DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/03/2026 has been entered.
Applicants' arguments, filed 04/03/2026, 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 Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn.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.
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 .
Priority
The instant application claims domestic priority to PRO 63/124,431 filed 12/11/2020. The instant application claims foreign priority to GB2100521.0 filed 01/15/2021. The instant application is a 371 of PCT/GB2021/053239.
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 1-3, 5-8, 10-11, 13, 15-19, 23-24, 27, 30-31 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araya (WO2005067876A1).
Araya recites a dentifrice composition as including an abrasive amorphous silica (herein referred to as silica A) having a Radioactive Dental Abrasion (RDA) in the range 30 to 150, an oil absorption in the range 60 to 140 cm3/ 100 g and a weight mean particle size in the range 5 to 15 μm and/or an abrasive amorphous silica (herein referred to as silica B) having a Radioactive Dental Abrasion (RDA) in the range 100 to 300, an oil absorption in the range 40 to 150 cm3/ 100 g and a weight mean particle size in the range 3 to 15 μm plus an orally acceptable carrier; usually the quantity by weight of silica A being greater than that of silica B and the RDA of silica B being greater than that of silica A when both silicas are employed (Araya at claim 2). Araya recites a dentifrice composition comprising an abrasive system comprising a combination of at least one abrasive amorphous silica having a Radioactive Dental Abrasion (RDA) in the range 30 to 300, an oil absorption in the range 40 to 150 cm3/ 100 g and a weight mean particle size in the range 3 to 15 μm and a crystalline aluminosilicate having an average crystallite size below 0.2 μm plus an orally acceptable carrier (Araya at claim 1). Araya teaches that the abrasives have a FT100 Cleaning value of at least 50% and preferably above 75% (Araya at page 10). Araya teaches the use of silica in a range of 7 to 85% (Araya at page 2). Araya teaches that the weight ratio between the silicas A and B are between 100:0 to 0:100 but more preferably 90:10 to 50:50 (Araya at page 8). Araya teaches that the dentifrice composition is prepared using the abrasive system of this invention, the components of the system may be mixed prior to combining the subsequent mixture with the other components of the dentifrice composition or may be separately added to the other components of the dentifrice composition. In each instance, the components or mixture thereof will, at least prior to combining the same with other components of the dentifrice composition, usually be in the form of a substantially dry free flowing paniculate material (Araya at page 8).
Araya differs from the instant claims in this rejection insofar as it does not teach the combination of the instantly recited components with sufficient specificity for anticipation. Araya teaches the components of the instant recited composition and uses each component of their established function in the art but does not explicitly combine the components together into a single embodiment or a preferred composition. However, given the disclosure of each component individually, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the filing of the present patent application and following the teachings of Araya to have selected and combined known components for their established functions with predictable results. MPEP §2143 and §2144.06(I).
Regarding instant claim 1, Araya recites a dentifrice composition as including an abrasive amorphous silica (herein referred to as silica A) having a Radioactive Dental Abrasion (RDA) in the range 30 to 150, an oil absorption in the range 60 to 140 cm3/ 100 g and a weight mean particle size in the range 5 to 15 μm and/or an abrasive amorphous silica (herein referred to as silica B) having a Radioactive Dental Abrasion (RDA) in the range 100 to 300, an oil absorption in the range 40 to 150 cm3/ 100 g and a weight mean particle size in the range 3 to 15 μm plus an orally acceptable carrier; usually the quantity by weight of silica A being greater than that of silica B and the RDA of silica B being greater than that of silica A when both silicas are employed (Araya at claim 2). Araya teaches that the weight ratio between the silicas A and B are between 100:0 to 0:100 (Araya at page 8). The ranges taught for these silicas overlap with the instantly claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I).
Regarding instant claim 2, Araya recites a dentifrice composition as including an abrasive amorphous silica (herein referred to as silica A) having a Radioactive Dental Abrasion (RDA) in the range 30 to 150, an oil absorption in the range 60 to 140 cm3/ 100 g and a weight mean particle size in the range 5 to 15 μm and/or an abrasive amorphous silica (herein referred to as silica B) having a Radioactive Dental Abrasion (RDA) in the range 100 to 300, an oil absorption in the range 40 to 150 cm3/ 100 g and a weight mean particle size in the range 3 to 15 μm plus an orally acceptable carrier; usually the quantity by weight of silica A being greater than that of silica B and the RDA of silica B being greater than that of silica A when both silicas are employed (Araya at claim 2). The ranges taught for these silica oil absorption values would be able to fall within the instantly claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I). It would have been prima facie obvious to have optimized the oil absorption of each silica within the stated range in order to have the desired oil absorption for the oral care product. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding instant claim 3, Araya recites a dentifrice composition as including an abrasive amorphous silica (herein referred to as silica A) having a Radioactive Dental Abrasion (RDA) in the range 30 to 150, an oil absorption in the range 60 to 140 cm3/ 100 g and a weight mean particle size in the range 5 to 15 μm and/or an abrasive amorphous silica (herein referred to as silica B) having a Radioactive Dental Abrasion (RDA) in the range 100 to 300, an oil absorption in the range 40 to 150 cm3/ 100 g and a weight mean particle size in the range 3 to 15 μm plus an orally acceptable carrier; usually the quantity by weight of silica A being greater than that of silica B and the RDA of silica B being greater than that of silica A when both silicas are employed (Araya at claim 2). The ranges taught for these silica particle size values would be able to fall within the instantly claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I). It would have been prima facie obvious to have optimized the particle size of each silica within the stated range in order to have the desired texture and mouth feel for the oral care product. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding instant claim 5, Araya recites a dentifrice composition as including an abrasive amorphous silica (herein referred to as silica A) having a Radioactive Dental Abrasion (RDA) in the range 30 to 150, an oil absorption in the range 60 to 140 cm3/ 100 g and a weight mean particle size in the range 5 to 15 μm and/or an abrasive amorphous silica (herein referred to as silica B) having a Radioactive Dental Abrasion (RDA) in the range 100 to 300, an oil absorption in the range 40 to 150 cm3/ 100 g and a weight mean particle size in the range 3 to 15 μm plus an orally acceptable carrier; usually the quantity by weight of silica A being greater than that of silica B and the RDA of silica B being greater than that of silica A when both silicas are employed (Araya at claim 2). The ranges taught for these silica RDA values would be able to fall within the instantly claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I). It would have been prima facie obvious to have optimized the RDA of each silica within the stated range in order to have the desired tooth cleaning and mouth/tooth feel for the oral care product. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding instant claim 6, Araya recites a dentifrice composition as including an abrasive amorphous silica (herein referred to as silica A) having a Radioactive Dental Abrasion (RDA) in the range 30 to 150 (Araya at claim 2), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 30 to 110. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I).
Regarding instant claim 7, Araya recites a dentifrice composition as including an abrasive amorphous silica (herein referred to as silica A) and/or an abrasive amorphous silica (herein referred to as silica B) having a Radioactive Dental Abrasion (RDA) in the range 100 to 300 (Araya at claim 2), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 120 to 300. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I).
Regarding instant claim 8, Araya recites a dentifrice composition as including an abrasive amorphous silica (herein referred to as silica A) having a Radioactive Dental Abrasion (RDA) in the range 30 to 150, an oil absorption in the range 60 to 140 cm3/ 100 g and a weight mean particle size in the range 5 to 15 μm and/or an abrasive amorphous silica (herein referred to as silica B) having a Radioactive Dental Abrasion (RDA) in the range 100 to 300, an oil absorption in the range 40 to 150 cm3/ 100 g and a weight mean particle size in the range 3 to 15 μm plus an orally acceptable carrier; usually the quantity by weight of silica A being greater than that of silica B and the RDA of silica B being greater than that of silica A when both silicas are employed (Araya at claim 2). Araya teaches that the weight ratio between the silicas A and B are between 100:0 to 0:100 (Araya at page 8). The ranges taught for these silicas overlap with the instantly claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I). Araya teaches the use of silica in a range of 7 to 85% (Araya at page 2). The ranges taught for these silica values would be able to fall within the instantly claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I). It would have been prima facie obvious to have optimized the amount each silica within the stated range in order to have the desired texture and tooth cleaning for the oral care product. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding instant claim 10, Araya recites a dentifrice composition as including an abrasive amorphous silica (herein referred to as silica A) having a Radioactive Dental Abrasion (RDA) in the range 30 to 150, an oil absorption in the range 60 to 140 cm3/ 100 g and a weight mean particle size in the range 5 to 15 μm (Araya at claim 2). The ranges taught for these silica particle size values would be able to fall within the instantly claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I). It would have been prima facie obvious to have optimized the particle size of each silica within the stated range in order to have the desired texture and mouth feel for the oral care product. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding instant claim 11, Araya recites a dentifrice composition as including an abrasive amorphous silica (herein referred to as silica A) having a Radioactive Dental Abrasion (RDA) in the range 30 to 150, an oil absorptionin the range 60 to 140 cm3/ 100 g and a weight mean particle size in the range 5 to 15 μm (Araya at claim 2). The ranges taught for these silica particle size values would be able to fall within the instantly claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I). It would have been prima facie obvious to have optimized the particle size of each silica within the stated range in order to have the desired texture and mouth feel for the oral care product. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding instant claim 13, Araya recites a dentifrice composition as including an abrasive amorphous silica (herein referred to as silica A) and/or an abrasive amorphous silica (herein referred to as silica B) having a Radioactive Dental Abrasion (RDA) in the range 100 to 300, an oil absorption in the range 40 to 150 cm3/ 100 g and a weight mean particle size in the range 3 to 15 μm plus an orally acceptable carrier; usually the quantity by weight of silica A being greater than that of silica B and the RDA of silica B being greater than that of silica A when both silicas are employed (Araya at claim 2). The ranges taught for these silica particle size values would be able to fall within the instantly claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I). It would have been prima facie obvious to have optimized the particle size of each silica within the stated range in order to have the desired texture and mouth feel for the oral care product. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding instant claim 15, Araya recites a dentifrice composition as including an abrasive amorphous silica (herein referred to as silica A) and/or an abrasive amorphous silica (herein referred to as silica B) having a Radioactive Dental Abrasion (RDA) in the range 100 to 300, an oil absorption in the range 40 to 150 cm3/ 100 g and a weight mean particle size in the range 3 to 15 μm plus an orally acceptable carrier; usually the quantity by weight of silica A being greater than that of silica B and the RDA of silica B being greater than that of silica A when both silicas are employed (Araya at claim 2). The ranges taught for these silica oil absorption values would be able to fall within the instantly claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I). It would have been prima facie obvious to have optimized the oil absorption of the silica within the stated range in order to have the desired oil absorption and mouth feel for the oral care product. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding instant claim 16, Araya recites a dentifrice composition as including an abrasive amorphous silica (herein referred to as silica A) and/or an abrasive amorphous silica (herein referred to as silica B) having a Radioactive Dental Abrasion (RDA) in the range 100 to 300, an oil absorption in the range 40 to 150 cm3/ 100 g and a weight mean particle size in the range 3 to 15 μm plus an orally acceptable carrier; usually the quantity by weight of silica A being greater than that of silica B and the RDA of silica B being greater than that of silica A when both silicas are employed (Araya at claim 2). The ranges taught for these silica oil absorption values would be able to fall within the instantly claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I). It would have been prima facie obvious to have optimized the oil absorption of the silica within the stated range in order to have the desired oil absorption and mouth feel for the oral care product. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding instant claim 17, Araya teaches that the use of a zeolite compound with a PAV in a range of 9 to 25, one would be motivated to have used silicas within this same range of PAV in order to prevent scratching the teeth. It would be prima facie obvious to have optimized the PAV of silicas to prevent scratching the teething. See MPEP 2144.05(II)
Regarding instant claim 18, Araya teaches that the use of a zeolite compound with a PAV in a range of 9 to 25, one would be motivated to have used silicas within this same range of PAV in order to prevent scratching the teeth. This range would overlap the instantly claimed range of 7 to 50. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I). It would be prima facie obvious to have optimized the PAV of silicas to prevent scratching the teething. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding instant claim 19, Araya teaches Dentifrice Formulation 1 which has two silicas and a third thickening silica. Araya teaches that the thickening silica has an RDA of less than 30 (Araya at claim 4). Arya teaches the use of the thickening silica in an amount of 6.5% in Example 1, 4% in Example 2, and 5% in Example 3 (Araya at Examples). Araya teaches the use of silica in a range of 7 to 85% (Araya at page 2). The ranges taught for these silica values would be able to fall within the instantly claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I). It would have been prima facie obvious to have optimized the amount each silica within the stated range in order to have the desired texture and tooth cleaning for the oral care product. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding instant claim 23, Araya teaches that the abrasives have a FT100 Cleaning value of at least 50% and preferably above 75% (Araya at page 10), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 40 to 100. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I).
Regarding instant claim 24, Araya recites a dentifrice composition as including an abrasive amorphous silica (herein referred to as silica A) having a Radioactive Dental Abrasion (RDA) in the range 30 to 150, an oil absorption in the range 60 to 140 cm3/ 100 g and a weight mean particle size in the range 5 to 15 μm and/or an abrasive amorphous silica (herein referred to as silica B) having a Radioactive Dental Abrasion (RDA) in the range 100 to 300, an oil absorption in the range 40 to 150 cm3/ 100 g and a weight mean particle size in the range 3 to 15 μm plus an orally acceptable carrier; usually the quantity by weight of silica A being greater than that of silica B and the RDA of silica B being greater than that of silica A when both silicas are employed (Araya at claim 2).
Regarding instant claim 27, Araya recites a dentifrice composition as including an abrasive amorphous silica (herein referred to as silica A) having a Radioactive Dental Abrasion (RDA) in the range 30 to 150, an oil absorption in the range 60 to 140 cm3/ 100 g and a weight mean particle size in the range 5 to 15 μm and/or an abrasive amorphous silica (herein referred to as silica B) having a Radioactive Dental Abrasion (RDA) in the range 100 to 300, an oil absorption in the range 40 to 150 cm3/ 100 g and a weight mean particle size in the range 3 to 15 μm plus an orally acceptable carrier; usually the quantity by weight of silica A being greater than that of silica B and the RDA of silica B being greater than that of silica A when both silicas are employed (Araya at claim 2).
Regarding instant claim 30-31, Araya teaches that the dentifrice composition is prepared using the abrasive system of this invention, the components of the system may be mixed prior to combining the subsequent mixture with the other components of the dentifrice composition or may be separately added to the other components of the dentifrice composition. In each instance, the components or mixture thereof will, at least prior to combining the same with other components of the dentifrice composition, usually be in the form of a substantially dry free flowing paniculate material (Araya at page 8). Araya recites a dentifrice composition as including an abrasive amorphous silica (herein referred to as silica A) having a Radioactive Dental Abrasion (RDA) in the range 30 to 150, an oil absorption in the range 60 to 140 cm3/ 100 g and a weight mean particle size in the range 5 to 15 μm and/or an abrasive amorphous silica (herein referred to as silica B) having a Radioactive Dental Abrasion (RDA) in the range 100 to 300, an oil absorption in the range 40 to 150 cm3/ 100 g and a weight mean particle size in the range 3 to 15 μm plus an orally acceptable carrier; usually the quantity by weight of silica A being greater than that of silica B and the RDA of silica B being greater than that of silica A when both silicas are employed (Araya at claim 2). Araya teaches that the weight ratio between the silicas A and B are between 100:0 to 0:100 but more preferably 90:10 to 50:50 (Araya at page 8). The ranges taught for these silicas overlap with the instantly claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I). Araya teaches Dentifrice Formulation 1 which has two silicas and a third thickening silica. Araya teaches that the thickening silica has an RDA of less than 30 (Araya at claim 4). Arya teaches the use of the thickening silica in an amount of 6.5% in Example 1, 4% in Example 2, and 5% in Example 3 (Araya at Examples). Araya teaches the use of silica in a range of 7 to 85% (Araya at page 2). The ranges taught for these silica values would be able to fall within the instantly claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I). It would have been prima facie obvious to have optimized the amount each silica within the stated range in order to have the desired texture and tooth cleaning for the oral care product. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding instant claim 35, Araya recites a dentifrice composition as including an abrasive amorphous silica (herein referred to as silica A) having a Radioactive Dental Abrasion (RDA) in the range 30 to 150, an oil absorption in the range 60 to 140 cm3/ 100 g and a weight mean particle size in the range 5 to 15 μm and/or an abrasive amorphous silica (herein referred to as silica B) having a Radioactive Dental Abrasion (RDA) in the range 100 to 300, an oil absorption in the range 40 to 150 cm3/ 100 g and a weight mean particle size in the range 3 to 15 μm plus an orally acceptable carrier; usually the quantity by weight of silica A being greater than that of silica B and the RDA of silica B being greater than that of silica A when both silicas are employed (Araya at claim 2).
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10-11, 13, 24, 27, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujisawa (US Patent Application Publication 20040146465A1, provided in the IDS filed 09/26/2025).
Fujisawa recites a toothpaste composition comprising abrasive silicas A,B, and or C;
PNG
media_image1.png
76
532
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
616
541
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Fujisawa further teaches that employing about 0.5 to about 10%, based on the total weight of the composition, of an abrasive precipitated silica in which d 50 is about 5 μm or below, d90 is about 15 μm or below and has an RDA value of 120 or more (the precipitated silica is hereinafter sometimes referred to as “first silica”). (Fujisawa at [0030]).
Generally, precipitated silica is produced as follows. A dilute alkali metal silicate (for example, sodium silicate) is reacted with strong acid (for example, sulfuric acid) under conditions which preclude aggregation to form sol and gel, usually under acidic conditions. The reactant is then subjected to filtering, washing, and drying, and thereafter, is milled to obtain a powdery product with desired diameter. The present invention can employ a precipitated silica prepared according to a known procedure. The precipitated silica is used as an abrasive agent in the present invention since it is more favorable than silica gel in terms of low hygroscopicity, ease of handling and low cost. (Fujisawa at [0031]).An abrasive precipitated silica prepared according to a known procedures can be used as the first silica of the present invention.(Fujisawa at [0032]).
The amount of first silica is 0.5 to 10% by weight in the composition, preferably about 0.5 to about 6% by weight, more preferably about 1 to about 5% by weight, and still more preferably about 2 to about 4% by weight. When the amount is less than 0.5% by weight, stain deposition may not be sufficiently suppressed; when the amount is more than 10% by weight, teeth may be damaged. (Fujisawa at [0033]). The values of d 50 and d90 were measured with a Malvern Mastersizer equipped with a low output He/Ne laser and based on the Fraunhofer diffraction principle. The value of d50 is preferably about 4.5 μm or less, and more preferably about 4 μm or less. The lower limit of d50 is not limited insofar as the desired effects of the present invention are not adversely affected, but is usually about 3 μm or less, and preferably about 1 μm. The value of d90 is preferably about 13 μm or less, and more preferably about 10 μm or less. The lower limit of d90 is not limited insofar as the desired effects of the present invention are not reduced, but is usually about 8 μm or less, and preferably about 5 μm.(Fujisawa at [0034]).
