Prosise et al are directed to a single phase oral care composition, and thus not disclose a first part comprising from about 40 wt% to about 50 wt% hydrogen peroxide, a second part having a pH of at least 10, a mixed pH of between 7 and 9, the volume ratio between 3.5:1 and 4.5:1, nor the thickening agents as instantly claimed.
Fourth, Applicants assert the proposed modification is impermissible hindsight reconstruction and the proposed modifications would change the principle operation of the primary references. Applicants assert the stabilization of Jiao et al is achieved through the use of specific thickening agents, stabilizers, and pH conditions, and the bleaching gel is intentionally maintained at an acidic pH and the activator gel is maintained at a relatively mild alkaline pH. Applicants assert modifying Jiao et al to employ the present claimed peroxide concentration, together with the claimed thickener system and a second part pH of at least 10, would fundamentally alter the balance between peroxide stability and activation.
Fifth, Applicants assert incorporating Prosise’s thickener into a dual component system having the claimed properties would require a substantial redesign of the reference rather than a simple substitution, and would alter the intended mode of operation of the cited references.
First, respectfully, this argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicants assert the peroxide concentrations are not taught, but the amounts taught by Jiao et al clearly overlap the claimed range, and is therefore obvious for the same reasons above. While Jiao et al do not appear to teach the claimed thickening agent, Prosise et al were relied upon for motivation for including known thickening agents suitable for oral care gel compositions comprising hydrogen peroxide for teeth whitening, including the thickening agent instantly claimed. Ahn et al were relied upon for making obvious the pH of the activator gel. Regarding the ratio, Examiner notes that the claims are directed to a kit comprising a first and second part, and the combining of the two parts is directed to the intended use of the two parts in the kit. Nevertheless, where Jiao et al teaches the mixing ratio of the first and second part ranges from 1:1 to 5:1, it would have been obvious to mix the first and second part within those ratios, overlapping the claimed range for the same reasons discussed above.
Second, respectfully, this argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant lists various claimed limitations that are allegedly not taught by the reference, however, the examiner notes that Ahn et al were simply cited for motivation to adjust the pH the activator gel of Jiao et al, and is obvious for the same reasons discussed above and of record.
Third, respectfully, this argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant lists various claimed limitations that are allegedly not taught by the reference, however, Prosise et al were only relied upon for motivation for including known thickening agents suitable for oral care gel compositions comprising hydrogen peroxide for teeth whitening, including the thickening agent instantly claimed, and appears to be obvious for the same reasons above and of record.
Fourth, respectfully, this argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Here, the modifications to Jiao et al would have taken no more than knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and teachings from analogous prior art, for the reasons discussed above and of record.
Regarding the peroxide content, Jiao et al teaches a range above about 15 wt% and preferably from about 15 wt% to about 40 wt%, is suitable for the stable two-component whitening systems disclosed by the reference. Where the range taught by Jiao et al overlaps the claimed range, and even has preferable amount of about 40 wt%, the skilled artisan would reasonably expect stability.
Regarding the pH, Jiao et al teach stable compositions with a first part bleaching agent with a pH overlapping the instantly claimed range and mixed pH of 7.0 to 8.5, falling within the claimed range. While Jiao et al does not appear to teach a second part activator gel comprising a pH of at least 10, and teaches up to 9.79 as discussed above, which is only 0.21 pH below the claimed range, pH values within the claimed range were known from Ahn et al, and are taught to improve the maximum teeth whitening effect when combined with hydrogen peroxide, and there appears to be no teachings or suggestions that the second part, which is to be combined with the hydrogen peroxide part at a later time, would lack stability. Further, it would have been well within the relative skills of the skilled artisan to routinely optimize the pH of the activator part, in order to achieve desired whitening effects. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding the thickener, where Jiao et al teach thickeners, including polyvinylpyrrolidone based thickeners, it would have been obvious to include other thickeners that were known to be suitable for stable oral formulations comprising teeth hydrogen peroxide, such as a lightly to moderately crosslinked polyvinylpyrrolidone thickening agent, wherein the lightly to moderately crosslinked polyvinylpyrrolidone has an aqueous gel volume from about 15-150 ml/g, and a Brookfield viscosity of 5% crosslinked PVP in a liquid carrier comprising at least about 10,000 cP, as taught by Prosise et al, in order to obtain a viscous gel that can cling to the surface of teeth, as taught by Jiao et al. Generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07. 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). Where the thickener of Ahn et al was known to formulate stable compositions comprising hydrogen peroxide, the skilled artisan would reasonably expect stability in the compositions made obvious above.
Fifth, respectfully, this argument is not persuasive. A simple substitution of one known polyvinylpyrrolidone based thickener for another, where both are known to be suitable for stable teeth whitening compositions comprising hydrogen peroxide, would not appear to require a substantial redesign of Jiao et al, nor is there anything to suggest that substituting the thickeners would alter the intended mode of operation of the cited references, where both are thickeners used for the same purpose. Generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07. Arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. MPEP 2145(I).
Claims 36-39, 42-46, and 48-53, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiao et al. (US 2016/0095801), in view of Ahn et al. (KR 0163502), Prosise et al (US 20130209376 A1), and Zaidel et al (US 20040062723 A1).
Jiao et al, Ahn et al, and Prosise et al are discussed above, and purely arguendo, if somehow it would not have been obvious to adjust the pH of the second part to at least 10 in view of the teachings of Ahn et al alone, the following applies.
Zaidel et al are discussed below.
It would have been obvious to modify the pH of the second part to pH ranges that were known to be suitable for stable two part teeth whitening compositions comprising hydrogen peroxide, such as about 8 to about 13, overlapping the claimed range. 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). Further, it would have been well within the relative skills of the skilled artisan to have routinely optimized the pH of the second part as a results effective variable in order to achieve desired teeth whitening, where Ahn et al teaches that that adjusting the pH of teeth whitening compositions comprising hydrogen peroxide affects the decomposition of the peroxide, thereby altering the whitening effect.
The additional limitations of claims 36-39, 42-46, and 48-53, are rejected for the same reasons as applied to each and every claimed limitation.
Claims 36-39, 42-46, and 48-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaidel et al (US 20040062723 A1), in view of Jiao et al (US 2016/0095801) and Prosise et al (US 20130209376 A1).
Zaidel et al disclose a two-part composition wherein one part comprises a peroxide and a second part comprises an alkaline material (abs, ¶ 41). Kits were known (¶ 5). Peroxide comprises up to about 30 wt% of the whitening component (¶ 12). The concentration of the peroxide compound present in the combined composition ranges from 3 to about 30 wt% (claim 22). The pH of the first peroxide component is in the range of about 4 to about 7, preferably about 5.5 to about 6.8 (¶ 22, claim 13). The second component has a pH in the range of about 8 to about 13 (¶ 33, claim 13). The individual components are maintained separate from each other and are not combined and admixed until simultaneous application to teeth is performed by the patient (abs). When combined in a suitable receptacle such as a dental tray immediately prior to application to teeth, rapid whitening of the teeth is obtained (¶ 9). The peroxide ingredient is formulated using an aqueous vehicle containing a peroxide compound as the whitening agent, a thickening agent such as a polyvinylpyrrolidone, polyethylene/polyoxypropylene, etc., block copolymer and a peroxide compatible abrasive such as a calcium phosphate salt (¶¶ 10, 29). Thickeners comprise about 5 to about 30% of the peroxide part and 0.5 to 5% of the desensitizing composition (¶ 20). The pH of the mixture of the dual components of the present invention ranges from about 8 to about 11 (¶ 33). A preferred means for dispensing the dual component composition is with a double barrel syringe for dispensing equal weight amounts of the components, and comprises a mixing tip (¶ 43). Alkaline agents such as alkali metal compounds including sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, sodium bicarbonate and sodium carbonate may be incorporated in the second dentifrice component of the present invention (¶ 33). Embodiments comprising water in the desensitizing paste at 30.2 wt% and glycerin at 25.0 wt% (table 1), both of which are evidence as suitable carriers according the instant specification (see ¶ 7 of the instant specification).
Zaidel et al do not teach a crosslinked polyvinylpyrrolidone as instantly claimed, wherein the composition is formed at a volume ratio as instantly claimed, the block copolymer of claim 43, wherein the first and second parts comprise a viscous gel, nor wherein the hydrogen peroxide is at least 35 wt% of the first part.
Jiao et al are discussed above but do not teach a crosslinked polyvinylpyrrolidone as instantly claimed.
Prosise et al are discussed above.
Regarding claim 36, it would have been obvious to provide the tooth whitening composition of Zaidel et al in the form of a kit, where kits were known to be suitable for tooth whitening compositions, as taught by Zaidel et al.
Regarding the pH of the first part, it would have been obvious to formulate the first component of Zaidel et al with a pH ranging from about 4 to about 7, preferably about 5.5 to about 6.8, overlapping the claimed range. 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 the amount of first part thickener, it would have been obvious to include the first part thickening agent in an amount of about 5 to about 30 wt%, as taught by Zaidel et al. 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 hydrogen peroxide, it would have been obvious to select hydrogen peroxide as the whitening agent, as taught by Zaidel et al.
Regarding the amount of hydrogen peroxide, it would have been obvious to modify Zaidel et al by providing the first component with known amounts of hydrogen peroxide suitable for two component tooth whitening compositions, such as above about 15% by weight, preferably from about 15% by weight to about 40% by weight, as taught by Jiao et al, overlapping the claimed range. 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 the pH of the second part, it would have been obvious to formulate the second component of Zaidel et al with a pH ranging from about 8 to about 13, as taught by Zaidel et al. 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 the second part thickening agent, it would have been obvious to formulate the teeth whitening kit made obvious above, where both components comprise a thickening agent, as taught by Zaidel et al.
Regarding the amount of second thickening agent, where thickeners are made obvious above, it would have been obvious to formulate the second component of Zaidel et al with thickeners in an amount of 0.5 to 5 wt%, as motivated by Zaidel et al.
Regarding the crosslinked polyvinylpyrrolidone, where Zaidel et al teach thickeners can be included, including polyvinylpyrrolidone, it would have been obvious to include other thickeners as the first and second part thickening agents that were known to be suitable for oral formulations comprising teeth whitening agents, such as a lightly to moderately crosslinked polyvinylpyrrolidone thickening agent wherein the lightly to moderately crosslinked polyvinylpyrrolidone has an aqueous gel volume from about 15-150 ml/g, and a Brookfield viscosity of 5% crosslinked PVP in a liquid carrier comprising at least about 10,000 cP, as taught by Prosise et al. 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 the pH when combined, Examiner notes that the claims are directed to a kit comprising a first and second part, and the combining of the two parts is directed to the intended use of the two parts in the kit. Nevertheless, where Zaidel et al teach when the two parts are mixed, the resulting pH ranges from about 8 to about 11, it would have been obvious to formulate the mixed composition within that range. 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 the mixing ratio when combined, Examiner notes that the claims are directed to a kit comprising a first and second part, and the combining of the two parts is directed to the intended use of the two parts in the kit. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to include the first part, which comprises hydrogen peroxide, the second part, which comprises an alkaline agent, in known ratios suitable for two part whitening compositions, such as in a ratio of 1:1 to 5:1, as taught by Jiao et al. 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 claim 37, where the combination made obvious above comprises the same components within the amounts claimed, it appears that the functional limitation of the pH increasing after activation is inherent to the combination itself. See MPEP 2112(II) and (III).
Regarding claim 38, it would have been obvious to formulate the teeth whitening kit made obvious above, where both components comprise the thickening agent made obvious above, as taught by Zaidel et al and Prosise et al.
Regarding claims 39 and 44, it would have been obvious to use a kit that includes a dual barrel syringe with a mixing tip that stores the first and second components separately, as taught by Zaidel et al.
Regarding claim 42, it would have been obvious to include sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, sodium bicarbonate and/or sodium carbonate as alkaline agents in the second part, as taught by Zaidel et al, in order to achieve desired pH.
Regarding claim 43, it would have been obvious to further include known surfactants suitable for two part tooth whitening compositions, such as a polyoxyethylene/polyoxypropylene block copolymer in amounts ranging from about 0.5% to about 15 wt%, which were known to be used to achieve effective whitening results, as taught by Jiao et al.
Regarding claim 45, it would have been obvious to include liquid carriers in the second part, where Zaidel et al disclose embodiments comprising water at 30.2 wt% and glycerin at 25.0 wt%, both of which are evidences as suitable liquid carriers above, falling within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 46, it would have been obvious to formulate the second component of Zaidel et al with a pH ranging from about 8 to about 13, as taught by Zaidel et al for the same reasons discussed above. 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 the type of kit of claims 48 and 49, the two component compositions made obvious above comprise the same components in the amounts instantly claimed, in the form of a kit, and would therefore be suitable for home or office use. Therefore, the compositions of the references meet the limitation of the claim.
Regarding claim 50, it would have been obvious to formulate the first and second components of Zaidel et al in the form of a viscous gel rather than a paste, where viscous gels were known to be suitable for two part tooth whitening compositions, and are useful so that the composition can cling to the surface of teeth during whitening treatment, as taught by Jiao et al.
Regarding claims 51 and 52, it would have been obvious to formulate the first part of Zaidel et al with hydrogen peroxide in an amount about above 15 wt%, as taught by Jiao et al for the same reasons discussed above, which includes those amounts instantly claimed. 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 claim 53, Examiner notes that the claims are directed to a kit comprising a first and second part, and the combining of the two parts is directed to the intended use of the two parts in the kit. Nevertheless, where a first and second part thickening agent overlapping the claimed ranges are made obvious above, it would be reasonably expected that the amount of thickening agent upon mixing would also overlap the instantly claimed range. 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). Even if not, it would have been well within the relative skills of the skilled artisan to have routinely optimized the amount of thickening agent in the compositions in order to achieve desired and optimal viscosity for the intended use of clinging to teeth, etc. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Response to Arguments
Applicants assert the same deficiencies above apply to the rejection based on Zaidel et al. Applicants asset Zaidel et al teach up to 30 wt% whitening component, and accordingly fails to teach the range instantly claimed. Applicants assert Zaidel et al fail to disclose the crosslinked polyvinylpyrrolidone limitation instantly claims and the volume ratio instantly claimed. Applicants assert when combined with Jiao et al and Prosise et al, the references fail to disclose or suggest the specific arrangement of features now recited in amended claim 36.
Respectfully, this argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). While the examiner agrees that it does not appear that Zaidel et al teach the claimed whitening component ranges, the thickener as instantly claimed, nor the mixing ratio, as discussed above, Jiao et al and Prosise et al are cited for making obvious the claimed features for the same reasons discussed above and of record. Applicants have not asserted how Jiao et al and Prosise et al fail to make obvious to features as instantly claimed, as they apply to Zaidel et al specifically. As discussed above, Jiao et al teaches peroxide concentrations overlapping the claimed range, which were made obvious above. Prosise et al provides motivation to include a crosslinked PVP thickener, for the same reasons discussed above. Finally, while being tied to the intended use of the kit, Jiao et al teaches mixing ratios as instantly claimed, and are made obvious above and for the same reasons.
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 36-39, 42-46, and 48-53, are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 18/379,052 (reference application), hereinafter referred to as ‘052, in view of Jiao et al. (US 2016/0095801). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are coextensive insofar as they both recite tooth whitening kits comprising a first part comprising a whitening agent and a second part comprising an alkaline material having a pH of at least 10. The first and second parts also comprise a crosslinked polyvinylpyrrolidone as instantly claimed as a thickening agent and wherein the pH ranges between 7 and 9 when combined. The second part comprises sodium hydroxide. The pH of the activated tooth whitening composition increases during the first twenty minutes after the composition is formed. The first and second parts are stored in a dual barrel syringe with a mixing tip. The second part comprises liquid carriers in an amount of about 50-95 wt% of the second part. The second part has a pH of at least 12. The kit is an at office or in home kit. The first and second parts comprise a viscous gel. The whitening agent comprise hydrogen peroxide. The first part thickening agent is present between 6-12 wt%. The first or second part further comprises a poly(ethylene oxide)-poly(propylene oxide) block copolymer that is present in an amount between 1 wt% and 10 wt% of the composition.
The claims of ‘052 do not specifically disclose the pH of the first part, the wt% of second part thickening agent as instantly claimed, nor the mixing ratio and wt% of the thickener when mixed.
Regarding the pH of the first part, it would have been obvious to modify the claims of ‘873 by formulating the first part with a pH below 7, preferably between about 4 to about 6, which were known to be suitable for two part teeth whitening agents, as taught by Jiao et al.
Regarding the amount of second part thickening agent, it would have been obvious to include known amounts of thickening agent suitable for the second part of two part teeth whitening compositions, such as 1-8 wt%, as taught by Jiao et al.
Regarding the limitations when combined, Examiner notes that the claims are directed to a kit comprising a first and second part, and the combining of the two parts is directed to the intended use of the two parts in the kit. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to include the first and second component in a ratio of 1:1 to 5:1 first to second component in the kit made obvious above, as taught by Jiao et al, where both are directed to tooth whitening kits. Further, where the first and second part thickening agent amounts overlapping the claimed ranges are made obvious above, as well as the mixing ratio, it would be reasonably expected that the amount of thickening agent upon mixing would also overlap the instantly claimed range. 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). Even if not, it would have been well within the relative skills of the skilled artisan to have routinely optimized the amount of thickening agent in the compositions in order to achieve desired and optimal viscosity for the intended use of clinging to teeth, etc. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicants assert claim 36 has been amended and suggests the rejection be withdrawn.
