Patent Grant
9498414
This invention relates to means for controlling plaque on teeth, and more particularly to a method involving application of a composition of material to teeth and gums.
In humans it is known that benefits are associated with personal cleansing of teeth, and gums, after eating. For instance, brushing can remove acid containing plaque which promotes tooth decay and breath odor. However, brushing is often not possible and many people substitute chewing gum and the like. While chewing gum and the like does provide benefit, such does not neutralize teeth, and gum tissue degrading acids for a prolonged period. Even gums which contain alkaline materials, (ie. sodium bicarbonate), fail to beneficially increase the pH in an oral cavity for a prolonged period, as saliva flow dilutes and dissolves it and then it is quickly swallowed. Therefore present invention specifically does not teach use of chewing gum. It is noted that a neutral pH of 7.0, or at least a pH above about 6 is desirable where the goal is prevention of formation, or reduction in already formed existing plaque.
In animals, (eg. dogs and cats), the above recited approaches of cleaning teeth, (ie. brushing and gum chewing), are not usually convenient or even possible to practice, and approaches to controlling teeth cleanliness and preventing associated pet breath odor usually take the form of providing treated foods or mechanically abrasive chewing systems. Improved methodology of cleaning animal mouths to promote plaque removal and freshened breath thereof would provide utility.
It is also disclosed that Merial Inc. produces a product called “ORAVET” that comprises a polymer that is applied to pet teeth to prevent formation of plaque.
It is also known that prolonged application of sodium bicarbonate and the like to bacteria causes said bacteria to lyse, thereby rendering them unable to form plaque.
It is also known that various animals have teeth with characteristics that are genetically designed for various functions. For example, horses and cows have teeth suited for grinding whereas carniverous animals such as cats and dogs have teeth suited to ripping and tearing. An approach to inhibiting plaque formation which is applicable to all manner of teeth would therefore provide utility.
Next, please understand that what is new in the present invention is the forming of a composition of material with a pH preferably above about 7.0 that, in use, forms a barrier between teeth and gums, with respect to an oral environment, in a manner that maintains said material in contact with the teeth for a period of at least an hour. Strong acid is not involved at all!
Continuing, this CIP is filed in view of failed prior efforts in prosecution of the Parent application Ser. No. 12/380,972, in which the Examiner identified a Published Application by Lawlor, No. 2003/0103914 Published June 2003. It is believed that the Examiner's argument in that effort, to the effect that the Original Specification of the present Application did not support reciting “A method of reducing plaque on mammalian teeth that:
The foregoing identified negative limitation applies in the present invention (regarding non-use of abrasion). Further, it continued, it was believed, to avoid previously cited Melman 276 and Kamiski 230 Patents thereby avoiding their reinstatement as a basis of rejection.
As regards Lawlor, it is noted that mention of “Beeswax” therein is limited to its use in chewing gum. In that light see Page 1, in the Original Specification of the Parent 972 Application, Lines 19-28 where it clearly states:
Further all Lawlor compositions are very different from the preferred present invention composition of material, which composition of material:
Further, the recitation of the present invention composition of matter
forming a barrier between teeth and an oral environment
is found in the Original Parent 972 Application Specification Abstract and on Page 6 Line 29.
Continuing, nothing in Lawlor remotely suggests that any of the many compositions of matter suggested therein should ever be maintained in contact with teeth for a prolonged period of an hour or more. Lawlor is focused on seconds of time and in no case does it suggest anything beyond minutes. This is probably because, as mentioned, ALL said Lawlor compositions include Citrus and/or Vitis which have a pH far below 6.0, (eg. typically 2.0-4.0), which is acidic—and again, it is well known that any material with a pH of below about 6.5, and especially below 5.5, begins to dissolve tooth enamel, which effect can become significant if contact between a low pH material and said tooth enamel is maintained over a prolonged period of an hour or more. It is therefore absolutely inconceivable that one skilled in the art would read Lawlor and conclude it should be practiced for prolonged periods of time on the order of an hour or more. Again do note, nothing in Lawlor remotely suggests that Citrus and/or Vitis should be removed from its formulations. Adding a buffering agent, it might be argued, is disclosed in Lawlor and that could allow achieving a pH above 7.0. However, Lawlor is focused on destruction of bacteria, (Anti Bacterial seed), and buffering Citrus and/or Vitis acid inhibits that capability and thus the very thing that is new in Lawlor—that is, the bacteria killing effect of Citrus and/or Vitis acids, would be nullified. Even though buffering agents can in general be applied to achieve a pH in a range of about 3 up to 10, (which well known fact Lawlor does recite), any buffering Lawlor would suggest, in a practical sense, would not be used to achieve a pH above 7.0 as that would negate achieving the result desired in the Lawlor reference, said effect being that Citrus and/or Vitis kill bacteria which Lawlor says is the previously unreported basis of the invention disclosed therein. Specifically, in Paragraph (0013) in Lawlor it states that its anti-plaque action is based on its Citrus and/or Vitis (acid) extracts disrupting bacteria membranes, thereby making bacteria more susceptible to anti-plaque agents. This is not at all remotely the basis upon which the present invention works as it does not utilize acid in it's composition! It seeks to neutralize all acids!
In this light note that the present invention, again does not contain, or even suggest that Citrus and/or Vitis, or any other acid be present. Again, the present invention seeks to neutralize acid so any said neutralized acid will not have contact with teeth over the prolonged period called for in the present invention.
And note that on Page 1 of the Original 972 Specification, beginning in Line 25 it recites:
Further it is stated in the Original Parent 972 Specification that Sodium and/or Potassium Bicarbonate or the like are a part of the Composition of Matter—and such provides a basic pH of above 7.0. In that light, and in view of the fact that no acidic components were recited as required in the present invention Composition of Matter, it is believed that it should be sufficient to recite supported language to the effect that said inhibitor of plaque causes said composition of matter to present with a pH preferably above 6.0 to 7.0″, and thus distinguish over Lawlor. And again, this distinguishes over Lawlor as nothing in Lawlor suggests that the Citrus and/or Vitis should be removed from it's composition, or on a practical basis that buffering agents should be included in the Lawlor compositions to increase their pH above 6.0-7.0. One skilled the art having Lawlor before him or her would not be guided thereby to delete the Critic and/or Vitis acids or drastically increase pH in any of its many compositions, as that would defeat the purpose of the Lawlor Published Application purposes of provided low pH compositions that kill bacteria.
Attention is also directed to the FIGS. 1 and 2, and to Page 16 in the Original Parent 972 Specification in which it is stated that
The word “reduced”, as it refers to plaque refers to the point that:
And for emphasis, again, nothing in Lawlor suggests removing Citrus and/or Vitis from any of its many compositions and nothing in Lawlor would lead one skilled in the art to arrive at a present invention composition which provides a composition with a pH of at least 6.0 and preferably above 7.0 and that adheres to teeth in a manner so as to repeatedly maintain said composition in contact with teeth for at least an hour or more. One skilled in the art would not be guided to remove the Citrus and/or Vitis acid from the Lawlor composition, hence, would not arrive at a present invention composition with having a pH above 7.0. Lawlor's teachings might lead one skilled in the art to buffer a Lawlor composition or otherwise keep acid levels low, but it is noted that negates the affects which are new and basic to the Lawlor invention! Lawlor compositions work by adversely affecting bacteria cell walls and making them more susceptible to anti-plaque agents. If a Lawlor composition were buffered to a pH of 7.0 or above it is believed a Citrate salt would form and the Lawlor effect would be completely lost.
It is also noted that while the present invention composition of matter does not require an acid component as does Lawlor, the original Specification does support a pH of 6.0. This might seem to be a contradiction, however, do realize that components, when present, can be weakly acidic, as compared to the strongly acidic Citrus and/or Vitis components in Lawlor. That is the reason a below 7.0 pH is recited.
And finally—to really drive home that fact that Lawlor could not possibly obviate the present invention—do note that the word “barrier” does not appear in Lawlor's Application anywhere. And, forming a barrier between teeth and gums, and an oral environment, which barrier keeps a material which does not require a strongly acidic pH material component, in contact with teeth over prolonged periods is a critical, and an absolutely distinguishing element of the present invention, over Lawlor!
Next, as it was also cited in prosecution of the Parent 972 Application, it is further believed that Melman 276 is not a particularly relevant reference compared to the present invention, as Melman 276 discloses the presence of acetic or citric acid in the formulation of its disclosed dental compositions and does not suggest excluding said components. It is noted that the present invention does not include acetic or citric acid in its composition of matter, and it is strongly emphasized that since the present invention requires that its composition of material remain in contact with mammalian teeth for a prolonged period, such as acetic or citric acid would not be at all desirable. This is because it would, over time, destroy the teeth because enamel dissolves at a PH of 5.5, which an acid would cause. In this light it is emphasized that nothing in Melman 247 would lead one skilled in the art to eliminate the acetic or citric acid and replace it with sodium or potassium bicarbonate. Those teachings are missing in Melman 247. It is also noted that Melman suggests using Hexametaphosphate in Paragraph (0016), (much like Melman 276 should be required to do to obviate present invention elements, but doesn't). It is noted that Hexametaphosphate chemical binds to Calcium and prevents natural recalcification of teeth. One skilled in the art would not know to avoid this based on Melman 276. The Examiner also, in effect, argued that the present invention limitation that the present invention composition of matter remain in place for a period of time, in a substantially undiluted form, which is sufficient to reduce plaque on the teeth thereof, is obviated by the consideration that some of the Melman paste would adhere to teeth. But again, Melman 276 provides for the presence of acetic or citric acid in the formulation of its disclosed dental compositions and does not suggest excluding said components. That being the case, one skilled in the art would not leave said acid containing composition in place for hours rather than minutes regardless of a technical interpretation of language.
Continuing, as the Claims herein are substantially Amended over the original Claims in the Parent 972 Application, it is believed the Examiner's specific 103 arguments in prosecution of Parent Applications are no longer applicable. However, under the Section 103 position of the Examiner in the prior Action, it is noted that the Examiner did identified various elements of the present invention which are variously distributed in many different references, and then argued that because the elements, in forms somehow similar to elements in the present invention exist, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art to be able to find the somehow similar elements, while not electing other unnecessary elements in said identified prior art, then modify the selected elements and appropriately combine them to arrive at the present invention. This approach can be applied to any invention. Applicant, however, finds no instructions in any single reference that would guide one skilled in the art acting as a technician rather than an inventor to arrive at the present invention. Even in view of the KSR case, Graham v. John Deere is still good law, and under it there must be teachings in one reference that would guide one skilled in the art to arrive at the new invention, which, again, Applicant does not find in any cited single reference.
As regards Kaminiski 851, it is noted that the use of sodium bicarbonate therein is as an abrasive during brushing. This reference does not lead one skilled in the art to attempt to maintain sodium bicarbonate in contact with teeth and gums for a period of time, in a substantially undiluted form, which is sufficient to reduce formation of, and remove plaque on teeth and gums. Further, the present invention calls for a larger presence of sodium or potassium bicarbonate in a material provided to cause adherence to teeth in the present invention, (eg. beeswax), than would be suggested to one skilled in the art by Kaminiski 851. It must be appreciated that sodium bicarbonate has many characteristics and properties, but the present invention does not require use of it as an abrasive.
As regards the Publication Application by Zielinski 230, it is noted that there is no mention of sodium bicarbonate therein, making it of dubious value as a valid reference. This reference teaches a food product that is meant to detoxify the liver of dogs. Again, this reference seems to be a bit far afield from the use of the present invention and was apparently used by the Examiner only to show that bad breath in dogs can be treated. However, its approach to doing so has nothing to do with the present invention use of sodium or potassium bicarbonate in a material composition that adheres to teeth and gums. Importantly, note, Zielinski 230 teaches a systemic approach, and not a topical approach as does the present invention.
Ward 681 discloses a Chew Toy which can dispense a dentifrice when chewed by a dog, but it does not identify other dispensing approaches.
As regards Montgomery 584, it is focused on teeth whitening. While whiter teeth is a side effect of the present invention, that is not the focus thereof. The present invention has as a primary focus the reducing plaque on mammalian teeth.
The use of Thorpe 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) in previous prosecution of Parent Applications is felt to now be moot in view of the Amendments to Claims presented herein.
In the prior prosecution of the Parent 972 Application, the Examiner's attention was directed to Page 13, Lines 19-25, in the Parent 972 Application, where it states:
It is also noted that Published Application No. 2004/0101493 by Scott et al. describes chewable solid unit dosage forms and methods for delivery of active agents into occlusal surfaces of teeth. This Published Application also describes use of surfactants which decrease adherence of a composition to teeth and gums. The present invention does not use surfactants.
It is to be noted that the Present Invention involves forming a Barrier between teeth and oral cavity for hours, (in the plural), rather than minutes. The Claims in this CIP are now focused by addition of:
For support of the approach herein the Examiner is referred to in In re Woodruff, 919F.2nd 1575, 16 USPQ2d (Fed Cir. 1990), which provides a basis for avoiding prior art by showing said prior art teaches away from a Present Invention. Additionally, the Inventor has disclosed to me that she found it surprising to find significant concentrations of Sodium Bicarbonate present in the mouth of a subject 24 hours after application of the Present Invention composition to teeth and gums thereof. This was discovered when the Inventor had applied composition to her teeth and gums one day, and a day later noticed a “foaming” when brushing her teeth with water. Said “foaming” could only be explained by the remaining presence of composition. The inventor believes the composition had been stored in gum tissue as well as remained on teeth. It is noted that Surprising Results also are cited in re Woodruff as a method to avoid prior art!
It is to be appreciated that in this CIP chewing gum is specifically stated as not being required, but also citations that involve chewing gum, can not meet the “barrier” remaining in place criteria recited in the Pending Claims, as “chewing” gum causes removal of any barrier forming material via abrasion, (eg. by a “wiping” effect, (eg. during mastication)). Also the phrases, “does not involve chewing gum” and “does not require an acid component” are now supported in this CIP Specification.
It is also directly noted that in prior prosecution efforts, the Examiner identified an overlap between “at least two minutes” in Prior Art, and “hours rather than minutes” in the present Application Claims, thereby argues that such does not provide Novelty. Applicant believes that even in view of the overlap identified, the prior art does not suggest a Barrier that remains in place for “hours rather than minutes”. The prior art does not suggest a time period of over about an hour. See Scott 493 Paragraph 0065 for instance where no time over “about an hour” is suggested. There are no teachings that a Barrier should remain in place between teeth and an oral environment for hours rather than minutes. Scott 493 even refers to the barrier referred to therein as temporary. See Paragraph 0035 therein.
The Examiner is also requested to consider that Scott et al. 493 recites the use of “Surfactant” in its composition of matter. See Scott et al. Claim 1. The presence of a Surfactant acts to reduce surface tension so there is no expectation of a Barrier formed thereby on teeth remaining in place for hours.
The Examiner is respectfully requested to consider said combination of supported Claim Requirements in this CIP at this time. In that light it is acknowledged that while cited references Thombre US2003/0175326 does not make any mention of a “barrier”, both Scott et al. US2004/0101493 and Gergely et al. US2003/0206948 do use the word “barrier”, but not at all in the context of the Present Application.
It is also noted that Scott (Published Application 2004/0101493) specifies its components “By Weight”, whereas the Present Claims state “By Volume”. And, Gangly (Published Application 2003/0206948) involves use of “Chewing Tablets”.
In summary, it is believed that taken as a whole, the Claims as in this CIP are not remotely obviated by any cited single primary reference, and that no cited single primary reference provides one skilled in the art instructions as how to identify elements therein while rejecting other elements therein, and guides one skilled in the art to seek out other references and select specific elements therein, while rejecting other elements therein, and then modify the selected elements and combine them as now Claimed. Even in view of KSR, simply because elements in an invention are known in arguably somehow similar forms and distributed in a plurality of prior art references, does not render a specific combination thereof, and series of steps in a method, obvious.
A need remains for a system and method which would enable application of a material to teeth and gums, which material remains in contact with, and adheres to, said teeth and gums for a period long enough to neutralize acids in dental plaque biofilm, inhibit plaque from adhering to teeth and gums, encourage removal of dental plaque, and form a barrier between the teeth and gums and the oral environment, which barrier preferably remains in place for days if not intentionally removed.
As presented in the Parent application Ser. No. 12/380,972, the present invention is a method of controlling plaque on teeth which comprises the basic steps of providing a container that contains a composition of matter which:
Said system can further serve to neutralize acids and freshen breath.
Said system further comprises means for dispensing said composition of matter for application onto teeth, wherein said means for dispensing said matter being is selected from the group consisting of:
Said system dispensing said composition of matter can further comprise a means for self-application, such as providing the composition of matter in a chewable system.
Said method further involves causing said system to mediate application of said composition of matter to teeth such that it remains in place for a period of time, in a substantially undiluted form, sufficient to remove plaque.
Said method can be practiced on a human, or on any animal, but typical practice on animals will involve application to cat or dog teeth.
Said method can provide that the composition of matter is selected to comprise plaque inhibiting matter, (eg. beeswax and sodium or potassium bicarbonate), and the composition of matter can further comprise at least one selection from the group consisting of oils, fragrances, preservatives, flavoring, colorings, medicinals and decay inhibiting components. (It is noted also that Beeswax provides negative ions when warmed, and presence in a typical mammalian's mouth will cause the plaque inhibiting effect. Most other waxes are not known to do so).
The composition of matter, which:
a) providing an edible wax and heating it until it becomes a liquid;
b) entering a component which serves to inhibit plaque from forming on teeth and causing it to become substantially uniformly distributed therewithin;
c) cooling the result.
Said method can further involve adding at least one selection from the group consisting of one or more oils, fragrances, flavors, preservatives, colorings and medicinals before cooling in step c.
Said method can also include providing at least one component which absorbs, (eg. diminishes), toxins.
Said composition of matter can comprise beeswax in functional combination with a plaque inhibiting ingredient, and can be comprise, by volume, approximately:
The plaque inhibiting matter can be, but is not limited to, sodium or potassium bicarbonate, and white beeswax is a preferred as a non-limiting edible adherent material. A decay inhibiting composition of matter can be fluoride or a functionally similar material.
The step of providing an edible adherent matter component can involve providing at least one selection from the group consisting of:
Flavorings which can be applied in practice of the methodology can be selected from the group consisting of:
The step of providing a plaque inhibiting ingredient can involve providing at least one selection from the group consisting of:
Said method can also involve the step of applying said composition of matter to said teeth via:
Said system dispensing said composition of matter can further comprise a means for mammal self-application, such as providing the matter in a chewable system.
Further, while actually counter to the focus of present invention, said method can further comprise, after some relatively long time period, (eg. hours as opposed to minutes), after application of said composition of matter to teeth and/or gums, the step of removing said composition of matter applied to said teeth and/or gums by an approach that results in removal of plaque removed from teeth along therewith. This can be accomplished by, for instance brushing or wiping. While prior art describes brushing with sodium bicarbonate, which acts as an abrasive agent, said prior art does not describe intentionally maintaining the sodium bicarbonate in contact with teeth and gums, in a substantially undiluted form, for hours and longer, before optional removal.
Also, it is noted that the methodology can further include providing medication in said composition of matter for entry to a mammal's system via oral mucosa.
The present invention, being very portable, can be conveniently utilized whenever desired.
Additional recitation in this Application provides that present Application presents claims to a method of reducing plaque on mammalian teeth in an oral environment that does not involve require, for instance, chewing gum or require mechanical abrasion or surfactant or polybutene, but rather functions by maintaining contact of a composition of matter with teeth such that a barrier is formed thereby between said teeth and said oral environment for a period of at least an hour, comprising the steps of:
a) providing a system comprising a container for a composition of matter, which composition of matter:
Said method proceeds with:
b) fabricating a composition of matter meeting the requirements listed in step a) and placing said composition of matter into said container;
c) dispensing some of said composition of matter having the properties listed in step a) from said container therefore, and causing it to be applied to the teeth of a mammal such that a majority thereof adheres to and remains in place on said mammalian teeth for a period of time of at least one hour in an undiluted form;
such that adherence of new plaque is inhibited, and/or existing plaque is reduced and/or absorbed.
Said method is distinguished by the forming of, and presence of, said plaque preventing and/or reducing barrier between said teeth and said oral environment for hours rather than minutes, and the absence of any requirement for the use of chewing gum or mechanical abrasion or surfactant or polybutene.
Said method can further comprise a step d, said step d being selected from the group consisting of:
d) repeating step c) at last once a day for at least one week;
d) repeating step c) for at least two weeks;
d) repeating step c) at least twice a day;
d) involves repeating step c) at least twice a day for at least two weeks.
d) involves repeating step c) at least once a day for more than two weeks.
Said method can involve the composition of matter further comprising at least one selection from the group consisting of oils, medicinals, fragrances, flavoring, preservatives and colorings.
Said method can involve that the composition of material matter that:
a) providing an edible adherent matter component and heating it until it becomes a liquid;
b) entering a matter component which serves to inhibit plaque from forming on teeth and causing it to become uniformly distributed therewithin;
c) cooling the result.
Said composition fabrication. method can which further involve adding at least one selection from the group consisting of one or more oils, medicinals, fragrances, preservatives and colorings before cooling in step.
Said method can provide that said composition of matter comprises, by total volume of the composition, approximately:
Said method can involve that said oil contains at least one medicinal.
Said fabrication method can involve, in the step of fabricating a composition of matter, providing beeswax in functional combination with at least one component that absorbs and/or diminishes toxins.
Said method can involve step b at least one adherent selected from the group consisting of:
Said method can involve the oil comprising at least one selection from the group consisting of:
Said method can involve a flavoring also being provided as part of the oil which comprises at least one selection from the group consisting of:
Said method can involve the plaque inhibitor that inhibits plague from adhering to teeth and reduces existing plaque when left in place over an hour, consists of at least one selection from the group consisting of:
Said method can involve the step of dispensing said composition of matter to said teeth involves a selection from the group consisting of:
Said method can further comprise the step of removing said composition of matter applied to said teeth, by an approach that results in removal of plaque dislodged from teeth along therewith for aesthetic purposes.
Said method can further provide that the step of dispensing said composition of matter to said teeth involves a selection from the group consisting of:
Said method can involve that the mammalian teeth are a selection from the group consisting of:
Said method can involve that said composition of matter remains in contact with said teeth for a period sufficiently long to freshen breath, neutralize acids in dental plaque biofilm, inhibit plaque from adhering to teeth, encourage removal of dental plaque, and form a barrier between the teeth and gums, and the oral environment, and even absorb into gums.
Said method can involve said composition of matter further comprises medication.
Said method of composition fabrication can involve that said method further comprises, prior to step c, the addition of medicine thereto.
