DETAILED ACTION
Claim(s) 14-22 and 24 were rejected in Office Action mailed on 02/02/2026.
Applicant filed a response, amended claim(s) 14-22 and 24, withdrew claim(s) 23, 25-26 and added claim(s) 27-28 on 05/19/2026.
Claim(s) 14-28 are pending, and claim(s) 23 and 25-26 are withdrawn.
Claim(s) 14-22, 24 and 27 are rejected.
Claim 28 is objected to.
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 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 14-15, 18, 21 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chow et al., US 2002/137812A1 (Chow) (provided in IDS received on 07/14/2025) in view of Jang et al., US 2016/0361237A1 (Jang) (provided in IDS received on 06/30/2026).
Regarding claims 14-15, 18 and 27, Chow teaches dental implant material in the form of a paste includes a mixture of calcium phosphate powders (reading upon a powder composition), that are capable of forming hydroxyapatite, with liquid glycerol (reading upon a liquid medium) and Na2HPO4 (Chow, Abstract);
cement paste of the type referenced mixed with glycerol was studied for root canal filling, sealing, and injectability (reading upon a dental product for forming an endodontic cement in a dental canal) (Chow, [0003]);
Chow further teaches for CPC-III samples, CPC pastes were prepared by mixing the prepared CPC powder with the liquid glycerol mixture at powder-to-liquid ratios (i.e., weight ratio) of 1.5 to 1.8 (Chow, [0007]), which corresponds to a powder mass content of 45% (i.e., 1.5/(1.5+1.8)=45%); and a liquid medium content of 55% (1.8/(1.5+1.8)=55%).
Further regarding claims 14 and 18, Chow does not explicitly disclose a binder in a mass content comprised between 0.5% and 5%; or wherein the mass content of the binder is comprised between 0.5% and 3.5%.
With respect to the difference, Jang teaches a single paste type hydraulic dental filling composition (Jang, Abstract). Jang specifically teaches the composition may further comprise e.g., polyvinylpyrrolidone, at 0.1 to 1 wt% with respect to the entire composition (Jang, [0049]; [0051]).
As Jang expressly teaches, in order to impart proper viscosity to the non-aqueous liquid, the composition may further comprise at least one hygroscopic viscosity enhancing agent selected from a group including carboxymethyl cellulose, and polyvinylpyrrolidone (Jang, [0049]).
Jang is analogous art as Jang is drawn to a single paste type hydraulic dental filling composition.
In light of the motivation of including polyvinylpyrrolidone in a dental filling composition, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to include polyvinylpyrrolidone, at 0.1 to 1 wt% with respect to the entire composition, in order to impart proper viscosity, and thereby arrive at a range that overlaps that of the presently claimed.
Furthermore, given that Chow in view of Jang teaches identical compound, i.e., polyvinylpyrrolidone, therefore, it is clear that polyvinylpyrrolidone would necessarily and inherently be a binder.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding claim 21, as applied to claim 14, Chow in view of Burguera further teaches for CPC-III samples, the liquid contains 7.5% of Na2NPO4, which corresponds to 4.1% (i.e., 7.5*1.8/(1.8+1.5)=4.1%) in the dental implant material in the form of a paste (Chow, page 2, Table 1); phosphate generally decrease hardening time (therefore Na2NPO4 reads upon a cement setting accelerator) (Chow, [0010]).
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chow in view of Jang as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Asgary et al., US 2008/0206716 A1 (Asgary).
Regarding claim 17, as applied to claim 14, Chow in view of Jang does not explicitly disclose wherein the powder composition has an average particle size D50 of less than or equal to 50 µm.
With respect to the difference, Asgary teaches cement as endodontic material for filling the tooth and bone cavities (Asgary, Abstract). Asgary specifically teaches nanometer-size particles of calcium compounds (Asgary, [0043])
As Asgary expressly teaches, nanometer-size particles of calcium compounds will promote and accelerate hydroxyapatite formation and cement hardening (Asgary, [0043]).
Asgary is analogous art as Asgary is drawn to cement as endodontic material for filling the tooth and bone cavities.
In light of the motivation of using nanometer-size particles of calcium compound to form the cement, as taught by Asgary, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use nanometer-size particles to from the calcium phosphate powder of Chow in view of Jang (reading upon wherein the powder composition has an average particle size D50 of less than or equal to 50 µm), in order to accelerate hydroxyapatite formation and cement hardening, thereby arrive the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 19, as applied to claim 14, Chow in view of Jang does not explicitly disclose further comprising a radiopaque contrast agent in a mass content of less than or equal to 15%.
With respect to the difference, Asgary specifically teaches the radiopacifiers can be incorporated in composition in the range of up to about 48 (preferably up to about 24) percent by weight (Asgary, [0044]).
As Asgary expressly teaches, the term "radiopaque" refers to a material that allows the composition to be more easily seen using an X-ray. The radiopaque filler provides the ability to determine how well the endodontic material has penetrated into and filled the tooth cavity, root canal(s) and a bone defect (Asgary, [0044]).
In light of the motivation of including a radiopacifier material in the dental implant material, as taught by Asgary, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a radiopacifier material in the dental implant material in the form of a paste of Chow in view of Jang, in the range of up to about 48 (preferably up to about 24) percent by weight, in order to allow provide the ability to determine how well the endodontic material has penetrated into and filled the tooth cavity, root canal(s) and a bone defect, and therefore arrive at range that encompasses that of the presently claimed.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chow in view of Jang as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Liu et al., CN 102049062 A (Liu).
The examiner has provided a machine translation of Liu et al., CN 102049062 A (Liu). The citation of the prior art set forth below refers to the machine translation.
Regarding claim 20, as applied to claim 14, Chow in view of Jang does not explicitly disclose further comprising a cement setting accelerator in a mass content of less than or equal to 10%.
With respect to the difference, Liu teaches calcium phosphate cement (Liu, Abstract). Liu specifically teaches a suspension stabilizer, said suspension stabilizer is gas phase silicon dioxide (Liu, [0017]) and component (c) the weight ratio of component (b) is 0. 1 to 5: 100 (weight ratio of silicon dioxide to calcium phosphate) (Liu, [0020]).
As Liu expressly teaches, applying the gas-phase silicon dioxide and modified product to the injectable calcium phosphate cement, thereby improving the suspension stability of the primary calcium phosphate cement, maintaining the solidification feature of the calcium phosphate cement without reducing the injection performance and the tensile strength (Liu, Abstract).
Liu is analogous art as Liu is drawn to calcium phosphate cement.
In light of the motivation of using silicon dioxide as suspension stabilizer (reading upon a suspending agent), it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include silicon dioxide in the dental implant material in the form of a paste of Chow in view of Jang, e.g., with a weight ratio of silicon dioxide to powder mass of 0.1 to 5: 100, in order to improve the suspension stability of the primary calcium phosphate cement, maintaining the solidification feature of the calcium phosphate cement without reducing the injection performance and the tensile strength.
Given that Chow in view of Jang teaches a powder mass content of 45%, it can be derived that Chow in view of Jang and Liu teaches a silicon dioxide as suspension stabilizer, at a mass content of: 0.05% to 2.3% (i.e., 45%*0.1/100=0.05%; 45%*5/100=2.3%), which overlaps the range of the presently claimed.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chow in view of Jang as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Asgary and Takagi et al., Premixed calcium-phosphate cement pastes, Wiley Periodicals, 2003 (Takagi).
Regarding claims 22, as applied to claim 14, Chow in view of Jang teaches a powder mass content of 45%; polyvinylpyrrolidone (reading upon a binder) at 0.1% and 1 wt%;
with a liquid glycerol (reading upon non aqueous liquid medium) (Chow, Abstract).
further teaches for CPC-II samples, the liquid contains 7.5% of Na2NPO4, which corresponds to 4.1% (i.e., 7.5*1.8/(1.8+1.5)=4.1%) in the dental implant material in the form of a paste (Chow, page 2, Table 1); phosphate generally decrease hardening time (therefore Na2NPO4 reads upon a cement setting accelerator) (Chow, [0010]);
Chow in view of Jang does not explicitly (a) the product comprises a radiopaque contrast agent in a mass content comprised between 5% and 15%, or (b) wherein: the liquid medium mass content is comprised between 30% and 40%.
With respect to the difference (a), Asgary specifically teaches the radiopacifiers can be incorporated in composition in the range of up to about 48 (preferably up to about 24) percent by weight (Asgary, [0044]).
As Asgary expressly teaches, the term "radiopaque" refers to a material that allows the composition to be more easily seen using an X-ray. The radiopaque filler provides the ability to determine how well the endodontic material has penetrated into and filled the tooth cavity, root canal(s) and a bone defect (Asgary, [0044]).
In light of the motivation of including a radiopacifier material in the dental implant material, as taught by Asgary, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a radiopacifier material in the dental implant material in the form of a paste of Chow in view of Jang, in the range of up to about 48 (preferably up to about 24) percent by weight, in order to allow provide the ability to determine how well the endodontic material has penetrated into and filled the tooth cavity, root canal(s) and a bone defect, and therefore arrive at range that encompasses those of the presently claimed.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With respect to the difference (b), Takagi teaches calcium phosphate cement for repairing bone defects (Takagi, Abstract).
As Takagi expressly teaches, the powder to liquid ratios are chosen in order to produce pastes that exhibit workable consistency (Takagi, page 690, right column, bottom paragraph).
Takagi is analogous art as Takagi is drawn to calcium phosphate cement for repairing bone defects.
In light of the motivation of controlling the powder to liquid ratios, as taught by Takagi, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to vary the powder to liquid ratio, when preparing the dental implant material in the form of a paste of Chow in view of Jang and Asgary, including the mass content of the liquid medium as claimed, in order to achieve desired consistency.
Although there are no disclosures on the amounts of liquid medium as presently claimed, it has long been an axiom of United States patent law that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of result-effective variables by routine experimentation. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here 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."). "Only if the 'results of optimizing a variable' are 'unexpectedly good' can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the amounts of liquid medium, including over the amounts presently claimed, in order to achieve desired consistency, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chow in view of Jang as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Asgary and Jia et al., US 2007/0197683 A1 (Jia).
Regarding claim 24, as applied to claim 14, Chow in view of Jang does not explicitly disclose wherein the radiopaque contrast agent comprises zirconium oxide and wherein the mass content of the powder composition is comprised between 48% and 52%.
With respect to the difference, Asgary specifically teaches the radiopacifiers can be incorporated in composition in the range of up to about 48 (preferably up to about 24) percent by weight (Asgary, [0044]); the radiopacifier includes bismuth subcarbonate and barium sulfate (Asgary, [0044]).
Jia teaches a dental composition (Jia, Abstract). Jia specifically teaches inert, non-toxic radiopaque materials such as zirconium oxide, barium sulfate, and bismuth subcarbonate may be used (Jia, [0043]).
Jia is analogous art as Jia is drawn to a dental composition.
As Asgary expressly teaches, the term "radiopaque" refers to a material that allows the composition to be more easily seen using an X-ray. The radiopaque filler provides the ability to determine how well the endodontic material has penetrated into and filled the tooth cavity, root canal(s) and a bone defect (Asgary, [0044]).
In light of the motivation of including a radiopacifier material in the dental implant material, as taught by Asgary, and in light of the disclosure of Jia of the equivalence and interchangeability of using barium sulfate, and bismuth subcarbonate, and zirconium oxide as the radiopacifier for dental composition, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a radiopacifier material, such as zirconium oxide, in the dental implant material in the form of a paste of Chow in view of Jang, in the range of up to about 48 (preferably up to about 24) percent by weight, in order to allow provide the ability to determine how well the endodontic material has penetrated into and filled the tooth cavity, root canal(s) and a bone defect, and therefore arrive at range that encompasses that of the presently claimed.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Given that Chow in view of Jang teaches a powder mass content of 45%, and therefore Chow in view of Jang, Asgary and Jia teaches a powder mass content (i.e., calcium phosphate cement and zirconium oxide radiopacifier material combined) of up to about 93% (preferably up to about 69%) (i.e., 45%+48%=93%; 45%+24%=69%), which encompasses the range of the presently claimed.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chow, in view of Jang and Takagi.
Regarding claims 14 and 16, Chow teaches dental implant material in the form of a paste includes a mixture of calcium phosphate powders (reading upon a powder composition), that are capable of forming hydroxyapatite, with liquid glycerol (reading upon a liquid medium) and Na2HPO4 (Chow, Abstract);
cement paste of the type referenced mixed with glycerol was studied for root canal filling, sealing, and injectability (reading upon a dental product for forming an endodontic cement in a dental canal) (Chow, [0003]);
hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (HMC) and Na2HPO4 were also added to improve the paste cohesiveness and accelerate cement hardening upon delivery to a desired repair site (Chow, [0005]).
Chow further teaches for CPC-I samples, the calcium phosphate cement is an equimolar mixture of TTCP (tetra calcium phospate) and DCPA (dicalcium phosphate); CPC pastes were prepared by mixing the prepared CPC powder with the liquid glycerol mixture at powder-to-liquid ratios (i.e., weight ratio) of 3.5 to 1 (Chow, [0007]).
Chow does not explicitly disclose (a) a binder in a mass content comprised between 0.5% and 5%, the binder comprising: carboxymethyl cellulose, polyvinylpyrrolidone, and mixtures thereof; or (b) the powder composition in a mass content comprised between 40% and 55%, and a liquid medium in a mass content comprised between 30% and 50%.
With respect to the difference (a), Jang teaches a single paste type hydraulic dental filling composition (Jang, Abstract). Jang specifically teaches the composition may further comprise e.g., polyvinylpyrrolidone, at 0.1 to 1 wt% with respect to the entire composition (Jang, [0049]; [0051]).
As Jang expressly teaches, in order to impart proper viscosity to the non-aqueous liquid, the composition may further comprise at least one hygroscopic viscosity enhancing agent selected from a group including carboxymethyl cellulose, and polyvinylpyrrolidone (Jang, [0049]).
Jang is analogous art as Jang is drawn to a single paste type hydraulic dental filling composition.
In light of the motivation of including polyvinylpyrrolidone in a dental filling composition, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to include polyvinylpyrrolidone, at 0.1 to 1 wt% with respect to the entire composition, in order to impart proper viscosity, and thereby arrive at a range that overlaps that of the presently claimed.
With respect to the difference (b), Takagi teaches calcium phosphate cement for repairing bone defects (Takagi, Abstract).
As Takagi expressly teaches, the powder to liquid ratios are chosen in order to produce pastes that exhibit workable consistency (Takagi, page 690, right column, bottom paragraph).
Takagi is analogous art as Takagi is drawn to calcium phosphate cement for repairing bone defects.
In light of the motivation of controlling the powder to liquid ratios, as taught by Takagi, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to vary the powder to liquid ratio, when preparing the dental implant material in the form of a paste of Chow, including the mass contents of the powder composition and of the liquid medium as claimed, in order to achieve desired consistency.
Although there are no disclosures on the amounts of powder composition and liquid medium as presently claimed, it has long been an axiom of United States patent law that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of result-effective variables by routine experimentation. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here 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."). "Only if the 'results of optimizing a variable' are 'unexpectedly good' can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the amounts of powder composition and liquid medium in Chow in view of Jang, including over the amounts presently claimed, in order to achieve desired consistency, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 28 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 28, none of Chow, Jang, Asgary, Liu, Takagi or Jia, discloses or suggests the liquid medium comprises propylene glycol.
Response to Arguments
In response to the amended claims, the previous claim objections are withdrawn.
Applicant primarily argues:
“As noted during the interview, Chow is not concerned with limiting cement strength to facilitate reworking or retreatment, particularly reworking using ultrasound. Rather, Chow focuses on improving paste cohesiveness and accelerating cement hardening. In fact, Chow expressly teaches adding hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (HMC) and Na2HPO4 "to improve the paste cohesiveness and accelerate cement hardening." (Chow, para. [05]). Thus, Chow teaches toward increased hardness upon delivery, not toward controlled reworkability.”
Remarks, p. 11
The Examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
It is not required for the prior art to be solving the same problem identified in the present invention. Given that prior art, i.e., Chow in view of Jang, meets the dental product required in the present claims, prior art, Chow in view of Jang, meets the present claims.
Applicant further argues:
“To arrive at the claimed composition starting from Chow, the skilled person would need to make multiple non-trivial selections and modifications. First, the skilled person would need to select specific proportions of powder composition, binder, and liquid medium corresponding to a narrow subset within the broadly disclosed powder-to-liquid mass ratio range of 3.5:1 to 1.5:1.8 of Chow. (Chow, claim 11). The specific proportions of the claimed composition are selected to achieve a particular compromise between cohesion, compressive strength, and viscosity that enables ultrasonic reworkability.”
Remarks, p. 12
The Examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
Firstly, the fact remains that Chow teaches a range that overlaps the presently claimed. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Second, Chow also specifically teaches for CPC-III samples, CPC pastes were prepared by mixing the prepared CPC powder with the liquid glycerol mixture at powder-to-liquid ratios (i.e., weight ratio) of 1.5 to 1.8 (Chow, [0007]), which corresponds to a powder mass content of 45% (i.e., 1.5/(1.5+1.8)=45%); and a liquid medium content of 55% (1.8/(1.5+1.8)=55%).
Applicant further argues:
“Second, the skilled person would need to modify the binder system of Chow. Chow consistently exemplifies and presents hydroxypropyl methylcellulose as the preferred binder, thereby deterring substitution. (Chow, Abstract, para. [05] and claim 3). Amended claim 14 specifies that the binder comprises carboxymethyl cellulose, polyvinylpyrrolidone, and mixtures thereof. Chow neither teaches nor suggests these binders, let alone their use to maintain cohesion while avoiding excessive hardness.”
Remarks, p. 12
The Examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant primarily argues that Chow does not expressly teach the claimed a bonder comprising carboxymethyl cellulose, polyvinylpyrrolidone and mixtures thereof. This argument merely agrees with the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, which admits that Chow does not disclose the entire claimed invention. Rather, Jang is relied upon to teach claimed elements missing from Chow, with proper motivation to combine, namely, in order to impart proper viscosity to the non-aqueous liquid (Jang, [0049]). See page 4 of the Office Action set forth above.
Therefore, the Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s arguments, but they are found unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KELING ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8043. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00am-5:00pm 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, Ching-Yiu Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/KELING ZHANG/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights