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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract uses language which can be implied, for example, "the invention relates to". A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in Table 1, where it says "Triethylenglycole dimethacrylat" it should say "Triethyleneglycol dimethacrylate".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The applicant is reminded that under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. See MPEP § 2111.01.
Claim 1 recites the components of a resin matrix which includes an “acidic polymerizable component”. This term is interpreted in a manner consistent with the instant specification on page 2, lines 8-13 regarding acid-precursor functionality. Additionally, it is interpreted that a component of the composition having the claimed characteristics of more than one claimed component may be referred to as more than one claimed component. For example, if a (meth)acrylate component has an acidic moiety or an acidic precursor moiety, it can also be referred to as the acidic polymerizable component. For examination purposes, the interpretation above and the interpretation of distinct and separate components are considered.
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 1-4, 10 and 13 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.
Regarding claims 1-3, 10 and 13, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are a mandatory part of the claimed invention or merely optional. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 1 in line 5 uses the term “the polyols spacer group”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the term is taken to say “the polyol spacer group”.
Regarding claim 2, the term "either" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear which of the two the following structures are to be considered. The term “either” primarily means "one or the other" of two choices, the addition of a third choice renders the scope of the claim unclear. The claim could instead say “any of the following structures”.
Regarding claim 4, the claim uses the phrase “and not more than 4 or not more than 2 urethane moieties”. This is indefinite because it there are conflicting alternative limitations in the claim that make it unclear how many urethane moieties are claimed.
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 1-4, 6, 7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abuelyaman (US 20200332046 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 6 and 7, Abuelyaman discloses a curable dental resin composition that could be used in dental cements comprising:
a (meth)acrylate component (Formula VII, shown below) comprising:
at least two (meth)acrylate moieties;
a polyol spacer group between at least two (meth)acrylate moieties, the spacer group having a molecular weight of over 3,000 g/mol (where n is 52-70 according to paragraph [0068]).
PNG
media_image1.png
133
479
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Formula VII as an acidic polymerizable component, having an acid-precursor moiety in the form of methacrylic acid (paragraph [0079]).
Tetraethylene glycol dimethacrylate (TEGDMA), as a non-acidic polymerizable component having a molecular weight below 1,000 g/mol (paragraph [0110], Table 4);
Silica filler (paragraph [0129]);
2, 4, 6-trimethylbenzoyldiphenylphosphine oxide (TPO), as an initiator (paragraph [0121]).
Regarding claims 2 and 4, Formula VII above reads onto formula (I) of claim 2 in the following way:
Claimed formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
27
181
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Abuelyaman formula VII:
PNG
media_image3.png
133
479
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Where:
MA is a methacrylate moiety (red)
L is a urethane link (blue)
S1 is a polypropylene glycol moiety where n is 52-70 (green)
S2 is an ether (containing a C2 alkyl chain) spacer group that connects the ether link L to the (meth)acrylate moiety (shown in yellow)
Regarding claim 3, Formula VII applies as described above and further, the polypropylene group S1 (shown in green above) of Formula VII according to the formula
PNG
media_image4.png
36
371
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Applies as follows:
n and m = 1
k and l, when added together amount to between 52 and 69, for example k = 10 and l = 59.
R’ and R’’ = methyl group.
Regarding claim 9, Abuelyaman applies as described above and does not comprise methacrylate functionalized fillers, softeners, polyhydric alcohols, eugenol.
Regarding claim 10, Abuelyaman teaches that the (meth)acrylate component can be made by reacting polyols with methacrylates with isocyanate moieties or acid anhydrides (paragraph [0079]).
(The examiner notes that the above rejection relies on the interpretation that the (meth)acrylate component could also be the acidic polymerizable component, however, to account for an interpretation that precludes this possibility the following rejection is made)
Claims 1-3, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ori (US 20120213832 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ori teaches a curable temporary dental repair material comprising:
a (meth)acrylate component(s) (formula (IV)) comprising:
at least two (meth)acrylate moieties;
a polyol spacer group between at least two (meth)acrylate moieties, the spacer group having a molecular weight of over 3,000 g/mol (where n is between 52 and 60, as in paragraph [0026]);
4-(meth)acryloyloxyethyltrimellitic acid (4-MET) as an acidic polymerizable component (Table 1, example 1);
2-hydroxy ethyl methacrylate (HEMA) as a non-acidic polymerizable component having a molecular weight below 1,000 g/mol (Table 1, example 1);
Bi2(CO3)O2 and silica filler (Table 1, example 1);
NPG-Na initiator (paragraphs [0053, 0067]; Table 1, example 1).
Regarding claim 2, Ori teaches the formula (IV) above, which reads onto formula (I) of claim 2 in the following way:
Claimed formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
27
181
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Formula (IV) of Ori:
PNG
media_image5.png
126
376
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Where Ra is methyl, and n = between 52-60
Which can be rearranged to be:
PNG
media_image6.png
108
541
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Where:
MA is a methacrylate moiety (red)
L is an ether link (blue)
S1 is a polypropylene glycol moiety where k + l is between 54-58 (green)
S2 is an ether (containing a C3 alkyl chain) spacer group that connects the ether link L to the (meth)acrylate moiety (shown in yellow)
Regarding claim 3, Formula (IV) of Ori applies as above regarding S2, which comprises a C3 alkyl chain, and the polyol group S1 according to claim 3 as follows:
n and m are each 1;
k and l can be, respectively, k = 2 and l = 56;
R’ and R” are methyl groups.
Regarding claim 6, Ori applies as described above regarding the NPG-Na initiator, which is a photoinitiator (paragraph [0083]).
Regarding claim 7, Ori applies as described above regarding the Bi2(CO3)O2 and silica filler (Table 1, example 1).
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 1-4, 5, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ori (US 20120213832 A1) in view of Abuelyaman (US 20200332046 A1) and further in view of Hecht (US 20140329205 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 5 and 8, Ori applies as described above with regards to claim 1 and further teaches a composition (Table 1, example 1) comprising:
A total weight of 280 parts where:
a. 28.1 parts by weight 23G and A-9300, which is 10 wt.% ((meth)acrylic component);
b. 19.4 parts by weight 4-MET, which is 7 wt.% (acidic monomer);
c. 42.4 parts by weight HEMA, which is 15 wt.% (non-acidic monomer);
d. 92.4 parts by weight Bi2(CO3)O2 + silica filler, which is 33 wt.%;
e. 10.1 parts by weight NPG-Na initiator, which is 3.6 wt.% (paragraphs [0053, 0067]).
Wt.% is based on the total weight of the composition.
Ori does not disclose a (meth)acrylate component between 30-50 wt.% of the whole composition.
Abuelyaman discloses a curable dental resin composition that could be used in dental cements comprising a (meth)acrylate component according to the following formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
133
479
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Formula VII, where n can be between 52-70 (paragraph [0068])
The above structure is a urethane (meth)acrylate component having two urethane moieties.
Abuelyaman also discloses compositions in which the (meth)acrylate component comprises 50 wt.% of the composition (Table 4, E12.) and further teaches that the (meth)acrylate component (referred to as the polypropylene oxide component) provides flexibility and strength to the composition (paragraph [0064]).
The (meth)acrylic components and their functions as disclosed in Ori and Abuelyaman were known in the art, so a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the instant application would have substituted the (meth)acrylate component of Ori for the component disclosed in Abuelyaman and in the amounts taught in Abuelyaman, in pursuit of increased flexibility and strength, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable
Regarding claim 5, the composition of Ori in view of Abuelyaman applies as described above, the resulting composition having components in the following amounts:
50 wt.% of a (meth)acrylate component;
7 wt.% of an acidic polymerizable component;
15 wt.% of a non-acidic polymerizable component.
The ratios (rounded) are as follows:
The (meth)acrylate component to the acidic component: 7:1
The (meth)acrylate component to the non-acidic component: 3:1
The acidic component to the non-acidic component: 5:10
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either Abuelyaman (US 20200332046 A1) or Ori (US 20120213832 A1) in view of Hecht (US 20140329205 A1).
Regarding claim 11, The composition of Ori and Abuelyaman independently apply as described above regarding claim 1. Abuelyaman further teaches that the polypropylene oligomers (meaning the (meth)acrylate component) are a result-effective variable on viscosity (paragraph [0304]). Ori teaches that the amount of the polyfunctional polymerizable monomer (the (meth)acrylic component) is a result-effective variable on viscosity (paragraph [0112]). Neither Ori nor Abuelyaman disclose the viscosities of their respective compositions prior to curing nor the pH.
Hecht discloses a dental adhesive composition with pH between 1 and 4 (paragraphs [0062] and [0213]). Hecht further teaches that viscosity is a result-effective variable on composition flowability and that viscosity can be altered depending on the intended use, and further that suitable viscosities are be between 10-120 Pa*s (paragraphs [0058] and [0059]).
A person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the instant application would have found it obvious to apply the combine the teachings of Abuelyaman, Ori, and Hecht regarding the appropriate pH and viscosity of a dental cement composition, and further, the variables that determine the viscosity of a dental cement, and, through routine experimentation in pursuit of a composition with ideal viscosity and pH, would arrive at the predictable result of a dental cement composition with the claimed pH and viscosity.
Claims 1, 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Falsafi (US 20140213686 A1) in view of Ori (US 20120213832 A1) .
Regarding claim 1, 12-15, Falsafi teaches a two-part dental adhesive composition, comprising the following components:
Paste A, the catalyst part (Table 1):
PEGDMA 400 (polyethylene glycol dimethacrylate – 400) as a (meth)acrylate component (which does not have a spacer group with Mw over 3,000 g/mol);
HEMA as a non-acidic polymerizable component;
Allyl thiourea (ATU), the reducing component of an initiator system (paragraph [0111]);
ST coarse glass and silica filler
Paste B , the base paste (table 2):
PEGDMA 400 as a (meth)acrylate component (which does not have a spacer group with Mw over 3,000 g/mol);
VBCP as the acidic polymerizable component (which paragraph [0125] discloses as having an acid-precursor moiety);
Urethane Dimethacrylate (UDMA) as a non-acidic polymerizable component having a molecular weight below 1,000 g/mol;
Benzoyl peroxide (BPO), as an oxidizing component of an initiator system (paragraph [0110]);
Zr-Si and silica filler.
Falsafi also discloses that the composition after hardening has a shear bond strength to dentin of 0.5-2 MPa to facilitate easy removal (paragraph [0073]). Falsafi further teaches a process of temporarily restoring a dental structure which comprises of dispensing the dental cement onto the dental device, fixing the device to the dental structure, and removing the dental device from the dental structure; the dental device can be a dental crown (paragraphs [0020-0025] and [0056]). Falsafi additionally teaches a kit comprising the dental cement composition and the dental device (abstract).
Falsafi does not teach a (meth)acrylate component with a polyol spacer group having a molecular weight of greater than 3,000 g/mol.
Ori applies as described above regarding the dental cement composition as comprising a (meth)acrylate component (formula (IV)) where the polyol spacer group may have a molecular weight Mw of over 3,000 g/mol. Ori further teaches that formula (IV) is particularly preferred and is useful for enhancing the flexibility and removability of a cured product (paragraphs [0022] and [0024]).
The PEGDMA 400 of Falsafi and the compound of formula (IV) of Ori and their functions are known in the art, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have substituted the PEGDMA 400 for the compound of formula (IV) in pursuit of a composition with increased flexibility and removability, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable.
Conclusion
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