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 .
Claims 1-8 are pending as originally filed, and are considered herein.
Formalities
The specification of 11/28/23, is accepted.
The drawings of 11/28/23, are accepted.
The IDS filings of 11/28/23 have been considered and are signed-off upon, herein.
Applicant’s priority is through 371 to PCT/JP2022/014543, filed 3/25/22, and back to Japanese Application No. 2021-090610, filed 5/28/21.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0282675 A1 to Misako, et al., published more than a year before Applicant’s earliest filing date.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0282675 A1 to Misako, et al.
The applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Claim 1: Misako teaches crushing tooth into grains, to obtain fine dentin particles having about 500-1000 micrometer size, which are separated by a sieve. This is done in the context of inducing dentin by dental pulp stem cells (Example 2). The context of this is to then treat dogs’ with root canals (Example 3). The same is taught to be done for humans (paragraph 61), which is taught with human dental pulp (e.g. Example 8). These examples are taught in the context of treating humans (e.g., paragraph 4 and 26).
Claim 2: as above, the particles are 500-1000 micrometers in size.
Claim 3: Example 2 teaches the demineralization with EDTA.
Claim 4:
Claim 5: Example 2 teaches 1 mM EDTA for demineralization.
Claim 6:
Claim 7:
Claim 8: The composition is made and cultured (Example 2).
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0282675 A1 to Misako, et al. and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/017184 A1.
As shown above, the base claims are anticipated by the base art. However, the aspect of utilizing a 0.4-1.0 Normal strong acid as a demineralization solution, is not taught by Misako’s 2019/0282675 Publication.
On the other hand, it has long been known to do so in the art, at the time of invention. For example, 10-20% HCl or HNO3 is known to be utilized for decalcifying teeth in Misako’s 2009/0176184 Publication (e.g., paragraph 24).
Thus, the invention is obvious. The Artisan would do so as another method of decalcifying the ground teeth. The Artisan would expect success, as the components are utilized for art-recognized purposes.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0282675 A1 to Misako, et al. and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0296445 A1 to Amao, et al., JP Publication No. 11-228328 to Abiru, et al. (machine translation), and JP Pub. No. 2018-131456 to Takahashi.
As shown above, the base claims are rejected over the base art alone, but the aspects of immersion in alcohol comprising silver ions as an antimicrobial agent and drying.
On the other hand, in making such preparations, silver ions are well known in the art, as antimicrobial for such purposes (e.g., Amao, paragraphs 90-94; Abiru, paragraph 10 and Claim 2; and Takahashi, paragraphs 27-29 and Claim 1).
Thus, at the time of invention, the invention was obvious. The Artisan would do so to make material for treatment of root canals in dogs and humans. The Artisan would expect success, as it is claimed.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT M KELLY whose telephone number is (571)272-0729. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8a-5p.
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, Tracy Vivlemore can be reached at 571-272-2914. 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.
ROBERT M. KELLY
Examiner
Art Unit 1638
/ROBERT M KELLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1638