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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/06/2026 has been entered.
Applicants' arguments, filed 04/06/2026, 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 Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn.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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garg et al., (Operative Dentistry, 2019) in view of DeMarco (Todaysrdh.com, 2019).
Garg et al. teaches, “Silver diamine fluoride (SDF) has been used to reduce the incidence and progression of caries in primary dentition” (Introduction).
“The major drawback with silver diamine fluoride (SDF) application is the dark staining of teeth and restorative materials. Therefore, SDF use on adult dentition is limited. Improving the esthetic outcome by stain reduction would greatly enhance the opportunity for its universal use” (Abstract).
“This article describes the clinical protocol of using potassium iodide (KI) to reverse staining caused by silver diamine fluoride” (Summary, p. 221)
Procedurally, “SDF was applied followed by KI” (p. 222, last paragraph). “[A]pplication of KI returns the SDF-treated dentin to a lighter substrate more amenable to esthetic restorations” (p. 223, left column, 1st full paragraph).
Garg et al. does not teach an oxidizing composition.
DeMarco advocates for the use of silver diamine fluoride to treat caries, but cautions, “There is really only one side effect of using silver diamine fluoride, and that is staining” (2nd page, 6th paragraph). The reference also teaches a solution to staining, i.e.,”If the product comes into contact with the patient’s tissues (lips, cheeks, and gingiva), these areas will temporarily stain dark. Applying a 2x2 or cotton roll with some hydrogen peroxide to the area will lighten the stain immediately, or it will disappear within two weeks” (3rd page, 1st paragraph).
Generally, it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose in order to form a third composition that is to be used for the very same purpose; the idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in prior art. See MPEP 2144.06. Thus, combining an oral care oxidizing composition with an oral care composition comprising a source of iodide anions as claimed in the instant invention would have been prima facie obvious since they are both taught to be useful for treating teach stained with SDF.
Accordingly, it would have also been obvious to provide a kit for removing silver staining comprising an oxidizing composition, and a composition comprising a source of iodide anions, as per claim 21.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15, 17-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the withdrawal. No arguments were made regarding the kit of claim 21. This claim remains rejected for the reasons above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15, 17-20 are allowed.
Technological Background
1) The prior art made of record and is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure Muzzarelli (US 3,635,818). Muzzarelli is pertinent for teaching use of complexing agents for removal of ions, such as silver form aqueous solutions, where complexing agents include “ammonium thiocyanate” (col. 2, lines 39-47).
2) The prior art made of record and is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure Brunning (www.compundchem.com, 2013)). Brunning is pertinent for teaching, “Silver tarnishes in air to form a black coating of silver sulphide” (line 1) and “tarnishing of silver actually occurs more quickly due to the increased amounts of hydrogen sulphide being released into the atmosphere by the combustion of fossil fuels and the like” (lines 5-7).
3) The prior art made of record and is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure Takeshita et al. (Scientific Reports, 2012)). Takeshita et al. is pertinent for teaching, “Both hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and methyl mercaptan (CH3SH) are frequently detected in large amounts in malodorous mouth air” and “Our research suggested that distinct bacterial populations in the oral microbiota are involved in production of high levels of H2S and CH3SH in the oral cavity” (Abstract).
4) The prior art made of record and is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure Maloney et al. (WO 2014/092730). Maloney et al. is pertinent for teaching a method for whitening teeth wherein a first oral care composition comprising a bleaching agent is allowed to remain on the teeth for at least 30 seconds, followed by brushing the teeth with a second oral care composition (Abstract).
Conclusion
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, Sahana Kaup can be reached (571) 272-6897. 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
Prosecution Insights