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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 02/26/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-12 are currently under examination and the subject of the present Office Action. Claims 13-14 are withdrawn from consideration without traverse.
As such, the restriction is made final.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 02/26/2026 and 12/29/2025 have been considered here.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 12 recites the broad recitation of at most 6 and the claim also recites the narrower limitation of at most 4. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
The phrase “more preferably” in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “more preferably” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the metes and bounds of the claim as written, thus it is indefinite. For purposes of search and consideration, the claim is understood as reading “ii) a pH of at most 6.”
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.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPUB 20100041790 (Moszner, 2010) in view of WO 2014040729 (Klee, 2014).
Regarding claims 1-6 and 8-10, Moszner discloses a dental composition comprising a polymerizable (meth)acrylamide phosphate of formula (I), wherein m is 1-4 and P is 0-4 (see Moszner, abstract).
PNG
media_image1.png
93
320
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wherein examples include
PNG
media_image2.png
88
233
media_image2.png
Greyscale
m is 1-4 (claim 3) and a radical polymerization initiator (see Moszner, [0003] and [0061]).
Moszner does not disclose the an allyl group bonded to the nitrogen atom of the amide group.
However, in the same field of endeavor of polymerizable compounds which is copolymerizable with conventional (meth)acrylates with linking groups for use in dental composition (see Klee, page 1 paragraph 1 and page 2 paragraph 3), Klee discloses groups comprising allyl groups attached to nitrogen and an additional group having a polymerizable double bond that is bonded to the nitrogen (see Klee, page 4 bottom paragraph through page 7 paragraph 2) as instantly claimed. Including, but not limited to:
PNG
media_image3.png
438
481
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein X1 is CO and R1 and R2 are hydrogen (see Klee, page 2 middle of page to page 2 middle of the page).
In regards to claim 11, Moszner discloses wherein the amount of polymerizable (meth)acrylamide phosphate of formula (I) is 0.5 to 95% by weight (see Moszner, [0070]).
In regards to claim 12, Moszner discloses wherein the pH is between 0.5 and 3.0 (see Moszner, [0056]).
In regards to claims 1-6 and 8-12, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Moszner and Klee to include groups comprising allyl groups attached to nitrogen and an additional group having a polymerizable double bond that is bonded to the nitrogen (see Klee, page 4 bottom paragraph through page 7 paragraph 2) in a polymerizable (meth)acrylamide phosphate compound as a matter of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predicable results, as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to include the allyl groups attached to nitrogen and an additional group having a polymerizable double bond because it is copolymerizable with conventional (meth)acrylates and provides dental compositions with a low viscosity and excellent biocompatibility as evidenced by Klee (page 1 paragraph 1). One who would have practiced this invention would have a reasonable expectation of success because Moszner discloses a dental composition comprising a polymerizable (meth)acrylamide phosphate, while Klee provided guidance with the respect to the allyl groups attached to nitrogen and an additional group having a polymerizable double bond because it is copolymerizable with conventional (meth)acrylates for dental formulations. It would have only required routine experimentation to include the allyl groups attached to nitrogen and an additional group having a polymerizable double bond as required by the instantly claimed invention.
Therefore, the claimed invention would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPUB 20100041790 (Moszner, 2010) in view of WO 2014040729 (Klee, 2014) as applied to claims 1-6 and 8-12 above, and further in view of WO 2015082642 (Klee et al., 2015).
The teachings of Moszner and Klee have been described surpa. Further, in regards to claim 7, Klee discloses a dental composition with meth(acrylates) having low viscosity (see Klee, page 1 paragraph 1)
The teachings of Moszner and Klee are silent on the viscosity of the polymerizable compound.
However, in the same field of endeavor of free radical polymerizable dental compounds (abstract) comprising methacrylate and methacrylamide groups (see Klee et al., page 19 paragraph 2), Klee et al. discloses wherein the dental composite has a dynamic viscosity at 23C from 1 to 30 Pa.s (see Klee et al., page 15 paragraph 3) including ranges of under 10 Pa.s (see Klee et al., page 23 Table 1)
In regards to claims 1-12, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Moszner and Klee with Klee et al. for the viscosity to be 1 to 30 Pa.S including examples of under 10 Pa.s in a poolymerizable dental compositions comprising methacrylate and methacrylamide groups as disclosed by Klee et al. (see Klee et al., page 19 paragraph 2) in a polymerizable (meth)acrylamide phosphate compound as a matter of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predicable results, as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to provides dental compositions with a low viscosity and excellent biocompatibility as evidenced by Klee (see Klee, page 1 paragraph 1). One who would have practiced this invention would have reasonable expectation of success because Moszner discloses a dental composition comprising a polymerizable (meth)acrylamide phosphate, while Klee et al. provided guidance with the respect to low viscosity polymerizable dental compounds (see Klee et al., abstract) comprising methacrylate and methacrylamide groups. It would have only required routine experimentation to include to include low viscosity polymerizable dental compounds comprising methacrylate and methacrylamide groups as required by the instantly claimed invention.
Therefore, the claimed invention would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing.
Conclusion
No claims allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AYAAN A ALAM whose telephone number is (571)270-1213. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Bethany Barham can be reached at 571-272-6175. 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.
/ISIS A GHALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1611
/A.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1611
Prosecution Insights