The RDA value is an abbreviation of Radioactive Dentin Abrasion value and can be determined, for example, by the procedure of hefferen et al. (J.Dent.Res., Vol.55, No.4, 563-573, 1976). The RDA value is preferably about 130 or more, and more preferably about 150 or more. The upper limit of the RDA value is not especially limited, but usually is about 250, and preferably about 200. Therefore, the preferable range of the RDA values is about 120 to about 250, more preferably about 130 to about 200, and still more preferably about 150 to about 200. (Fujisawa at [0035]).
The oral composition of the present invention can contain, in addition to the first silica, an abrasive precipitated silica having an RDA value of about 40 to about 110 (hereinafter sometimes referred to as “second silica”). (Fujisawa at [0036]). Use of the second silica in combination with the first silica further improves stain formation inhibitory effects of the composition, and is thus advantageous.(Fujisawa at [0037]).The RDA value of the second silica is usually about 40 to about 110, preferably about 60 to about 110, more preferably about 80 to about 110, and still more preferably about 85 to about 110.(Fujisawa at [0038]).
The second silica is not limited insofar as the RDA value is within the above-described ranges. It is preferable that d 50 of particle diameter of the second silica is about 20 μm or less, and more preferably about 15 μm or less. The lower limit of d50 is not limited, and is usually about 10 μm or less, and preferably about 8 μm or less. (Fujisawa at [0039]). The amount of the second silica is preferably about 3 to about 25% based on the total weight of the composition, more preferably about 8 to about 20% by weight, still more preferably about 10 to about 20% by weight, and most preferably about 15 to about 20% by weight.(Fujisawa at [0040]).
The total amount of the first silica and the second silica in the oral composition of the invention is preferably about 5 to about 30% by weight, more preferably about 10 to about 25% by weight, still more preferably about 12 to about 23% by weight, and most preferably about 17 to about 23% by weight. The weight ratio of the first silica to the second silica is preferably about 1:20 to 1:1, more preferably about 1:10 to 1:2, and still more preferably about 1:10 to 1:3. (Fujisawa at [0041]).
The oral composition of the present invention may be formulated into forms such as a tooth powder, toothpaste, gel, prophylaxis paste, pasta, chewing gum, tablet, etc., according to the known procedures. A dentifrice is particularly preferable from a practical viewpoint. (Fujisawa at [0044]).
Fujisawa differs from the instant claims in this rejection insofar as it does not teach the combination of the instantly recited components with sufficient specificity for anticipation. Fujisawa teaches the components of the instant recited composition and uses each component of their established function in the art but does not explicitly combine the components together into a single embodiment or a preferred composition. However, given the disclosure of each component individually, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the filing of the present patent application and following the teachings of Fujisawa to have selected and combined known components for their established functions with predictable results. MPEP §2143 and §2144.06(I).
Regarding instant claim 1, Fujisawa further teaches that employing about 0.5 to about 10%, based on the total weight of the composition, of an abrasive precipitated silica in which d 50 is about 5 μm or below, d90 is about 15 μm or below and has an RDA value of 120 or more (the precipitated silica is hereinafter sometimes referred to as “first silica”). (Fujisawa at [0030]). The oral composition of the present invention can contain, in addition to the first silica, an abrasive precipitated silica having an RDA value of about 40 to about 110 (hereinafter sometimes referred to as “second silica”). (Fujisawa at [0036]). Use of the second silica in combination with the first silica further improves stain formation inhibitory effects of the composition, and is thus advantageous.(Fujisawa at [0037]).The RDA value of the second silica is usually about 40 to about 110 (Fujisawa at [0038]). It is preferable that d 50 of particle diameter of the second silica is about 20 μm or less (Fujisawa at [0039]). The amount of the second silica is preferably about 3 to about 25% based on the total weight of the composition (Fujisawa at [0040]). The ranges taught for these silicas overlap with the instantly claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I).
Regarding instant claim 3, Fujisawa further teaches that employing about 0.5 to about 10%, based on the total weight of the composition, of an abrasive precipitated silica in which d 50 is about 5 μm or below, d90 is about 15 μm or below and has an RDA value of 120 or more (the precipitated silica is hereinafter sometimes referred to as “first silica”). (Fujisawa at [0030]).Fujisawa teaches it is preferable that d 50 of particle diameter of the second silica is about 20 μm or less (Fujisawa at [0039]). The ranges taught for these silicas overlap with the instantly claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I).
Regarding instant claim 5, Fujisawa further teaches that employing about 0.5 to about 10%, based on the total weight of the composition, of an abrasive precipitated silica in which d 50 is about 5 μm or below, d90 is about 15 μm or below and has an RDA value of 120 or more (the precipitated silica is hereinafter sometimes referred to as “first silica”). (Fujisawa at [0030]). The oral composition of the present invention can contain, in addition to the first silica, an abrasive precipitated silica having an RDA value of about 40 to about 110 (hereinafter sometimes referred to as “second silica”). (Fujisawa at [0036]).The ranges taught for these silicas overlap with the instantly claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I).
Regarding instant claim 6, The oral composition of the present invention can contain, in addition to the first silica, an abrasive precipitated silica having an RDA value of about 40 to about 110 (hereinafter sometimes referred to as “second silica”). (Fujisawa at [0036]). The ranges taught for these silicas overlap with the instantly claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I).
Regarding instant claim 7, Fujisawa further teaches that employing about 0.5 to about 10%, based on the total weight of the composition, of an abrasive precipitated silica in which d 50 is about 5 μm or below, d90 is about 15 μm or below and has an RDA value of 120 or more (the precipitated silica is hereinafter sometimes referred to as “first silica”). (Fujisawa at [0030]). The ranges taught for these silicas overlap with the instantly claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I).
Regarding instant claim 8, Fujisawa further teaches that employing about 0.5 to about 10%, based on the total weight of the composition, of an abrasive precipitated silica (the precipitated silica is hereinafter sometimes referred to as “first silica”). (Fujisawa at [0030]). The amount of the second silica is preferably about 3 to about 25% based on the total weight of the composition (Fujisawa at [0040]). The ranges taught for these silicas overlap with the instantly claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I).
Regarding instant claim 10, Fujisawa further teaches that employing about 0.5 to about 10%, based on the total weight of the composition, of an abrasive precipitated silica in which d 50 is about 5 μm or below, d90 is about 15 μm or below and has an RDA value of 120 or more (the precipitated silica is hereinafter sometimes referred to as “first silica”). (Fujisawa at [0030]). Fujisawa teaches it is preferable that d 50 of particle diameter of the second silica is about 20 μm or less (Fujisawa at [0039]). The ranges taught for these silicas overlap with the instantly claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I).
Regarding instant claim 11, Fujisawa further teaches that employing about 0.5 to about 10%, based on the total weight of the composition, of an abrasive precipitated silica in which d 50 is about 5 μm or below, d90 is about 15 μm or below and has an RDA value of 120 or more (the precipitated silica is hereinafter sometimes referred to as “first silica”). (Fujisawa at [0030]).
PNG
media_image1.png
76
532
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The ranges taught for these silicas overlap with the instantly claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I).
Regarding instant claim 13, Fujisawa further teaches that employing about 0.5 to about 10%, based on the total weight of the composition, of an abrasive precipitated silica in which d 50 is about 5 μm or below, d90 is about 15 μm or below and has an RDA value of 120 or more (the precipitated silica is hereinafter sometimes referred to as “first silica”). (Fujisawa at [0030]).
PNG
media_image1.png
76
532
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The ranges taught for these silicas overlap with the instantly claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I).
Regarding instant claim 24,Fujisawa teaches that the amount of water can be appropriately determined by depending on the form of the agent, etc., and is usually about 0 to about 70%, and preferably about 10 to about 50% (Fujisawa at [0046]).
Regarding instant claim 27, The oral composition of the present invention may be formulated into forms such as a tooth powder, toothpaste, gel, prophylaxis paste, pasta, chewing gum, tablet, etc., according to the known procedures. A dentifrice is particularly preferable from a practical viewpoint. (Fujisawa at [0044]).
Regarding instant claim 35, The oral composition of the present invention may be formulated into forms such as a tooth powder, toothpaste, gel, prophylaxis paste, pasta, chewing gum, tablet, etc., according to the known procedures. A dentifrice is particularly preferable from a practical viewpoint. (Fujisawa at [0044]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the unexpected result overcome the obviousness rejection and therefore the obviousness rejections should be withdrawn.
The Examiner does not agree. The applicant has the burden of explaining the statistical and practical significance of the data. The evidence relied upon should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance." Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). See MPEP 715.02(b)(I). The Applicant has not explained the statistical difference in the present data nor the practical significance of the data. As such unexpected results have not yet been established. "[A]ppellants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness." Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). Applicant provides example compositions as reproduced below;
PNG
media_image3.png
451
591
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
690
613
media_image4.png
Greyscale
. For each of these example compositions the Applicants also furnish data as reproduced below;
PNG
media_image5.png
810
561
media_image5.png
Greyscale
. There are a number of compositions that provide an improvement based on the first silica alone. One would be motivated to optimize to use the least amount of the most expensive product to make composition cheaper. The strongest rationale for combining references is a recognition, expressly or impliedly in the prior art or drawn from a convincing line of reasoning based on established scientific principles or legal precedent, that some advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by their combination. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 994-95, 217 USPQ 1, 5-6 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See also Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick, 464 F.3d 1356, 1368, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("Indeed, we have repeatedly held that an implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal—and even common-sensical—we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves."). See MPEP2144(II). The statistical and practical significance of the difference between a cleaning improvement of 80% and a 90% or 100% increase are not clear. The Applicant has not explained the statistical significance in the present data nor the practical significance of the data. As such unexpected results have not yet been established. As such, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the obviousness rejection stands.
Applicant argues that regarding the practical significance, the data presented in the application (FT Cleaning) are the results obtained from the Ferric Tannate cleaning test. This is a well- established industry standard procedure that is described in both the patent and academic literature as a means of predicting in vivo cleaning of teeth. The relationship between test results and clinical outcomes was first demonstrated by Dawson et al in 1998 (Dawson PL, Walsh JE, Morrison T, Grigor J, Dental stain prevention by abrasive toothpastes: a new in vitro test and its
correlation with clinical observations, Journal of Cosmetic Science, 1998, 49, 275-283) and has since been widely adopted within the field. The cleaning results presented in the application are therefore very strong evidence of real-world tooth cleaning. The practical significance is therefore the ability to achieve a surprisingly high performance in both tooth cleaning and tooth cleaning vs. tooth abrasion using relatively little of the more energy intensive and difficult to produce second silica.
The Examiner does not agree. The applicant has the burden of explaining the statistical and practical significance of the data. The evidence relied upon should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance." Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). See MPEP 715.02(b)(I). The Applicant has not explained the statistical difference in the present data nor the practical significance of the data. As such unexpected results have not yet been established. "[A]ppellants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness." Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). The practical significance is the difference between the claimed range and the ranges above and below the claimed critical range. Above this claimed range is the abrasion practically higher in a manner that scratches enamel or is the abrasion practically lower in a manner that does not remove plaque. Below this claimed range is the abrasion practically higher in a manner that scratches enamel or is the abrasion practically lower in a manner that does not remove plaque. The numbers within the data presented are often quite close what is the practical difference between a FT of 88 and 78? What is the practical difference of a PAV of 5 from a PAV of 10? It is presently unclear if there is a practical difference in the provided data as such no expected results have been established and the obviousness rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues that regarding the statistical significance, while error bars have not been provided in the data, the data presented (see Figure 1) shows a clear and consistent relationship across multiple data points and multiple data series. Examples 5 to 12 constitute the largest individual data set and show a clear trend over 8 data points. This trend correlates with the general trend seen in the rest of the data using other combinations of silicas. It is not reasonable to consider that these trends would be a result of test error, and therefore they must be considered statistically significant.
The Examiner does not agree. Respectfully, statistics is what provides statistical significance. The applicant has the burden of explaining the statistical and practical significance of the data. The evidence relied upon should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance." Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). See MPEP 715.02(b)(I). The Applicant has not explained the statistical difference in the present data nor the practical significance of the data. As such unexpected results have not yet been established. "[A]ppellants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness." Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). The tables provided generate a large amount of data and a number of blank entries. Statistical analysis is what clears out the noise of multiple examples and provides insight into what is statistically significant. P values between and within groups being compared for FT, PAV, and a ratio between the two tests would provide statistical significance between testing groups within, above, and below the claimed range. Likewise, error bars would provide context and statistical significance to graphs like those in the figures. he numbers within the data presented are often quite close what is the statistical difference between a FT of 88 and 78? What is the statistical difference of a PAV of 5 from a PAV of 10? It is presently unclear if there is a statistically significant result in the provided data as such no expected results have been established and the obviousness rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues that the data shows significant improvement over out of range compositions and therefore the obviousness rejection should be withdrawn.
The Examiner does not agree. The Applicant provides a streamlined chart reproduced below. However, it is unclear if there is statistical and practical difference between the data points. With regards to Examples 1-4R the difference between some of the in range and out of range data points is 0.7, is a difference of 0.7 statistically or practically significant? With regards to Examples 5-12R, Examples 9 and 10R provide a greater value than the within range data points. It is unclear if the data is statistically or practically significant. Therefore, there is no case of unexpected results established, the claimed range is not considered critical, and the obviousness rejections stand.
PNG
media_image6.png
638
456
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
142
453
media_image7.png
Greyscale
.
Applicant argues that the preferred ranges of Araya do not fall with the instantly claimed ranges and the ranges of Araya is too broad or teaches away and therefore the obviousness rejection should be withdrawn.
The Examiner does not agree. The prior art is good for all it contains and while Araya teaches preferred ranges it still teaches the general range of that the weight ratio between the silicas A and B are between 100:0 to 0:100 (Araya at page 8), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 90:7 to 100:0. Araya further teaches that usually the quantity by weight of silica A being greater than that of silica B when both silicas are employed (Araya at claim 2). "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See MPEP 2123(I). Furthermore, the teaching of preferred ranges or embodiments don’t teach away from broader disclosures or non-preferred embodiments. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). See MPEP 2123(II). As such, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the obviousness rejection stands.
Applicant argues that the Examiner used impermissible hindsight.
The Examiner does not agree. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). As such, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the obviousness rejection stands.
Double Patenting
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-11, 13, 15-19, 23-24, 27, 30-31 and 35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 7,662,363B2 in view of Araya (WO2005067876A1).
The instant application recites abrasive silica particles suitable for use in a dentifrice composition, the particles comprising: particles of a first abrasive silica in an amount of at least 90 wt% relative to the total weight of the abrasive silica particles; and particles of a second abrasive silica in an amount of up to 10 wt% relative to the total weight of the abrasive silica particles; wherein the weight median particle diameter (d50) of the particles of the second abrasive silica is less than the weight median particle diameter (d50) of the particles of the first abrasive silica and from 15% to 70% of the d50 value of the particles of the first abrasive silica, wherein the Relative Dentine Abrasion (RDA) value of the second silica particles is greater than the RDA value of the first silica particles.
The reference patent ‘363 recites an amorphous silica suitable for use in a dental composition having a weight mean particle size in the range 3 to 15 μm with at least 90 per cent by weight of particles having a size below 20 μm, a Radioactive Dentine Abrasion (RDA) determined on an aqueous slurry of the silica powder of 100 to 220, a Pellicle Cleaning Ratio (PCR), when incorporated in a dental composition at 10 per cent by weight, greater than 85, the ratio of PCR to RDA being in the range 0.4:1 to less than 1:1 and having a Plastics Abrasion Value in the range 11 to 19 (‘363 at claim 1). The reference patent ‘363 recites having an oil absorption, using linseed oil, in the range 70 to 150 cm3/100 g (‘363 at claim 2). The reference patent ‘363 recites having a particle size distribution such that at least 90 per cent by weight of the particles have a size below 17 μm (‘363 at claim 3). The reference patent ‘363 recites having a weight mean particle size in the range 3 to 7 μm and a particle size distribution such that at least 90 per cent by weight of the particles have a size below 16 μm (‘363 at claim 4). The reference patent ‘363 recites a dental composition comprising an amorphous silica having a weight mean particle size in the range 3 to 15 μm with at least 90 per cent by weight of particles having a size below 20 μm, a Radioactive Dentine Abrasion (RDA) determined on an aqueous slurry of the silica powder of 100 to 220, a Pellicle Cleaning Ratio (PCR) when incorporated in a dental composition at 10 per cent by weight greater than 85, the ratio of PCR to RDA being in the range 0.4:1 to less than 1:1 and having a Plastics Abrasion Value (PAV) in the range 11 to 19 and an orally acceptable carrier (‘363 at claim 12). The reference patent ‘363 recites containing from 0.1 to 25 per cent by weight of the amorphous silica (‘363 at claim 13). The reference patent ‘363 recites containing from 0.1 to 6 per cent by weight of the amorphous silica (‘363 at claim 14). The reference patent further comprising a second amorphous silica having an RDA value lower than the amorphous silica ‘363 recites (‘363 at claim 15). The reference patent ‘363 recites containing an amount of amorphous silica in the range 1 to 15 per cent by weight and an amount of a second amorphous silica in the range 4 to 20 per cent by weight (‘363 at claim 16). The reference patent ‘363 recites further comprising a principal silica in an amount in the range 4 to 25 per cent by weight (‘363 at claim 17).
The reference patent does not recite the specific characteristics of the secondary and tertiary silicas. The teachings of Araya cure this deficit.
The teachings of Araya are discussed above.
It would be prima facie obvious to have combined the silicas of the Araya with the silicas of patent 363, for the predicable result of a dental composition with three silicas. See MPEP 2144.06(I).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant arguments are discussed above.
The Examiner does not agree. See the response to arguments with regards to Araya above. As such, Araya does teach the instantly claimed invention and can be combined with the reference patent for an obviousness double patenting rejection. Since terminal disclaimers have not yet been filed, the non-statutory double patenting rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
No claims are presently allowable.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA MICHELLE PETRITSCH whose telephone number is (571)272-6812. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 08:30-17:00 EST ALT Fridays.
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, Sahana S. Kaup can be reached at 571-272-6897. 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.
/AMANDA MICHELLE PETRITSCH/Examiner, Art Unit 1612
/SAHANA S KAUP/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612
Prosecution Insights