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 .
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.
Claim Status
Applicant’s amendment of 07/24/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1, 3-4, 10, and 12 are amended; claims 5-6 are cancelled; and claims 21-22 are new. Claims 1-4 and 7-22 are currently pending.
Election/Restrictions
An election of invention/species was required in the instant application as detailed in the Office action dated 04/15/2026. The election is maintained and claims 15-20 remain withdrawn. Accordingly, claims 1-4, 7-14, and 21-22 are examined on the merits herein.
Priority
The instant application claims domestic benefit to U.S. Application No. 63/455,475 filed on 03/29/2023 as reflected in the filing receipt dated on 05/02/2024.
Previous Rejections/Objections
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/24/2026 have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from the previous Office Action are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied as necessitated by Applicant’s amendment to the claims. They constitute the complete set of rejections and/or objections presently being applied to the instant application. Applicant’s arguments insofar as they pertain to the present grounds of rejections and/or objections are addressed herein.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1) (see MPEP 507(e)) states: Where only a single view is used in an application to illustrate the claimed invention, it must not be numbered and the abbreviation "FIG." must not appear. In this case, Applicant’s only figure is labeled “FIG. 1”. The Examiner notes that changes in the drawings must be reflected in Applicant’s instant specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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, 7-14, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces, vol. 188, pg. 226-233; published: 04/13/2014; PTO-892 of 05/08/2026) in view of Liao et al. (CN103449725A; published: 12/18/2013; PTO-892 of 05/08/2026).
Li, throughout the reference, teaches that the addition of ZrO2 greatly increases the facture toughness, bending strength, and micro-hardness of glass-ceramics used in dental and orthopaedic application [abstract and pg. 226, sec. 1].
Regarding claims 1, 7, 8: Li teaches an A/W glass composition comprising: 34 wt.% SiO2, 4.6 wt.% MgO, 44.7 wt.% CaO, 16.2 wt.% P2O5, 0.5 wt.% CaF2, and either 2, 5, or 8 wt.% m- or t-ZrO2 [pg. 227, sec. 2.1]. The amounts of each component, wherein calcium fluoride is the source of F-, lie within and thus read on the instantly claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 2: Li teaches that fluorapatite is a main crystalline phase of the glass-ceramics composition [abstract; pg. 229, sec. 3.2; fig. 2].
Regarding claims 3 and 4: Li teaches that the main crystalline phases of the glass-ceramics compositions are Ca5(PO4)3F (i.e., fluorapatite) and β-CaSiO3 (i.e., β-calcium silicate) [abstract; pg. 229, sec. 3.2; fig. 2]. While Li does not expressly quantify the amount of fluorapatite relative to β-calcium silicate in the crystalline phase----, the X-ray diffraction patterns of the glass composition comprising 5 wt.% t-ZrO2 (i.e., “5t-GC”) appear to reveal a greater intensity of peaks, and thus proportion, of fluorapatite relative to β-calcium silicate or zirconia (example peaks annotated in red below for clarity), suggesting that fluorapatite is the major crystalline phase, while β-calcium silicate is a minor crystalline phase [pg. 229, sec. 3.2; fig. 2].
[AltContent: textbox (β-CaSiO3)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Ca5(PO4)3F)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
469
585
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the instance that Applicant demonstrates that claims 3 and 4 are not expressly disclosed by Li, alternatively, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the relative proportion of fluorapatite to β-CaSiO3 within the crystalline phase by manipulating the amount of t-ZrO2 to achieve a desired level of mechanical strength. Li explicitly teaches that t-ZrO2 increases the crystallization temperature of fluorapatite and declines the crystallization temperature of β-CaSiO3, which increases the fracture toughness, bending strength and micro-hardness of glass-ceramics [pg. 233, sec. 5]. Thus, it is within the skillset of an ordinarily skilled artisan to manipulate the amount of t-ZrO2 to control the relative proportion of fluorapatite to β-CaSiO3 within the crystalline phase when heated to a particular temperature.
It is generally noted that differences in concentrations do not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Note: MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 9: The reference composition does not comprise Li2O, Na2O, or K2O, and thus the combined amount of these lies within and thus reads on the instantly claimed range.
Regarding claim 10: The amount of MgO in the reference composition lies within and thus reads on the instantly claimed range.
