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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 18, 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 26 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. Claim 26 claims both a dental composition or a kit. A claim should be limited to a single invention. Additionally, claim 26 is dependent on claim 14, but brings in a kit comprising “the detail composition.” It is unclear what this is referring to and lacks proper antecedent basis.
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.
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 14-23 and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richard (US 2013/0025498) in view of Kendall (WO 00/50362).
Regarding claim 14, Richard teaches a dental composition comprising: from 15% to 98% in weight of the total weight of the composition of calcium silicate [0015]; from 0.5% to 80% in weight of the total weight of the composition of calcium carbonate [0016]; optionally from 2% to 35% in weight of the total weight of the composition of a radiopacifier [0029]; and optionally one or more additive selected from setting accelerators, pigments, water reducing agents, texturing agents, pH stabilizing agents, surfactants, and fillers [0028].
Richard does not specifically teach from 0.5% to 20% in weight of the total weight of the composition of at least one pozzolanic material. Kendall teaches a dental composition comprising calcium silicate (page 6, paragraph 3), a calcium carbonate (page 9, paragraph 2, item iv); and from 0.5% to 20% in weight of the total weight of the composition of at least one pozzolanic material. (page 5, paragraph 2). It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Richard with Kendal in order to create a higher quality cement at a lower cost.
Regarding claim 15, Richard does not teach the at least one pozzolanic material comprises silica fume. Kendall teaches the at least one pozzolanic material comprises silica fume (page 5, paragraph 1). It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Richard with Kendal in order to create a higher quality cement at a lower cost.
Regarding claim 16, Richard does not disclose the particles of the at least one pozzolanic material have a d90 granulometry from 5 µm to 100 µm, from 8 µm to 60 µm, from 15 µm to 35 µm or from 15 µm to 25 µm. Kendall teaches the at least one pozzolanic material comprises silica fume (page 5, paragraph 1). It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Richard with Kendal in order to create a higher quality cement at a lower cost.
Regarding claim 17, Richard teaches the calcium silicate is pure tricalcium silicate [0015].
Regarding claim 18, Richard teaches the calcium silicate is a mixture of tricalcium silicate and dicalcium silicate, said mixture being such that it contains no more than 10% by weight of dicalcium silicate with respect to the total weight of the calcium silicates present in the composition [0025].
Regarding claim 19, Richard does not teach the calcium silicate is the calcium silicate of a Portland cement or of a mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA); however, Kendall teaches the calcium silicate is the calcium silicate of a Portland cement or of a mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) (page 6, paragraph 3). It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Richard with Kendal in order to create a higher quality cement at a lower cost.
Regarding claim 20, Richard teaches a setting accelerator [0028].
Regarding claim 21, Richard teaches a radiopacifier [0029].
Regarding claim 22, Richard teaches at least one pigment [0031].
Regarding claim 23, Richard does not teach at least one texturing agent; however, Kendall teaches a texturing agent (page 10, paragraph 4). It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Richard with Kendal in order to create a higher quality cement at a lower cost.
Regarding claim 27, Richard teaches the amount of calcium carbonate ranges from 0.5% to 20% in weight of the total weight of the composition [0016].
Regarding claim 28, Richard teaches the amount of calcium carbonate is 4% in weight of the total weight of the composition [0016].
Regarding claim 29, Richard does not teach the amount of at least one pozzolanic material is 10% in weight of the total weight of the composition. Kendall teaches the amount of at least one pozzolanic material is 10% in weight of the total weight of the composition (page 5, paragraph 2). It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Richard with Kendal in order to create a higher quality cement at a lower cost.
Claims 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richard (US 2013/0025498) and Kendall (WO 00/50362), and further in view of Richard (US 2012/0270184).
Regarding claim 24, Richard and Kendall teach a hardened dental material; however, they do not teach a kit comprising: a first container containing a powder phase comprising the dental composition according to claim 14; and a second container containing a liquid aqueous phase; wherein the weight ratio of the powder phase present in the kit to the liquid aqueous phase present in the kit ranges from 2 to 5. Richard (‘184) teaches a kit comprising: a first container containing a powder phase comprising the dental composition according to claim 14; and a second container containing a liquid aqueous phase; wherein the weight ratio of the powder phase present in the kit to the liquid aqueous phase present in the kit ranges from 2 to 5 [0064]. It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Richard and Kendal with Richard (‘184) in order to create a high quality cement that is easily used.
Regarding claim 25, Richard and Kendall teach a hardened dental material; however, they do not specifically teach a medical device comprising a kit. Richard (‘184) teaches a medical device comprising a kit [0064]. It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Richard and Kendal with Richard (‘184) in order to create a high quality cement that is easily used.
Regarding claim 26, Richard and Kendall teach a dental composition for use in the treatment of the crown of a tooth and/or the root of a tooth. However, they do not teach a kit comprising a first container containing a powder phase comprising the dental composition, and a second container containing a liquid aqueous phase, wherein the weight ratio of the powder phase present in the kit to the liquid aqueous phase present in the kit ranges from 2 to 5. Richard (‘184) discloses a kit comprising a first container containing a powder phase comprising the dental composition, and a second container containing a liquid aqueous phase, wherein the weight ratio of the powder phase present in the kit to the liquid aqueous phase present in the kit ranges from 2 to 5 [0064]. It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Richard and Kendal with Richard (‘184) in order to create a high quality cement that is easily used.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Laura Martin whose telephone number is (571)272-2160. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am - 3:30 pm.
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, Andrea Wellington can be reached at (571) 272-4483. 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.
/LAURA MARTIN/ SPE, Art Unit 2855