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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The continuation data listed in Paragraph 1 of the specification for Application No. 17/878,768, filed August 1, 2022, should be updated, as Application No. 17/878,768 is now U.S. Patent No. 11,998,622. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 30, 39 and 44 are objected to because of the following informalities: “monomer).” should be “monomer.”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 29-30, 32, 39 and 43-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 29 and 43 recite about 15 MPa, (the term about allows for amounts slightly lower than 15 MPa), however, the specification provides support for 15 MPa [0009]. Claims 30, 39, and 44 recite about 8% to about 16% of phosphoric acid containing (meth)acrylic monomer; claim 32 recites about 8% to about 16% of 10-MDP (the term about allows for amounts slightly lower than 8 wt% and slightly higher than 16 wt%), however, the specification provides support for 16% MDP [Ex. 1; 0076] and 8% MDP [Ex. 2; 0077]. With respect to changing numerical range limitations, the analysis must take into account which ranges one skilled in the art would consider inherently supported by the discussion in the original disclosure. In the decision in In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), the ranges described in the original specification included a range of “25%- 60%” and specific examples of “36%” and “50%.” A corresponding new claim limitation to “at least 35%” did not meet the description requirement because the phrase “at least” had no upper limit and caused the claim to read literally on embodiments outside the “25% to 60%” range, however a limitation to “between 35% and 60%” did meet the description requirement [See MPEP 2163.05].
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.
Claim(s) 23 and 25-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sun (US 2007/0100019).
Regarding claims 23 and 25-28: Sun (US ‘019) discloses dental compositions [abstract], wherein Example 32 [Ex. 32; 0083-0085; Table 4, Ex. 32] contains base paste 20B and catalyst paste 8C. Base paste 20B contains 0.005 g BHT, 0.01 g CuAA (copper acetylacetonate [0060]), 0.8 g PTU (2-pyridylthiourea [0053]) and a resin blend of 14.46 g EBPADMA UR, 20.2 g UDMA (urethane dimethacrylate [0037]), and 8.7 g SR423 [20B; 0084]. Catalyst paste 8C contains 0.03 g BHT, 2.0 g CHP (cumene hydroperoxide [0044]) and a resin blend of 23.97 g EBPADMA, 14.4 g Bis-GMA, 6.72 g TEGDMA, 2.88 g SR44, 47.0 g BABG, and 3.0 g TS720 [8C; 0085]. Sun (US ‘019) discloses mixing base paste 20B and catalyst paste 8C [Ex. 32; 0030; 0075; 0083-0085; Table 4, Ex. 32].
Claim(s) 34-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sun (US 2007/0100019).
Regarding claims 34-37: Sun (US ‘019) discloses dental compositions containing a base paste and catalyst paste [abstract], wherein the base paste and catalyst paste are mixed together and dispensed using an automix system such as a cartridge having dual chambers [0030; 0075]. Sun (US ‘019) discloses Example 32 [Ex. 32; 0083-0085; Table 4, Ex. 32] contains base paste 20B and catalyst paste 8C. Base paste 20B contains 0.005 g BHT, 0.01 g CuAA (copper acetylacetonate [0060]), 0.8 g PTU (2-pyridylthiourea [0053]) and a resin blend of 14.46 g EBPADMA UR, 20.2 g UDMA (urethane dimethacrylate [0037]), and 8.7 g SR423 [20B; 0084]. Catalyst paste 8C contains 0.03 g BHT, 2.0 g CHP (cumene hydroperoxide [0044]) and a resin blend of 23.97 g EBPADMA, 14.4 g Bis-GMA, 6.72 g TEGDMA, 2.88 g SR44, 47.0 g BABG, and 3.0 g TS720 [8C; 0085]. Sun (US ‘019) discloses mixing base paste 20B and catalyst paste 8C at a 1:1 volume ratio [Ex. 32; 0030; 0075; 0083-0085; Table 4, Ex. 32].
Claim(s) 23-24, 27-28 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hecht (WO 2016/007453).
Regarding claims 23-24 and 27-28: Hecht (WO ‘453) discloses two-component dental compositions [abstract], wherein Example 7 [Ex. 7; pg. 41, ln. 5 - pg. 42, ln. 30; Tables 4-5, Ex. 7] mixes a catalyst paste and a base paste in a 1:1 ratio (by volume). The catalyst paste contains UDMA urethane dimethacrylate [pg. 42, ln. 11-13]) and thiourea (N,N-diphenylthiourea [pg. 42, ln. 22]) [Table 4, Ex. 7]. The baste paste contains UDMA, Cu(II)-acetate monohydrate and CHP (cumene hydroperoxide [pg. 42, ln. 24]) [Table 5, Ex. 7].
Regarding claim 30: Hecht (WO ‘453) discloses a total of ~ 7.5 wt% MHP (methacryloylhexaphosphate [pg. 42, ln. 15]) {corresponding to about 8 wt% phosphoric acid containing (meth)acrylic monomer} [Ex. 7; Tables 4-5, Ex. 7].
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.
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(s) 23 and 25-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qian (US 2006/0189728) in view of Utterodt et al. (US 2007/0040151), when taken with Optibond® SDS.
Regarding claims 23 and 25-28: Qian (US ‘728) discloses dental compositions [abstract], wherein Example 5 [0072-0074] applies Optibond® dental primer (one bottle system; Optibond® contains glycerol phosphate dimethacrylate) to dentin, followed by application of the cement of Example 4 [0070-0071] to the primer layer from a dual syringe assembly [Ex. 5; 0072-0074]. Qian (US ‘728) discloses the cement of Example 4 [0070-0071] contains a Base paste and a Catalyst paste. Qian (US ‘728) discloses the Baste paste contains 21.35 parts UDMA, 4.27 parts GDM, 2.85 parts HEMA (2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate [0052]), 0.142 parts CQ, 0.014 parts MEHQ, 0.285 parts EDMAB, 0.59 parts PTU (1-(2-pyridyl)-2-thiourea [0056]), 3.00 parts TS-530, 4.72 parts ST-OX-50 and 62.78 parts Sr/Zn FAS glass [Ex. 4; 0070]. Qian (US ‘728) discloses the Catalyst paste contains 5.56 parts BisGMA, 7.29 parts GDM, 2.78 parts HEMA, 3.47 parts ETMPTA, 12.16 parts GDM-P (glyceryldimethacrylate phosphate [0051]), 0.05 parts BHT, 0.063 parts TMBHPO (1,1,3,3-tetramethylbutyl hydroperoxide [0059]), 0.63 parts CHPO (cumene hydroperoxide [0046]), 2.43 parts water, 3.00 parts TS-530, 1.60 parts ST-OX-50 and 60.40 parts barium glass [Ex. 4; 0070].
Qian (US ‘728) does not disclose a copper(II) compound. However, Utterodt et al. (US ‘151) discloses dental compositions containing a hydroperoxide, a thiourea and a copper accelerator [abstract], such as copper acetylacetonate (Cu(acac)2) [0644, 0657-0659]. Qian (US ‘728) and Utterodt et al. (US ‘151) are analogous art because they are concerned with a similar technical difficulty, namely the preparation of dental compositions containing a hydroperoxide and a thiourea. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined a copper accelerator, such as copper acetylacetonate (Cu(acac)2), as taught by Utterodt et al. (US ‘151) in the invention of Qian (US ‘728), and would have been motivated to do so since Utterodt et al. (US ‘151) suggests that a copper accelerator, such as copper acetylacetonate (Cu(acac)2) affords improved initiator effect of the thiourea-hydroperoxide initiator system [0010-0017].
Optibond® SDS provides evidence for Optibond® containing glycerol phosphate dimethacrylate §3.
Regarding claim 29: Qian (US ‘728) and Utterodt et al. (US ‘151) disclose the basic claimed composition kit [as set forth above with respect to claim 23 above].
The claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. bond strength of more than 15 MPa, would inherently be achieved, as “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [see MPEP 2112.01].
Claim(s) 34-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qian (US 2006/0189728) in view of Utterodt et al. (US 2007/0040151), when taken with Optibond® SDS.
Regarding claims 34-37: Qian (US ‘728) discloses dual syringe assemblies with a static mixer comprising a two-part dental compositions [abstract; 0010; 0033], wherein Example 5 [0072-0074] applies Optibond® dental primer (one bottle system; Optibond® contains glycerol phosphate dimethacrylate) to dentin, followed by application of the cement of Example 4 [0070-0071] to the primer layer from a dual syringe assembly [Ex. 5; 0072-0074]. Qian (US ‘728) discloses the cement of Example 4 [0070-0071] contains a Base paste and a Catalyst paste. Qian (US ‘728) discloses the Baste paste contains 21.35 parts UDMA, 4.27 parts GDM, 2.85 parts HEMA (2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate [0052]), 0.142 parts CQ, 0.014 parts MEHQ, 0.285 parts EDMAB, 0.59 parts PTU (1-(2-pyridyl)-2-thiourea [0056]), 3.00 parts TS-530, 4.72 parts ST-OX-50 and 62.78 parts Sr/Zn FAS glass [Ex. 4; 0070]. Qian (US ‘728) discloses the Catalyst paste contains 5.56 parts BisGMA, 7.29 parts GDM, 2.78 parts HEMA, 3.47 parts ETMPTA, 12.16 parts GDM-P (glyceryldimethacrylate phosphate [0051]), 0.05 parts BHT, 0.063 parts TMBHPO (1,1,3,3-tetramethylbutyl hydroperoxide [0059]), 0.63 parts CHPO (cumene hydroperoxide [0046]), 2.43 parts water, 3.00 parts TS-530, 1.60 parts ST-OX-50 and 60.40 parts barium glass [Ex. 4; 0070].
Qian (US ‘728) does not disclose a copper(II) compound. However, Utterodt et al. (US ‘151) discloses dental compositions containing a hydroperoxide, a thiourea and a copper accelerator [abstract], such as copper acetylacetonate (Cu(acac)2) [0644, 0657-0659]. Qian (US ‘728) and Utterodt et al. (US ‘151) are analogous art because they are concerned with a similar technical difficulty, namely the preparation of dental compositions containing a hydroperoxide and a thiourea. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined a copper accelerator, such as copper acetylacetonate (Cu(acac)2), as taught by Utterodt et al. (US ‘151) in the invention of Qian (US ‘728), and would have been motivated to do so since Utterodt et al. (US ‘151) suggests that a copper accelerator, such as copper acetylacetonate (Cu(acac)2) affords improved initiator effect of the thiourea-hydroperoxide initiator system [0010-0017].
Optibond® SDS provides evidence for Optibond® containing glycerol phosphate dimethacrylate §3.
Regarding claim 38: Qian (US ‘728) and Utterodt et al. (US ‘151) disclose the basic claimed device [as set forth above with respect to claim 34 above].
The claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. bond strength of more than 15 MPa, would inherently be achieved, as “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [see MPEP 2112.01].
Claim(s) 40-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qian (US 2006/0189728) in view of Utterodt et al. (US 2007/0040151), when taken with Optibond® SDS.
Regarding claims 40-42: Qian (US ‘728) discloses methods of dental restorations [abstract], wherein Example 5 [0072-0074] applies Optibond® dental primer (one bottle system; Optibond® contains glycerol phosphate dimethacrylate) to dentin, followed by application of the cement of Example 4 [0070-0071] to the primer layer from a dual syringe assembly [Ex. 5; 0072-0074]. Qian (US ‘728) discloses the cement of Example 4 [0070-0071] contains a Base paste and a Catalyst paste. Qian (US ‘728) discloses the Baste paste contains 21.35 parts UDMA, 4.27 parts GDM, 2.85 parts HEMA (2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate [0052]), 0.142 parts CQ, 0.014 parts MEHQ, 0.285 parts EDMAB, 0.59 parts PTU (1-(2-pyridyl)-2-thiourea [0056]), 3.00 parts TS-530, 4.72 parts ST-OX-50 and 62.78 parts Sr/Zn FAS glass [Ex. 4; 0070]. Qian (US ‘728) discloses the Catalyst paste contains 5.56 parts BisGMA, 7.29 parts GDM, 2.78 parts HEMA, 3.47 parts ETMPTA, 12.16 parts GDM-P (glyceryldimethacrylate phosphate [0051]), 0.05 parts BHT, 0.063 parts TMBHPO (1,1,3,3-tetramethylbutyl hydroperoxide [0059]), 0.63 parts CHPO (cumene hydroperoxide [0046]), 2.43 parts water, 3.00 parts TS-530, 1.60 parts ST-OX-50 and 60.40 parts barium glass [Ex. 4; 0070].
Qian (US ‘728) does not disclose a copper(II) compound. However, Utterodt et al. (US ‘151) discloses dental compositions containing a hydroperoxide, a thiourea and a copper accelerator [abstract], such as copper acetylacetonate (Cu(acac)2) [0644, 0657-0659]. Qian (US ‘728) and Utterodt et al. (US ‘151) are analogous art because they are concerned with a similar technical difficulty, namely the preparation of dental compositions containing a hydroperoxide and a thiourea. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined a copper accelerator, such as copper acetylacetonate (Cu(acac)2), as taught by Utterodt et al. (US ‘151) in the invention of Qian (US ‘728), and would have been motivated to do so since Utterodt et al. (US ‘151) suggests that a copper accelerator, such as copper acetylacetonate (Cu(acac)2) affords improved initiator effect of the thiourea-hydroperoxide initiator system [0010-0017].
Optibond® SDS provides evidence for Optibond® containing glycerol phosphate dimethacrylate §3.
Regarding claim 43: Qian (US ‘728) and Utterodt et al. (US ‘151) disclose the basic claimed method [as set forth above with respect to claim 40 above].
The claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. bond strength of more than 15 MPa, would inherently be achieved, as “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [see MPEP 2112.01].
Claim 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qian (US 2006/0189728) in view of Utterodt et al. (US 2007/0040151) as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Hansen et al. (US 2010/0028835).
Regarding claim 33: Qian (US ‘728) and Utterodt et al. (US ‘151) disclose the basic claimed composition kit [as set forth above with respect to claim 29 above]; wherein Qian (US ‘728) discloses crowns [abstract; 0039].
Qian (US ‘728) does not disclose a zirconia crown. However, Hansen et al. (US ‘235) discloses zirconia dental crowns [abstract]. Qian (US ‘728) and Hansen et al. (US ‘235) are analogous art because they are concerned with a similar technical difficulty, namely dental crowns. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined a zirconia crown, as taught by Hansen et al. (US ‘235) in the invention of Qian (US ‘728), and would have been motivated to do so since Hansen et al. (US ‘235) suggests zirconia crowns affords an aesthetic outer surface mimicking a natural tooth [abstract].
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 23-44 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 11,998,622. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed dental composition kit [claims 1-8] anticipates the instant claimed dental composition kit (claims 23-33); the claimed device [claims 9-12] anticipates the instant claimed device (claims 34-37); the claimed dental restoration kit [claims 13-16] anticipates the instant claimed dental composition kit (claims 38-39); and the claimed method of dental restoration [claims 17-22] anticipates the instant claimed method of dental restoration (claims 40-44).
Claims 23-44 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,400,031. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed method of dental restoration of U.S. Patent No. 11,400,031 anticipates the instant claimed method of dental restoration (claims 40-43). While U.S. Patent No. 11,400,031 does not specifically claim 8% to 16% of 10-MDP in the bonding agent (claim 44), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed 8% to 16% of 10-MDP, as U.S. Patent No. 11,400,031 claims 8% to 16% of 10-MDP in the bonding agent [claim 1].
While U.S. Patent No. 11,400,031 does not specifically claim a dental composition kit containing the dental composition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first part contained separately from the second part, as U.S. Patent No. 11,400,031 claims the first part and the second part were previously separated [claims 1 and 8]. Additionally, it is prima facie obvious to make components separable. See In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) [MPEP 2144.04].
While U.S. Patent No. 11,400,031 does not specifically claim a device comprising a first chamber and a second chamber to apply a dental paste mixture, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed a device {dual barrel syringe} to apply the paste mixture, as U.S. Patent No. 11,400,031 claims the first part and the second part can be applied from a device {dual barrel syringe} [claims 8 and 12-13].
Claims 23-44 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 10,751,263. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed method of dental restoration of U.S. Patent No. 10,751,263 anticipates the instant claimed method of dental restoration (claims 40-43). While U.S. Patent No. 10,751,263 does not specifically claim 8% to 16% of 10-MDP in the bonding agent (claim 44), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed 8% to 16% of 10-MDP, as U.S. Patent No. 10,751,263 claims 8% to 16% of 10-MDP in the bonding agent [claim 1].
While U.S. Patent No. 10,751,263 does not specifically claim a dental composition kit containing the dental composition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have to have the first part contained separately from the second part, as U.S. Patent No. 10,751,263 claims the first part and the second part were previously separated [claims 1 and 4]. Additionally, it is prima facie obvious to make components separable. See In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) [MPEP 2144.04].
While U.S. Patent No. 10,751,263 does not specifically claim a device comprising a first chamber and a second chamber to apply a dental paste mixture, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed a device {dual barrel syringe} to apply the paste mixture, as U.S. Patent No. 10,751,263 claims the first part and the second part can be applied from a device {dual barrel syringe} [claims 4 and 7-8].
See attached form PTO-892.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL F PEPITONE whose telephone number is (571)270-3299. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00 AM - 3:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark Eashoo can be reached on 571-272-1197. 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.
/MICHAEL F PEPITONE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights