FY24DETAILED 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/25/2025 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 3 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected election, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/5/2024.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 11/25/2025 has been entered. Claim(s) 1 is/are currently amended. Claim(s) 1-3 is/are pending with claim(s) 3 withdrawn from consideration. Claim(s) 1-2 is/are under examination in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's argument, filed on 11/25/2025, with respect to 103 rejection has been fully considered but is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented below.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al (US 20140094578 A1) in view of Noguchi et al (US 20220325025 A1) and He et al (CN 102807510 A, machine translation is referenced herein).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Tanaka teaches a polymerizable composition for dental treatment comprising a first component comprising a (meth)acrylate and a second component comprising a (meth)acrylate [abstract]. An example of the first component (meth)acrylate is MG-90G (methoxypolyethylene glycol) dissolved in DW (distilled water) [0031, 0042, Table 2]. An example of the second component (meth)acrylate is TEGDMA (triethylene glycol dimethacrylate) [0033, Table 2]. The first and second components are metered out and mixed uniformly by kneading [0048].
Tanaka does not teach glycerin dimethacrylate as the polymerizable monomer.
In the same field of endeavor, Noguchi teaches a curable composition for dental mouthpiece and a denture base material [abstract], comprising polymerizable monomers including glycerol dimethacrylate (equivalent to glycerin dimethacrylate) and triethylene glycol dimethacrylate (TEGDMA) [0049].
It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose where the equivalence is recognized by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.06. Since Noguchi recognized glycerin dimethacrylate and TEGDMA are equivalent for the same purpose as a polymerizable monomer for dental treatment, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filing to substitute TEGDMA with glycerin dimethacrylate in Tanaka’s composition.
Glycerin dimethacrylate reads on the claimed first polymerizable monomer.
Tanaka does not teach the polyfunctional polymerizable monomer represented by the formula as the polymerizable monomer:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the same field of endeavor, He teaches an antibacterial metacrylic acid ester monomer containing uaternary ammonium salt structure as a dental restorative material [P1 last para.]:
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein m=1 to 19; X=F, Cl, Br or I; R2=CH3 or CH2(CH2)nCH3, n=0-27 (see original document [0010-0018]).
A specific example is formula (V):
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein n=14 for R2 in the general formula.
The examiner submits that when n=10 for R2 in the general formula, the above formula (V) is identical to the claimed formula as the polymerizable monomer.
He teaches that compared to conventional methacrylate resins, the above antibacterial metacrylic acid ester monomer solves the problem of the existing antibacterial properties of existing dental restorative materials and the difficulty in mixing existing antibacterial methacrylate monomers and methacrylate substrates for dental restorative materials [P1 last para.].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute at least a portion of MG-90G with He’s antibacterial metacrylic acid ester monomer containing uaternary ammonium salt structure in Tanaka's dental composition for the aforementioned benefit. Also, since MG-90G and He’s antibacterial metacrylic acid ester monomer containing uaternary ammonium salt structure are recognized as equivalents for the same purpose of being used as a dental preparation, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to either substitute MG-90G with He’s antibacterial metacrylic acid ester monomer containing uaternary ammonium salt structure or combine the two in Tanaka’s composition. It is prima facie obvious to combine or substitute equivalents for the same purpose where the equivalence is recognized by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.06.
He’s antibacterial metacrylic acid ester monomer containing uaternary ammonium salt structure reads on the recited second polymerizable monomer having antibacterial property in claim 2.
According to the applicant, a composition as claimed is formed by mixing a second polymerizable monomer with water. This solution is then mixed with a first polymerizable monomer and kneaded to form a uniform paste [Example 1-1, 0085-0087 spec.].
Since the prior art teaches the same method of mixing and kneading as the instant application, the claimed composition is expected to be present.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIANGTIAN XU whose telephone number is (571)270-1621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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, Robert Jones can be reached on (571) 270-7733. 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.
/JIANGTIAN XU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762