DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 are pending and under examination.
Priority
The instant application is a continuation of 15/538,330 filed on 6/21/2017, which is a national stage entry of PCT/US2014/072420 filed on 12/26/2014.
Objections/Rejections Withdrawn
The claim objections are withdrawn per applicant’s amendments to the claims. However, there are new objections due to applicant not just amending the “and” to “or”, but also changing to “selected from the group consisting of” rather than use of “selected from” as used before. The original possible suggestion was to amend the “and” to “or” in the particular case where applicant did not want to use “selected from the group consisting of…and…” format.
The rejections under USC 112(b) are withdrawn per applicant’s amendments to the claims.
The rejection under USC 112(d) is withdrawn per applicant’s amendment.
The rejection under USC 102 over Glandorf is withdrawn per applicant’s amendments.
As these rejections are withdrawn, applicant’s arguments to these rejections are moot.
New Claim Objections –As Necessitated by Amendments
Claim 1 is objected to for the structure “selected from the group consisting of….or….” as this should be in the format of the Markush structure of “selected from the group consisting of….and…” where using “and” is needed. Applicant needs to change the “or” to “and” if keeping the now amended “selected from the group consisting of” format.
Claim 2 is objected to for the structure “selected from the group consisting of….or….” as this should be in the format of the Markush structure of “selected from the group consisting of….and…” where using “and” is needed. Applicant needs to change the “or” to “and” if keeping the now amended “selected from the group consisting of” format.
Claim 6 is objected to for the structure “selected from the group consisting of….or….” as this should be in the format of the Markush structure of “selected from the group consisting of….and…” where using “and” is needed. Applicant needs to change the “or” to “and” if keeping the now amended “selected from the group consisting of” format.
Response to Applicant Arguments
The suggestion to change to “or” was based on applicant’s original structure of “selected from”. However, in addition to changing to “or”, applicant has also changed to “selected from the group consisting of…”. In this now amended structure of “selected from the group consisting of”, it is “and” that should be used (selected from the group consisting of…..and….”).
Maintained Rejection
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Glandorf (U.S. 2007/0025928).
Glandorf teaches a composition comprising ‘Glass H’ polyphosphate having approximately 21 units and ZnCl2.(paragraphs 110, 101-102). Glandorf teaches a second dentifrice composition having zinc lactate at 5% and glass H polyphosphate at 18% (paragraph 111). Example 2 provides dentifrice compositions with sodium polyphosphate 7% and zinc lactate (2.5 or 2%) (paragraph 113). Glandorf teaches its compositions for reducing plaque and gingivitis (claim 1 of Glandorf). Glandorf teaches administering the dentifrice composition to teeth of a subject (in oral cavity) (paragraphs 31 and 107). Glandorf teaches zinc ions as inorganic cations and teaches compositions should have a source of ion such as zinc (claim 3 of Glandorf and paragraph 50). Glandorf teaches preferred polyvalent cations provided in salts with chloride or fluoride (paragraph 51). In solution 2 of Glandorf with 1.25% (6000 ppm of zinc ions) zinc chloride, 22% w/v of 0.1 M glass polyphosphate was added (paragraphs 101-102). The solution in paragraph 102 has 6.2% polyphosphate (glass H, 1.86 g/100 g phosphorous, 0.06 moles per 100g) and 1.2% zinc chloride (0.576 g/100 g of zinc, 0.00881 moles per 100g)). This provides a mole ratio of phosphorous to zinc of 0.06:0.00881 or 6.81:1. Example II provides 13wt% of glass H sodium polyphosphate and 2.5 wt% of zinc lactate. Glandorf allows amounts of Composition 5b with polyphosphate and zinc salt has 1.4% water, 34.85% glycerin and 6% polyethylene glycol for a total of 42.25% of solvent. Glandorf teaches water (paragraph 55). Example 2 A with zinc salt and sodium polyphosphate has 42.244% of glycerin and 7% polyethylene glycol (paragraph 113). Paragraph 48 allows for MSA (group with polyphosphate including sodaphos (SHMP)) to be added from 1% to 30% by weight or 5% to 25% by weight of the composition. Glandorf teaches hexametaphosphate as a longer chain polyphosphate with X being sodium (paragraph 43). Paragraph 98 indicates determining the complexation of stannous and zinc ions with polyphosphate MSA. Paragraph 98 and paragraph 102 also indicate adding zinc ions favors the formation of the zinc-polyphosphate complex. Glandorf teaches a polyphosphate having four or more phosphate units complexing with zinc to form a zinc-polyphosphate complex [0098] [0101]. The polyphosphate may be hexametaphosphate [0043]. The most preferred polyphosphate is Glass H, which contains approximately 21 units [0043]. Zinc is provided as ZnCl2 [0101] as well as sodium hexametaphosphate for a polyphosphate. Glandorf teaches hexametaphosphate as a longer chain polyphosphate with X being sodium and teaches sodaphos, which is sodium hexametaphosphate, along with two others (hexphos and glass H) (paragraph 43). Thus, the teachings allow for combinations of sodaphos (being a longer chain polyphosphate) and zinc chloride (being an acceptable zinc salt as source of zinc). Glandorf teaches “an unexpected result occurs with longer-chain polyphosphates and other phosphate- or phosphonate-containing polymers as they are capable of reducing the side effects of dental staining and formulation astringency without significantly reducing the efficacy of the stannous” (paragraph 27 and abstract). Thus, one would consider the higher amounts of polyphosphates to reduce side effects of dental staining by teachings of Glandorf. Glandorf also teaches the including of inorganic ions such as zinc, copper, aluminum, iron and others (paragraph 50 and abstract) where there inclusion helps increase bioavailability of the stannous. Although zinc is used in examples, Glandorf expects the other inorganic ions would also provide this effect. Thus, one may reduce the amount of zinc and add a combination of zinc and other inorganic ions instead. In using higher amounts of polyphosphates such as glassy H or sodaphos to reduce side effects while lowering the amount of zinc ion, one of ordinary skill in the art will expect to receive less side effects while still having enough other inorganic ions to help release the stannous from the polyphosphate. This would also increase the mole ratio of phosphorous to zinc in the formulation. As the teachings of Glandorf provide a composition for a polyphosphate/zinc complex with mole ratio of applicant’s claim, it will have the effect of the particular zinc-polyphosphate complex being insoluble when reaching a pH of 5.5 to 6.5 (see MPEP 2112).
Glandorf does not present an embodiment with a relative amount of inorganic zinc salt and long chain polyphosphates providing a phosphorous to zinc mole ratio of about 15:1 to about 50:1 or a single embodiment with both sodium hexametaphosphate and zinc chloride. However, Glandorf does present adjustments that may be made to its formulation and teachings of both sodium hexametaphosphate and zinc chloride.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to combine prior elements (i.e. polyphosphate) according to known methods to yield predictable results of zinc/polyphosphate complexing. See MPEP 2143. Further, where all of the instantly recited structural limitations are met, there is a reasonable expectation that the functional limitations are also met based on the fact that the function of a composition is based on the types of components being present where applicant presents zinc chloride and sodium hexametaphosphate as options as well as other zinc salts and polyphosphates being allowed in Glandorf. Glandorf also allows one to use larger amounts of polyphosphate MSA up to 30% by weight while providing that polyphosphates help reduce side effects and offering other inorganic ion options in addition to zinc and in doing so will allow one to adjust formulations to achieve higher mole ratios of phosphorous to zinc ions with the expectation of efficacious dental formulations with reduced side effects of staining.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments over Glandorf
The rejection under USC 103 is maintained as Glandorf allows for inorganic zinc salts (e.g. Zinc chloride) to be used in its formulations in its teachings, although Glandorf exemplifies use of organic zinc salts in its examples, which are still a source of zinc cation in the formulations. Now the claims provide that it is the inorganic zinc salt and long chain polyphosphate that form a soluble zinc-polyphosphate complex in the oral care composition. All the teachings in use were provided in the previous rejections over Glandorf.
Applicant argues that the operation of Glandorf in zinc competing with stannous for binding sites on the polyphosphate compound is not the same as applicant’s forming of the zinc polyphosphate complex in the formulation, which means the complex will be soluble until application. The examiner disagrees. Glandorf allows for zinc salts in combination with polyphosphate compounds including long chain polyphosphates. Thus, this combination in the carriers taught in Glandorf is able to form these complexes especially as Glandorf notes the ability of zinc to form complexes with polyphosphates (formerly cited paragraphs [0098] [0101] and [0027] of Glandorf). Applicant’s claims do not exclude other cations or stannous ions or compounds from the methods and compositions used in the methods. Regardless of the presence of stannous in Glandorf, Glandorf teaches the ability for the complexes to form and for the use of zinc salts (including inorganic salts) and long chain polyphosphates. If zinc is competing with stannous ions for polyphosphate binding, then the formulation of Glandorf is allowing complexing of zinc on polyphosphate, and thus, the formation of soluble zinc polyphosphate complexes within the formulation. In providing such a combination in a carrier/vehicle of Glandorf, these complexes, which are soluble, will have been formed. It is noted that Glandorf also teaches treating oral cavity conditions as in applicant’s claims, and thus, is in the same field of invention.
Applicant argues that the rejection under USC 103 is no longer relevant for teaching ranges and more specific ingredients as it does not appear to provide this ability to form a complex as claimed in their explanation for the rejection under USC 102 over Glandorf. As explained above, Glandorf provides the teachings that offer the claimed ingredients as well as the complexing/bind function of zinc for polyphosphates. Although the shift in the claim to provide that it is the inorganic zinc salt involved in the complex, the use of inorganic salts is provided in Glandorf’s full teachings (e.g. zinc chloride). Thus, a rejection under USC 103 is appropriate after applicant’s amendment with the references previous teachings. There is no shift in reasoning since Glandorf had obviated the inclusion of a polyphosphate (sodium hexametaphosphate) with zinc chloride, an inorganic salt, in previously teaching claim 8. Note the rejection under USC 103 stated “It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to combine prior elements (i.e. polyphosphate) according to known methods to yield predictable results of zinc/polyphosphate complexing. See MPEP 2143. Further, where all of the instantly recited structural limitations are met, there is a reasonable expectation that the functional limitations are also met based on the fact that the function of a composition is based on the types of components being present where applicant presents zinc chloride and sodium hexametaphosphate as options as well as other zinc salts and polyphosphates being allowed in Glandorf.” Thus, complexing was addressed as well in the prior obviousness statement.
For these reasons, the rejection under USC 103 over Glandorf is maintained.
Maintained Rejections
Nonstatutory 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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 10, 13, 15, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 8628755 in view of Glandorf (U.S. 2007/0025928). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each claim set includes a zinc ion source including inorganic zinc salts (e.g. zinc chloride) and a polyphosphate including sodium hexametaphosphate (chain of 6 phosphate units). ‘755 also allows for a polyphosphate formula with n of 4 to 125 which allows for many polyphosphates with 6 or more phosphate units (see claim 6 of ‘755). ‘755 allows for application to an oral surface for treatment. As both zinc salts and polyphosphates are present, they are capable of forming zinc-polyphosphate complexes.
‘755 claims do not provide for particular conditions and for solvents.
Glandorf teaches a composition comprising ‘Glass H’ polyphosphate having approximately 21 units and ZnCl2.(paragraphs 110, 101-102). Glandorf teaches a second dentifrice composition having zinc lactate at 5% and glass H polyphosphate at 18% (paragraph 111). Example 2 provides dentifrice compositions with sodium polyphosphate 7% and zinc lactate (2.5 or 2%) (paragraph 113). Glandorf teaches its compositions for reducing plaque and gingivitis (claim 1 of Glandorf). Glandorf teaches zinc ions as inorganic cations and teaches compositions should have a source of ion such as zinc (claim 3 of Glandorf and paragraph 50). Glandorf teaches preferred polyvalent cations provided in salts with chloride or fluoride (paragraph 51). In solution 2 of Glandorf with 1.25% (6000 ppm of zinc ions) zinc chloride, 22% w/v of 0.1 M glass polyphosphate was added (paragraphs 101-102). The solution in paragraph 102 has 6.2% polyphosphate and 1.2% zinc chloride. Composition 5b with polyphosphate and zinc salt has 1.4% water, 34.85% glycerin and 6% polyethylene glycol for a total of 42.25% of solvent. Example 2 A with zinc salt and sodium polyphosphate has 42.244% of glycerin and 7% polyethylene glycol (paragraph 113). Glandorf teaches hexametaphosphate as a longer chain polyphosphate with X being sodium (paragraph 43). Paragraph 98 indicates determining the complexation of stannous and zinc ions with polyphosphate MSA. Paragraph 98 and paragraph 102 also indicate adding zinc ions favors the formation of the zinc-polyphosphate complex.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have applied the composition of ‘755 to the oral cavity to treat conditions as provided in Glandorf like gingivitis and plaque for zinc and polyphosphate compositions as well as adding solvents of Glandorf to these compositions of ‘755 to serve as a carrier/delivery system for oral care. Thus, it was obvious to use solvents of Glandorf and treat oral conditions of Glandorf with an orally applied zinc salt and polyphosphate composition of the claims of ‘755 with a reasonable expectation of treatment of said conditions.
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 10, 13, 15, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 9,005,586 in view of Glandorf (U.S. 2007/0025928). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each claim set includes a zinc ion source including inorganic zinc salts (e.g. zinc chloride) and a polyphosphate including sodium hexametaphosphate (chain of 6 phosphate units). ‘586 also allows for a polyphosphate formula with n of 4 to 125 which allows for many polyphosphates with 6 or more phosphate units (see claim 6 of ‘586). ‘586 allows for application to an oral surface for treatment. As both zinc salts and polyphosphates are present, they are capable of forming zinc-polyphosphate complexes.
‘586 claims do not provide for particular conditions and for solvents.
Glandorf teaches a composition comprising ‘Glass H’ polyphosphate having approximately 21 units and ZnCl2.(paragraphs 110, 101-102). Glandorf teaches a second dentifrice composition having zinc lactate at 5% and glass H polyphosphate at 18% (paragraph 111). Example 2 provides dentifrice compositions with sodium polyphosphate 7% and zinc lactate (2.5 or 2%) (paragraph 113). Glandorf teaches its compositions for reducing plaque and gingivitis (claim 1 of Glandorf). Glandorf teaches zinc ions as inorganic cations and teaches compositions should have a source of ion such as zinc (claim 3 of Glandorf and paragraph 50). Glandorf teaches preferred polyvalent cations provided in salts with chloride or fluoride (paragraph 51). In solution 2 of Glandorf with 1.25% (6000 ppm of zinc ions) zinc chloride, 22% w/v of 0.1 M glass polyphosphate was added (paragraphs 101-102). The solution in paragraph 102 has 6.2% polyphosphate and 1.2% zinc chloride. Composition 5b with polyphosphate and zinc salt has 1.4% water, 34.85% glycerin and 6% polyethylene glycol for a total of 42.25% of solvent. Example 2 A with zinc salt and sodium polyphosphate has 42.244% of glycerin and 7% polyethylene glycol (paragraph 113). Glandorf teaches hexametaphosphate as a longer chain polyphosphate with X being sodium (paragraph 43). Paragraph 98 indicates determining the complexation of stannous and zinc ions with polyphosphate MSA. Paragraph 98 and paragraph 102 also indicate adding zinc ions favors the formation of the zinc-polyphosphate complex.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have applied the composition of ‘586 to the oral cavity to treat conditions as provided in Glandorf like gingivitis and plaque for zinc and polyphosphate compositions as well as adding solvents of Glandorf to these compositions of ‘586 to serve as a carrier/delivery system for oral care. Thus, it was obvious to use solvents of Glandorf and treat oral conditions of Glandorf with an orally applied zinc salt and polyphosphate composition of the claims of ‘586 with a reasonable expectation of treatment of said conditions.
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 13, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 9,504,634 in view of Glandorf (U.S. 2007/0025928. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each claim set includes a zinc ion source including inorganic zinc salts (e.g. zinc chloride) and a polyphosphate including sodium hexametaphosphate (chain of 6 phosphate units). ‘634 allows for application to an oral surface for treatment. As both zinc salts and polyphosphates are present, they are capable of forming zinc-polyphosphate complexes.
‘634 claims do not provide for particular conditions and for solvents.
Glandorf teaches a composition comprising ‘Glass H’ polyphosphate having approximately 21 units and ZnCl2.(paragraphs 110, 101-102). Glandorf teaches a second dentifrice composition having zinc lactate at 5% and glass H polyphosphate at 18% (paragraph 111). Example 2 provides dentifrice compositions with sodium polyphosphate 7% and zinc lactate (2.5 or 2%) (paragraph 113). Glandorf teaches its compositions for reducing plaque and gingivitis (claim 1 of Glandorf). Glandorf teaches zinc ions as inorganic cations and teaches compositions should have a source of ion such as zinc (claim 3 of Glandorf and paragraph 50). Glandorf teaches preferred polyvalent cations provided in salts with chloride or fluoride (paragraph 51). In solution 2 of Glandorf with 1.25% (6000 ppm of zinc ions) zinc chloride, 22% w/v of 0.1 M glass polyphosphate was added (paragraphs 101-102). The solution in paragraph 102 has 6.2% polyphosphate and 1.2% zinc chloride. Composition 5b with polyphosphate and zinc salt has 1.4% water, 34.85% glycerin and 6% polyethylene glycol for a total of 42.25% of solvent. Example 2 A with zinc salt and sodium polyphosphate has 42.244% of glycerin and 7% polyethylene glycol (paragraph 113). Glandorf teaches hexametaphosphate as a longer chain polyphosphate with X being sodium (paragraph 43). Paragraph 98 indicates determining the complexation of stannous and zinc ions with polyphosphate MSA. Paragraph 98 and paragraph 102 also indicate adding zinc ions favors the formation of the zinc-polyphosphate complex.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have applied the composition of ‘634 to the oral cavity to treat conditions as provided in Glandorf like gingivitis and plaque for zinc and polyphosphate compositions as well as adding solvents of Glandorf to these compositions of ‘634 to serve as a carrier/delivery system for oral care. Thus, it was obvious to use solvents of Glandorf and treat oral conditions of Glandorf with an orally applied zinc salt and polyphosphate composition of the claims of ‘634 with a reasonable expectation of treatment of said conditions.
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4, 5, 9, 11, 13, 16, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 9,877,903 in view of Glandorf (U.S. 2007/0025928. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each claim set includes a zinc ion source including inorganic zinc salts (e.g. zinc chloride) and a polyphosphate including sodium hexametaphosphate (chain of 6 phosphate units). ‘903 also allows for a polyphosphate formula with n of 4 to 125 which allows for many polyphosphates with 6 or more phosphate units (see claim 5 of ‘903). ‘903 allows for application to an oral surface for treatment. As both zinc salts and polyphosphates are present, they are capable of forming zinc-polyphosphate complexes.
‘903 claims do not provide for particular conditions and for solvents.
Glandorf teaches a composition comprising ‘Glass H’ polyphosphate having approximately 21 units and ZnCl2.(paragraphs 110, 101-102). Glandorf teaches a second dentifrice composition having zinc lactate at 5% and glass H polyphosphate at 18% (paragraph 111). Example 2 provides dentifrice compositions with sodium polyphosphate 7% and zinc lactate (2.5 or 2%) (paragraph 113). Glandorf teaches its compositions for reducing plaque and gingivitis (claim 1 of Glandorf). Glandorf teaches zinc ions as inorganic cations and teaches compositions should have a source of ion such as zinc (claim 3 of Glandorf and paragraph 50). Glandorf teaches preferred polyvalent cations provided in salts with chloride or fluoride (paragraph 51). In solution 2 of Glandorf with 1.25% (6000 ppm of zinc ions) zinc chloride, 22% w/v of 0.1 M glass polyphosphate was added (paragraphs 101-102). The solution in paragraph 102 has 6.2% polyphosphate and 1.2% zinc chloride. Composition 5b with polyphosphate and zinc salt has 1.4% water, 34.85% glycerin and 6% polyethylene glycol for a total of 42.25% of solvent. Example 2 A with zinc salt and sodium polyphosphate has 42.244% of glycerin and 7% polyethylene glycol (paragraph 113). Glandorf teaches hexametaphosphate as a longer chain polyphosphate with X being sodium (paragraph 43). Paragraph 98 indicates determining the complexation of stannous and zinc ions with polyphosphate MSA. Paragraph 98 and paragraph 102 also indicate adding zinc ions favors the formation of the zinc-polyphosphate complex.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have applied the composition of ‘903 to the oral cavity to treat conditions as provided in Glandorf like gingivitis and plaque for zinc and polyphosphate compositions as well as adding solvents of Glandorf to these compositions of ‘903 to serve as a carrier/delivery system for oral care. Thus, it was obvious to use solvents of Glandorf and treat oral conditions of Glandorf with an orally applied zinc salt and polyphosphate composition of the claims of ‘903 with a reasonable expectation of treatment of said conditions.
Response to Applicant’s Statements regarding Double Patenting Rejections
Applicant is not arguing or filling terminal disclaimers at this time. Therefore, these rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MARK V STEVENS whose telephone number is (571)270-7080. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am to 6:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian-Yong Kwon can be reached at (571)272-0581. 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.
/MARK V STEVENS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613
Prosecution Insights