Said method can involve the composition of matter further comprises at least one selection from the group consisting of:
Said method can involve the composition of matter is formulated to include at least one selection from the group consisting of:
Another recitation of a present invention method of reducing plaque on mammalian teeth in an oral environment that does not involve require, for instance, chewing gum or require mechanical abrasion or surfactant or polybutene, but rather functions by maintaining contact of a composition of matter with teeth such that a barrier is formed thereby between said teeth and said oral environment for a period of at least an hour, provides that it comprises the steps of:
a) providing a composition of matter comprising, by total volume, approximately:
Said method continues with:
b) causing said composition of matter to be applied to mammalian teeth such that a majority thereof remains in place in an undiluted form for a period of time of at least an hour, with the result being that new plaque is inhibited from forming on said teeth, and at least some existing plaque is caused to be absorbed thereinto;
c) repeating step b) at last once a day for at least one week;
such that production of new plaque is inhibited, and/or existing plaque is reduced and/or absorbed.
Said method is distinguished by the forming of, and presence of said plaque preventing and/or reducing barrier between said teeth and said oral environment for hours rather than minutes, and the absence of any requirement for the use of chewing gum or mechanical abrasion or surfactant.
Said method can involve the composition of matter being caused to remain in contact with said teeth for a period of many hours, and a significant amount of existing plaque accumulation on teeth is caused to be reduced and/or absorbed thereinto.
Yet another recitation of a present invention method of reducing plaque on mammalian teeth in an oral environment that functions by maintaining contact of a composition of matter with teeth such that a barrier is formed thereby between said teeth and said oral environment for a period of at least an hour, provides that it comprises the steps of:
a) providing a composition of matter, which composition of matter that:
Said method continues with:
b) applying said composition of matter having the properties listed in step a) to the teeth of a mammal such that a majority thereof adheres to and remains in place on said mammalian teeth as a barrier between said teeth and oral environment for a period of time of at least one hour in an undiluted form;
such that adherence of new plaque is inhibited, and existing plaque is reduced.
Said method is distinguished by the forming of, and presence of said plaque preventing and/or reducing barrier between said teeth and said oral environment for hours rather than minutes, and the absence of any requirement for, for instance, the use of chewing gum or mechanical abrasion or surfactant or polybutene.
Any present invention method can provide that the pH of the composition is at least 7.0.
Any present invention method can provide that not only is there no requirement for the use of chewing gum or mechanical abrasion or surfactant or polybutene, there is no use thereof made.
Any present invention method can involve at least some gum tissue associated with said teeth of said mammal is included within the barrier formed between said teeth and said oral environment. It is noted that a significant amount of gum tissue can actually be coated with present invention composition with beneficial results being provided thereby.
As the Parent 972 Application was held to be deficient in that it did not provide support for negative limitations in the claims, it is specifically stated at this point herein that the preferred embodiment of the present invention does not involve use of garlic, charcoal, zinc, zinc oxide, sodium percarbonate, brushes, abrasive agents for their abrasive properties, ice, hemoglobin, oxygen, glycerin, acetic acid, citrus acid, vitis acid, (no strong acid is involved in any formulation of the present invention), peanut oil, polybutene, chewing gum, surfactants, emulsifiers, triclosan, removable backing strips, toothpastes, chewable toys, polymers, hexametaphosphate, etc. These, and other extraneous materials or compositions of matter and practices are identified in various cited prior art. The present invention functions by providing a barrier between teeth and an oral environment for a period of at least an hour. Any material or compositions of matter or practice not required to cause said “barrier” effect and includes a plaque inhibiting and/or reducing or other agent which reduces adherence to teeth is not required by the present invention. Such exclusions as just exemplified are simply not present in the preferred embodiment of the present invention. Neither present in the present invention method is a requirement for removal of the barrier forming agent in the present invention, although optional removal can be practiced, at some time, for aesthetic purposes.
In the foregoing, wherein a barrier is stated to be formed, it is to be understood that said barrier can also involve at least some gum tissue associated with teeth of said mammal be included within the barrier formed between the teeth and said oral environment. It is noted that benefit results where as much gum tissue as it is possible to contain, is contained within said barrier.
The invention will be better understood by reference to Detailed Description Section of this Specification, in combination with the Drawings.
Turning now to
Application to the dog's teeth was accomplished by placing present invention composition on the applier's finger and transfer to the dog's teeth there via. Note that
Having hereby disclosed the subject matter of the present invention, it should be obvious that many modifications, substitutions, and variations of the present invention are possible in view of the teachings. It is therefore to be understood that the invention may be practiced other than as specifically described, and should be limited in its breadth and scope only by the Claims.
This Application is a CIP of Co-Pending application Ser. No. 12/380,972, Filed Mar. 6, 2009, which was a CIP of Ser. No. 11/505,167 Filed Aug. 16, 2006, and there via Claims Benefit of Provisional Application No. 60/787,145 Filed Mar. 30, 2006.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4148872 | Wagenknecht et al. | Apr 1979 | A |
| 4150112 | Wagenknecht et al. | Apr 1979 | A |
| 4156715 | Wagenknecht et al. | May 1979 | A |
| 4157385 | Wagenknecht et al. | Jun 1979 | A |
| 4159315 | Wagenknecht et al. | Jun 1979 | A |
| 4161517 | Wagenknecht et al. | Jul 1979 | A |
| 4225579 | Kleinberg | Sep 1980 | A |
| 4229485 | Brown et al. | Oct 1980 | A |
| H83 | Poletto et al. | Jul 1986 | H |
| 5249570 | Cox | Oct 1993 | A |
| 5405836 | Richar et al. | Apr 1995 | A |
| 5455024 | Winston et al. | Oct 1995 | A |
| 5693334 | Miskewitz | Dec 1997 | A |
| 5944516 | Deshaies | Aug 1999 | A |
| 5993786 | Chow et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
| 6014950 | Rogers | Jan 2000 | A |
| 6050224 | Owens | Apr 2000 | A |
| 6238648 | Leusch | May 2001 | B1 |
| 6309676 | Lewandowski | Oct 2001 | B1 |
| 6405681 | Ward | Jun 2002 | B1 |
| 6509007 | Rajaiah et al. | Jan 2003 | B2 |
| 6610276 | Melman | Aug 2003 | B2 |
| 6649147 | Ye et al. | Nov 2003 | B1 |
| 6669928 | Gurol | Dec 2003 | B1 |
| 6685971 | Xu | Feb 2004 | B2 |
| 6827041 | Hague et al. | Dec 2004 | B2 |
| 6886497 | Hague | May 2005 | B1 |
| 6905673 | Rajaiah et al. | Jun 2005 | B2 |
| 6997708 | Allred et al. | Feb 2006 | B2 |
| 7013838 | Hague | Mar 2006 | B2 |
| 7022314 | Barabolak et al. | Apr 2006 | B2 |
| 20030113276 | Rajaiah et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
| 20030124230 | Zielinski | Jul 2003 | A1 |
| 20030175326 | Thombre | Sep 2003 | A1 |
| 20030206948 | Gergely et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
| 20040057910 | Lee et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
| 20040101493 | Scott et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
| 20040101494 | Scott et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
| 20040118360 | Hague et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
| 20040120900 | Arsenault | Jun 2004 | A1 |
| 20040244720 | Jia | Dec 2004 | A1 |
| 20050008584 | Montgomery | Jan 2005 | A1 |
| 20050071927 | Hague et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
| 20050106111 | Castor | May 2005 | A1 |
| 20050152851 | Kaminski | Jul 2005 | A1 |
| 20050260544 | Jones et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
| 20060088482 | Wulknitz et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060239938 | Perechocky | Oct 2006 | A1 |
| 20060286044 | Robinson et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
| Entry |
|---|
| Bisla, Sharan. Dental Caries. Jul. 24, 2003. <http://sciweb.hfcc.net/biology/jacobs/micro/caries/caries.htm>. |
| Merial, Oravet “Plaque Prevention is Key . . . ”. |
| Waters, David. Tooth Wear. Waters Orthodontics. Retrieved on May 19, 2014. pp. 1-2. |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 60787145 | Mar 2006 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parent | 12380972 | Mar 2009 | US |
| Child | 14121414 | US | |
| Parent | 11505167 | Aug 2006 | US |
| Child | 12380972 | US |
