CTNF 18/755,808 CTNF 99952 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Claims 1-17 are currently pending and are examined on the merits herein. Priority The instant application claims domestic benefit to U.S. Application No. 63/510,645 filed on 06/28/2023 as reflected in the filing receipt dated on 07/12/2024. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/07/2024, 03/12/2025, and 04/30/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the Examiner. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 1, 4, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the one or more polydentate ligands comprises citrate” followed by a comma. The comma should be replaced with a semicolon to properly separate the limitation from the subsequent “wherein” clause, which applies to the entire composition rather than the one or more polydentate ligands. Claim 4 recites the limitation “an improved soluble stannous concentration than the composition without the hops beta acid”, which is grammatically incorrect. The Examiner recommends amending the claim to recite “an improved soluble stannous concentration compared to the composition without hops beta acid”. Claim 17 recites the limitation “a stannous-stabilizing ligand comprising a monodentate ligand or one or more polydentate ligands” followed by a comma. The comma should be replaced with a semicolon to properly separate the limitation from the subsequent “wherein” clause, which applies to the entire composition rather than the stannous-stabilizing ligand . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the limitations “hops beta acid” and “wherein the one or more polydentate ligands comprises citrate”, which does not exclude the presence of other non-citrate polydentate ligands. Hops beta acid is known to function as a polydentate ligand, as evidenced by Baig et al. in Paragraph 0051 (US20210346252A1; published: 11/11/2021; IDS of 11/07/2024). It is unclear how the one or more polydentate ligands can consist essentially of citrate, as required by claim 6 , while parent claim 1 requires that the composition also comprises hops beta acid. In view of claim 6, the scope of each claim is indefinite. For the purposes of compact prosecution in the prior art rejections below, the Examiner is interpreting the claims to mean that the hops beta acid is a separate component from the one or more polydentate ligands. Claims 2-16 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1, as they fail to resolve the ambiguity in question. Claims 3 and 4 respectively recite the limitations “a soluble stannous concentration” and “an improved soluble stannous concentration”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. Parent claim 1 does not recite a solvent or a soluble stannous. Because different terminology is used in claims 3 and 4, it is unclear whether the soluble stannous of claims 3 or 4 is the same as the stannous ion source recited in claim 1, or whether it is an additional stannous component. Therefore, the scope of each claim is indefinite. Claim 4 recites the limitation “an improved soluble stannous concentration than the composition without the hops beta acid”. Because the specification does not provide a limiting definition of the relative term “improved”, it is not clear exactly what soluble stannous concentration is required to be considered improved. Therefore, the metes and bounds of what the Applicant considers to be an improved soluble stannous concentration are unclear. Claim 4 recites the limitation “the composition without the hops beta acid”. However, claim 4 depends from claim 1, which requires that the composition comprises hops beta acid. The claim is considered indefinite because it is unclear whether “the composition without the hops beta acid” is the same composition as recited in parent claim 1, which would be in direct conflict with the parent claim, or whether it is a different composition, for which proper antecedent basis has not been provided. Claim 12 recites the limitation wherein the composition further comprises a metal ion source. Because claim 12 depends from claim 1, which recites a stannous (e.g. tin) ion source, it is unclear whether the stannous ion source of claim 1 is sufficient to read on the metal ion source or if an additional metal ion source is required. Claim 17 recites the limitation “hops beta acid” followed by the limitation “stannous-stabilizing ligand comprising a monodentate ligand or one or more polydentate ligands”. Because hops beta acids are known to function as polydentate ligands, as evidenced by Baig et al., it is unclear whether the hops beta acid is sufficient to read on the stannous-stabilizing agent or if an additional agent is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-2, 5-14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Baig et al. (US20210346252A1; published: 11/11/2021; IDS of 11/07/2024) . Baig, throughout the reference, teaches a dentifrice composition comprising: (a) tin; (b) abrasive; (c) monodentate ligand; (d) polydentate ligand; and (e) a pH of at least about 6 (Abstract and Claim 1). In an exemplary embodiment, the composition comprises: glycerin, sorbitol, water, stannous fluoride, stannous chloride (10% silica), sodium gluconate, sodium citrate, Silica Z119, carrageenan, xanthan gum, sodium lauryl sulfate solution, betaine, flavor, NaOH, saccharin, sucralose liquid, and titanium dioxide (Paragraph 0120, Table 1, Example 1). Regarding claims 1, 2, and 6 : Stannous fluoride and stannous chloride each read on the instantly claimed stannous ion source as evidenced by instant claim 2 , and sodium citrate reads on the instantly claimed one or more polydentate ligands. Regarding the instantly claimed hops beta acid: Baig teaches that other suitable polydentate ligands include hops beta acids, such as lupulone, colupulone, adlupulone, and/or combinations thereof (Paragraph 0051). Because Baig does not limit the number of polydentate ligands permitted in its composition, but instead teaches that the polydentate ligand may comprise combinations of the disclosed ligands, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could at once envisage an embodiment wherein the composition further comprises hops beta acid selected from lupulone, colupulone, and/or adlupulone. As discussed above (see “Claim Rejections – 112(b)”), hops beta acid is interpreted by the Examiner as a separate component from the instantly claimed one or more polydentate ligands. As such, the sodium citrate in the composition of Baig is sufficient to meet the limitation of instant claim 6 , wherein the one or more polydentate ligands consists essentially of citrate. Regarding the instantly claimed limitation wherein the composition is free of gluconate: Baig teaches that sugar acid salts of ulsonic acid, uronic acid, and aldaric acid are suitable alternative monodentate ligands to those comprising salts of aldonic acid, e.g., gluconate (Claims 14-18). Therefore, an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could at once envisage an embodiment wherein the monodentate ligand in the composition comprises a salt of ulsonic acid, uronic acid, or aldaric acid rather than sodium gluconate. Regarding claim 5 : Baig teaches that suitable polydentate ligands include citric acid and phytic acid, among a limited list of others, including salts thereof and combinations thereof (Paragraph 0052). Because Baig does not limit the number of polydentate ligands permitted in its composition, but instead teaches that the polydentate ligand may comprise combinations of the disclosed ligands, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could at once envisage an embodiment wherein the composition further comprises a salt of phytic acid, e.g., phytate. Regarding claim 7 : The silica abrasive, Silica Z119, in the composition of Baig meets the limitation. Regarding claims 8 and 9 : Baig teaches that the abrasive comprises silica abrasive, calcium abrasive, or combinations thereof (Claim 5), wherein the calcium abrasive comprises calcium carbonate (Claim 6). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could at once envisage an embodiment wherein the composition comprises calcium carbonate as the abrasive rather than Silica Z119. Regarding the 10% silica present in the stannous chloride, because Baig does not require that the stannous chloride comprises silica, an ordinarily skilled artisan could at once envisage an embodiment wherein the stannous chloride does not further comprise silica or, alternatively, wherein the tin component comprises only stannous fluoride (see Baig’s Claim 4). Regarding claim 10 : Baig teaches that the tin comprises stannous fluoride, stannous chloride, or combinations thereof (Claim 4). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could at once envisage an embodiment wherein the tin component of the composition comprises only stannous chloride rather than both stannous chloride and stannous fluoride. Regarding claim 11 : Stannous fluoride reads on the instantly claimed fluoride ion source. Regarding claim 12 : The amount of stannous chloride in the composition is 0.4400 wt.% and the amount of stannous fluoride in the composition is 0.454 wt.% (Paragraph 120, Table 1, Example 1). Therefore, the total amount of metal ion source in the composition is 0.894 wt.%, which lies within and thus reads on the instantly claimed range. Regarding claim 13 : Baig teaches that the composition can comprise zinc, which can be provided by a zinc ion source (Paragraphs 0077-0078). Therefore, an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could at once envisage an embodiment wherein the composition further comprises a zinc ion source. Regarding claim 14 : Because lupulone, colupulone, and/or adlupulone are not hydrogenated compounds, the composition of Baig meets the claim. The Examiner notes that while Baig does not exemplify a composition combining all instantly claimed features within a singular embodiment, a reference disclosure can anticipate a claim when the reference describes the limitations but "'d[oes] not expressly spell out' the limitations as arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination." Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co. , 780 F.3d 1376, 1381, 114 USPQ2d 1250, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Petering , 301 F.2d 676, 681(CCPA 1962)). Note: MPEP 2131.02. Regarding claim 16 : As discussed above (see “Claim Rejections – 112(b)”), hops beta acid is interpreted by the Examiner as a separate component from the instantly claimed one or more polydentate ligands. As such, the sodium citrate in the composition of Baig, which is present in an amount of 1.220 wt.% (Paragraph 120, Table 1, Example 1), lies within and thus reads on the instantly claimed range. Regarding claim 17 : Baig teaches a composition comprising the instantly claimed features hops beta acid, a stannous ion source, silica, and a stannous solubilizing ligand (e.g., a monodentate ligand or one or more polydentate ligands) for the same reasons as applied to claims 1 and 7 above. Regarding the instantly claimed pH: As discussed above, the composition of Baig has a pH of at least 6. Baig further teaches that the preferred pH is about 7 (Paragraph 0079). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could at once envisage an embodiment wherein the pH is 7, which lies within and thus reads on the instantly claimed range . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baig et al. (US20210346252A1; published: 11/11/2021; IDS of 11/07/2024), as applied to claims 1-2, 5-14, and 16-17 above . Baig teaches the invention(s) of claims 1-2, 5-14, and 16-17 as discussed in detail above and further incorporated herein. Regarding claim 3 : While Baig is silent as to the exact soluble stannous concentration of the composition, Baig teaches that the soluble Sn amount is correlated to bioavailable Sn that is freely available to provide an oral health benefit (Paragraph 0056). Baig further teaches embodiments wherein the oral care compositions have a soluble Sn of 2000 ppm (Paragraph 0055), which lies within and thus reads on the instantly claimed range. 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 concentration of soluble stannous in the composition of Baig, using 2000 ppm as a starting point for routine optimization, in order to achieve a desired level of Sn that is freely available to provide an oral health benefit (Paragraph 0056). Regarding claim 15 : Baig teaches that the composition can include from about 0.1 wt.% to about 10 wt.% of polydentate ligand (Paragraph 0053), which includes the 1.220 wt.% sodium citrate already present in the composition of Baig. Thus, 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 concentration of hops beta acid within the range of 0.1 wt.% to 9.878 wt.%, which lies within and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed range, in order to maintain a carefully balanced ratio of Sn to monodentate and polydentate ligands, which provides a high amount of bioavailable fluoride and Sn ions without some of the negatives to the use of cationic antimicrobial agents, as taught by Baig (Paragraph 0056). Regarding claim 4 : Because Baig teaches a composition comprising the same components in the same concentrations as instantly claimed, the prior art composition is not structurally distinct from Applicant’s instantly claimed composition. As such, the composition would necessarily have an improved soluble stannous concentration relative to that of the composition without the hops beta acid. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada , 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). 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. Note MPEP 2112.01. An ordinarily skilled artisan would reasonably expect success in modifying the prior art composition as proposed because all ingredients and concentrations are taught within the same reference to be useful in formulating oral care compositions comprising stabilized tin . Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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. 08-36 AIA Claim s 1-9, 11-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-2 and 4-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,427,097 B2 in view of Baig et al. (US20210346252A1; published: 11/11/2021; IDS of 11/07/2024) . The claims of US ‘097 recite an oral care composition comprising: (a) tin, wherein the tin comprises stannous fluoride, stannous chloride, or combinations thereof; (b) monodentate ligand; (c) polydentate ligand; and (d) a fluoride source. The composition further comprises zinc comprising zinc citrate, zinc lactate, zinc oxide, zinc phosphate, or combinations thereof. One of ordinary skill in the art could at once envisage an embodiment wherein the zinc comprises zinc citrate, wherein citrate meets the instant limitation of a polydentate ligand. The composition does not comprise gluconate. The claims of US ‘097 differ from the instant claims in that the claims of US ‘097 do not explicitly recite that the composition comprises hops beta acid as recited in instant claims 1 and 14-15 , the further limitations of instant claims 3-5, 7-8, 12, or 16 , or the composition of instant claim 17 . The deficiencies of US ‘097 claims are cured by Baig, whose teachings are as set forth above and further incorporated herein. Regarding the hops beta acid recited in instant claims 1 and 14 : Because Baig teaches polydentate ligands may be used in combination, one of ordinary skill in the art could at once envisage an embodiment wherein the composition recited in the claims of US ‘097 further comprises a non-hydrogenated hops beta acid selected from lupulone, colupulone, and/or adlupulone, which are taught by Baig as suitable polydentate ligands for solubilizing stannous (Paragraph 0051). Regarding the amount of hops beta acid and polydentate ligand recited in instant claims 15 and 16 : It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the total amount of hops beta acid and citrate, e.g., polydentate ligands, within the range of from about 1 wt.% to about 5 wt.%, which lies within and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed range, because Baig teaches that this amount in combination with a monodentate ligand is useful for providing a high amount of soluble tin, which is then available to provide an oral health benefit (Paragraphs 0044, 0053-0056, and 0061-0064). Regarding instant claim 12 : It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition taught by the combination of US ‘097 claims and Baig by adjusting the concentration of stannous chloride in the composition within the range of from about 0.01 wt.% to about 10 wt.%, which lies within and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed range, because Baig teaches that this amount is suitable to provide an oral health benefit (Paragraph 0074-0076). Regarding instant claim 3 : While the combination of US ‘097 claims and Baig is silent as to the exact soluble stannous concentration of the composition, Baig teaches that the soluble Sn amount is correlated to bioavailable Sn that is freely available to provide an oral health benefit (Paragraph 0056). Baig further teaches embodiments wherein the oral care compositions have a soluble Sn of 2000 ppm (Paragraph 0055), which lies within and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the concentration of soluble stannous, using 2000 ppm as a starting point for routine optimization, in order to achieve a desired level of Sn that is freely available to provide an oral health benefit (Paragraph 0056). Regarding instant claim 4 : Because the combination of US ‘097 claims and Baig teaches a composition comprising the same components in the same concentrations as instantly claimed, the composition is not structurally distinct from Applicant’s instantly claimed composition. As such, the composition would necessarily have an improved soluble stannous concentration relative to that of the composition without the hops beta acid. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada , 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). 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. Note MPEP 2112.01. Regarding instant claim 5 : Because Baig teaches polydentate ligands may be used in combination, one of ordinary skill in the art could at once envisage an embodiment wherein the composition taught by the combination of US ‘097 claims and Baig further comprises a salt of phytic acid, e.g., phytate, which is also taught by Baig as a suitable polydentate ligand for solubilizing stannous chloride (Paragraph 0052). Regarding instant claims 7-8 : Baig teaches that an abrasive, such as calcium carbonate, can be added to oral care compositions to help remove surface stains from the teeth (Paragraph 0087-0088). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition taught by the combination of US ‘097 claims and Baig by further including calcium carbonate as an abrasive. Regarding instant claim 17 : The combination of US ‘097 claims and Baig teaches a composition comprising the instantly claimed features hops beta acid, a stannous ion source, a stannous-stabilizing ligand (e.g. a monodentate ligand or one or more polydentate ligands) for the same reasons as applied to instant claim 1 above. Regarding the instantly claimed silica: Baig teaches silica abrasive as a suitable alternative to calcium abrasive (Claim 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use silica as the abrasive component in the composition rather than calcium carbonate. Regarding the instantly claimed pH: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the pH of the composition using a pH of 7, which lies within and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed range, as a starting point for routine optimization because Baig teaches that this pH is most preferred for oral care compositions comprising soluble stannous as an oral health agent. An ordinarily skilled artisan would reasonably expect success in modifying the claims of US ‘097 with the prior art teachings as proposed because all ingredients and concentrations are known in the art to be useful in formulating oral care compositions . 08-36 AIA Claim s 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,690,792 B2 in view of Baig et al. (US20210346252A1; published: 11/11/2021; IDS of 11/07/2024) . The claims of US ‘792 recite an oral care composition comprising: (a) from about 0.01 wt.% to about 10 wt.% hops extract comprising only non-hydrogenated hops beta acid and less than 5% hops alpha acid, which includes embodiments comprising 0 wt.% hops alpha acid; (b) from about 0.01 wt.% to about 10 wt.% of tin, which lies within and thus reads on the instantly claimed range, wherein the tin comprises stannous chloride, stannous fluoride, or combinations thereof; and (c) calcium. The amount of hops beta acid substantially overlaps and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed range. The calcium comprises calcium abrasive comprising calcium carbonate. The composition further comprises zinc comprising zinc citrate, zinc lactate, zinc oxide, zinc phosphate, or combinations thereof. One of ordinary skill in the art could at once envisage an embodiment wherein the zinc comprises zinc citrate, wherein citrate meets the instant limitation of a polydentate ligand. The composition does not comprise gluconate. The claims of US ‘792 differ from the instant claims in that the claims of US ‘792 do not explicitly recite that the limitations of instant claims 3-5 or 16 , or the composition of instant claim 17 . The claims of US ‘792 are rejected for the same/similar reasons as discussed above in the double patenting rejection over claims 1-2 and 4-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,427,097 B2 in view of Baig et al. (US20210346252A1; published: 11/11/2021; IDS of 11/07/2024), which is discussed in detail above . 08-36 AIA Claim s 1-9 and 11-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,350,355 B2 in view of Baig et al. (US20210346252A1; published: 11/11/2021; IDS of 11/07/2024) . The claims of US ‘355 recite an oral care composition comprising: (a) from about 0.01 wt.% to about 10 wt.% hops beta acid comprising only non-hydrogenated hops beta acid, which substantially overlaps and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed range; (b) from about 0.01 wt.% to about 10 wt.% of stannous fluoride, which lies within and thus reads on the instantly claimed range; and (c) citrate. The calcium comprises calcium abrasive comprising calcium carbonate. The composition does not comprise gluconate. The claims of US ‘355 differ from the instant claims in that the claims of US ‘355 do not explicitly recite that the limitations of instant claims 3-5 or 16 , or the composition of instant claim 17 . The claims of US ‘355 are rejected for the same/similar reasons as discussed above in the double patenting rejection over claims 1-2 and 4-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,427,097 B2 in view of Baig et al. (US20210346252A1; published: 11/11/2021; IDS of 11/07/2024), which is discussed in detail above . 08-37 AIA Claim s 1-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/884,510 in view of Baig et al. (US20210346252A1; published: 11/11/2021; IDS of 11/07/2024). The claims of App. ‘510 recite an oral care composition comprising: hops acid; dimethylsulfide; a stannous ion source; and a stabilization system comprising a Michael acceptor. The hops extract, which is present in an amount of from about 0.01 wt.% to about 10 wt.% and substantially overlaps the instantly claimed range, comprises at least 35 wt.% hops beta acid, which includes embodiments comprising 100 wt.% hops beta acid. The stannous ion source, which is present in an amount of from about 0.2 wt.% to about 1 wt.% and reads on the instantly claimed range, comprises stannous fluoride, stannous chloride, or a combination thereof. The thiol-Michael addition catalyszer comprises citrate, gluconate, glycine, phytate, or a combination thereof. Therefore, and ordinarily skilled artisan could at once envisage embodiments wherein the catalyzer consists essentially of citrate or comprises both citrate and phytate. The composition does not require gluconate. The claims of App. ‘510 differ from the instant claims in that the claims of App. ‘510 do not explicitly recite that the limitations of instant claims 3-4, 7-8, or 13-14 , or the composition of instant claim 17 . The claims of App. ‘510 are rejected for the same/similar reasons as discussed above in the double patenting rejection over claims 1-2 and 4-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,427,097 B2 in view of Baig et al. (US20210346252A1; published: 11/11/2021; IDS of 11/07/2024), which is discussed in detail above. Regarding instant claim 13 : It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition taught by the combination of App. ‘510 claims and Baig by further including a zinc ion source because Baig teaches that this metal ion can be useful in combination with tin metal ions in formulating oral care compositions (Paragraphs 0074-0078) . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. 08-37 AIA Claim s 1-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-25 of copending Application No. 18/755,888 in view of Baig et al. (US20210346252A1; published: 11/11/2021; IDS of 11/07/2024). The claims of App. ‘888 recite an oral care composition comprising: hops acid; and one or more surfactants. The composition further comprises from about 0.01 wt.% to about 10 wt.% of a metal ion source, which reads on the instantly claimed range, comprising tin, zinc, or combinations thereof. The hops acid comprises only non-hydrogenated hops beta acid. In one embodiment, the composition comprises sodium citrate. The composition does not require gluconate. The claims of App. ‘888 differ from the instant claims in that the claims of App. ‘888 do not explicitly recite that the limitations of instant claims 2-5, 7-8, 11, or 15-16 , or the composition of instant claim 17 . The claims of App. ‘888 are rejected for the same/similar reasons as discussed above in the double patenting rejection over claims 1-2 and 4-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,427,097 B2 in view of Baig et al. (US20210346252A1; published: 11/11/2021; IDS of 11/07/2024), which is discussed in detail above. Regarding instant claims 2 and 11 : Baig teaches that stannous fluoride, stannous chloride, or combinations thereof are suitable stannous ion sources in oral care compositions. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition taught by the combination of App. ‘788 claims and Baig by selecting either stannous fluoride or stannous chloride as the stannous ion source . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. 08-37 AIA Claim s 1-9 and 11-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-3, 5-9, 11-12, and 15-23 of copending Application No. 18/317,987 in view of Baig et al. (US20210346252A1; published: 11/11/2021; IDS of 11/07/2024). The claims of App. ‘987 recite a toothpaste composition comprising: β-calcium pyrophosphate, ethylene glycol distearate, fluoride, and an oral active care agent comprising tin. The active agent further comprises zinc, polyphosphate, dicarboxylic acid, amino acid, hops, or combinations thereof. The hops comprises hops beta acid, and the tin comprises stannous fluoride, stannous chloride, stannous, pyrophosphate, or combinations thereof. The zinc comprises zinc lactate, zinc citrate, zinc chloride, zinc phosphate, zinc oxide, or combinations thereof, which are all zinc ion sources. An ordinarily skilled artisan could at once envisage an embodiment wherein the zinc comprises zinc citrate, wherein citrate reads on the instantly claimed one or more polydentate ligands. The composition further comprises an abrasive comprising silica abrasive, calcium abrasive, or combinations thereof, wherein the calcium abrasive comprises calcium pyrophosphate, calcium carbonate, or combinations thereof. The composition does not comprise gluconate. The claims of App. ‘987 differ from the instant claims in that the claims of App. ‘987 do not explicitly recite that the limitations of instant claims 3-5, 12, or 14-16 , or the composition of instant claim 17 . The claims of App. ‘987 are rejected for the same/similar reasons as discussed above in the double patenting rejection over claims 1-2 and 4-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,427,097 B2 in view of Baig et al. (US20210346252A1; published: 11/11/2021; IDS of 11/07/2024), which is discussed in detail above . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. 08-37 AIA Claim s 1-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-4, 7-8, 10-12, 14-25, 27, and 29-32 of copending Application No. 17/704,028 in view of Baig et al. (US20210346252A1; published: 11/11/2021; IDS of 11/07/2024). The claims of App. ‘028 recite an edible oral composition comprising: about 0.2 wt.% to about 5 wt.% of hops comprising at least 35 wt.% of hops beta acid, which includes embodiments comprising 100 wt.% hops beta acid; calcium citrate, wherein citrate reads on the instantly claimed polydentate ligand; nutrient source for microorganisms; and a biofilm modifier. The hops beta acid comprises lupulone, adlupulone, colupulone, or combinations thereof, which are non-hydrogenated compounds. The composition further comprises a calcium abrasive comprising calcium carbonate, calcium pyrophosphate, or combinations thereof. The composition further comprises tin, wherein the tin comprises stannous fluoride, stannous chloride, or combinations thereof. The composition does not comprise gluconate. The claims of App. ‘028 differ from the instant claims in that the claims of App. ‘028 do not explicitly recite that the limitations of instant claims 3-5, 12-13, or 16 , or the composition of instant claim 17 . The claims of App. ‘028 are rejected for the same/similar reasons as discussed above in the double patenting rejection over claims 1-2 and 4-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,427,097 B2 in view of Baig et al. (US20210346252A1; published: 11/11/2021; IDS of 11/07/2024), which is discussed in detail above. Regarding instant claim 13 : It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition taught by the combination of App. ‘028 claims and Baig by further including a zinc ion source because Baig teaches that this metal ion can be useful in combination with tin metal ions in formulating oral care compositions (Paragraphs 0074-0078) . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. 08-37 AIA Claim s 1-10 and 12-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1, 6, 8, 10-12, 28, 42, and 44-47 of copending Application No. 17/485,550 in view of Baig et al. (US20210346252A1; published: 11/11/2021; IDS of 11/07/2024). The claims of App. ‘550 recite a first anticavity dentifrice comprising: hops extract comprising at least 35 wt.% of hops beta acid, which includes embodiments comprising 100 wt.% hops beta acid; and stannous chloride; wherein the dentifrice is free of fluoride and arginine. The dentifrice further comprises calcium, zinc, or combinations thereof. The calcium comprises calcium abrasive, which can include calcium carbonate. The zinc comprises zinc citrate, among a limited list of others. Therefore, an ordinarily skilled artisan could at once envisage an embodiment wherein zinc citrate is the zinc ion source of choice, wherein citrate reads on the instantly claimed polydentate ligand. The hops beta acid comprises only non-hydrogenated hops beta acids. The composition does not comprise gluconate. The claims of App. ‘550 differ from the instant claims in that the claims of App. ‘550 do not explicitly recite that the limitations of instant claims 3-5, 12, or 15-16 , or the composition of instant claim 17 . The claims of App. ‘550 are rejected for the same/similar reasons as discussed above in the double patenting rejection over claims 1-2 and 4-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,427,097 B2 in view of Baig et al. (US20210346252A1; published: 11/11/2021; IDS of 11/07/2024), which is discussed in detail above . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. 08-37 AIA Claim s 1-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-4, 6-15, and 23-24 of copending Application No. 17/485,552 in view of Baig et al. (US20210346252A1; published: 11/11/2021; IDS of 11/07/2024). The claims of App. ‘552 recite an aqueous composition comprising: about 0.5 wt.% to about 5 wt.% of a hops-metal complex; wherein the hops comprises hops beta acid and hops alpha acid, wherein the hops beta acid is non-hydrogenated hops beta acid; and wherein the meal comprises stannous fluoride, stannous chloride, and combinations thereof. The amount of hops-metal complex lies within and thus reads on the instantly claimed ranges of metal ion source and hops beta acid. The composition has a pH of greater than 7. The composition further comprises a metal comprising zinc, calcium, or combinations thereof, wherein the calcium comprises a calcium abrasive comprising calcium carbonate, and the zinc comprises zinc citrate, among a limited list of others. Therefore, an ordinarily skilled artisan could at once envisage an embodiment wherein zinc citrate is the zinc ion source of choice, wherein citrate reads on the instantly claimed polydentate ligand. The composition does not comprise gluconate. The claims of App. ‘552 differ from the instant claims in that the claims of App. ‘552 do not explicitly recite that the limitations of instant claims 3-5 or 16 , or the composition of instant claim 17 . The claims of App. 552 are rejected for the same/similar reasons as discussed above in the double patenting rejection over claims 1-2 and 4-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,427,097 B2 in view of Baig et al. (US20210346252A1; published: 11/11/2021; IDS of 11/07/2024), which is discussed in detail above . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. 08-37 AIA Claim s 1-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1 and 4-25 of copending Application No. 17/485,553 in view of Baig et al. (US20210346252A1; published: 11/11/2021; IDS of 11/07/2024). The claims of App. ‘553 recite an oral care composition comprising: about 0.25 wt.% to about 10 wt.% of hops, which lies within and thus reads on the instantly claimed range; and flavor; wherein the hops comprises at least about 35 wt.% of hops beta acid, which includes embodiments comprising 100 wt.% hops beta acid; and wherein the hops beta acid comprises lupulone, adlupulone, colupulone, or combinations thereof, which are non-hydrogenated compounds. The composition has a pH of greater than 7. The composition comprises tin, zinc, or combinations thereof, wherein the tin comprises stannous fluoride, stannous chloride, or combinations thereof, and the zinc comprises zinc citrate, among a limited list of others. Therefore, an ordinarily skilled artisan could at once envisage an embodiment wherein zinc citrate is the zinc ion source of choice, wherein citrate reads on the instantly claimed polydentate ligand. The composition further comprises calcium comprising calcium salt, calcium abrasive, or combinations thereof, wherein the calcium abrasive comprises calcium carbonate, calcium pyrophosphate, or combinations thereof. In one embodiment, the composition may comprise silica abrasive. The composition does not comprise gluconate. The claims of App. ‘553 differ from the instant claims in that the claims of App. ‘553 do not explicitly recite that the limitations of instant claims 3-5, 12, or 16 , or the composition of instant claim 17 . The claims of App. ‘553 are rejected for the same/similar reasons as discussed above in the double patenting rejection over claims 1-2 and 4-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,427,097 B2 in view of Baig et al. (US20210346252A1; published: 11/11/2021; IDS of 11/07/2024), which is discussed in detail above . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. 08-37 AIA Claim s 1-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1, 5-26, and 28-29 of copending Application No. 17/704,027 in view of Baig et al. (US20210346252A1; published: 11/11/2021; IDS of 11/07/2024). The claims of App. ‘027 recite an oral care composition comprising: about 0.01 wt.% to about 10 wt.% of hops beta acids that are non-hydrognenated, which substantially overlaps and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed range. The composition comprises tin, zinc, or combinations thereof, wherein the tin comprises stannous fluoride, stannous chloride, or combinations thereof, and the zinc comprises zinc citrate, among a limited list of others. Therefore, an ordinarily skilled artisan could at once envisage an embodiment wherein zinc citrate is the zinc ion source of choice, wherein citrate reads on the instantly claimed polydentate ligand. The composition further comprises calcium comprising calcium salt, calcium abrasive, or combinations thereof, wherein the calcium abrasive comprises calcium carbonate, calcium pyrophosphate, or combinations thereof. In one embodiment, the composition may comprise silica abrasive. The composition does not comprise gluconate. The claims of App. ‘027 differ from the instant claims in that the claims of App. ‘027 do not explicitly recite that the limitations of instant claims 3-5, 12, or 16 , or the composition of instant claim 17 . The claims of App. ‘027 are rejected for the same/similar reasons as discussed above in the double patenting rejection over claims 1-2 and 4-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,427,097 B2 in view of Baig et al. (US20210346252A1; published: 11/11/2021; IDS of 11/07/2024), which is discussed in detail above . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. 08-37 AIA Claim s 1-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 16-28 and 30-31 of copending Application No. 18/322,652 in view of Baig et al. (US20210346252A1; published: 11/11/2021; IDS of 11/07/2024). The claims of App. ‘652 recite an oral care composition comprising: (a) about 0.01 wt.% to about 10 wt.% of hops extract comprising at least 35 wt.% of hops beta acids that are non-hydrogenated; and (b) stannous chloride. Because the hops extract includes embodiments comprising 100 wt.% hops beta acid, the amount of hops extract substantially overlaps and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed range of hops beta acid. The composition comprises zinc comprises zinc citrate, among a limited list of others. Therefore, an ordinarily skilled artisan could at once envisage an embodiment wherein zinc citrate is the zinc ion source of choice, wherein citrate reads on the instantly claimed polydentate ligand. The composition further comprises a calcium abrasive comprising calcium carbonate. In one embodiment, the composition comprises a fluoride ion source. The composition does not comprise gluconate. The claims of App. ‘652 differ from the instant claims in that the claims of App. ‘652 do not explicitly recite that the limitations of instant claims 3-5, 12, or 16 , or the composition of instant claim 17 . The claims of App. ‘652 are rejected for the same/similar reasons as discussed above in the double patenting rejection over claims 1-2 and 4-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,427,097 B2 in view of Baig et al. (US20210346252A1; published: 11/11/2021; IDS of 11/07/2024), which is discussed in detail above . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. 08-37 AIA Claim s 1-10 and 12-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/788,266 in view of Baig et al. (US20210346252A1; published: 11/11/2021; IDS of 11/07/2024). The claims of App. ‘266 recite an oral care composition comprising: (a) an antibacterial agent consisting of a hops extract and optionally an additional antibacterial agent, wherein the hops extract comprises from about 0.01 wt.% to about 10 wt.% of non-hydrogenated hops beta acid, which substantially overlaps and thus reads on the instantly claimed range; and (b) abrasive; wherein the composition is free of fluoride. The composition further comprises a metal ion source, a zinc ion source, or combinations thereof, wherein the tin ion source comprises stannous chloride. The abrasive comprises calcium carbonate. The composition does not comprise gluconate. The claims of App. ‘266 differ from the instant claims in that the claims of App. ‘266 do not explicitly recite that the composition comprises one or more polydentate ligands comprising citrate as recited in instant claim 1 , the further limitations of instant claims 3-6, 12, or 16 , or the composition of instant claim 17 . The deficiencies of App. ‘266 claims are cured by Baig, whose teachings are as set forth above and further incorporated herein. Regarding the polydentate ligand comprising citrate recited in instant claims 1, 6, and 16 : It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition recited in the claims of App. ‘266 by further including sodium citrate in an amount of from about 1 wt.% to about 5 wt.%, which lies within and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed range, as well as a monodentate ligand in an amount of from about 1 wt.% to about 5 wt.% because Baig teaches that this combination is useful for providing a high amount of soluble tin, which is then available to provide an oral health benefit (Paragraphs 0044, 0053-0056, and 0061-0064). Regarding instant claim 12 : It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition taught by the combination of App. ‘266 claims and Baig by adjusting the concentration of stannous chloride in the composition within the range of from about 0.01 wt.% to about 10 wt.%, which lies within and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed range, because Baig teaches that this amount is suitable to provide an oral health benefit (Paragraph 0074-0076). Regarding instant claim 3 : While the combination of App. ‘266 claims and Baig is silent as to the exact soluble stannous concentration of the composition, Baig teaches that the soluble Sn amount is correlated to bioavailable Sn that is freely available to provide an oral health benefit (Paragraph 0056). Baig further teaches embodiments wherein the oral care compositions have a soluble Sn of 2000 ppm (Paragraph 0055), which lies within and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the concentration of soluble stannous, using 2000 ppm as a starting point for routine optimization, in order to achieve a desired level of Sn that is freely available to provide an oral health benefit (Paragraph 0056). Regarding instant claim 4 : Because the combination of App. ‘266 claims and Baig teaches a composition comprising the same components in the same concentrations as instantly claimed, the composition is not structurally distinct from Applicant’s instantly claimed composition. As such, the composition would necessarily have an improved soluble stannous concentration relative to that of the composition without the hops beta acid. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada , 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). 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. Note MPEP 2112.01. Regarding instant claim 5 : Because Baig teaches polydentate ligands may be used in combination, one of ordinary skill in the art could at once envisage an embodiment wherein the composition taught by the combination of App. ‘266 claims and Baig further comprises a salt of phytic acid, e.g., phytate, which is also taught by Baig as a suitable polydentate ligand for solubilizing stannous chloride (Paragraph 0052). Regarding instant claim 17 : The combination of App. ‘266 claims and Baig teaches a composition comprising the instantly claimed features hops beta acid, a stannous ion source, a stannous-stabilizing ligand (e.g. a monodentate ligand or one or more polydentate ligands) for the same reasons as applied to instant claim 1 above. Regarding the instantly claimed silica: Baig teaches silica abrasive as a suitable alternative to calcium abrasive (Claim 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use silica as the abrasive component in the composition rather than calcium carbonate. Regarding the instantly claimed pH: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the pH of the composition using a pH of 7, which lies within and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed range, as a starting point for routine optimization because Baig teaches that this pH is most preferred for oral care compositions comprising soluble stannous as an oral health agent. An ordinarily skilled artisan would reasonably expect success in modifying the claims of App. ‘266 with the prior art teachings as proposed because all ingredients and concentrations are known in the art to be useful in formulating oral care compositions . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. 08-36 AIA Claim s 1-9 and 11-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,696,881 B2 in view of Baig et al. (US20210346252A1; published: 11/11/2021; IDS of 11/07/2024) . The claims of US ‘881 recite an oral care composition comprising: from about 0.01 wt.% to about 10 wt.% hops beta acid comprising only non-hydrogenated hops beta acid, which substantially overlaps and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed range; and from about 0.01 wt.% to about 10 wt.% of stannous fluoride, which lies within and thus reads on the instantly claimed range. The calcium comprises calcium abrasive comprising calcium carbonate. The composition may comprise a metal ion source comprising tin, zinc, or combinations thereof. The composition does not comprise gluconate. The claims of US ‘881 differ from the instant claims in that the claims of US ‘881 do not explicitly recite that the composition comprises one or more polydentate ligands comprising citrate as recited in instant claim 1 , the further limitations of instant claims 3-6 or 16 , or the composition of instant claim 17 . The claims of US ‘881 are rejected for the same/similar reasons as discussed above in the double patenting rejection over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/788,266 in view of Baig et al. (US20210346252A1; published: 11/11/2021; IDS of 11/07/2024), which is discussed in detail above . 08-37 AIA Claim s 1-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-13 of copending Application No. 18/886,278 in view of Baig et al. (US20210346252A1; published: 11/11/2021; IDS of 11/07/2024). The claims of App. ‘278 recite an oral care composition comprising: (a) stannous chloride; and (b) hops beta acid. In an embodiment, the composition comprises free fluoride ions, which necessarily come from a fluoride ion source. In a fluoride-free embodiment, the composition comprises calcium selected from calcium carbonate, among a limited list of others such that an ordinarily skilled artisan could at once envisage an embodiment wherein calcium carbonate is the calcium of choice. The composition does not comprise gluconate. The claims of App. ‘278 differ from the instant claims in that the claims of App. ‘278 do not explicitly recite that the composition comprises one or more polydentate ligands comprising citrate as recited in instant claim 1 , the further limitations of instant claims 3-6 or 12-16 , or the composition of instant claim 17 . The claims of App. ‘278 are rejected for the same/similar reasons as discussed above in the double patenting rejection over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/788,266 in view of Baig et al. (US20210346252A1; published: 11/11/2021; IDS of 11/07/2024), which is discussed in detail above. Regarding instant claim 13 : It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition taught by the combination of App. ‘278 claims and Baig by further including a zinc ion source because Baig teaches that this metal ion can be useful in combination with tin metal ions in formulating oral care compositions (Paragraphs 0074-0078). Regarding instant claim 14 : It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition taught by the combination of App. ‘278 claims and Baig by selecting lupulone, colupulone, and/or adlupulone, as the non-hydrogenated beta hops acids because Baig teaches that these are useful polydentate ligands for solubilizing stannous (Paragraph 0051). Regarding the amount of hops beta acid and polydentate ligand recited in instant claims 15 and 16 : It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the total amount of hops beta acid and citrate, e.g., polydentate ligands, within the range of from about 1 wt.% to about 5 wt.%, which lies within and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed range, because Baig teaches that this amount in combination with a monodentate ligand is useful for providing a high amount of soluble tin, which is then available to provide an oral health benefit (Paragraphs 0044, 0053-0056, and 0061-0064) . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. 08-37 AIA Claim s 1-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-6, 8-13 and 15-18 of copending Application No. 18/755,788 in view of Baig et al. (US20210346252A1; published: 11/11/2021; IDS of 11/07/2024). The claims of App. ‘788 recite an oral care composition comprising: hops acid, residual iron, and a stabilization system comprising an iron metal chelate comprising a polydentate phosphate, a polycarboxylate, or a combination thereof, wherein the polydentate phosphate comprises pyrophosphate, phytate, or a combination thereof, and the polycarboxylate comprises citrate. Because a polydentate phosphate is not required, an ordinarily skilled artisan could at once envisage an embodiment wherein the iron metal chelate consists essentially of citrate. The citrate comprises zinc citrate, sodium citrate, or a combination thereof. The stabilization system comprises from about 0.1 wt.% to about 10 wt.% of the composition, which lies within and thus reads on the instantly claimed range of polydentate ligand. The composition further comprises an abrasive comprising silica abrasive, calcium abrasive, or a combination thereof, wherein the calcium abrasive comprises calcium carbonate. The composition may be free of silica and/or fluoride. In one embodiment, the composition may further comprise a fluoride ion source. The composition further comprises from about 0.01 wt.% to about 10 wt.% of a stannous or zinc ion source, which lies within and thus reads on the instantly claimed metal ion source. In one embodiment, the hops acid, which is present from about 0.05 wt.% to about 10 wt.% of the composition and thus reads on the instantly claimed range, comprises only non-hydrogenated hops acid. The composition does not comprise gluconate. The claims of App. ‘788 differ from the instant claims in that the claims of App. ‘788 do not explicitly recite that the limitations of instant claims 2-4 , or the composition of instant claim 17 . The claims of App. ‘788 are rejected for the same/similar reasons as discussed above in the double patenting rejection over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/788,266 in view of Baig et al. (US20210346252A1; published: 11/11/2021; IDS of 11/07/2024), which is discussed in detail above. Regarding instant claim 2 : Baig teaches that stannous fluoride, stannous chloride, or combinations thereof are suitable stannous ion sources in oral care compositions. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition taught by the combination of App. ‘788 claims and Baig by selecting either stannous fluoride or stannous chloride as the stannous ion source . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. 08-37 AIA Claim s 1-9 and 11-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-15 and 17 of copending Application No. 19/230,165 in view of Baig et al. (US20210346252A1; published: 11/11/2021; IDS of 11/07/2024). The claims of App. ‘165 recite an oral care composition comprising: (a) about 0.01 wt.% to about 10 wt.% of hops extract, which lies within and thus reads on the instantly claimed range, wherein the hops comprises hops beta acids comprising only non-hydrogenated hops beta acids; and (b) fluoride. The composition further comprises a calcium abrasive comprising calcium carbonate. The composition further comprises from about 0.01 wt.% to about 10 wt.% of an antibacterial agent comprising a metal ion source comprising tin, zinc, or a combination thereof, which reads on the instantly claimed range of metal ion source. The tin comprises stannous chloride. The composition does not comprise gluconate. The claims of App. ‘165 differ from the instant claims in that the claims of App. ‘165 do not explicitly recite that the composition comprises one or more polydentate ligands comprising citrate as recited in instant claim 1 , the further limitations of instant claims 3-6 or 16 , or the composition of instant claim 17 . The claims of App. ‘165 are rejected for the same/similar reasons as discussed above in the double patenting rejection over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/788,266 in view of Baig et al. (US20210346252A1; published: 11/11/2021; IDS of 11/07/2024), which is discussed in detail above . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. 08-37 AIA Claim s 1-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1, 3, 5-6, 9-17, 19-28, and 30-31 of copending Application No. 17/308,085 in view of Baig et al. (US20210346252A1; published: 11/11/2021; IDS of 11/07/2024). The claims of App. ‘085 recite an oral care composition comprising: (a) a tin ion source consisting of stannous fluoride, stannous chloride, or a combination thereof; (b) abrasive; (c) monodentate ligand; (d) polydentate ligand; (e) a pH of at least about 6. The abrasive comprises silica abrasive, calcium abrasive, or combinations thereof, wherein the calcium abrasive comprises calcium carbonate. The composition does not require gluconate. The claims of App. ‘085 differ from the instant claims in that the claims of App. ‘085 do not explicitly recite that the composition comprises hops beta acid or that the polydentate ligand comprises citrate as recited in instant claim 1 , the further limitations of instant claims 3-6 or 12-16 , or the composition of instant claim 17 . The claims of App. ‘085 are rejected for the same/similar reasons as discussed above in the double patenting rejection over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/788,266 in view of Baig et al. (US20210346252A1; published: 11/11/2021; IDS of 11/07/2024), which is discussed in detail above. Regarding the hops beta acid recited in instant claims 1 and 14 : Because Baig teaches polydentate ligands may be used in combination, one of ordinary skill in the art could at once envisage an embodiment wherein the composition recited in the claims of App. ‘085 further comprises a non-hydrogenated hops beta acid selected from lupulone, colupulone, and/or adlupulone, which are taught by Baig as suitable polydentate ligands for solubilizing stannous (Paragraph 0051). Regarding the amount of hops beta acid and polydentate ligand recited in instant claims 15 and 16 : It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the total amount of hops beta acid and citrate, e.g., polydentate ligands, within the range of from about 1 wt.% to about 5 wt.%, which lies within and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed range, because Baig teaches that this amount in combination with a monodentate ligand is useful for providing a high amount of soluble tin, which is then available to provide an oral health benefit (Paragraphs 0044, 0053-0056, and 0061-0064) . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Conclusion No claim is allowed. 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 Application/Control Number: 18/755,808 Page 2 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/755,808 Page 3 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/755,808 Page 4 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/755,808 Page 5 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/755,808 Page 6 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/755,808 Page 7 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/755,808 Page 8 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/755,808 Page 9 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/755,808 Page 10 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/755,808 Page 11 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/755,808 Page 12 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/755,808 Page 13 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/755,808 Page 14 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/755,808 Page 15 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/755,808 Page 16 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/755,808 Page 17 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/755,808 Page 18 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/755,808 Page 19 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/755,808 Page 20 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/755,808 Page 21 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/755,808 Page 22 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/755,808 Page 23 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/755,808 Page 24 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/755,808 Page 25 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/755,808 Page 26 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/755,808 Page 27 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/755,808 Page 28 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/755,808 Page 29 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/755,808 Page 30 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/755,808 Page 31 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/755,808 Page 32 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/755,808 Page 33 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/755,808 Page 34 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/755,808 Page 35 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/755,808 Page 36 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/755,808 Page 37 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/755,808 Page 38 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/755,808 Page 39 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/755,808 Page 40 Art Unit: 1616
Prosecution Insights