Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/073,246

METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR PERIAPICAL TISSUE REGENERATION

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Dec 01, 2022
Examiner
WOZNICKI, JACQUELINE
Art Unit
3774
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
2 (Final)
50%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 9m
To Grant
76%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 50% of resolved cases
50%
Career Allow Rate
465 granted / 937 resolved
-20.4% vs TC avg
Strong +27% interview lift
Without
With
+26.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 9m
Avg Prosecution
107 currently pending
Career history
1044
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.6%
-38.4% vs TC avg
§103
46.2%
+6.2% vs TC avg
§102
19.0%
-21.0% vs TC avg
§112
31.3%
-8.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 937 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 01/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pages 6-7 Applicant argues amendments overcome the prior art rejection of record, arguing Murray teaches endodontic treatment, whereas amended claims require periodontal treatment. The Examiner respectfully notes no mention of either type of treatment in the claims as examined, making this argument unpersuasive. Further, the Examiner does not consider these to be “different fields” as Applicant states. Claim Objections Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 5 is objected to for referring to “the collagen materials” with improper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray et al. (US 20100203481 A1) hereinafter known as Murray in view of Bleier (US 20180140379 A1), further in view of Alovisi et al. (US 20240390275 A1) hereinafter known as Alovisi. Regarding claims 1-2 Murray discloses a method of promoting periapical tissue healing and regeneration in a subject ([0053], Abstract) comprising: contacting an apical or periapical site ([0023], Figures 1a-d shows the access to the apical and periapical area of the tooth) of tissue in the subject with a biocompatible material comprising Platelet Derived Growth Factor (PDGF) ([0070]), but is silent with regards to whether the PDGF is recombinant or (claim 2) human recombinant, and for the treated/healed/regenerated tissue being mineralized. However, regarding claims 1-2 Bleier teaches PDGF for use in dental treatments can be human recombinant ([0146]. Murray and Bleier are involved in the same field of endeavor, namely dental treatments. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of Murray by having the PDGF be human recombinant as is taught by Bleier since the courts have held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success results in a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2143 (I)(E). In this case, the use of PDGF from any origin would have been obvious to try. Further, regarding claims 1-2 Alovisi teaches that teeth undergoing root canals and treated with growth factors can be treating apical periodontitis (which involves mineralized tissue) ([0004]-[0006] endotontic treatments to treat apical periodontitis). Murray and Alovisi are involved in the same field of endeavor, namely dental treatments. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of the Murray Bleier Combination to treat mineralized tissue arising from apical periodontitis with the root canal as is taught by Alovisi since this is a known origin of infected tissues which require treatment by root canal, and treatment of any damaged or diseased tissue in need of healing and regeneration via this method would have been obvious. Regarding claims 3-5 the Murray Bleier Alovisi Combination teaches the method of claim 1 substantially as is claimed, wherein Murray further discloses the biocompatible material comprises Type I collagen, Type II collagen, Type III collagen, bovine collagen, human collage, porcine collagen, equine collagen, avian collagen, gelatin hydrogels, fibrin gels, heparin, reverse phase polymers, PLA, PGA, PLGA, heparin-conjugated PLGA carriers, calcium phosphates, or R-TCP ([0043], [0048]). Regarding claim 6 the Murray Bleier Alovisi Combination teaches the method of claim 1 substantially as is claimed, wherein Murray further discloses administering antibiotics, or antifungals ([0044]). Regarding claim 7 the Murray Bleier Alovisi Combination teaches the method of claim 1 substantially as is claimed, wherein Murray further discloses the site is a site of an injury (Figure 1a; root canal due to injury). Regarding claim 8 the Murray Bleier Alovisi Combination teaches the method of claim 7 substantially as is claimed, wherein Murray further discloses the injury is the result of a periodontal infection or surgery (Figure 1a; root canal surgery due to infection). Regarding claim 9 the Murray Bleier Alovisi Combination teaches the method of claim 1 substantially as is claimed, wherein Murray further discloses the biocompatible material contacts a tooth (Figure 1d). Regarding claim 10 the Murray Bleier Alovisi Combination teaches the method of claim 1 substantially as is claimed, wherein Murray further discloses the treated tissue is apical, periodontal, periradicular, interradicular, and or periapical ([0023], Figures 1a-d shows the access to the apical and periapical area of the tooth), and Alovisi further teaches the mineralized tissue is apical ([0004]). Regarding claim 11 the Murray Bleier Alovisi Combination teaches the method of claim 10 substantially as is claimed, wherein Alovisi further teaches the mineralized tissue is periodontal tissue ([0004]). Regarding claim 12 the Murray Bleier Alovisi Combination teaches the method of claim 7 substantially as is claimed, wherein Alovisi further teaches the injury (of Murray, which requires the root canal surgery) is the result of a dental infection or surgery ([0004] apical periodontitis is an infection). Regarding claim 13 the Murray Bleier Alovisi Combination teaches the method of claim 7 substantially as is claimed, wherein Alovisi further teaches the injury (of Murray, which requires the root canal surgery) is the result of an endodontal infection or surgery ([0004] apical periodontitis is an infection). 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 extension fee 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 Jacqueline Woznicki whose telephone number is (571)270-5603. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10am-6pm 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, Jerrah Edwards can be reached on 408-918-7557. 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. /Jacqueline Woznicki/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774 02/02/26
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 01, 2022
Application Filed
Jul 15, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 16, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 09, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12588992
EASY-TO-CONTROL INTERVENTIONAL INSTRUMENT DELIVERY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582526
MEDICAL IMPLANT DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12569336
CATHETER SYSTEM FOR IMPLANTATION OF PROSTHETIC HEART VALVES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12521226
SURGICAL FIXATION SYSTEMS AND ASSOCIATED METHODS FOR PERFORMING TISSUE REPAIRS
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Patent 12508136
TRANSFEMORAL PROSTHESIS FOR WALKING, SITTING-STANDING, STAIR CLIMBING
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
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
50%
Grant Probability
76%
With Interview (+26.6%)
3y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 937 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month