Regarding claim 11: The reference composition is in powder form [pg. 227, sec. 2.1; fig. 1], which reads on the instantly claimed particulate form as evidenced by Applicant’s instant specification [0062].
Regarding claim 21: When normalized for the addition of either 5 wt.% or 8 wt.% m- or t-ZrO2, the resulting amount of CaO in the composition is 42.465 wt.% or 41.124 wt.%, respectively, which each lie within and thus read on the instantly claimed range.
Regarding claim 22: When normalized for the addition of either 2 wt.%, 5 wt.%, or 8 wt.% m- or t-ZrO2, the resulting amount of CaF2 in the composition is 0.49 wt.%, 0.475 wt.%, or 0.46 wt.%, respectively, which each closely approach and thus render obvious the instantly claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.").
In the instant case, when normalized for the addition of 5 wt.% ZrO2, for example, the resulting composition of Li comprises: 32.3 wt.% SiO2, 4.37 wt.% MgO, 42.465 wt.% CaO, 15.39 wt.% P2O5, 0.475 wt.% CaF2, and 5 wt.% ZrO2, which is nearly identical to the Example 1 composition disclosed in Applicant’s instant specification, which comprises: 33.5 wt.% SiO2, 4.5 wt.% MgO, 42.5 wt.% CaO, 15 wt.% P2O5, 0.5 wt.% F-, and 4 wt.% ZrO2 [00117; Table 2]. Because one skilled in the art would reasonably expect the prior art composition and the instant composition to have the same properties despite a fractional percent difference in F- concentration, it is concluded that the instantly claimed composition is prima facie obvious in view of the prior art.
Li further teaches that, in addition to comprising fluorapatite and β-CaSiO3, glass-ceramic compositions also comprise a residual glass phase, which has a looser structure and, consequently, a relatively high solubility [p. 233, first para.]. However, Li is silent as to the amount of residual glass phase and the total crystallinity of its compositions as recited in instant claim 1 and does not expressly teach the matrix recited in instant claims 12-14.
Liao, throughout the reference, teaches a bioactive glass-ceramic material comprising similar amounts of SiO2, CaO, P2O5, and F- for use in oral care products [abstract; claims]. Specifically, Liao teaches a bioactive glass-ceramic material comprising 45-60 wt.% crystalline phase, and the remainder (i.e., 40-55 wt.%) is the glass phase [claim 2; para. 0014].
Regarding the total crystallinity and glass phase amount recited in claim 1: Since Li generally teaches bioactive glass-ceramic compositions for use in dental applications, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the amount of glass phase within the range of 40-55 wt.%, which lies within the instantly claimed range, and the total crystallinity within the range of 45-60 wt.%, which overlaps the instantly claimed range, because Liao teaches that this relative composition allows for good biocompatibility while allowing sufficient deposition of ions to form reparative apatite crystals [0004; 0029].
In regard to the amounts of the components, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 A.
Regarding claims 12-14: Liao further teaches a toothpaste comprising:
40-60% glycerin, i.e., solvent [see 0076 of instant specification];
10-30 wt.% abrasive;
1-30 wt.%, more preferably 3-10 wt.%, bioactive glass-ceramic material;
5-20 wt.% polyethylene glycol;
0.5-1.5 wt.% sodium lauryl sulfate, i.e. surfactant;
0.5-1.5 wt.% essence; and
0.1-0.5 wt.% saccharin sodium, i.e. sweetener [0108; claims 8-10; see pg. 90 of cited reference for machine translation of claim 10 table].
Liao teaches that toothpaste is prepared by pre-mixing the ingredients in glycerin, then adding the bioactive glass-ceramic powder and essence to form a homogenized paste [0064]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the bioactive glass-ceramic composition of Li and with the pre-mixed toothpaste ingredients of Liao according to known methods to obtain the predictable result of a dentifrice composition, i.e. matrix, comprising: 3-10 wt.% bioactive glass-ceramic composition of Li, solvent, abrasive, surfactant, and sweetener.
An ordinarily skilled artisan would reasonably expect success in modifying the prior art teachings as proposed because although the teachings of Liao are drawn to a material whose crystalline phase is mainly hydroxyapatite [claim 1], the invention of Li is intended to improve upon traditional hydroxyapatite formulations by extending the composition’s bioactivity and mechanical properties over a longer period of time [Li, pg. 226, sec. 1]. Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is the rationale supporting obviousness. See MPEP § 2143 and KSR International Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). Further, both references support the use of bioactive glass-ceramic compositions in dental applications.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments submitted on 07/24/2026 with respect to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered in so far as they apply to the new or modified rejections of the instant Office action but were not found to be persuasive.
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have to employ 5-15 wt.% Na2O as disclosed by Liao to achieve the desired crystal phases and consequently the residual glass phase. Applicant further argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have no motivation to include 5-15 wt.% Na2O since Li does not disclose compositions including Na2O, and even in the lower amount of 0-4 wt.% Na2O recited in the instant claim, there is no reasonable expectation that the total crystallinity and residual glass amounts as presently claimed would be achieved. These arguments have been fully considered but were not found to be persuasive.
Contrary to the rationale underlying Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner did not propose modifying the glass-ceramic composition of Li to arrive at the exact same composition as Liao, e.g., one including Na2O. Instead, the Examiner proposed that it would have been obvious to optimize the amount of glass phase in the composition of Li and, consequently, its total crystallinity because it is known in the art that glass-ceramic compositions comprising 40-60 wt.% crystalline phase and 40-55 wt.% glass phase achieve good biocompatibility while allowing rapid deposition of calcium and phosphorous ions to form reparative apatite crystals, which is highly relevant to Li’s disclosed dental and orthopedic application. Thus, sufficient motivation to manipulate the amount of glass phase relative to the amount of crystalline phase has been established.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that there is no reasonable expectation of arriving at the total crystallinity and residual glass amounts set forth in Liao, Applicant has provided no objective evidence to support the assertion that the relative phase amounts disclosed by Liao cannot be achieved in the composition of Li. In both cited references, the crystalline phase is mainly comprised of apatite crystals, which require sources of calcium and phosphorous ions, and the remaining phase is residual glass (e.g., SiO2-based) [Li, pg. 233, first para. and Liao, 0004; previously cited]. The sources of these phase components are present in similar concentrations in both the compositions of Li (e.g., 34 wt.% SiO2, 44.7 wt.% CaO, and 16.2 wt.% P2O5) and Liao (e.g., 12-45 wt.% SiO2, 25-48 wt.% CaO, and 10-35 wt.% P2O5). Because the most important components in achieving the relative phase amounts disclosed by Liao (e.g., CaO, P2O5, and SiO2) are present in similar concentrations in the composition of Li, an ordinarily skilled artisan would reasonably determine that these phase amounts are also achievable in the composition of Li, regardless of the exact composition of the crystalline phase.
Applicant further argues that Li fails to teach the amount of CaO recited in claim 21. This argument was not found to be persuasive. When normalized for the addition of either 5 wt.% or 8 wt.% m- or t-ZrO2, the resulting amount of CaO in the composition is 42.465 wt.% or 41.124 wt.%, respectively, which each lie within and thus read on the instantly claimed range.
Applicant further argues that when the amount of CaF2 in the glass composition of Li is normalized with the amounts of ZrO2 added, the resulting amount of F- derived from CaF2 is less than 0.5 wt.%, which is outside the range recited in claim 22. This argument was not found to be persuasive. As discussed in detail in the prior art rejections of record, Li teaches embodiments comprising 5 wt.% ZrO2 [see Li, pg. 227, sec. 2.1], which is nearly identical to the Example 1 composition disclosed in Applicant’s instant specification [00117; Table 2]. Because one skilled in the art would reasonably expect the prior art composition and the instant composition to have the same properties despite a fractional percent difference in F- concentration, it is concluded that the instantly claimed composition is prima facie obvious in view of the prior art available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In view of the foregoing, the prior art rejections of record are maintained.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5, 7-14, and 21-22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/613,863 in view of Li et al. (Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces, vol. 188, pg. 226-233; published: 04/13/2014; PTO-892 of 05/08/2026) and Liao et al. (CN103449725A; published: 12/18/2013; PTO-892 of 05/08/2026).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of App. ‘863 recite a glass composition comprising components in amounts that lie within or overlap and thus render obvious the instantly claimed ranges [see copending claims 1-5], that the fluoride ion may be derived from the same compounds as instantly claimed [see copending claim 6], that the crystalline phase can comprise fluorapatite [see copending claims 8-9], that the bioactive glass may be in the form of particulates, microbeads, fibers [see copending claim 10], and a matrix comprising all components as instantly claimed [see copending claims 11-15].
The claims of App. ‘863 differ from the instant claims in that the claims of App. ‘863 do not recite the glass phase amount or total crystallinity recited in instant claim 1 or the further limitations of instant claims 2-4.
These deficiencies are cured in view of Li and Liao, whose teachings are as set forth above and further incorporated herein.
Regarding instant claim 1: Since the claims of App. ‘863 recite a dentifrice composition [see copending claim 13], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amount of glass phase within the range of 40-55 wt.%, which lies within the instantly claimed range, and the total crystallinity within the range of 45-60 wt.%, which overlaps the instantly claimed range, because Liao teaches that this relative composition allows for good biocompatibility while allowing sufficient deposition of ions to form reparative apatite crystals.
In regard to the amounts of the components, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 A.
Regarding instant claims 2-4: It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to obtain and adjust the relative proportion of fluorapatite to calcium silicate within the crystalline phase by manipulating the composition components, such as the amount of ZrO2, to achieve a bioactive glass-ceramic composition with a desired level of mechanical strength, as taught by Li.
It is generally noted that differences in concentrations do not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Note: MPEP 2144.05.
An ordinarily skilled artisan would reasonably expect success because all components and concentrations were known in the art at the time of the instant invention to be useful in formulating bioactive glass-ceramic compositions for use in dental applications, as evidenced by the cited references.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-4, 7-14, and 21-22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of copending Application No. 18/613,904 in view of Li et al. (Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces, vol. 188, pg. 226-233; published: 04/13/2014; PTO-892 of 05/08/2026) and Liao et al. (CN103449725A; published: 12/18/2013; PTO-892 of 05/08/2026).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of App. ‘904 recite a glass composition comprising components in amounts that lie within or overlap and thus render obvious the instantly claimed ranges [see copending claims 1, 5-6], that the crystalline phase can comprise apatite [see copending claim 3], and a composition comprising all features of the instantly claimed matrix [see copending claims 10-13].
The claims of App. ‘904 differ from the instant claims in that the claims of App. ‘904 do not recite the glass phase amount or total crystallinity recited in instant claim 1 or the further limitations of instant claims 2-4, 7 or 11.
These deficiencies are cured in view of Li and Liao, whose teachings are as set forth above and further incorporated herein.
Regarding instant claim 1: Since the claims of App. ‘904 recite that the glass is suitable for use in dental applications [see copending claim 15], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amount of glass phase within the range of 40-55 wt.%, which lies within the instantly claimed range, and the total crystallinity within the range of 45-60 wt.%, which overlaps the instantly claimed range, because Liao teaches that this relative composition allows for good biocompatibility while allowing sufficient deposition of ions to form reparative apatite crystals.
In regard to the amounts of the components, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 A.
Regarding instant claims 2-4: It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to obtain and adjust the relative proportion of fluorapatite to calcium silicate within the crystalline phase by manipulating the composition components, such as the amount of ZrO2, to achieve a bioactive glass-ceramic composition with a desired level of mechanical strength, as taught by Li.
It is generally noted that differences in concentrations do not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Note: MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 7: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include calcium fluoride as a fluoride ion source because Li teaches that this compound in combination with SiO2, P2O-5, CaO, and MgO is known in the art to produce biocompatible glass-ceramic compositions with desirable bioactivity and mechanical properties [Li, pg. 226, sec.1].
Regarding claim 11: It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to formulate the glass as a powder (i.e., particulate) form because Li teaches that this form is customary in art for glass-ceramics comprising the same components in the same amounts.
An ordinarily skilled artisan would reasonably expect success because all components and concentrations were known in the art at the time of the instant invention to be useful in formulating bioactive glass-ceramic compositions for use in dental applications, as evidenced by the cited references.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-4, 7-14, and 21-22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 18/279,254 in view of Li et al. (Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces, vol. 188, pg. 226-233; published: 04/13/2014; PTO-892) and Liao et al. (CN103449725A; published: 12/18/2013; PTO-892).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of App. ‘254 recite a glass composition comprising components in amounts that lie within or overlap and thus render obvious the instantly claimed ranges [see copending claims 1-6, 8-12, 14, 18-19], that the crystalline phase comprises apatite [see copending claims 7 and 13], and a matrix comprising the glass composition attached to or mixed therein [see copending claims 15-16].
The claims of App. ‘254 differ from the instant claims in that the claims of App. ‘254 do not recite the glass phase amount or total crystallinity recited in instant claim 1 or the further limitations of instant claims 2-4, 7, 11, or 14.
These deficiencies are cured in view of Li and Liao, whose teachings are as set forth above and further incorporated herein.
Regarding instant claim 1: Since the claims of App. ‘254 recite several matrices suitable to formulate a dentifrice composition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amount of glass phase within the range of 40-55 wt.%, which lies within the instantly claimed range, and the total crystallinity within the range of 45-60 wt.%, which overlaps the instantly claimed range, because Liao teaches that this relative composition allows for good biocompatibility while allowing sufficient deposition of ions to form reparative apatite crystals.
In regard to the amounts of the components, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 A.
Regarding instant claims 2-4: It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to obtain and adjust the relative proportion of fluorapatite to calcium silicate within the crystalline phase by manipulating the composition components, such as the amount of ZrO2, to achieve a bioactive glass-ceramic composition with a desired level of mechanical strength, as taught by Li.
It is generally noted that differences in concentrations do not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Note: MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 7: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include calcium fluoride as a fluoride ion source because Li teaches that this compound in combination with SiO2, P2O-5, CaO, and MgO is known in the art to produce biocompatible glass-ceramic compositions with desirable bioactivity and mechanical properties [Li, pg. 226, sec.1].
Regarding claim 11: It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to formulate the glass as a powder (i.e., particulate) form because Li teaches that this form is customary in art for glass-ceramics comprising the same components in the same amounts.
Regarding claim 14: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the bioactive glass recited in the claims of App. ‘254 with the pre-mixed toothpaste ingredients of Liao according to known methods to obtain the predictable result of a dentifrice composition, i.e. matrix, comprising: 3-10 wt.% bioactive glass-ceramic composition of App. ‘254 claims, solvent, abrasive, surfactant, and sweetener.
Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is the rationale supporting obviousness. See MPEP § 2143 and KSR International Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
An ordinarily skilled artisan would reasonably expect success because all components and concentrations were known in the art at the time of the instant invention to be useful in formulating bioactive glass-ceramic compositions for use in dental applications, as evidenced by the cited references.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-4, 7-14, and 21-22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/122,866 in view of Li et al. (Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces, vol. 188, pg. 226-233; published: 04/13/2014; PTO-892 of 05/08/2026) and Liao et al. (CN103449725A; published: 12/18/2013; PTO-892 of 05/08/2026).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of App. ‘866 recite a bioactive glass comprising components in amounts that lie within or overlap and thus render obvious the instantly claimed ranges [see copending claims 1-2], that the claimed dentifrice composition comprises a fluoride ion source derived from sodium fluoride or potassium fluoride, which could reasonably be present within the bioactive glass [see copending claim 10], and a dentifrice composition comprising the same components in the same amount as the instantly claimed matrix [see copending claims 1, 7, 9, and 20].
The claims of App. ‘866 differ from the instant claims in that the claims of App. ‘866 do not recite the glass phase amount or total crystallinity recited in instant claim 1 or the further limitations of instant claims 2-4, 7, or 11-12.
These deficiencies are cured in view of Li and Liao, whose teachings are as set forth above and further incorporated herein.
Regarding instant claim 1: Since the claims of App. ‘866 recite a dentifrice composition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amount of glass phase within the range of 40-55 wt.%, which lies within the instantly claimed range, and the total crystallinity within the range of 45-60 wt.%, which overlaps the instantly claimed range, because Liao teaches that this relative composition allows for good biocompatibility while allowing sufficient deposition of ions to form reparative apatite crystals.
In regard to the amounts of the components, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 A.
Regarding instant claims 2-4: It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to obtain and adjust the relative proportion of fluorapatite to calcium silicate within the crystalline phase by manipulating the composition components, such as the amount of ZrO2, to achieve a bioactive glass-ceramic composition with a desired level of mechanical strength, as taught by Li.
It is generally noted that differences in concentrations do not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Note: MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 7: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include calcium fluoride as a fluoride ion source because Li teaches that this compound in combination with SiO2, P2O-5, CaO, and MgO is known in the art to produce biocompatible glass-ceramic compositions with desirable bioactivity and mechanical properties [Li, pg. 226, sec.1].
Regarding claim 11: It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to formulate the glass as a powder (i.e., particulate) form because Li teaches that this form is customary in art for glass-ceramics comprising the same components in the same amounts.
Regarding claim 12: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the bioactive glass recited in the claims of App. ‘866 by mixing with other pre-mixed toothpaste ingredients recited in App ‘866 claims, i.e, solvent, humectant, etc., according to the method of Liao to obtain the predictable result of a toothpaste dentifrice composition.
Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is the rationale supporting obviousness. See MPEP § 2143 and KSR International Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
An ordinarily skilled artisan would reasonably expect success because all components and concentrations were known in the art at the time of the instant invention to be useful in formulating bioactive glass-ceramic compositions for use in dental applications, as evidenced by the cited references.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-4, 7-14, and 21-22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 11-12, 16, and 18-22 of copending Application No. 19/501,260 in view of Li et al. (Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces, vol. 188, pg. 226-233; published: 04/13/2014; PTO-892 of 05/08/2026) and Liao et al. (CN103449725A; published: 12/18/2013; PTO-892 of 05/08/2026).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of App. ‘260 recite a bioactive glass comprising components in amounts that lie within or overlap and thus render obvious the instantly claimed ranges [see copending claims 1-2, 18-19], that the glass is in particle form [see copending claim 1], that the glass comprises apatite [see claim copending claim 11].
The claims of App. ‘260 differ from the instant claims in that the claims of App. ‘260 do not recite the glass phase amount or total crystallinity recited in instant claim 1 or the further limitations of instant claims 2-4, 7, or 12-14.
These deficiencies are cured in view of Li and Liao, whose teachings are as set forth above and further incorporated herein.
Regarding instant claim 1: Since the claims of App. ‘260 recite a glass formulation known to be useful in dental applications, as evidenced by Li, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amount of glass phase within the range of 40-55 wt.%, which lies within the instantly claimed range, and the total crystallinity within the range of 45-60 wt.%, which overlaps the instantly claimed range, because Liao teaches that this relative composition allows for good biocompatibility while allowing sufficient deposition of ions to form reparative apatite crystals.
In regard to the amounts of the components, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 A.
Regarding instant claims 2-4: It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to obtain and adjust the relative proportion of fluorapatite to calcium silicate within the crystalline phase by manipulating the composition components, such as the amount of ZrO2, to achieve a bioactive glass-ceramic composition (e.g., suitable to interact with nucleic acid compounds) with a desired level of mechanical strength, as taught by Li.
It is generally noted that differences in concentrations do not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Note: MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 7: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include calcium fluoride as a fluoride ion source because Li teaches that this compound in combination with SiO2, P2O-5, CaO, and MgO is known in the art to produce biocompatible glass-ceramic compositions with desirable bioactivity and mechanical properties [Li, pg. 226, sec.1].
Regarding claim 12-14: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the bioactive glass recited in the claims of App. ‘260 with the pre-mixed toothpaste ingredients of Liao according to known methods to obtain the predictable result of a dentifrice composition, i.e. matrix, comprising: 3-10 wt.% bioactive glass-ceramic composition of App. ‘260 claims, solvent, abrasive, surfactant, and sweetener.
Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is the rationale supporting obviousness. See MPEP § 2143 and KSR International Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
An ordinarily skilled artisan would reasonably expect success because all components and concentrations were known in the art at the time of the instant invention to be useful in formulating bioactive glass-ceramic compositions for use in dental applications, as evidenced by the cited references.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-4, 7-14, and 21-22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/634,286 in view of Li et al. (Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces, vol. 188, pg. 226-233; published: 04/13/2014; PTO-892 of 05/08/2026) and Liao et al. (CN103449725A; published: 12/18/2013; PTO-892 of 05/08/2026).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of App. ‘286 recite a bioactive glass comprising components in amounts that lie within or overlap and thus render obvious the instantly claimed ranges [see copending claims 1-9, 12, 14-17], that the crystalline phase comprises apatite [see copending claim 10], and a matrix comprising the same features as instantly claimed [see copending claim 19].
The claims of App. ‘286 differ from the instant claims in that the claims of App. ‘286 do not recite the glass phase amount or total crystallinity recited in instant claim 1 or the further limitations of instant claims 2-4, 7, or 13-14.
These deficiencies are cured in view of Li and Liao, whose teachings are as set forth above and further incorporated herein.
Regarding instant claim 1: Since the claims of App. ‘286 recite several matrices suitable for formulating a dentifrice composition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amount of glass phase within the range of 40-55 wt.%, which lies within the instantly claimed range, and the total crystallinity within the range of 45-60 wt.%, which overlaps the instantly claimed range, because Liao teaches that this relative composition allows for good biocompatibility while allowing sufficient deposition of ions to form reparative apatite crystals.
In regard to the amounts of the components, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 A.
Regarding instant claims 2-4: It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to obtain and adjust the relative proportion of fluorapatite to calcium silicate within the crystalline phase by manipulating the composition components, such as the amount of ZrO2, to achieve a bioactive glass-ceramic composition (e.g., suitable to interact with nucleic acid compounds) with a desired level of mechanical strength, as taught by Li.
It is generally noted that differences in concentrations do not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Note: MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 7: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include calcium fluoride as a fluoride ion source because Li teaches that this compound in combination with SiO2, P2O-5, CaO, and MgO is known in the art to produce biocompatible glass-ceramic compositions with desirable bioactivity and mechanical properties [Li, pg. 226, sec.1].
Regarding claim 13-14: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the bioactive glass recited in the claims of App. ‘286 with the pre-mixed toothpaste ingredients of Liao according to known methods to obtain the predictable result of a dentifrice composition, i.e. matrix, comprising: 3-10 wt.% bioactive glass-ceramic composition of App. ‘286 claims, solvent, abrasive, surfactant, and sweetener.
Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is the rationale supporting obviousness. See MPEP § 2143 and KSR International Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
An ordinarily skilled artisan would reasonably expect success because all components and concentrations were known in the art at the time of the instant invention to be useful in formulating bioactive glass-ceramic compositions for use in dental applications, as evidenced by the cited references.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-4, 7-14, and 21-22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/660,704 in view of Li et al. (Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces, vol. 188, pg. 226-233; published: 04/13/2014; PTO-892 of 05/08/2026) and Liao et al. (CN103449725A; published: 12/18/2013; PTO-892 of 05/08/2026).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of App. ‘704 recite a bioactive glass comprising components in amounts that lie within or overlap and thus render obvious the instantly claimed ranges [see copending claims 1-9, 13], that the glass forms an apatite [see copending claim 14], that the glass comprises a particle, bead, particulate, short fiber, long fiber, combination thereof [see copending claim 16], and a matrix comprising the same features as instantly claimed [see copending claim 18-19].
The claims of App. ‘704 differ from the instant claims in that the claims of App. ‘704 do not recite the glass phase amount or total crystallinity recited in instant claim 1 or the further limitations of instant claims 2-4, 7, or 13-14.
These deficiencies are cured in view of Li and Liao, whose teachings are as set forth above and further incorporated herein.
Regarding instant claim 1: Since the claims of App. ‘704 recite several matrices suitable for formulating a dentifrice composition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amount of glass phase within the range of 40-55 wt.%, which lies within the instantly claimed range, and the total crystallinity within the range of 45-60 wt.%, which overlaps the instantly claimed range, because Liao teaches that this relative composition allows for good biocompatibility while allowing sufficient deposition of ions to form reparative apatite crystals.
In regard to the amounts of the components, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 A.
Regarding instant claims 2-4: It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to obtain and adjust the relative proportion of fluorapatite to calcium silicate within the crystalline phase by manipulating the composition components, such as the amount of ZrO2, to achieve a bioactive glass-ceramic composition (e.g., suitable to interact with nucleic acid compounds) with a desired level of mechanical strength, as taught by Li.
It is generally noted that differences in concentrations do not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Note: MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 7: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include calcium fluoride as a fluoride ion source because Li teaches that this compound in combination with SiO2, P2O-5, CaO, and MgO is known in the art to produce biocompatible glass-ceramic compositions with desirable bioactivity and mechanical properties [Li, pg. 226, sec.1].
Regarding claim 13-14: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the bioactive glass recited in the claims of App. ‘704 with the pre-mixed toothpaste ingredients of Liao according to known methods to obtain the predictable result of a dentifrice composition, i.e. matrix, comprising: 3-10 wt.% bioactive glass-ceramic composition of App. ‘704 claims, solvent, abrasive, surfactant, and sweetener.
Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is the rationale supporting obviousness. See MPEP § 2143 and KSR International Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
An ordinarily skilled artisan would reasonably expect success because all components and concentrations were known in the art at the time of the instant invention to be useful in formulating bioactive glass-ceramic compositions for use in dental applications, as evidenced by the cited references.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-4, 7-14, and 21-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 and 12-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,617,710 B2 (previously copending Application No. 17/980,955) in view of Li et al. (Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces, vol. 188, pg. 226-233; published: 04/13/2014; PTO-892 of 05/08/2026) and Liao et al. (CN103449725A; published: 12/18/2013; PTO-892 of 05/08/2026).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claims recite a bioactive glass comprising components in amounts that lie within or overlap and thus render obvious the instantly claimed ranges [see reference claims 1-9, 12, and 16-19], that the glass crystalline phase comprises apatite [see reference claim 10], and a matrix comprising the same features as instantly claimed [see reference claim 14].
The reference claims differ from the instant claims in that the reference claims do not recite the glass phase amount or total crystallinity recited in instant claim 1 or the further limitations of instant claims 2-4, 7, 11, or 13-14.
These deficiencies are cured in view of Li and Liao, whose teachings are as set forth above and further incorporated herein.
Regarding instant claim 1: Since the reference claims recite several matrices suitable for formulating a dentifrice composition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amount of glass phase within the range of 40-55 wt.%, which lies within the instantly claimed range, and the total crystallinity within the range of 45-60 wt.%, which overlaps the instantly claimed range, because Liao teaches that this relative composition allows for good biocompatibility while allowing sufficient deposition of ions to form reparative apatite crystals.
In regard to the amounts of the components, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 A.
Regarding instant claims 2-4: It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to obtain and adjust the relative proportion of fluorapatite to calcium silicate within the crystalline phase by manipulating the composition components, such as the amount of ZrO2, to achieve a bioactive glass-ceramic composition (e.g., suitable to interact with nucleic acid compounds) with a desired level of mechanical strength, as taught by Li.
It is generally noted that differences in concentrations do not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Note: MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 7: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include calcium fluoride as a fluoride ion source because Li teaches that this compound in combination with SiO2, P2O-5, CaO, and MgO is known in the art to produce biocompatible glass-ceramic compositions with desirable bioactivity and mechanical properties [Li, pg. 226, sec.1].
Regarding claim 11: It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to formulate the glass as a powder (i.e., particulate) form because Li teaches that this form is customary in art for glass-ceramics comprising the same components in the same amounts.
Regarding claim 13-14: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the bioactive glass recited in the reference claims with the pre-mixed toothpaste ingredients of Liao according to known methods to obtain the predictable result of a dentifrice composition, i.e. matrix, comprising: 3-10 wt.% bioactive glass-ceramic composition of the reference claims, solvent, abrasive, surfactant, and sweetener.
Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is the rationale supporting obviousness. See MPEP § 2143 and KSR International Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
An ordinarily skilled artisan would reasonably expect success because all components and concentrations were known in the art at the time of the instant invention to be useful in formulating bioactive glass-ceramic compositions for use in dental applications, as evidenced by the cited references.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments submitted on 07/24/2026 with respect to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered in so far as they apply to the new or modified rejections of the instant Office action but were not found to be persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner notes that the arguments are analogous to those made concerning the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 and were not found to be persuasive for the reasons discussed in detail above. Accordingly, the double patenting rejections of record are maintained.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH CLINKSCALES WISTNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7715. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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, Sue Liu can be reached at (571)272-5539. 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.
/SARAH C WISTNER/Examiner, Art Unit 1616
/Mina Haghighatian/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1616
Prosecution Insights