DETAILED ACTION
The claims 1-15 are pending and presented for the examination.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/01/2024, 07/30/2025, and 04/07/2026 are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 1-9, 11-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ritter et al (US 8268065 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Ritter et al teaches x-ray opaque glass and teaches exemplary embodiments comprising 52.09-57.77 wt% SiO2, 10.30-11.16 wt% B2O3, 5.00-5.42 wt% Al2O3, 11.82-14.02 wt% K2O, and 0-8.41 wt% Cs2O (see Table 1, examples 1-3 and 5-11) and being free of Pb components. The Ritter et al glasses have aluminum equivalent thicknesses of 255% - 472%, and Ritter et al teaches that these equivalent thicknesses are given in terms of percentage as compared to a 2 mm glass thickness. As such, the aluminum equivalent thicknesses of the Ritter glasses are 5.1-9.44 mm. The aforementioned Ritter et al exemplary embodiment glasses have refractive indices, nd, of 1.522-1.531, and the relationship (aluminum equivalent thickness)/(refractive index) is thus 3.35-6.17. Each limitation of claim 1 is therefore met by the Ritter et al teachings, and the claim is anticipated by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 2, Ritter et al teaches embodiments wherein the content of Cs2O+BaO+SnO2+La2O3 is 12.17-13.90 wt% (see Table 1, examples 6 and 9-11). As discussed above, the Ritter et al glasses meet each further compositional limitation of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 3, Ritter et al teaches exemplary embodiment glasses that have refractive indices, nd, of 1.522-1.531.
Regarding claim 4, Ritter et al teaches glasses having aluminum equivalent thicknesses of 255-472%, which converts to 5.1-9.44 mm based on a 2 mm thickness as described in the Ritter et al document (see column 2, lines 25-35).
Regarding claim 5, the aforementioned Ritter et al glasses do not contain an F component.
Regarding claim 6, Ritter et al teaches embodiments wherein the content of Cs2O+BaO+SnO2+La2O3 is 12.17-13.90 wt% (see Table 1, examples 6 and 9-11).
Regarding claim 7, the aforementioned Ritter et al glasses do not contain TiO2.
Regarding claim 8, the aforementioned Ritter et al glasses do not contain WO3.
Regarding claim 9, Ritter et al teaches that the inventive glass is used as a filler (see claim 14).
Regarding claim 11, Ritter et al teaches embodiments wherein the glass is a powder (filler) with a size of 0.4-4 µm (see column 7, lines 60-65).
Regarding claim 12, Ritter et al teaches embodiments wherein the surface of the glass powder (filler) is subject to silanization (see column 8, lines 4-9).
Regarding claim 13, Ritter et al teaches that the inventive glass is used in a composition in combination with a curable resin (see column 8, lines 25-30).
Regarding claim 15, Ritter et al teaches that the inventive composition of resin and glass filler is a dental composition (see claim 15).
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.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritter et al (US 8268065 B2) in view of Legere et al (WO 2020/237399 A1).
Regarding claim 10, the claim differs from Ritter et al as applied above because Ritter et al does not specify that the inventive glass filler is substantially spherical. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ritter et al in view of Legere et al in order to use a substantially spherical shape as taught therein. Legere et al teaches a glass material for use as a radiopaque particulate in medical applications, and specifies that the glass particulate should be spherical in shape (see paragraph 0020). As there is no teaching in Ritter et al as to the shape of the filler particulate, one of ordinary skill would have had motivation to look to other, similar teachings in the art for guidance as to this property. Legere et al provides such guidance in teaching that spherical particulate was known to be used as the glass shape in radiopaque applications such as those taught by Ritter et al, and thus one would have been motivated to use this shape with the Ritter et al filler. Each further limitation of claim 10 is met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritter et al (US 8268065 B2) in view of Kunert et al (EP 0997132 A1).
Regarding claim 14, the claim differs from Ritter et al as applied above because Ritter et al does not specify the amount of glass filler used in combination with the resin component of the inventive composition. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ritter et al in view of Kunert et al in order to use the filler content amount taught therein with the Ritter et al composition. Kunert et al teaches a radiopaque dental glass and composite comprising the same along with a resin matrix component. Kunert et al teaches that the glass filler component can be present in the composite in amounts of up to 80 wt%. As such, this content range significantly overlaps and renders obvious the corresponding range of the instant claim. As there is no teaching in Ritter et al as to the specific content of the glass filler component in combination with the resin component, one of ordinary skill would have had motivation to look to other, similar teachings in the art for guidance as to this property. Kunert et al provides such guidance in teaching a specific amount range for the filler component, and thus one would have been motivated to use this amount for the Ritter et al filler. Each further limitation of claim 14 is met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct.
Conclusion
12. No claim is allowed.
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Most particularly, Dahlmann et al (US 2019/0233325 A1) and Ritter et al (US 2014/0106168 A1) each teach X-ray opaque glasses used in dental applications that appear substantially similar to those of the instant claims in terms of composition and properties.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH S WIESE whose telephone number is (571)270-3596. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 7:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. 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 Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR 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.
/NOAH S WIESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
NSW29 May 2026
Prosecution Insights