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 Status
Claims 1-11, 14-17, 20, 21, and 24-26 are currently pending.
Claims 12, 13, 18, 19, 22, and 23 are canceled.
Claims 1-11, 14-17, 20, 21, and 24-26 are being examined on the merits.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C 119 (a)-(d) for
Application No. 63476023, filed on 12/19/2022; as reflected in the filing receipt
issued on 12/19/2022.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of species 1) Anionic surfactant: Sodium lauryl sulfate 2) Fluoride source: Sodium monofluorophosphate 3) Humectant: Propylene glycol 4) Thickening agent: Fumed silica 5) Fatty alcohol: Stearyl alcohol (claims 1-11, 14-17, 20, 21, and 24-26) in the reply filed on February 25, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claims be examined fully with respect to the elected species.
This is not found persuasive because listed species differ in starting materials and reactivity. Species variants are also not obvious of each other and can be classified separately.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) submitted on December 19, 2023, June 18, 2024, July 14, 2025, and February 13, 2026 are being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 26 is missing “further” in front of comprising.
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 2 and 26 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 2 recites the limitation "peroxide" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Suggesting to amend claim 2 from “peroxide” to “peroxide source”.
Claim 26 states “The oral care composition of claim 1 comprising: sodium lauryl sulfate; sodium monofluorophosphate; propylene glycol; fumed silica; and stearyl alcohol; wherein all weight percentages are based on the total weight of the oral care composition”, it is unclear as the last line of the claim recites “weight percentages” but there are no specific weight percentages of the listed ingredients disclosed in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-11, 14-17, 20, 21, 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Midha et al (CN 105101945/Published on November 25,2015; Filled on April 10, 2014).
Claim 1, drawn to “an oral care composition comprising:
from about 2 to about 10 wt.% of a peroxide source;
about 5 wt.% or more of potassium nitrate;
and about 45 wt.% or more of water,
wherein all weight percentages are based on the total weight of the oral care composition”.
Midha et al throughout teaches an oral care composition for maintaining oral health.
For claim 1: Midha et al teaches the composition comprises from about 0.2% to about 3% of a peroxide source, by weight (paragraph 0080). Reference also teaches desensitizing agent may be a… potassium nitrate, potassium chloride, and mixtures thereof (paragraph 0074). The composition may comprise from about 0.001% to about 20% by weight of anti-sensitivity agent (paragraph 0073). The compositions herein may comprise from about 10% to about 99% water, by weight of the composition (paragraph 0152).
For claims 2 and 3: Midha teaches suitable peroxide compounds include hydrogen peroxide, urea peroxide, calcium peroxide, carbamide peroxide, magnesium peroxide, zinc peroxide, strontium peroxide, and mixtures thereof (paragraph 0080).
For claim 4: Midha teaches the composition may comprise from about 0.1% to about 5% by weight of anti-sensitivity agent (paragraph 0074). Reference also teaches the desensitizing agent may be a potassium salt selected from the group consisting of… potassium nitrate, potassium chloride, and mixtures thereof (paragraph 0075).
For claim 5: Midha teaches the compositions herein may comprise from about 30% to about 80%water, by weight of the composition (paragraph 0153).
For claim 6: Midha teaches the oral care compositions may contain surfactants in an amount of about 0.1% to about 50% (paragraph 0126).
For claim 7: Midha teaches the anionic surfactants that can be used in the present invention include… surfactants are sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) and sodium cocoyl monoglyceride sulfonate (paragraph 0127). Reference also teaches other suitable anionic surfactants are sarcosinates such as sodium lauroyl sarcosinate, taurate, sodium lauryl sulfoacetate, sodium lauroyl isethionate, laureth carboxylate sodium dodecylbenzenesulfonate and sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate. Mixtures of anionic surfactants may also be used (paragraph 0127).
For Claims 8 and 9: Midha teaches fluoride ion sources include: stannous fluoride, sodium fluoride, potassium fluoride, ammonium fluoride, sodium monofluorophosphate, zinc fluoride, and mixtures thereof (paragraph 0071).
For claims 10 and 11: Midha teaches the compositions herein may comprise from 1% to about 90%... suitable humectants for compositions of the present invention include water, edible polyhydric alcohols such as glycerin, sorbitol, xylitol, butylene glycol, polyethylene glycol, propylene glycol, and combinations thereof (paragraph 0151).
For claim 14: Midha teaches thickeners may be used in amounts of from about 0% to about 15%, or from about 0.01% to about 10%...by weight of the total oral composition (paragraph 0142).
For claim 15: Midha teaches thickening agent selected from the group consisting of…carboxyvinyl polymers…silica, alkylated polyacrylates, alkylated crosslinked polyacrylates, and mixtures thereof (paragraph 0144).
For claim 16: Midha teaches certain thickeners and flavors provide good compatibility with oxidizing agents such as peroxides… preferred thickeners may be cross-linked polyvinylpyrrolidone, polyacrylates, alkylated polyacrylates, alkylated cross-linked polyacrylates, polymerized alkylated polyethers… and mixtures thereof (paragraph 0082, claim 4).
For claim 17: Midha teaches thickeners include carbomer, hydrophobically modified carbomer, carboxymethyl cellulose, cetyl/stearyl alcohol, sodium alginate…and their copolymers and mixtures (paragraph 0145). Specifically, acrylic polymers include Carbopol 934, 940, 941, 956 and mixtures thereof (paragraph 0145).
For claim 20: Midha teaches the oral carrier comprises an auxiliary abrasive selected from the group consisting of calcium pyrophosphate, precipitated silica, fused silica, and mixtures thereof (claim 9).
For claim 21: Midha teaches fatty amphiphile from about 0.5% to about 10% by weight of the oral composition (paragraph 0148). Reference also teaches the fatty amphiphile is selected from cetyl alcohol, stearyl alcohol, and mixtures thereof (paragraph 0149).
For claim 24: Midha teaches the composition comprises from 0.5% to about 10%, of a peroxide source, by weight (paragraph 0080). The composition may comprise from about 0.001% to about 20% by weight of anti-sensitivity (paragraph 0074). Reference also teaches anti-sensitivity agent may be a… potassium nitrate, potassium chloride, and mixtures thereof (paragraph 0075). The compositions herein may comprise from 30% to about 80% water by weight of the composition (paragraph 0153). Reference also teaches about 2% to about 40%, or from about 3% to about 30%, by weight of an auxiliary abrasive (paragraph 0138). Examples of secondary abrasives useful herein include…calcium pyrophosphate (paragraph 0138). Midha also teaches the oral care compositions may contain surfactants in an amount of about 0.025% to about 9% (paragraph 0126).
For claim 25: Midha teaches the composition comprises from about 0.5% to about 10% of a peroxide source, by weight (paragraph 0080). The composition may comprise from about 0.001% to about 20% by weight of anti-sensitivity (paragraph 0073). Reference also teaches anti-sensitivity agent may be a… potassium nitrate, potassium chloride, and mixtures thereof (paragraph 0074). The compositions herein may comprise from about 30% to about 70%, or about 30% to about 50% water, by weight of the composition (paragraph 0153). Reference also teaches about 2% to about 40%, or from about 3% to about 30%, by weight of an auxiliary abrasive (paragraph 0138). Examples of secondary abrasives useful herein include…calcium pyrophosphate (paragraph 0138). Midha also teaches the oral care compositions may contain surfactants in an amount of about 0.1% to about 50% (paragraph 0126). Midha teaches thickeners such as carboxymethyl cellulose (paragraph 0144) and carbopol (paragraph 0145). Reference also teaches cross-linked polyacrylates recited in reference claim 4.
For claim 26: Midha teaches the invention include… surfactants are sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) and sodium cocoyl monoglyceride sulfonate (paragraph 0127). Reference also teaches fluoride ion sources include: …sodium monofluorophosphate… and mixtures thereof (paragraph 0071). Midha also teaches the compositions herein may comprise…propylene glycol, and combinations thereof (paragraph 0151). Reference also teaches stearyl alcohol and mixtures thereof (paragraph 0149).
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, 24, 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Midha et al (CN 105101945/Published on November 25,2015; Filed on April 10, 2014) in view of Costache et al (WO 2021035087/ Published February 25, 2021; Filed on August 20, 2021).
Midha et al., throughout the reference, teaches an oral care composition for maintaining oral health, as discussed above.
Midha et al does not teach “fumed silica” as recited in claim 26. The reference also does not exemplify a composition as recited in claims 24 and 25.
However, Costache et al throughout teaches novel surfactant blend of silk fibroin protein fragments and a natural surfactant and personal care compositions and products thereof.
For claim 26: Costache et al teaches thickening agent is selected from the group consisting of… fumed silica (paragraph 00761).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate using fumed silica taught by Costache et al as a thickener for the oral care composition of Midha. In addition, because both the Costache and Midha references teach personal care compositions with various ingredients including thickeners for various purposes, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute one type of silica-based thickener (such as precipitated thickener taught in Midha) with the fumed silica of Costache as both type of thickeners are known and routinely used in personal care compositions.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to generate composition comprising the various ingredients in the amounts as recited in claims 24 and 25, because the Midha reference teaches all the ingredients are known and routinely used in the oral care composition with the appropriate amounts, to achieve the desired oral care effect. It would have been obvious to optimize the amount of each ingredient (including abrasives, anti-sensitive components, etc.) to achieve the desired effects of the oral care product.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success of achieving such modifications since Midha reference has demonstrated making various oral care composition comprising various abrasives, anti-sensitivity agents, surfactants, thickeners, etc. are routine and known in the art.
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 1-11, 14-17, 20, 21, and 24-26, provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 and 16 of copending Application No. 18/463,723 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims would have been anticipated by the reference claims.
Instant claim 1 is drawn to, an oral care composition comprising: from about 2 to about 10 wt.% of a peroxide source; about 5 wt.% or more of potassium nitrate; and about 45 wt.% or more of water, wherein all weight percentages are based on the total weight of the oral care composition.
Reference claim 1 is drawn to, a tooth whitening oral care composition comprising (a) 0.01-10% potassium peroxymonosulfate by weight of the composition, 5%-60% of an abrasive selected from calcium pyrophosphate (Ca2P₂O₇), insoluble sodium metaphosphate ([NaPO₃]ₙ), wherein n represents any integer from 1 to 2000, anhydrous dicalcium phosphate (CaHPO4), or mixtures thereof, by weight of the composition, and (c) from 0.25-25% of a source of hydrogen peroxide, by weight of the composition, wherein the source of hydrogen peroxide provides hydrogen peroxide (e.g., free hydrogen peroxide) in an amount from 0.05%-4.5% by wt. of the total composition (e.g., about 0.1%, about 1%, or about 2%, or about 3%, or about 4%, by wt.) wherein the oral care composition exhibits a stability such that an active oxygen content of the composition is greater than at least about 70% of an initial active oxygen content after 13 weeks of aging at 40°C.
The differences between the instant claim 1 and the reference claim 1 is that the reference claim additional additives well known in the art to be incorporated in the composition.
However, the differences are close enough that they would be anticipated and/or are well within the capabilities of the person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-11, 14-17, 20, 21, and 24-26, provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 34-36 and 51-53 of copending Application No. 18/544,591 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims would have been anticipated by the reference claims.
Instant claim 1 recited above.
Reference claim 34 is drawn to, an oral care composition comprising: - a whitening agent comprising-from a peroxide; - a thickening system comprising two or more of: (i) a silica thickener, (ii) crosslinked polyvinyl pyrrolidone, or (iii) one of xanthan gum, cetyl alcohol, or a combination thereof; and (iii) crosslinked polyvinyl pyrrolidone; - an abrasive comprising an insoluble phosphate salt; and - from about [[5]]40 to 90 wt.% of water, wherein the oral care composition has a pH of about 4 to about 8, and all weight percentages are based on the total weight of the oral care composition.
The differences between the instant claim 34 and the reference claim 1 is that the reference claim specifies the ingredients to be incorporated in the composition.
However, the differences are close enough that they would be anticipated and/or are well within the capabilities of the person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust. To rephrase, the recited claims of the instant application are so close to the reference claims that they are not mutually exclusive.
To rephrase, the recited claims of the instant application are so close to the reference claims that they are not mutually exclusive.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-11, 14-17, 20, 21, and 24-26, provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, and 10 of copending Application No. 18/543,423 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims would have been anticipated by the reference claims.
Instant claim 1 recited above.
Reference claim 1, drawn to, an oral care composition comprising: from about 10 to about 90 wt.% of a polyol; a whitening agent comprising a peroxide; from about 0.1 to about 20 wt.% of a thickening agent comprising a sodium polyacryloyldimethyltaurate and from about 1 to about 35 wt.% of an abrasive system comprising an insoluble phosphate salt, wherein the oral care composition has a total amount of all polymers of about 7 wt.% or less; wherein the oral care composition contains less than about 5 wt.% of water, and all weight percentages are based on the total weight of the oral care composition.
The differences between the instant claim 1 and the reference claim 1 is that the reference claim includes additional additives to be incorporated in the oral composition.
However, the differences are close enough that they would be anticipated and/or are well within the capabilities of the person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust. To rephrase, the recited claims of the instant application are so close to the reference claims that they are not mutually exclusive.
To rephrase, the recited claims of the instant application are so close to the reference claims that they are not mutually exclusive.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-11, 14-17, 20, 21, and 24-26, provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/787,155 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims would have been anticipated by the reference claims.
Instant claim 1 recited above.
Reference claim 1, drawn to, an oral care composition comprising: (i) a whitening complex comprising crosslinked polyvinylpyrrolidone complexed with hydrogen peroxide; (ii) a tartar control agent; (iii) a calcium abrasive; and (vi) from about 10 to about 40 wt.% of one or more polymers comprising an ethylene oxide, propylene oxide block co-polymer of average molecular weight greater than 5000 Da, wherein the ethylene oxide, propylene oxide block co-polymer comprises (ethylene oxide)x-(propylene oxide)y wherein x is an integer of 80-150 and y is an integer 30-80, wherein the wt.% is based on the total weight of the oral care composition.
The differences between the instant claim 1 and the reference claim 1 is that the reference claim includes additional additives to be incorporated in the oral composition.
However, the differences are close enough that they would be anticipated and/or are well within the capabilities of the person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust. To rephrase, the recited claims of the instant application are so close to the reference claims that they are not mutually exclusive.
To rephrase, the recited claims of the instant application are so close to the reference claims that they are not mutually exclusive.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-11, 14-17, 20, 21, and 24-26, provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of copending Application No. 18/951,152 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims would have been anticipated by the reference claims.
Instant claim 1 recited above.
Reference claim 1, drawn to, an oral care composition comprising: a whitening agent comprising from 0.1 to about 10 wt.% of a peroxide; a cross-linked polyacrylic acid and/or a salt thereof; a polyol; and water in an amount up to 10 wt.%, wherein all weight percentages are based on the total weight of the oral care composition.
The differences between the instant claim 1 and the reference claim 1 is that the reference claim includes additional additives to be incorporated in the oral composition.
However, the differences are close enough that they would be anticipated and/or are well within the capabilities of the person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust. To rephrase, the recited claims of the instant application are so close to the reference claims that they are not mutually exclusive.
To rephrase, the recited claims of the instant application are so close to the reference claims that they are not mutually exclusive.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-11, 14-17, 20, 21, and 24-26, provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, and 5 of copending Application No. 19/155,982 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims would have been anticipated by the reference claims.
Instant claim 1 recited above.
Reference claim 1, drawn to an aqueous abrasive oral care composition comprising (a) 1-10 wt.% hydrogen peroxide, (b) 5-20 wt.% of calcium pyrophosphate abrasive, (c) 35-75 wt.% propylene glycol, (d) 5-20 wt.% of a thickening system, the thickening system comprising from about 6 to about 16 wt.% of a polyvinylpyrrolidone and from about 2 to about 4 wt.% of a thickening silica, (e) 1-20 wt.% of a polyethylene glycol/polypropylene glycol random copolymer; provided that:(1) the hydrogen peroxide is incorporated into the composition as a 40-80% aqueous solution; or (2) the hydrogen peroxide is incorporated into the composition as a 30-80% aqueous solution and the composition is not formulated with metal ion chelating agents selected from, such stannate salts, colloidal stannate, efEDTA. and salts thereof wherein the oral care composition has a weight ratio of the polvvinvlpvrrolidone to the silica thickeners of about 5:1 to about 1:1 and the oral care composition has a viscosity of about 50.000 to 250.000 cP at room temperature using Brookfield viscometer and a spindle no. 3 for 1 minute.
The differences between the instant claim 1 and the reference claim 1 is that the reference claim includes additional additives to be incorporated in the oral composition.
However, the differences are close enough that they would be anticipated and/or are well within the capabilities of the person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust. To rephrase, the recited claims of the instant application are so close to the reference claims that they are not mutually exclusive.
To rephrase, the recited claims of the instant application are so close to the reference claims that they are not mutually exclusive.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-11, 14-17, 20, 21, and 24-26, provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 2 of copending Application No. 19/230,329 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims would have been anticipated by the reference claims.
Instant claim 1 recited above.
Reference claim 1, drawn to, a composition comprising: a peroxide whitening agent comprising hydrogen peroxide; an ethylene oxide/propylene oxide block copolymer having an average molecular weight of 5000 Da to 13000 Da, in an amount of from 5% to 10% by weight of the composition; an anticalculus agent; andoptionally, propylene glycol in an amount of from about 7 wt.% to about 52 wt.% by weight of the composition.
The differences between the instant claim 1 and the reference claim 1 is that the reference claim includes additional additives to be incorporated in the oral composition.
However, the differences are close enough that they would be anticipated and/or are well within the capabilities of the person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust. To rephrase, the recited claims of the instant application are so close to the reference claims that they are not mutually exclusive.
To rephrase, the recited claims of the instant application are so close to the reference claims that they are not mutually exclusive.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-11, 14-17, 20, 21, and 24-26, provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of copending Application No. 19/355,255 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims would have been anticipated by the reference claims.
Instant claim 1 recited above.
Reference claim 1, drawn to, an oral care composition, comprising: a peroxide source configured to provide from about 0.01 weight % to about 6.0 weight % hydrogen peroxide based on a total weight of the oral care composition; a peroxysulfate whitening agent; from about 20 weight % to about 80 weight % of a hydrophobic base based on the total weight of the oral care composition; and from about 0.05 weight % to about 3 weight % sodium tripolyphosphate (STPP).
The differences between the instant claim 1 and the reference claim 1 is that the reference claim includes additional additives and additive amounts to be incorporated in the oral composition.
However, the differences are close enough that they would be anticipated and/or are well within the capabilities of the person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust. To rephrase, the recited claims of the instant application are so close to the reference claims that they are not mutually exclusive.
To rephrase, the recited claims of the instant application are so close to the reference claims that they are not mutually exclusive.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-11, 14-17, 20, 21, and 24-26, provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 13,14, and 15 of copending Application No. 19/633,894 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims would have been anticipated by the reference claims.
Instant claim 1 recited above.
Reference claim 1, drawn to, an oral care composition comprising: from about 35 wt.% to about 85 wt.% of an anhydrous solvent system; from about 1 wt.% to about 30 wt.% of an abrasive, the abrasive comprising calcium pyrophosphate; from about 0.02 wt.% to about 30 wt.% of a liquid peroxide solution comprising: (i) from about 0.01 wt.% to about 15 wt.% of hydrogen peroxide not bound or complexed to a polyvinyl pyrrolidone polymer, and (ii) from about 1 wt.% to about 15 wt.% of water, wherein the hydrogen peroxide and water are present in a weight ratio of the hydrogen peroxide to the water of about 1:3 to about 2:1; and from about 1 wt.% to about 20 wt.% of a thickening system, the thickening system consisting of the polyvinyl pyrrolidone polymer, a polyethylene glycol / polypropylene glycol copolymer, and optionally a silica thickener, wherein the oral care composition has a total water content of less than about 30 wt.%, and wherein 5% or less of the hydrogen peroxide degrades when the oral care composition is stored at a temperature of 40 ºC for 1 month, and all weight percentages are based on the total weight of the oral care composition.
The differences between the instant claim 1 and the reference claim 1 is that the reference claim includes additional additives and additive amount to be incorporated in the oral composition.
However, the differences are close enough that they would be anticipated and/or are well within the capabilities of the person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust. To rephrase, the recited claims of the instant application are so close to the reference claims that they are not mutually exclusive.
To rephrase, the recited claims of the instant application are so close to the reference claims that they are not mutually exclusive.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASMINE A EVANS whose telephone number is (571)272-9796. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00EST.
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, Sue Liu can be reached at (571) 272-5539. 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.
/J.A.E./ Examiner, Art Unit 1616
/SUE X LIU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1616
Prosecution Insights