The double patenting rejection over the claims of 18/379,052 in view of Jiao et al has been updated and appears to make obvious the additional limitations of claim 36. Accordingly, the claims stand rejected.
Claims 36-39, 42-46, and 48-53, are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 18/699,873 (reference application), hereinafter referred to as ‘873, in view of Prosise et al (US 20130209376 A1) and Jiao et al. (US 2016/0095801). Although the claims at issue are not identical they are not patentably distinct because the claims are directed to a tooth whitening composition, which can have two parts in the form of a kit, where the first part comprises a whitening agent and a second part comprising an alkaline material. The second part has a pH of at least 12. The hydrogen peroxide ranges from about 3-50 wt%, such as 25 wt% to about 40 wt%. Sodium hydroxide, etc., can be included. At least one thickening agent is present and comprises a crosslinked homopolymer or copolymer. The thickening agent is present in the first part in an amount from about 5 to about 10 wt%. When combined the tooth whitening composition has a pH between 7 and 9. The volume ratio of the first and second parts is between 3.5:1 and 4.5:1. The composition is a stable gel. The two parts are stored in a dual barrel syringe with a mixing tip. Liquid carriers are present in an amount of about 50-90 wt% of the second part. The second part comprises sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, and ammonium hydroxide. The kit is an at home or in office kit.
The claims of ‘873 do not specifically claim the amount of hydrogen peroxide in the first part, the pH of the first part, the amount of thickening agent in the second part, the crosslinked polyvinylpyrrolidone instantly claimed, nor the poly(ethylene oxide)-poly(propylene oxide) block copolymer as instantly claimed.
Prosise et al and Jiao et al are discussed above.
It would have been obvious to modify the claims of ‘873 for the same reasons discussed above.
It would have been obvious for a skilled artisan to adjust the amount of hydrogen peroxide in the first part, and where the total composition comprises from about 3-50 wt%, the first part would be expected to have an amount of hydrogen peroxide overlapping the claimed range. 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). Purely arguendo, if not, it would have been obvious to modify the amount of hydrogen peroxide to amounts known to be suitable for two part tooth whitening kits, as taught by Jiao et al above and for the same reasons. 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).
It would have been obvious to modify the claims of ‘873 by formulating the first part with a pH below 7, preferably between about 4 to about 6, which were known to be suitable for two part teeth whitening agents, as taught by Jiao et al.
It would have been obvious to include other known thickening agents for tooth whitening compositions, such as the crosslinked polyvinylpyrrolidone as taught by Prosise et al for the same reasons discussed above, and in known amounts as taught by Jiao et al.
Regarding the amount of second part thickening agent, it would have been obvious to include known amounts of thickening agent suitable for the second part of two part teeth whitening compositions, such as 1-8 wt%, as taught by Jiao et al.
Regarding the wt% of thickener when mixed, Examiner notes that the claims are directed to a kit comprising a first and second part, and the combining of the two parts is directed to the intended use of the two parts in the kit. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to include the first and second component in a ratio of 1:1 to 5:1 first to second component in the kit made obvious above, as taught by Jiao et al, where both are directed to tooth whitening kits. Further, where the first and second part thickening agent amounts overlapping the claimed ranges are made obvious above, as well as the mixing ratio, it would be reasonably expected that the amount of thickening agent upon mixing would also overlap the instantly claimed range. 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). Even if not, it would have been well within the relative skills of the skilled artisan to have routinely optimized the amount of thickening agent in the compositions in order to achieve desired and optimal viscosity for the intended use of clinging to teeth, etc. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding the poly(ethylene oxide)-poly(propylene oxide) block copolymer, it would have been obvious to further include a polyoxyethylene/polyoxypropylene block copolymer in amounts ranging from about 0.5% to about 15 wt%, which were shown to be included to achieve effective whitening results, as taught by Jiao et al. 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
Applicants assert claim 36 has been amended and suggests the rejection be withdrawn.
The double patenting rejection over the claims of 18/699,873 in view of Prosise et al and Jiao et al has been updated and appears to make obvious the additional limitations of claim 36. Accordingly, the claims stand rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA A ATKINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0877. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM + Flex.
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 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.
/JOSHUA A ATKINSON/
Examiner, Art Unit 1612
/SAHANA S KAUP/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612
Prosecution Insights