Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Applicants’ amendments and arguments filed 03/23/2026 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 Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn.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.
Claims 9-10 and 14 are canceled.
Claim 1 is amended.
Claims 12-13 and 15 remain withdrawn.
Claims 1-8 and 11 are examined on the merits.
Updated and Maintained Rejections
Claim interpretations:
Claim 1 recites the limitation of “an average particle size (D50) of the granules measured at 0.5 bar is reduced after passage through a nozzle of a powder jet device…”, it is noted that the instant claims are composition claims and future intended use, such as use in a powder jet device, is not given patentable weight. Thus any composition comprising a powder comprising granules having an average particle size of 20µm to 220µm; wherein the granules comprises primary particles and a binder; and wherein the primary particles have an average particle size smaller than average particle size of the granules, wherein the primary particles are made of a material selected from the group consisting of soluble salts, sugars, amino acids, alditols, and mixtures thereof, will meet this limitation, because materials and their properties are inseparable and cannot have mutually exclusive characteristics.
Claims 7-8 recite the limitation of “are configured to break into fragments during powder spraying”, it is noted that the instant claims are composition claims and future intended use, such as for use in powder spraying, is not given patentable weight. Thus any composition comprising a powder comprising granules having an average particle size of 20µm to 220µm; wherein the granules comprises primary particles and a binder; and wherein the primary particles have an average particle size smaller than average particle size of the granules, wherein the primary particles are made of a material selected from the group consisting of soluble salts, sugars, amino acids, alditols, except calcium carbonate, and mixtures thereof, will meet this limitation.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashi et al. (JP2017052706A, published 03/16/2017, used in previous office action, English translation using Espacenet, hereafter Takashi).
Takashi teaches a cosmetic composition containing useful granules, in which the granules having water-soluble particles and a binder (description, page 1, paragraph 1; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Furthermore, Takashi teaches the composition to be an oral composition to be used for things such as toothpaste, mouthwash, and the like (description, page 20, paragraph 1; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Takashi teaches examples of water-soluble particles to include monosaccharides (glucose, lactose, threose, arabinose, xylose, galactose, ribose, glucose, sorbose, fructose, mannose), disaccharide (sucrose (cane Sugar), trehalose), sugar alcohols (erythritol, mannitol), amino acid or a salt thereof (glycine) (description, page 6, paragraph 2; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 11). Takashi claims the particle size to be from 5 to 2000 µm (claim 1 and abstract; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1-2). Takashi claims the binder is a coating agent, an oil agent, a moisturizing agent / feel improver, a surfactant, a polymer, a thickening agent, Gelling agent, solvent / propellant, antioxidant / reducing agent / oxidant, antiseptic / antibacterial agent / chelating agent, pH adjuster / acid / alkali, powder / inorganic salt, UV absorber, whitening agent, vitamin, or derivatives thereof (claim 12; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 3). Furthermore, Takashi claims the binder to be methyl cellulose, ethyl cellulose, acetyl cellulose, nitrocellulose, vinyl acetate resin, Crystalline cellulose, hydroxyethyl cellulose, hydroxypropyl cellulose, carboxymethyl cellulose, sodium carboxymethyl cellulose, hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose, stearoxy hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose, cetyl hydroxyethyl cellulose, hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose phthalate, hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose acetate succinate , Cellulose acetate, phthalate, cellulose propionate phthalate, cellulose acetate maleate, gum arabic, benzoin rubber, danmar gum, guaiac gum, Irish moss, Karaya gum, tragacanth gum, carob gum, quinseed, agar, casein, dextrin, gelatin, pectin, sodium pectate, starch, sodium alginate, carrageenan, xanthan gum, etc. Natural organic polymer compounds. Polyvinyl pyrrolidone, polyvinyl pyrrolidone-vinyl acetate copolymer, polyethylene glycol, polyvinyl alcohol, polyvinyl methyl ether, sodium polyacrylate, carboxy vinyl polymer, and polyethylene imine (claim 12; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 3-4).
Takashi does not teach the pending claims with sufficient specificity to anticipate and so the claims are obvious. It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to rearrange the teachings of Takashi with a reasonable expectation of success to obtain the composition of the instant claims.
A reference is analyzed using its broadest teachings. MPEP 2123 [R-5]. “[W]hen a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious”. KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S,Ct. 1727, 1740 (2007)(quoting Sakraida v. A.G. Pro, 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976). “[W]hen the question is whether a patent claiming the combination of elements of prior art is obvious”, the relevant question is “whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.” (Id.). Addressing the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court noted that the analysis under 35 USC 103 “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007). The Court emphasized that “[a] person of ordinary skill is… a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 1742. A person of ordinary skill in the art who is not an automaton is capable of producing the composition of the instant claims with predictable results.
