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 . Claims included in the prosecution are claims 1-5 and 11-15.
Applicants' arguments, filed 04/20/2026, 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 Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn.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 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 1-5 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donnet et al. (US 2018/0015006, Jan. 18, 2018) (hereinafter Donnet) in view of Flemmig et al. (US 2004/0091429, May, 13, 2004) (hereinafter Flemmig), Tsu et al. (US 2014/0242552, Aug. 28, 2014) (hereinafter Tsu), and Haeberlein et al. (US 2015/0125814, May 7, 2015) (hereinafter Haeberlein), as evidenced by ScienceLab.com (Glycine MSDS, 2025) (hereinafter Science Lab) and PubChem ((-)-Asparagine, 2025).
Donnet discloses a powder for use in a powder jet device for cleaning a tooth surface by spraying powder (abstract). The powder is sprayed onto the tooth’s surface, together with a gaseous carrier medium in particular air and optionally a fluid, such as water for cleaning the tooth’s surface (¶ [0001]). The powder contains a basic powder, in particular at least 90% by weight of an abrasive basic powder for tooth cleaning. The basic powder contains and/or consists of particles. The basic powder contains in particular an alditol, such as erythritol and/or glycine (i.e., claimed first material) (¶ [0016]). The particles of the basic powder may be approximately 10 µm to 30 µm for cleaning subgingival tooth surfaces (¶ [0022]). The powder preferably additionally contains amorphous silica, preferably approximately 0.1% by weight to 5% by weight (¶ [0019]). Exemplary Embodiment 4 discloses a powder comprising 95.0% glycine (particle size 20 µm) (¶ [0041). Sucralose may be coated on the basic powder (¶ [0027]).
Donnet differs from the instant claims insofar as not disclosing wherein the basic powder is coated with asparagine.
However, Flemmig discloses fine-grained powders or powder mixtures used to provide for spray cleaning of supragingival tooth surfaces (abstract). Suitable powder mixtures are, for example, mixtures of amino acids and sugars and/or organic acids (¶ [0035]).
Tsu discloses a powder mixture comprising calcium carbonate particles for tooth cleaning (abstract). The calcium carbonate particles are at least partially coated with an alditol or mixed with particles of at least one alditol for dental powder blasting (¶ [0023]). The calcium carbonate particles may have a mean particle size in the range of about 10 µm to about 200 µm (¶ [0020]). The mean size of the alditol particles should be selected such that it fits to the mean size of the calcium carbonate particles. Thus, the alditol particles suitably have a mean particle size in the range of about 10 µm to about 200 µm (¶ [0026]).
Haeberlein discloses a powder composition for air polishing the surface of hard dental tissue comprising a powder of water-soluble organic particles (abstract). Examples of water-soluble particles, which can be used, include amino acids (¶ [0119]). Suitable amino acids include asparagine (¶ [0121]).
Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have coated the basic powder of Donnet with asparagine motivated by the desire to use an alternative powder for cleaning tooth surfaces since mixtures of different particles may be used to clean tooth surfaces as taught by Flemmig, when mixtures of particles is used - one of the particles may be coated onto the other as taught by Tsu, and asparagine is a known particle for cleaning tooth surfaces as taught by Haeberlein.
In regards to instant claim 1 reciting wherein the solubility of the first material in water is ≥ 1 g/L, as evidenced by Science Lab, glycine has a solubility in water of 25 g/100 ml (250 g/L).
In regards to instant claim 2 reciting 0.2-7 wt. % of the second material, Donnet discloses wherein the powder contains at least 90% of the basic powder. Therefore, it would have been obvious that any additional components would be at most 10%.
In regards to instant claim 3 reciting wherein the second material covers at least 80% of the surface of the particles of the first material, Tsu discloses wherein particles may be at least partially coated with the other particle. At least partially coated encompasses at least 80%. Therefore, the claim limitation would have been obvious.
In regards to instant claim 4 reciting wherein the solubility of the second material in water is > 1 g/L, as evidenced by PubChem, asparagine has a solubility of 29400 mg/L (29.4 g/L).
In regards to the particle size of the powder, Tsu discloses that when the powder comprises more than one particle, both particles may be of the same size. Donnet discloses a particle size of the basic powder of 20 µm. Therefore, a coated powder with a particle size of 40 µm would have been obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Donnet fails to disclose a second sucralose particles coated on first cleaning particles.
The Examiner does not find Applicant’s argument to be persuasive. The instant claims do not recite sucralose as a second material. Therefore, it is not necessary for the prior art to disclose a coating of sucralose. As such, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that because Donnet merely lists coating as one of the several possible, undefined mechanisms for combining materials, without describing the resulting structure or providing any reason to select coating, Donnet does not teach or suggest the claimed coating formed on the surface of the particles of the first material as in the claim 1 of instant application.
The Examiner does not find Applicant’s argument to be persuasive. A prior art reference is evaluated for all that it reasonably suggests and is not limited to preferred embodiments or working examples. See MPEP 2123. Because Donnet specifically discloses wherein the basic powder may be coated, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have coated the basic powder of Donnet. Also, as this is a 103 obviousness rejection, no one piece of prior art is required to teach each and every claim limitation. Tsu discloses wherein particles used for tooth cleaning may be coated. Thus, further providing support that coating would have been obvious. As such, Applicant’s argument that coating would not have been obvious is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that there is no hint in Flemmig to use powders made of mixtures according to paragraph [0035] and to coat one of the components of the mixture to another component of the mixture.
The Examiner does not find Applicant’s argument to be persuasive. As this is a 103 obviousness rejection, no one piece of prior art is required to teach each and every claim limitation. As discussed in the rejection, the powder being modified is that of Donnet and not Flemmig. Donnet disclose not disclose a coating of asparagine on the basic powder. However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have coated the basic powder of Donnet with asparagine motivated by the desire to use an alternative powder for cleaning tooth surfaces since mixtures of different particles may be used to clean tooth surfaces as taught by Flemmig, when mixtures of particles is used - one of the particles may be coated onto the other as taught by Tsu, and asparagine is a known particle for cleaning tooth surfaces as taught by Haeberlein. Applicant has not argued why the claimed invention would not have been obvious from the combined teachings of these references. As such, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues that the coated powders exhibit reduced abrasiveness while maintaining effective cleaning performance.
The Examiner does not find Applicant’s argument to be persuasive. Coating alditol powders is known in the art as taught by Donnet. Applicant’s showing shows wherein various erythritol coated with different coating agents have different abrasivity values. However, such showing does not appear to be unexpected. Any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. See MPEP 716.02. Although there are differences in abrasivity values, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect different powders to have different properties, such as abrasiveness. Applicant has not explained how the difference in abrasivity is statistically significant such that the difference in abrasivity would not have been expected by one of ordinary skill in the art and has not explained how such difference in abrasivity makes a difference in terms of cleaning of the teeth such that the difference in abrasivity is of practical significance. Burden is on Applicant to establish that the results are unexpected and significant. See MPEP 716.02(b). Since Applicant has not provided these explanations, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Claims 1-5 and 11-15 are rejected.
No claims are allowed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRACY LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-5115. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9 am - 5 pm.
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, Ali Soroush can be reached at 571-272-9925. 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.
/TRACY LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1614
Prosecution Insights