Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/052,390

FLUORIDE COMPOSITION AND METHODS FOR DENTAL MINERALIZATION

Final Rejection §DP
Filed
Nov 03, 2022
Examiner
WEBB, WALTER E
Art Unit
1612
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
The University of Melbourne
OA Round
2 (Final)
46%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
66%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 46% of resolved cases
46%
Career Allow Rate
454 granted / 977 resolved
-13.5% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+19.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
60 currently pending
Career history
1037
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
48.3%
+8.3% vs TC avg
§102
18.8%
-21.2% vs TC avg
§112
15.4%
-24.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 977 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Applicants' arguments, filed 02/10/2026, 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 Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn.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. Nonstatutory Obvious-type Double Patenting--Previous The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b). 1) Claims 13-19 remain rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 11,504,305. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both claim a dental composition comprising a concentration of CPP-ACP or CPP-ACFP and separately free fluoride ions in a ppm range. 2) Claims 13-19 remain rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 9,668,945. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both claim a dental composition comprising a concentration of CPP-ACP or CPP-ACFP and separately free fluoride ions in a ppm range. Response to Arguments No arguments were made in response to the obvious double patenting rejections. Conclusion 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. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WALTER E WEBB whose telephone number is (571)270-3287 and fax number is (571) 270-4287. The examiner can normally be reached from Mon-Fri 7-3:30. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Frederick F. Krass can be reached (571) 272-0580. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Walter E. Webb /WALTER E WEBB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 03, 2022
Application Filed
Sep 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §DP
Feb 10, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 13, 2026
Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12582600
STABLE GEL COMPOSITION HAVING HIGH OIL CONTENT, AND PREPARATION METHOD THEREFOR AND APPLICATION THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12570932
REMOVAL AND PREVENTION OF BIOFILM BY NANOPARTICLE CHEMISTRIES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12564657
MOULDABLE ARTIFICIAL BONE COMPOSITE MATERIAL AND PREPARATION METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12564544
THICKENED ALKALYZATION COMPONENT FOR OXIDATIVE HAIR LIGHTENING PRODUCT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12551425
AQUEOUS ZINC ORAL CARE COMPOSITIONS WITH FLUORIDE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
46%
Grant Probability
66%
With Interview (+19.0%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 977 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