Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/007,149

CALCIUM PHOSPHATE POWDER

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jan 27, 2023
Examiner
VETERE, ROBERT A
Art Unit
1712
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Tomita Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
61%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 6m
To Grant
74%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 61% of resolved cases
61%
Career Allow Rate
530 granted / 872 resolved
-4.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+13.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
49 currently pending
Career history
921
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
60.7%
+20.7% vs TC avg
§102
15.6%
-24.4% vs TC avg
§112
16.9%
-23.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 872 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 2/4/26 is acknowledged. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. Claims 11-12, 14-15, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2019/0216616) in light of Huang et al. (“Synthesis and characterization of mesoporous hydroxyapatite powder by microemulsion technique,” 2019, J. Mater. Res. Technol. 8(3), pp. 3158-66) and Sun et al. (US 2017/0360534). Claims 11 and 14: Yang teaches a process of producing an article by 3D Printing with a DLP system (i.e. an additive manufacturing process where an object is formed layer by layer), comprising the steps of: forming a slurry layer comprising calcium phosphate powder (¶ 0039-0041; 0058); curing the slurry layer in a predetermined pattern (¶ 0059); repeating the slurry layer formation and curing steps (Yang teaches that the body is formed by 3D printing of a DLP system which involves the formation of layers in the slurry which are cured and then repeating the process for form additional layers) (¶¶ 0059-0060; 0087); and debinding cured and uncured resin from the body (¶¶ 0062-0063). Yang teaches that the body formed is a bone graft (Abst., e.g.) and that the calcium phosphate powder is hydroxyapatite (¶ 0011), but fails to describe the characteristics of the powder. Huang teaches hydroxyapatite powder (Abst.) used to form bone grafts (p. 3158, Col. 1) and explains that a suitable powder has a particle size of 1.5 µm (§ 3.7) and a pore volume of about 0.0025-0.0025 cc/g depending on the pore diameter (which ranges from about 2-50 nm) (Fig. 9). 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. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). The simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2143. Thus, because Yang does not discuss the details of the hydroxyapatite used to form the bone graft and because Huang teaches a suitable hydroxyapatite powder, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected a powder having a particle size of 1.5 µm, a pore size of 2-50nm and a pore volume of mesopores of 0.01-0.025 depending on the desired characteristics of the powder with the predictable expectation of success. Yang fails to disclose whether a laser is used for curing. Sun teaches a DLP 3D printing method and explains that a laser is used to cure the successive layers (¶ 0028). Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2143. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected a laser as the light source in Yang with the predictable expectation of success. Claim 12: Yang teaches that the body formed is a bone graft (Abst., e.g.) (i.e. claimed implant). Claim 15: Huang teaches a specific surface area of 13.62 m2/g (Abst.). Claims 17-18: Huang teaches that about 10% (i.e. D 10% (i.e. D10) of the particles have a size of less than 1.0µm (Fig. 11). Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, Huang and Sun in light of Wuthrich (EP2796110). Claim 16: Huang fails to discuss the mesopore volume. Like Huang, Wuthrich teaches hydroxyapatite used in artificial teeth and explains that particles having a macroporous volume (pore size of 78-144) between 0.0033-0.2296 cc/g is suitable (see, e.g., Table 2). The simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2143. Thus, because Huang is silent regarding macroporous pore volume and because Wuthrich teaches a suitable particle for the same purpose, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected particles having a macroporous pore volume of 0.02-0.1 cc/g with the predictable expectation of success. Prior Art Lee et al. (US 2014/0239527) is also cited for disclosing how a DLP 3D Printing process works. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert A Vetere whose telephone number is (571)270-1864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 EST. 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at (571) 270-1034. 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. /ROBERT A VETERE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 27, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600678
METHOD FOR CHARGING OPEN PORES IN CERAMIC MATRIX COMPOSITE, AND CERAMIC MATRIX COMPOSITE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604657
HIGH-THROUGHPUT EXPLORATION OF TRIPLE-CATION PEROVSKITES VIA TERNARY COMPOSITIONALLY-GRADED FILMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12590181
HYDROPHOBICALLY-MODIFIED ASSOCIATIVE THICKENER POLYMERS PROCESS FOR THE PREPARATION AND USES THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590035
METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING AN ABRADABLE LAYER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583793
CERAMIC SLATE WITH COLORED JADE EFFECT AND PREPARATION METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
61%
Grant Probability
74%
With Interview (+13.4%)
3y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 872 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month