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
Election/Restriction
Claims 22-26 of Group II, claim 27 of Group III, claim 28 of Group IV, and claim 29 of Group V, are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election of claims 16-21, 30-31 of Group I, was made without traverse in the reply filed on August 20, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “radiopacifier” should be rewritten as: - - radio-opacifier- - 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.
Claims 17, 21, 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "40% in volume of the total volume of the calcium carbonate particles have a size ranging from 1.5 µm to 5.5 µm" in the last two lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because it depends on parent claim 16 which recites the overlapping range of from 2.5 µm to 20 µm, where the 1.5 µm lower limit of claim 17 is 1.0 µm less than the 2.5 µm lower limit of the parent claim 16.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “the radiopacifier” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because it depends on claim 20 which recites “at least one additive” but no radiopacifier, and claim 20 itself depends on claim 16 which also does not recite “a radiopacifier”.
Claim 31 recites the limitation “the at least one additive” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because it depends on parent claim 16 which does not recite “at least one additive”.
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.
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.
Claims 16-21, 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilles (US 2013/0025498).
Regarding claim 16, Gilles teaches a cement (cement paste [0034]) that is hydraulic (hydration of the calcium silicate crystal and therefore the formation of CSH and setting [0028]), comprising:
75% in weight of the total weight of the cement of calcium silicate particles (75 g/100 g, tricalcium silicate, composition # 1 where the total is 100 g [0066], Quantity (g) for 100 g Composition [0065]), which is within the claimed range of 15% to 98%, wherein 50% in volume of the total volume of calcium silicate particles have a size of 3 µm to less than 10 µm (d50 of calcium silicate is … preferably equal to 3 µm [0067], d99.9 of calcium silicate is … preferably 10 µm [0023]) which is within the claimed range of from 1 µm to 10 µm, and
19.6% in weight of the total weight of the cement of calcium carbonate particles (19.6 g/100 mg, calcium carbonate, composition # 1 where the total is 100 g [0066], Quantity (g) for 100 g Composition [0065]), which is within the claimed range of 0.5% to 85%, wherein:
10% in volume of the total volume of the calcium carbonate particles have a size of less than 0.2 µm (d10 of calcium carbonate is 0.2 … micron [0021]), which is within the claimed range of less than 0.59 µm; and
50% in volume of the total volume of the calcium carbonate particles have a
size of less than 2 µm (d50 of calcium carbonate is … preferably 2 … microns [0020]) which is within the claimed range of less than 2.5 µm.
In addition, Gilles teaches that 40% in volume of the total volume of the calcium carbonate particles have a size ranging from 2 µm to less than 9 µm (d50 of calcium carbonate is … preferably 2 … microns [0020], d90 of calcium carbonate is … preferably 9 µm [0022]), which range overlaps with the claimed range of 2.5 µm to 20 µm. Gilles teaches that the size distribution of the calcium carbonate particles is varied for the purpose of providing the high mechanical properties suitable for the desired end use ([0009]).
Therefore, it would have been routine experimentation by, and hence obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to have optimized the size of the 40% in volume of the total volume of the calcium carbonate particles, ranging from 2 µm to less than 9 µm, of the hydraulic cement of Gilles, to one that is within a range of 2.5 µm to 20 µm, in order to obtain the high mechanical properties suitable for the desired end use, as taught by Gilles.
Regarding claim 17, Gilles teaches that:
10% in volume of the total volume of the calcium carbonate particles have a size of less than 0.2 µm (d10 of calcium carbonate is 0.2 … micron [0021]), which is within the claimed range of less than 0.55 µm; and
50% in volume of the total volume of the calcium carbonate particles have a
size as low as less than 1 µm (d50 of calcium carbonate is 1 … microns [0020]) which is within the claimed range of less than 1.5 µm.
In addition, Gilles teaches that 40% in volume of the total volume of the calcium carbonate particles have a size ranging from as low as 1 µm to less than 6 µm (d50 of calcium carbonate is 1… microns [0020], d90 of calcium carbonate is 6 … microns [0022]) which contains the claimed range of 1.5 µm to 5.5 µm. Gilles teaches that the size distribution of the calcium carbonate particles is varied for the purpose of providing the high mechanical properties suitable for the desired end use ([0009]).
Therefore, it would have been routine experimentation by, and hence obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to have optimized the size of the 40% in volume of the total volume of the calcium carbonate particles, ranging from 1 µm to less than 6 µm, of the hydraulic cement of Gilles, to one that is within a range of 1.5 µm to 5.5 µm, in order to obtain the high mechanical properties suitable for the desired end use, as taught by Gilles.
Regarding claim 18, Gilles teaches that the calcium silicate particles are tricalcium silicate (C3S) particles, dicalcium silicate (C2S) particles and combinations thereof (and/or [0014]).
Regarding claim 19, Gilles teaches that the calcium silicate particles are in a Portland cement ([0006]).
Regarding claim 20, Gilles teaches that the hydraulic cement further comprises at least one additive.
Regarding claim 21, Gilles teaches that the hydraulic cement comprises a radio-opacifier selected from the group consisting of zirconium oxide, bismuth oxide and mixtures thereof (at least one [0029]).
Regarding claim 30, Gilles teaches that the hydraulic cement is for use in the medical field (dental field [0001]) to form a restorative and/or filling material (restoration, reconstitution of damaged teeth, filling of cavities [0002])
Regarding claim 31, Gilles teaches that the hydraulic cement further comprises at least one additive selected from the group consisting of set accelerators ([0028]), radio-opacifiers ([0029]), and pigments ([0031]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Sow-Fun Hon whose telephone number is (571)272-1492. The examiner is on a flexible schedule but can usually be reached during a regular work week between the hours of 10:00 AM and 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Aaron Austin, can be reached at (571)272-8935. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center (https://patentcenter.uspto.gov). Should you have any questions on the Patent Center system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Sophie Hon/
Sow-Fun Hon
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights