DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
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.
The term “faster” in claim 1 and 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “faster” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the central axis defines a distal direction of dispensing flow and a proximal direction opposite the dispensing flow”. Distal and proximal are not directions but opposing positions, as such a single position or point cannot define a direction. For the purpose of examination, the claim language will be treated as “wherein the central axis defines a direction of dispensing flow from the distal location to the location proximal to the orifice.”
Claims 2-16 depend from the claims above and therefore inherit the deficiencies thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 9-10, 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dornsbusch et al (US 4749108) in view of Vemishetti et al (US 20170128329 A).
Claim 1, Dornsbusch discloses dispensing the oral care composition (Col 2, lines 32-34) through a nozzle (60,90) to form a dispensed composition, wherein the nozzle comprises: an orifice (inside 91; FIG 1A) having a central axis and an orifice diameter, wherein the central axis defines a distal direction of dispensing flow and a proximal direction opposite the dispensing flow (see 112 above); and fins (104) partially occluding the orifice, wherein each of the fins has an upper surface (facing inward) and a lower surface (facing outward), wherein the dispensed composition has a faster ion release (faster release of the composition is inherent to the structure of the nozzle) during brushing compared to a control dispensed composition made by dispensing the oral care composition through a control nozzle comprising an unobstructed, circular control orifice having the orifice diameter.
But is silent on dental composition having a viscosity of 150000 centipoise to 850000 centipoise.
Vemishetti teaches dental composition having a viscosity of 150000 centipoise to 850000 centipoise ([0029]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Dornsbusch with oral care composition as taught by Vemishetti in order to provide o provide the dentifrice with the required rheological properties.
Claim 2, Dornsbusch discloses wherein a center of the orifice is occluded (102; FIG 1A).
Claim 3, Dornsbusch discloses wherein the nozzle further comprises a static central hub (102), wherein the static fins (104) are coupled to the static central hub and wherein the central hub has a conical shape with (FIG 1) a lower point to direct flow of the oral care composition and encourage side extrusion (bottom encourages flow around and through the side of the fins).
Claim 6, Dornsbusch discloses wherein each of the static fins has an upper surface and a lower surface of each of the static fins (104) coaxial with the central axis is proximal to the orifice (inside 91).
Claim 9, Dornsbusch discloses wherein the nozzle further comprises a sidewall (91) defining the orifice (inside 91), wherein the sidewall comprises an inner wall, a rim (upper surface of 91), and an outer wall.
Claim 10, Dornsbusch discloses wherein each of the fins (104) further comprise an outer end that extends to the outer wall of the sidewall.
Claims 12-16, Dornsbusch discloses the claimed invention except for fluoride in the composition. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a dental care composition with fluoride as it is well known for its oral hygiene benefits, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering choice. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07).
Claim 17, Dornsbusch discloses dispensing an oral care composition (Col 2, lines 32-34) through a nozzle (60, 90) to form a dispensed composition, wherein the nozzle comprises: an orifice (inside 91; FIG 1A) having a central axis and an orifice diameter; and static fins (104) partially occluding the orifice; adding the dispensed composition to a liquid; and forming a slurry of the dispensed composition and the liquid, wherein the dispensed composition has a faster ion release (faster release of the composition is inherent to the structure of the nozzle) in the slurry compared to a control dispensed composition made by dispensing the oral care composition through a control nozzle comprising an unobstructed, circular control orifice having the orifice diameter.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7-9, 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tamaki (US 4580701).
Claim 1 Tamaki discloses dispensing an oral care composition (Col 3, lines 33-37) through a nozzle (12) to form a dispensed composition, wherein the nozzle comprises: an orifice (17) having a central axis and an orifice diameter, wherein the central axis defines a distal direction of dispensing flow and a proximal direction opposite the dispensing flow (see 112 above); and static fins (15) partially occluding the orifice (FIG 8); and brushing teeth with the dispensed composition to form a slurry, wherein the dispensed composition has a faster ion release (faster release of the composition is inherent to the structure of the nozzle) during brushing compared to a control dispensed composition made by dispensing the oral care composition through a control nozzle comprising an unobstructed, circular control orifice having the orifice diameter.
But is silent on dental composition having a viscosity of 150000 centipoise to 850000 centipoise.
Vemishetti teaches dental composition having a viscosity of 150000 centipoise to 850000 centipoise ([0029]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Dornsbusch with oral care composition as taught by Vemishetti in order to provide o provide the dentifrice with the required rheological properties.
Claim 2, Tamaki discloses wherein a center of the orifice is occluded (FIG 2b).
Claim 4, Tamaki discloses wherein the fins (15) are not in contact with a central hub.
Claim 5, Tamaki discloses wherein each of the fins (15) has an upper surface and a lower surface, and the upper surface of each of the fins is distal of the orifice (17).
Claim 7, Tamaki discloses wherein the lower surface of each of the fins (15) is distal of the orifice (17).
Claim 8, Tamaki discloses wherein the nozzle further comprises an on-axis extrusion area (central axis of the orifice) and an off-axis extrusion area (FIG 5b area adjacent to 12 between 15).
Claim 9, Tamaki discloses wherein the nozzle further comprises a sidewall (18) defining the orifice, wherein the sidewall comprises an inner wall, a rim (secures end of 21), and an outer wall.
Claim 11, Tamaki discloses wherein the lower surface of each of the fins (15) extends from the inner surface of the sidewall.
Claims 12-16, Tamaki discloses the claimed invention except for fluoride in the composition. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a dental composition that includes fluoride as it is well known for its oral hygiene benefits, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering choice. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07).
Claim 17, Tamaki discloses dispensing an oral care composition (Col 3, lines 33-37) through a nozzle (12) to form a dispensed composition, wherein the nozzle comprises: an orifice (17) having a central axis and an orifice diameter, wherein the central axis defines a distal direction of dispensing flow and a proximal direction opposite the dispensing flow; and static fins (15) partially occluding the orifice (FIG 8); adding the dispensed composition to a liquid; and forming a slurry of the dispensed composition and the liquid, wherein the dispensed composition has a faster ion release (faster release of the composition is inherent to the structure of the nozzle) in the slurry compared to a control dispensed composition made by dispensing the oral care composition through a control nozzle comprising an unobstructed, circular control orifice having the orifice diameter.
But is silent on dental composition having a viscosity of 150000 centipoise to 850000 centipoise.
Vemishetti teaches dental composition having a viscosity of 150000 centipoise to 850000 centipoise ([0029]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Dornsbusch with oral care composition as taught by Vemishetti in order to provide o provide the dentifrice with the required rheological properties.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant’s argument regarding the amended claims direct to these new grounds of rejection are addressed in the rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY W CARROLL whose telephone number is (571)272-4988. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Paul Durand can be reached at (571) 272-4459. 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.
JEREMY W. CARROLL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3754
/Jeremy Carroll/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights