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 .
Applicants' arguments, filed November 3, 2025, 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 Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn.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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 – Obviousness (New Rejections)
1) Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fei et al. (WO 2016099540).
Fei et al. disclose a stable whitening composition comprising an encapsulated colorant. The material used for the protective barrier may be a polymer. Suitable polymers include polyvinyl alcohols, and derivatized celluloses such as alkyl cellulose, hydroxy-propyl methyl cellulose. The polymers may also be used in mixtures (paragraphs 0017 to 0019). The protective barrier may also comprise fillers such as titanium dioxide in an amount ranging from 10 to 30% (paragraph 0030). The encapsulated colorant has a particle size ranging from 10 to 1000 micrometers (instant claim 4) (paragraph 0014). The colorants comprise up to 20% of the dentifrice (paragraph 0048). The colorants are included in an orally acceptable vehicle. The orally acceptable vehicle comprises surfactants (paragraph 0066). Flavoring agents are included in the vehicle and includes peppermint oil and menthol (instant claims 1-3). Flavoring agents comprise 0.01% to about 5% w/w of the composition (paragraphs 0069-0070). The vehicle may comprise other actives such as fluoride (instant claim 6) (paragraph 0079), abrasives and anticalculus agents include zinc citrate (instant claim 7) (paragraph 0077). Sweeteners are used an include mannitol in an amount ranging from 0.005 to about 5% by weight of the composition (paragraph 0071).
Generally, it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions, each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose. The idea for combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art. See MPEP 2144.06. It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art prior to filing the instant application to have used a mixture of hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose and polyvinyl alcohol to encapsulate the colorant because both polymers are disclosed to be used for the same purpose of making a protective barrier.
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art prior to filing the instant application to have added titanium dioxide to the protective barrier because it is suggested and because it is a filler that may be used in the protective barrier.
When the color is released during mechanical use of a toothpaste, which would be brushing the teeth, the toothpaste will change to the color, encompassing a color changing dentifrice. In regards to the time of color change, the films would comprise HPMC and polyvinyl alcohol, and the color would be release upon brushing and therefore one would reasonably conclude that the composition would exhibit a color chant after a period of 30 to 90 seconds.
In regard to brushing the teeth for more than 1 minute, the time for brushing the teeth is are result effective variable because it would determine how clean the teeth and mouth would get from brushing. It would have taken no more than the relative skill in the art to determine the appropriate brushing time to clean the teeth.
2) Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fei et al. (WO 2016099540) in view of Bak et al. (KR 20100085344).
Fei et al. is discussed above and differ from the instant claims insofar as it they do not disclose mannitol is used in the protective barrier.
Bak et al. disclose toothpaste comprising beads, in which water-insoluble pigment is dispersed. The beads have core particles and coating materials. The coating material contains 35-99.99 weight parts of cellulose, 4-60 weight parts of mannitol, 0.5-10 weight parts of hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose, and 0.01-2.5 weight parts of water-insoluble pigment (Abstract). The poorly water-soluble pigment is used by encapsulating it with an insoluble or poorly soluble coating agent. The coating agent comprises cellulose, mannitol, and hydroxypropyl methylcellulose, which are insoluble or poorly soluble in water and have a rigid structure that is destroyed by mechanical stimulation, are used. Cellulose is a water-insoluble substance that plays a role in preserving the form of the beads in toothpaste. In addition, mannitol and hydroxypropyl methylcellulose increase the binding strength of the beads and prevent swelling by water. Therefore, the hardness of the beads and the stability in the toothpaste may vary depending on the content of cellulose, mannitol, and hydroxypropyl methylcellulose.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing the instant application to have added mannitol to the coatings of Fei et al. because they are suitable for coatings used to encapsulate dyes and pigments and because mannitol along with hydroxypropyl methylcellulose helps increase the binding strength of the beads and prevents swelling by water.
Conclusion
Claims 1-10 are rejected.
No claims allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEZAH ROBERTS whose telephone number is (571)272-1071. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:00-7:30.
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 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.
/LEZAH ROBERTS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612