Claims 5-6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashi et al. (JP2017052706A, published 03/16/2017, used in previous office action, English translation using Espacenet, hereafter Takashi) in view of Donnet et al. (US20180015006A1, published 01/18/2018, hereafter Donnet).
As outlined above, Takashi teaches a powder comprising granules having a particle size of 20-220µm comprising a primary particle and a binder wherein the primary particles are made of a material selected from the group consisting of soluble salts, sugars, amino acids, alditols, and mixtures thereof.
Takashi fails to teach the concentration of primary particles to be 80-99.5% and the concentration of binder to be 0.5-20% as in instant claim 5. Takashi fails to teach the primary particle size to be 4µm to 40µm as in instant claim 6.
Donnet claims a powder for use in a powder jet device for cleaning a tooth surface by powder spraying, wherein the powder for cleaning the tooth surface is sprayed onto the tooth surface together with a gaseious carrier medium, the powder comprising sucralose and at least 90% by weight sodium hydrogen carbonate, erythritol, and/or glycine (claim 15; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 5). Donnet claims the powder contains 0.1-3% by weight of sucralose (claim 16; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 5). Claims 17-18 of Donnet claims the sucralose particles to have an average particle size between 5-40µm or between 10-25µm, respectively (according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 6). Furthermore, Donnet claims the powder comprises a basic powder, which is water soluble, with an average grain size of 10µm to 75µm (claims 21-22; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 6). Lastly, Donnet provides example compositions such as example 2, which comprising 95% by weight of erythritol (particle size 13µm) and 1.5% by weight sucralose ([0034-0037]; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 5-6).
In regards to claim 5, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would claim a powder comprising granules having a particle size of 20-220µm comprising a primary particle and a binder wherein the primary particles are made of a material selected from the group consisting of soluble salts, sugars, amino acids, alditols, and mixtures thereof as outlined by Takashi with the ready for improvement with the known technique of adjusting the concentration of particle and binder as outlined by Donnet. Adjusting the forementioned components of a powder comprising granules having a particle size of 20-220µm comprising a primary particle and a binder wherein the primary particles are made of a material selected from the group consisting of soluble salts, sugars, amino acids, alditols, and mixtures thereof as claimed by instant claim 5 would yield predictable results thus making them of obviousness as modification of a known product with a known technique is within the purview of the skilled artisan.
In regards to claim 6, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would claim a powder comprising granules having a particle size of 20-220µm comprising a primary particle and a binder wherein the primary particles are made of a material selected from the group consisting of soluble salts, sugars, amino acids, alditols, and mixtures thereof as outlined by Takashi with the ready for improvement with the known technique of utilizing a primary particle such as sucrose at a particle size of 5-40µm as outlined by Donnet. Utilizing the forementioned components in a dentifrice powder as claimed by instant claim 6 would yield predictable results thus making them of obviousness as modification of a known product with a known technique is within the purview of the skilled artisan.
Double Patenting
The no statutory 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 1-3, 6, and 10-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5-8 of copending Application No. 17777073 (reference application) as evidenced by TMIC (The Metabolomics Innovation Center (TMIC). (2018, September 17). Showing metabocard for Rhamnose (HMDB0000849). Human Metabolome Database: Showing metabocard for Rhamnose (HMDB0000849). https://web.archive.org/web/20180917012520/https://hmdb.ca/metabolites/HMDB0000849, hereafter TMIC). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
As evidenced by TMIC, rhamnose is a naturally occurring deoxy sugar that is commonly bound to other sugars in nature (description).
17777073 claims a powder for use in a jet device for cleaning tooth surfaces by powder spraying, the powder comprising rhamnose, wherein the powder is configured for use in a powder jet device for cleaning tooth surfaces by powder spraying (claim 1; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 3). Claim 5 of 17777073 claims the maximum particle size of the powder is <200pm and claim 6 of 17777073 claims the particle size of the powder is <120µm (according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1-2, and 6). Claim 7 claims the average particle size of the powder is 5 to 40µm (according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1-2, and 6). Lastly, claim 8 of 17777073 further claims the composition to comprise glycine, sodium hydrogen carbonate, and/or erythritol (according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1, and 10-11).
Addressing the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court noted that the analysis under 35 USC 103 “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-5, and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-5, 7-8, and 10-15 of U.S. Patent No. US12478573B2 (previously application No. 17798173) and as evidenced by Kim et al. (Kim, T.-J., Kim, B.-C., & Lee, H.-S. (1997). Production of cyclodextrin using Raw Corn Starch without a pretreatment. Enzyme and Microbial Technology, 20(7), 506–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0141-0229(96)00186-x, hereafter Kim). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
As evidenced by Kim, cyclodextrin can be derived from a starch, specifically corn (abstract).
