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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 8, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7, 15, 18-19, 21, 23 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flyash (2015/0044628) in view of Johansson (WO 2018/048393) in view of Nguyen et al. (2006/0127837).
Flyash teaches with respect to claim 1, a process for electrochemically whitening a tooth, the process comprising: a) contacting the tooth with a whitening gel having a first pH, the whitening gel located in a dental device comprising a positive electrode and a negative electrode (pars. 25, 43-44, 80, 83-84, such that the gel inherently has a pH); b) flowing a current between the positive electrode and the negative electrode through the whitening gel to whiten the tooth such that the whitening gel transitions to an active state or accelerated state while the whitening gel is in contact with the tooth, wherein the transition to the active or accelerated state occurs within the dental device while positioned in an oral cavity (pars. 25, 43-44, 80, 83-84) and the whitening gel comprises a peroxide (pars. 4, 7, 80). Flyash teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including the application of the current to the whitening gel can activate the process, intensity it and speed it along, however, does not specifically teach flowing the current between the positive and negative electrodes causes the whitening gel transitions from the first pH to a second pH; wherein the whitening gel comprises the peroxide source present in an amount ranging from about 0.05 wt. % to about 15 wt. % based on the total weight of the whitening gel, and wherein the second pH is greater than the first pH.
Johansson teaches a process for electrochemically whitening a tooth comprising providing a whitening gel having a first pH, the whitening gel located in a dental device comprising a positive electrode and a negative electrode; b) flowing a current between the positive electrode and the negative electrode through the whitening gel to whiten the tooth such that the whitening gel transitions from the first pH to a second pH; wherein the whitening gel comprises a peroxide source, and wherein the second pH is greater than the first pH (see abstract, pars. 1, 4, 6, 30, 32-33, 35, 39, 40). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Flyash with the whitening gel of Johansson which is configured to have a change in pH in response to the applied electrical current in order to improve the efficacy of the whitening gel (see pars. 29-30, 33) such that it can be stored in a stable condition for long periods of time. Flyash/Johansson teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the peroxide source present in an amount ranging from about 0.05 wt. % to about 15 wt. % based on the total weight of the whitening gel.
Nguyen teaches a process for electrochemically whitening a tooth, the process comprising: a) contacting the tooth with a whitening gel having a first pH, the whitening gel located in a dental device comprising an electrode (see abstract, pars. 21, 31, 35, 37); b) flowing a current between the positive electrode and the negative electrode through the whitening gel to whiten the tooth (pars. 21, 34, 35, 37); wherein the whitening gel comprises a peroxide source present in an amount ranging from about 0.05 wt. % to about 15 wt. % based on the total weight of the whitening gel (par. 34). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the concentration of the peroxide in the whitening gel of Flyash/Johansson to be within the claimed range as taught by Nguyen in order to control the desired whitening effects. It is noted that the concentration of the peroxide in the composition is directly related to the whitening effects of the composition. It is further noted that the applicant does not teach the claimed range provides any unexpected results or advantages. It teaches several different ranges, all of which are alternative embodiments. It is noted that the applicant teaches the pH shift provided by the electrical current provides the surprising discovery of boosting whitening performance which is taught by the prior art of Johansson. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the peroxide of the whitening gel to be within the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04).
With respect to claim 2, Flyash/Johansson/Nguyen teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including Flyash teaching the process further comprising irradiating the tooth with light having a wavelength (par. 82, activation of the LED, followed by activation of the electrodes), however, does not specifically teach the wavelength is about 390 nm to about 430nm. Nguyen teaches the process further comprises irradiation the tooth with light having a wavelength ranging from about 390 nm to about 430 nm (pars. 42, 54-55). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the wavelength range with the range taught by Nguyen in order to control the desired bleaching reaction (see pars. 44, 54-55 of Nguyen).
With respect to claim 3, Flyash/Johansson/Nguyen teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including Nguyen further teaching wherein the wavelength of the light is about 410 nm (see par. 42).
With respect to claim 5, Flyash/Johansson/Nguyen teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including Johansson teaches the second pH ranges from about 7 to about 8 (see pars. 6, 30 of Johansson) and Nguyen teaches the peroxide source is present in an amount ranging from about 8 to 10 wt % (see par. 34 of Nguyen).
With respect to claim 7, Flyash/Johansson/Nguyen teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including Johansson teaches the second pH is about 7.5 (see pars. 6, 30 of Johansson) and Nguyen teaches the peroxide source is present in an amount ranging from about 5 to 7 wt % (see par. 34 of Nguyen). It is noted that the applicant discloses “about” mean +/- 5%, therefore the pH of 7 taught by Johansson is “about” 7.5.
With respect to claim 15, Flyash/Johansson/Nguyen teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including Flyash teaching the peroxide source is selected from the group consisting of hydrogen peroxide, urea peroxide, glyceryl peroxide, benzoyl peroxide (see pars. 4, 7, 80 such that it is hydrogen peroxide).
With respect to claim 18, Flyash teaches a process of electrochemically boosting tooth whitening performance of a whitening gel, the process comprising: a) contacting the tooth with a whitening gel comprising a peroxide source, the whitening gel having a first pH (pars. 25, 43-44, 80, 83-84, such that the gel inherently has a pH), b) flowing a current between the positive electrode and the negative electrode through whitening gel such that the whitening gel transitions to an active state or accelerated state while the whitening gel is in contact with the tooth, wherein the transition to the active or accelerated state occurs within a dental device while positioned in an oral cavity (pars. 25, 43-44, 80, 83-84) and c) irradiating the tooth with light from a light source having a wavelength (par. 85). Flyash teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including the application of the current to the whitening gel can activate the process, intensity it and speed it along, however, does not specifically teach flowing the current between the positive and negative electrodes causes the whitening gel transitions from the first pH to a second pH; and the wavelength is 390 nm to about 430 nm, wherein the second pH and the first pH are different, and wherein steps b) and c) at least partially overlap.
Johansson teaches a process for electrochemically whitening a tooth comprising providing a whitening gel having a first pH, the whitening gel located in a dental device comprising a positive electrode and a negative electrode; b) flowing a current between the positive electrode and the negative electrode through the whitening gel to whiten the tooth such that the whitening gel transitions from the first pH to a second pH; wherein the whitening gel comprises a peroxide source, and wherein the second pH is greater than the first pH (see abstract, pars. 1, 4, 6, 30, 32-33, 35, 39, 40). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Flyash with the whitening gel of Johansson which is configured to have a change in pH in response to the applied electrical current in order to improve the efficacy of the whitening gel (see pars. 29-30, 33) such that it can be stored in a stable condition for long periods of time. Flyash/Johansson teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the wavelength is 390 nm to about 430 nm and wherein steps b) and c) at least partially overlap.
Nguyen teaches a process for electrochemically whitening a tooth, the process comprising: a) contacting the tooth with a whitening gel comprising a peroxide source, the whitening gel having a first pH (pars. 21, 34, 35, 37), b) flowing a current through the whitening gel to whiten the tooth (pars. 21, 34, 35, 37); and c) irradiating the tooth with light from a light source having a wavelength ranging from about 390 nm to about 430 nm and wherein steps b) and c) at least partially overlap (see pars. 42, 53-55, see fig. 7). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the wavelength and overlapping of the steps of Flyash/Johansson to be within the claimed range as taught by Nguyen in order to control the desired whitening effects (see pars. 42, 54-55 of Nguyen). It is noted that depending of the composition different wavelengths can be used to activate it. It is further noted that the applicant does not teach the claimed range provides any unexpected results or advantages. It teaches several different ranges, all of which are alternative embodiments. It is noted that the applicant teaches the pH shift provided by the electrical current provides the surprising discovery of boosting whitening performance which is taught by the prior art of Johansson. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the wavelength of the light be within the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04).
With respect to claim 19, Flyash/Johansson/Nguyen teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including Nguyen further teaching wherein the wavelength of the light is about 410 nm (see par. 42).
With respect to claim 21, Flyash/Johansson/Nguyen teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including Johansson teaches the second pH ranges from about 7 to about 8 (see pars. 6, 30 of Johansson) and Nguyen teaches the peroxide source is present in an amount ranging from about 8 to 10 wt % (see par. 34 of Nguyen).
With respect to claim 23, Flyash/Johansson/Nguyen teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including Johansson teaches the second pH is about 7.5 (see pars. 6, 30 of Johansson) and Nguyen teaches the peroxide source is present in an amount ranging from about 5 to 7 wt % (see par. 34 of Nguyen). It is noted that the applicant discloses “about” mean +/- 5%, therefore the pH of 7 taught by Johansson is “about” 7.5.
With respect to claim 31, Flyash/Johansson/Nguyen teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including Flyash teaching the peroxide source is selected from the group consisting of hydrogen peroxide, urea peroxide, glyceryl peroxide, benzoyl peroxide (see pars. 4, 7, 80 such that it is hydrogen peroxide) and Nguyen further teaches wherein the whitening gel further comprises water (see par. 21, 25).
Claim(s) 4-5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 20-21, 23, 25, 27,and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flyash (2015/0044628) in view of Johansson (WO 2018/048393) in view of Nguyen et al. (2006/0127837) as applied to claims 1 and 18 above, and further in view of Ryles et al. (5,902,568).
Flyash/Johansson/Nguyen teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Johansson teaches a first pH, the whitening gel undergoing a chemical reaction to have a second, higher pH, however, does not specifically teach wherein the first pH ranges from about 5 to about 6, wherein the peroxide source is present in an amount ranging from about 8.0 wt. % to about 10.0 wt. % based on the total weight of the whitening gel and the second pH ranges from about 7.0 to about 8.0, wherein the peroxide source is present in an amount ranging from about 5.0 wt. % to about 7.0 wt. % based on the total weight of the whitening gel and the second pH is about 7.5, wherein the peroxide source is present in an amount ranging from about 2.0 wt. % to about 4.0 wt. % based on the total weight of the whitening gel and the second pH ranges from about 7.0 to about 10.0, wherein the peroxide source is present in an amount ranging from about 0.5 wt. % to about 2.0 wt. % based on the total weight of the whitening gel and the second pH ranges from about 9.0 to about 10.0, wherein the peroxide source is present in an amount ranging from about 0.05 wt. % to about 0.2 wt. % based on the total weight of the whitening gel and the second pH ranges from about 8.0 to about 10.5.
Ryles teaches a whitening gel which has a first pH, the whitening gel undergoes a chemical reaction and has a second higher pH (see col. 1, ll. 63-67, col. 2, ll. 1-4, 31-40, col. 3, ll. 16-20, 56-56, col. 4, ll. 1-5, such that the peroxide has a pH of 5-6 and when mixed it has a pH of 8-12).
Ryles further teaches with respect to claims 4 and 20, wherein the first pH ranges from about 5 to about 6 (see col. 3, ll. 56-58)
Ryles further teaches with respect to claims 5 and 21, wherein the peroxide source is present in an amount ranging from about 8.0 wt. % to about 10.0 wt. % based on the total weight of the whitening gel and the second pH ranges from about 7.0 to about 8.0 (see col. 3, ll. 12-15, col. 4, ll. 1-5).
Ryles further teaches with respect to claims 7 and 23, wherein the peroxide source is present in an amount ranging from about 5.0 wt. % to about 7.0 wt. % based on the total weight of the whitening gel and the second pH is about 7.5 (see col. 3, ll. 12-15, col. 4, ll. 1-5). It is noted that the applicant discloses “about” mean +/- 5%, therefore the pH of 8 taught by Ryles is “about” 7.5.
Ryles further teaches with respect to claims 9 and 25, wherein the peroxide source is present in an amount ranging from about 2.0 wt. % to about 4.0 wt. % based on the total weight of the whitening gel and the second pH ranges from about 7.0 to about 10.0 (see col. 3, ll. 12-15, col. 4, ll. 1-5).
Ryles further teaches with respect to claims 11 and 27, wherein the peroxide source is present in an amount ranging from about 0.5 wt. % to about 2.0 wt. % based on the total weight of the whitening gel and the second pH ranges from about 9.0 to about 10.0 (see col. 3, ll. 12-15, col. 4, ll. 1-5).
Ryles further teaches with respect to claims 13 and 29, wherein the peroxide source is present in an amount ranging from about 0.05 wt. % to about 0.2 wt. % based on the total weight of the whitening gel and the second pH ranges from about 8.0 to about 10.5 (see col. 3, ll. 12-15, col. 4, ll. 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Flyash/Johansson/Nguyen with the claimed peroxide concentrations and second pH as taught by Ryles in order to provide the desired whitening effect of the teeth. Such that it is known that the amount of peroxide and pH of the whitening gel effects the speed and effectiveness of the whitening process. It is further noted that the applicant does not teach the claimed range provides any unexpected results or advantages. It teaches several different ranges, all of which are alternative embodiments. It is noted that the applicant teaches the pH shift provided by the electrical current provides the surprising discovery of boosting whitening performance which is taught by the prior art of Johansson and further Ryles teaches a pH shift to boost whitening performance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 3, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The applicant argues that Johansson does not teach or suggest in situ pH transitions are required by claims 1 and 18. It is noted that Johansson is not being used to teach the limitation of in situ transitions and therefore, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
It is noted that the combination of the references teach the limitations are claimed. Specifically in response to the argument regarding the limitation of in situ pH transitions, the main art of Flyash is used to teach in situ transitions. As discussed above in the rejection Flyash teaches a whitening composition undergoing a transition, by the application of a current, including a transition to activate the composition or a transition that accelerates the whitening in situ (see detailed rejection above, pars. 25, 43-44, 80, 83-84 of Flyash). It is noted that the transition happening in situ is not a pH transition, however, the prior art of Johansson is being used to teach a whitening agent undergoing a pH transition when a current is applied to the whitening agent. It is noted that the modification of Flyash in view of Johansson would teach the claimed limitation including the in-situ pH transition as claimed. Such that the in-situ transition of Flyash is modified with Johansson to be a pH transition.
It is noted that both Flyash and Johansson teaches application of a current to a whitening composition in order to activate/accelerate the whitening composition.
The applicant argues that the prior art of Ryles does not cure the deficiencies of the independent claims, however, as discussed above in detail, the prior art of Flyash in view of Johansson teach the limitations of the independent claims and therefore, the applicant’s arguments are moot.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEIDI MARIE EIDE whose telephone number is (571)270-3081. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-4:00.
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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at 571-270-5614. 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.
/HEIDI M EIDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772 3/3/2026