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 .
Claim Interpretation
Claims 7, 16 and 17 all depend on claim 1 and reference organic linker groups L1 and L2. In claim 1, organic linker group L1 is present in component (A1) only if n is greater than 1 and organic linker L2 is present only if Y is chosen to comprise L2. Since the variables n and Y render the organic linker groups optional for component (A1) of claim 1 and the cited claims do not impose conditions that would render them non-optional, the cited claims are interpreted as inheriting the optionality for L1-- and L2 found in claim 1.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities: the repetition of listed organic linker groups (shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
80
195
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
72
191
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
99
176
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 11-14 and 16 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the multifunctional (meth)acryloyl compound (A4)" in the first three lines of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase "more preferably selected from" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are necessary or optional limitation(s) of the claimed invention.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "(meth)acryloyl compound (A4)" in the last line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 14, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are necessary or optional limitation(s) of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 16, where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The terms “left-hand” and “right-hand” in claim 16 are used by the claim to mean the left or right “dashed line” of the organic linker groups, while the accepted meaning is “referring to bond stereochemistry as either right-handed or left-handed.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
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, 2, 5, 7, 9-14, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abuelyaman (WO 20190175716 A1).
Regarding claim 1, 2, 5 and 9-14, Abuelyaman teaches a free-radical-polymerizable composition for 3-D printed dental applications (page 2, line 15 – page 3, line 14; figure 2) comprising:
A1) 50 wt.% a polymerizable (meth)acryloyl compound which contains a urethane group of the following formula (Formula (VII); Example 1; Table 4, E12):
PNG
media_image4.png
162
586
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Which, with reference to the claimed formula I,
PNG
media_image5.png
33
254
media_image5.png
Greyscale
comprises:
Y = H2C=(R1)-C(=O)-X-L2-
R1 = CH3
X = O
L2 = a divalent organic linker group
Z = Y
n = 0
w = 70 (page 11, line 12)
n*v+w = 70
A2) tetrahydrofurfuryl methacrylate, a monofunctional (meth)acryloyl compound (page 21, lines 19-35);
A3) Tetra ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (TEGDMA), a difunctional (meth)acryloyl compound (Table 4, E12);
B) 1 wt.% 2,4,6- trimethylbenzoyldiphenyl phosphine oxide (TPO) (Table 4, E12); and
A4) pentaerythritol tetramethacrylate, a multifunctional (meth)acryloyl compound (page 20, line 5).
Regarding claims 7, 16 and 17, Abuelyaman applies as referenced above and further teaches the following polymerizable (meth)acryloyl compound (annotated by the examiner):
PNG
media_image6.png
431
689
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Component (a) is the polypropylene oxide monomer, (b) is the organic linker, and component (c) is a dimethacrylate. Component (b) is a claimed organic linker. Abuelyaman also teaches that a suitable monofunctional methacrylate for component (c) is methacrylic acid (page 14, line 9), and that a suitable polypropylene oxide for component (a) can have an average molecular weight of 4,000 g/mol (page 9, lines 25-35). A person of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the instant application would have found it obvious to substitute component (a) for a polypropylene oxide having an average molecular weight of 4,000 g/mol, retain component (b), and substitute component (c) for methacrylic acid with the expected result of arriving at the claimed composition.
Claims 3, 4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abuelyaman (WO 20190175716 A1) in view of Jia (US 20030207960 A1).
Regarding claims 3, 4 and 18, Abuelyaman teaches as explained above for components (A1) and (B), but fails to teach the claimed ranges for components (A2), (A3) and (A4).
Jia teaches a polymerizable dental adhesive composition (abstract) which comprises:
A2) 35.2 wt.% hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA), a monofunctional (meth)acryloyl compound;
A3) 9.1 wt.% Bisphenol A-glycidyl methacrylate (Bis-GMA), a difunctional (meth)acryloyl compound; and
A4) 2.1 wt.% trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate (TMPTMA), a multifunctional (meth)acryloyl compound (Table 2, Example 17).
As of the effective filing date of the instant application, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to take the teaching from Jia regarding the amounts of components HEMA, Bis-GMA, and TMPTMA useful in polymerizable dental applications and apply them to the composition of Abuelyaman to arrive at the expected result of the claimed composition.
Claim(s) 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abuelyaman (WO 20190175716 A1) in view of Zhipeng (CN 112812265 A).
Regarding claims 6 and 8, Abuelyaman applies as described above with respect to component (A1) having formula I, and further teaches that the average molecular weight of polypropylene oxide (glycol) is a result-effective variable on viscosity (page 9, lines 25-35), but fails to teach a component of formula I having a molecular weight of greater than 5,000 g/mol.
Zhipeng teaches polypropylene glycol acrylate copolymers used in radically polymerized compositions comprising polypropylene glycol 6000 (meaning having an average molecular weight of 6,000 g/mol) which is reacted with an acrylate and an isocyanate to form a polyurethane acrylate copolymer similar to formula I of the instant application (synthesis example 6).
A person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the instant application would have found it obvious to use the polypropylene glycol of Zhipeng with the goal of increasing the viscosity of the composition of Abuelyaman to arrive at the expected result of the claimed (meth)acryloyl compound of formula I. Additionally, the resulting compound produced would have the following structure as applied to formula (VII) of Abuelyaman:
PNG
media_image7.png
162
586
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Wherein (the polypropylene glycol monomer which is highlighted in green to illustrate how it reads onto formula I of the instant application):
PNG
media_image8.png
33
254
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Where:
Y = H2C=(R1)-C(=O)-X-L2-
R1 = CH3
X = O
Z = Y
L1-- = propylene glycol (a divalent organic linker group)
L2 = a divalent organic linker group
n = 1
v = 36
w = 66
n*v+w = 102
v + w = 102
The examiner notes that the numerical values for v and w above were obtained by dividing the average molecular weight of the polypropylene glycol 6000 of Zhipeng (6,000 g/mol) by the molecular mass of the glycol subunit (58 g/mol) to arrive at v + w = 103. Value v must be at least 36, and L1 is 1 unit of glycol, leaving w to equal 66.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Amiel-Levy (US 20200231803 A1) describes PPG-PEG-PPG block copolymers that are acrylated for use in 3-D printing applications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KOLTON JONES whose telephone number is (571)272-9802. The examiner can normally be reached Generally Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at (517)272-1130. 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.
/KOLTON JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 1763 /JOSEPH S DEL SOLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights