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, 7 and 11-15.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/30/2025 has been entered.
Applicants' arguments, filed 10/17/2025, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
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, 7 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 it has surprisingly been found that the claimed invention provides a powder with lower abrasiveness and simultaneously a good cleaning efficiency. This has been shown by the examples set forth in the present patent application.
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, 7 and 11-15 are rejected.
No claims are allowed.
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