US12478573B2 claims a powder comprising 10-80% cyclodextrin and 90-20% glycine, sodium hydrogen carbonate and/or alditol, wherein the powder is configured to be used in a powder jet device for cleaning tooth surfaces by powder spraying (claim 1; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1, 3-5, and 11). Claim 4 of US12478573B2 claims the average particle size of the powder is 5 to 75µm and claim 5 of US12478573B2 claims the maximum particle size of the powder is <200µm (according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1-2). Claim 7 of US12478573B2 claims the powder comprises 10 to 80 wt.-% cyclodextrin and 90 to 20 wt.% glycine, sodium hydrogen carbonate, tagatose, trehalose and/or alditols (according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1, 3-5, and 11). Claim 8 of US12478573B2 claims the powder comprises granules having an average particle size of 20 µm to 220 µm, wherein the granules comprise primary particles and a binder, wherein the primary particles have an average particle size smaller than the average particle size of the granules and wherein the binder comprises cyclodextrin (according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Lastly, claims 10-15 of US12478573B2 claims the alditol is erythritol (according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 11).
Addressing the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court noted that the analysis under 35 USC 103 “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”
Claims 1, 3-5, and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-2, 5, 7, and 11-12 of copending Application No. 18020289 (reference application) as evidenced by Kim et al. (Kim, T.-J., Kim, B.-C., & Lee, H.-S. (1997). Production of cyclodextrin using Raw Corn Starch without a pretreatment. Enzyme and Microbial Technology, 20(7), 506–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0141-0229(96)00186-x, hereafter Kim. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
As evidenced by Kim, cyclodextrin can be derived from a starch, specifically corn (abstract).
18020289 claims a powder for use in a powder jet device for cleaning tooth surfaces by powder spraying, the powder comprising at least 90% based on a total weight of the powder, of particles of a first material, and 0.1-10% based on the total weight of the powder of a second material (claim 1; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 5). Furthermore, claim 1 of 18020289 claims the first material is selected from the group consisting of glycine, tagatose, trehalose, alditols, cyclodextrin and mixtures thereof, and the second material is selected from the group consisting of asparagine, arginine, alanine, erythritol, tagatose, trehalose, rhamnose, and mixtures thereof (according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1, 3-4, and 11). Claim 2 of 18020289 further limits this range claiming the powder comprises at least 93% of the first material and 0.2-7% of the second material (according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 5). Claim 5 of 18020289 claims the particles of the powder have an average particle size of 5-75µm (according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Claim 7 of 18020289 claims the first material to be an alditol (according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 11). Additionally, claim 11 claims the second material is selected from a group consisting of asparagine, arginine, cyclodextrin and mixtures thereof (according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 3 and 4). Claim 12 of 18020289 claims the maximum particle size to be less than or equal to 150µm (according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1).
Addressing the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court noted that the analysis under 35 USC 103 “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 3, and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, and 11 of copending Application No. 18854396 (reference application) in view of Takashi et al. (JP2017052706A, published 03/16/2017, used in previous office action, English translation using Espacenet, hereafter Takashi). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
18854396 claims a powder for use in treating tooth surfaces with a powder jet device, the powder comprising at least one organic compound (claim 1; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Claim 8 of 18854396 further claims the addition of an abrasive powder and claim 11 of 18854396 claims the abrasive powder is selected from the group consisting of sodium hydrogen carbonate, calcium carbonate, aluminum hydroxide, alditols, amino acids, sugars, cyclodextrins, and mixtures thereof (according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1, 3,and 11).
18854396 fails to claim the particle size of instant claim 1.
As outlined above, Takashi teaches a powder comprising granules having a particle size of 20-220µm comprising a primary particle and a binder wherein the primary particles are made of a material selected from the group consisting of soluble salts, sugars, amino acids, alditols, and mixtures thereof.
One skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would claim a powder for cleaning teeth comprising an organic compound and an additional component selected from a group consisting of sodium hydrogen carbonate, calcium carbonate, aluminum hydroxide, alditols, amino acids, sugars, cyclodextrins, and mixtures thereof as claimed by 18854396 with the ready for improvement with the known technique of adding the limitation of the particle size of 20-220µm as outlined by Takashi. Adding the forementioned limitations to a powder for cleaning teeth comprising an organic compound and an additional component selected from a group consisting of sodium hydrogen carbonate, alditols, amino acids, sugars, cyclodextrins, and mixtures thereof as claimed by instant claims 1, 3, and 10-11 would yield predictable results thus making them of obviousness as modification of a known product with a known technique is within the purview of the skilled artisan. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 02/26/2026 have been fully considered by the examiner.
In regards to the 35 USC § 103 rejections, Applicant first argues that Takashi is directed towards granules having a good feeling to the skin and for use in a moderate massage effect or washing effect and is directed towards a different field, cosmetics. Applicant furthers this argument by stating the present application is directed to for use in a powder jet cleaning of tooth surfaces. Applicant then argues that neither Takashi nor Donnet alone or in combination discloses the “average particle size (d50) of the granules measured at 0.5 bar is reduced after passage through a nozzle of a powder jet device for cleaning a tooth surface, such that a size reduction defined by (1-(d50 after nozzle/d50 at 0.5 bar))x100%, is at least 20%” as required by instant claim 1. Secondly, Applicant argues that Takashi discloses a very broad and undirected description of possible materials and provides no selection preference for soluble salts, sugars, amino acids, or alditols.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the instant application is directed to use in a powder jet cleaner, Applicant is again reminded that the instant claims are composition claims and future intended use, such as in a powder jet cleaner is not given patentable weight. Further, in regards to Applicant’s side reduction limitation, it is not only noted that this is intended use in a jet cleaner, but also Applicant is reminded this is a composition/product claim and the prior art teaches a powder composition comprising granules having a size of 20 µm to 220 µm wherein the granules comprise primary particles (soluble salts, sugars, amino acids, or alditols) and a binder in which the particles have a size smaller than the granules, thereby since a product is not separable from its physical properties then it necessarily teaches the particles are reduced after use with a powder jet device by a size reduction of (1-(d50 after nozzle/d50 at 0.5 bar))x100%, is at least 20%. Further, the prior art teaches a composition described by applicants instant application, but applicants observation that it also has ‘a size reduction when used in a powder device’ does not give it patentable weight, since it is the same composition as adding a characterization to a prior art patented invention is not patentable.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Takashi provides to no selection preference to the primary particle materials of instant claim 1, it is noted that the MPEP 2111.03(III) states “applicant has the burden of showing that the introduction of additional steps or specific components which would materially change the characteristics of the claimed invention.” In the instant case, Applicant has not properly demonstrated how and which additional components materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed composition. As outlined above and reiterated here, Takashi teaches granules having particles and a binder (description, page 1, paragraph 1), wherein the particles may be monosaccharides (glucose, lactose, threose, arabinose, xylose, galactose, ribose, glucose, sorbose, fructose, mannose), disaccharide (sucrose (cane Sugar), trehalose), sugar alcohols (erythritol, mannitol), amino acid or a salt thereof (glycine) (description, page 6, paragraph 2), thus teaching the particle material limitation of the instant claim 1.
In summary, the examiner is not persuaded by Applicant’s arguments and the 35 USC § 103 rejections of record are maintained and updated for amendments.
In regards to the Double Patenting rejections over 17/777,073, 17/798,173 (now U.S. Patent No. US12478573B2), 18/020,289, and 18/854,396 similarly to above, Applicant argues that copending applications or patent do not teach or suggest an “average particle size (d50) of the granules measured at 0.5 bar is reduced after passage through a nozzle of a powder jet device for cleaning a tooth surface, such that a size reduction defined by (1-(d50 after nozzle/d50 at 0.5 bar))x100%, is at least 20%” as required by instant claim 1.
Similarly to above, Applicant is again reminded that the instant claims are composition claims and future intended use, such as in a powder jet cleaner is not given patentable weight. Further, in regards to Applicant’s side reduction limitation, it is not only noted that this is intended use in a jet cleaner, but also Applicant is reminded this is a composition/product claim and the prior art teaches a powder composition comprising granules having a size of 20 µm to 220 µm wherein the granules comprise primary particles (soluble salts, sugars, amino acids, or alditols) and a binder in which the particles have a size smaller than the granules, thereby since a product is not separable from its physical properties then it necessarily teaches the particles are reduced after use with a powder jet device by a size reduction of (1-(d50 after nozzle/d50 at 0.5 bar))x100%, is at least 20%. Further, 17/777,073, US12478573B2, 18/020,289, and 18/854,396 teaches a composition described by applicants instant application, but applicants observation that it also has ‘a size reduction when used in a powder device’ does not give it patentable weight, since it is the same composition as adding a characterization to a prior art patented invention is not patentable.
In summary, Applicant’s argument is not found persuasive and the double patenting rejections are maintained and updated.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRA NICOLE ISNOR whose telephone number is (703)756-5561. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 5:30am-3pm PST.
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, Bethany Barham can be reached at (571) 272-6175. 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.
/Isis A Ghali/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1611
/A.N.I./ Examiner, Art Unit 1611