Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: fastening system in claims 34 and 47 and rotational connection in claims 62.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The specification states the fastening system may be a form-locking and/or force-locked connection such as a fastening rail and carriage, or magnetic, threaded, plug-in, rotary, adhesive, or hook and loop connection, and/or a snap-in connection. The specification states the rotational connection provides a centering pin 35 and fastening carriage 15 with dovetail groove (first guide surface) and corresponding hole and second guide surface.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 33 recites “the first grip surfaces or the second grip surface are formed as the wing-like projection over the base body or a non-slip surface having a curved, perforated, or ribbed surface”, where claim 31 establishes that at least one of the first grip surfaces are formed as a wing-like projection over the base body. The original disclosure does not support the first grip surfaces being wing-like projections (per claim 31) and a non-slip surface (per claim 33, first grip surfaces may be non-slip surface). Additionally, the original disclosure does not provide support for the first and second grip surfaces being wing-like projections which is one of the possible combinations claimed. Thus, the original disclosure does not provide support for the subject matter of claim 33 in light of the amendments made to independent claim 31.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 31-32, 49 and 68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miles (US 9848967).
Regarding claim 31, Miles discloses a dental cleaning system (Refer to Figures 1-7B), comprising: a holder (13,14 and upper portion of 20 from which 13,14 extend, See annotated Figures below) for dental floss, the holder comprising two mutually spaced brackets (13,14) with a dental floss (12) held therebetween; a base body (lower portion of 20, 43 and 44, See annotated Figures below) defining a recess (recess defined by 19, 43, 44, See annotated Figures below) situated in a longitudinal direction (See annotated Figures below) of the base body for accommodating a fingertip slid into the base body; the brackets extending transversely with respect to the longitudinal direction of the base body (Refer to Figures 1, 2B, 4B, 5B, 7B; first grip surfaces (exterior surfaces 16 of wing-like projections closest to brackets) situated on each of opposite sides of the base body; and wherein the first grip surfaces are capable of being used to control movement of the dental floss in a mouth of a user with aid of fingers adjacent to the base body and wherein at least one of the first grip surfaces are formed as a wing-like projection over the base body, and wherein the first grip surfaces extend longitudinally from the base body (Refer to annotated Figures below).
PNG
media_image1.png
38
520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
38
520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 32, Miles discloses a second grip surface (exterior surface 23 of wing-like projection(s) opposite brackets) provided on a side of the base body opposite to the brackets, the second grip surface capable of being used to control movement of the dental floss with aid of the thumb or index finger (Refer to Figures 2B, 3B, 5A, 6A and 7A).
Regarding claim 49, Miles discloses one or both of the holder and the base body are formed from a consumable raw material (Refer to col. 5 lines 16-41 and 60-66).
Regarding claim 68, Miles discloses each of the first grip surfaces forms a wing-like projection that projects outwardly from the base body (Refer to annotated Figures above).
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 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miles, Shannon (US 2608975) and Boyle et al. (US 20160295986).
Regarding claim 33, Miles discloses the dental cleaning system of claim 31 above, wherein the dental cleaning system can be held on the fingers in a rotationally fixed manner. However, Miles does not disclose the recess being conical and the first and second grip surfaces including a non-slip surface having a curved, perforated or ribbed surface.
Although Miles does not disclose the recess is conical, it is well-known and conventional for such finger-mounting recesses to be conical so as to approximate the tapered configuration of human fingers as demonstrated by Shannon (Refer to Figures 1-8). The device of Shannon incudes a base body with a recess situated in a longitudinal direction for accommodating a fingertip slid into the base body (Refer to Figures 1-8). Shannon teaches the recess is conical in shape (distal/front end is smaller diameter than proximal/back end), as best shown in Figure 7, such that the inner shape of the recess “approximates the bone taper” to the finger “which is narrower at the outer end thereof and wider near the joint” to fixedly secure the base body to the finger (Refer to col. 3 lines 47-62). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dental cleaning system of Miles such that the recess of the base body be conical as taught by Shannon so as to approximate the tapered nature of a human finger and ensure the system is able to be secured to the user’s finger in a fixed manner.
It is well-known and conventional in the art to provide gripping surfaces with non-slip features such as perforations, ribs or curves as demonstrated by Boyle et al. (Refer to Figures 1-4). Boyle et al. disclose a finger mounted device having a base body defining a recess for inserting a finger(s), where the base body has grip surfaces (105,201) extending from the base body and the grip surfaces are curved (Refer to Figures 1B, 1D and 2A) and include ribs (Refer to Figures 2A-2B and 3B). The curved shape and ribs facilitate grip. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of the combination of Miles and Shannon such that the first grip surfaces be curved and/or include ribs as taught by Boyle et al. to improve grip.
Claims 34-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miles and Forsell (US 20040094182).
Regarding claims 34-37, Miles discloses a dental cleaning system of claim 31; however, Miles does not disclose the holder is separate from and connected to the base body with the fastening system, wherein the base body comprise a slot that accommodates the holder, wherein the fastening system comprises a first part configured on the main body and a second complimentary part configured on the holder, the first and second parts connecting in such a manner so as to flex the brackets to create tension in the dental floss held by the holder upon connecting the holder to the base body, wherein the first part and the second part engage in a form-locking configuration to connect the holder to the base.
Miles teaches the holder and base are integral; however, it had been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill. Forsell discloses a similar dental cleaning system (Refer to Figures 1-8) having a base body (13, 31, Refer to Figures 1 and 8) and a holder (15,40,41,42) with brackets having floss therebetween. Forsell teaches the holder is separate from and connected to the base body via a fastening system, where the fastening system including a first part in the form of a groove on the main body (Refer to Figures 3 and 4) and a second complimentary part (16,25-28) on the holder, where the first and second parts connect in a form-locking configuration, in such a manner so as to flex the brackets to create tension in the floss (Refer to Abstract and paragraphs 0003, 0014, 0017 and 0018). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dental cleaning system of Miles such that the holder be separate from and connected to the base body via a fastening system formed by a first part in the main body including a slot and a second complimentary part on the holder which engage to form a locking configuration and flex the brackets to create tension in the floss when the holder and body are connected, as taught by Forsell since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill and Forsell demonstrates the claimed fastening system is well-known and conventional.
Claims 43-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miles and Pruett (US 20120234349).
Regarding claims 43-46, Miles discloses the dental cleaning system of claim 31 above; however, Miles does not disclose a stop extending into an area between the brackets and the dental floss and the base body, wherein the stop limits a depth of introduction of the dental floss into an interdental space in a vertical direction, a distance of the floss from the stop is less than 12 mm and a ratio of the distance of the floss from the stop relative to an effective length of the dental floss is less than or equal to 0.5. Pruett discloses a similar dental cleaning system having a base body and a holder having two brackets and a floss therebetween, where a stop (60,160, Refer to Figures 3-5 and 9) which delimits a depth of introduction of the floss into an interdental space. Pruett explains that the floss is spaced apart from a base portion by a distance of 0.4-0.75 inches and the stop protrudes from the base portion by 0.125 to 0.25 inches (Refer to paragraphs 0032, 0033 and 0040); therefore, the distance (A) between the stop and the floss is between 0.15” (0.4”-0.25”=.015”) and 0.625” (0.75”-0.125”=0.625”), which is 3.81-15.875 mm, where this range represent the extreme values of the disclosed ranges. Pruett also teaches the floss has an effective length (B) of 0.5-1 inch (12.7-25.4 mm). Where the ratio of A/B includes values less than or equal to 0.5 (e.g. 3.81/12.7=0.3, 6.985/25.4=0.275, 12/25.4=0.5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dental cleaning system of Miles to include a stop extending into an area between the brackets and the floss and the base body, where the distance (A) between the dental floss and the stop is less than 12 mm and the ratio of the distance (A) to the effective length (B) of the floss is less than or equal to 0.5, as taught by Pruett in order to ensure the user may safely floss their teeth without the floss penetrating to far into the gums, thereby preventing injury to the gums.
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miles and Landis (US 5881745).
Regarding claim 47, Miles discloses the dental cleaning system of claim 31 above; however, Miles does not disclose a fastening element on the brackets to hold the dental floss between the brackets. Miles depicts the ends of floss as being embedded in the brackets. Landis discloses a similar dental cleaning system including a base body (12; 12,46; 12,60) and a holder with brackets (14a,14b) holding a length of floss (18) therebetween. Landis teaches the floss may be embedded in the ends of the brackets (Refer to Figures 1-2), similar to the configuration of Miles, which makes the device disposable or single-use (Refer to col. 3 line 37 and col. 4 lines 1-7). Landis also teaches various other means for supporting the dental floss are contemplated, where these alternative attachment means provide for the removal and replacement of the dental floss (Refer to col. 4 lines 23-37). For example, the floss may be secured to fastening elements (36a,36b,38a,38b) on the brackets (Refer to Figures 3-4, 9-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Miles to include a fastening element on the brackets to hold the dental floss between the brackets, as taught by Landis in order to permit reusing the same holder and base body with new/replaceable dental floss.
Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miles and Battaglia (US 20190388202).
Regarding claim 48, Miles discloses the dental system of claim 31 above; however, Miles does not disclose one or both of the holder and the base body comprise a visual coding characteristic that conveys to a user size of the dental cleaning system or type of dental floss. Battaglia discloses a dental system where the floss is color coded to indicate the type of floss (Refer to paragraph 0238, where the colors indicate the particular diameter of the floss, therefore the type of floss). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dental cleaning system of Miles such that the floss, which is part of the holder, provide a visual coding characteristic (color) that conveys the type of dental floss, as taught by Battaglia in order to easily identify the type of floss provided.
Claim 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miles and Zwimpfer et al. (US 20160067021).
Regarding claim 49, Miles discloses the dental cleaning system of claim 31 above; however, Miles does not disclose one or both of the holder and the base body are formed of a consumable raw material. Zwimpfer et al. discloses a similar dental flosser, where the flosser is made from renewable raw materials and the material may be edible; some exemplary materials disclose include hydrocolloids, starches, rubber arabicum, polyvinyl alcohol, Polyox, etc. (Refer to paragraphs 0333-0336). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dental cleaning system of Miles, such that holder and base body be formed of a consumable raw material as taught by Zwimpfer et al. 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 design choice.
Claims 62, 63, 65 and 66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miles and Nicolas (US 4706322).
Regarding claims 62, 63, 65 and 66, Miles discloses the dental cleaning system of claim 31 above; however, Miles does not disclose the holder is configured to be fastened to the base body via a rotational connection, wherein the holder is initially configured to be positioned onto the base body in an insertion direction and then rotated relative to the base body in a rotational direction to fasten the holder to the base body, and the base body and the holder have complementary guide surfaces that engage each other when the holder is fastened to the base body and the complementary guide surfaces comprise first upper and lower guide surfaces of the base body and second upper and lower guide surfaces of the holder.
Miles teaches the holder and base are formed integrally, or the system may be made in one or more parts and a secondary step of combining the one or more parts to one another may be performed. It has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill. Nicolas discloses a dental cleaning system where a floss holder (70, Refer to Figure 6) is detachably coupled to a base body (23) via a rotational connection, such that the holder is positioned onto the base body in an insertion direction (73 aligned with 52,53) and then rotated relative to the base body in a rotational direction to fasten the holder to the base (Refer to col. lines 33-57). In this manner, the base body and holder each provide complimentary guide surfaces (surfaces of 50, 51, 52, raised stops of the base body and surfaces of 72,73, portion of 75 adjacent 72 of the holder) which include first upper and lower guide surfaces of the base body and second upper and lower guide surfaces of the holder, where the complimentary guide surfaces engage each other during fastening. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dental cleaning system of Miles such that the holder be detachably coupled to the base body via a rotational connection as claimed above, as it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill and Nicolas demonstrates the claimed rotational connection is well-known and conventional.
Claims 62, 64 and 65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miles and Zambito 3(US 3927686).
Regarding claims 62, 64 and 65, Miles discloses the dental cleaning system of claim 31 above; however, Miles does not disclose the holder is configured to be fastened to the base body via a rotational connection, wherein the base body includes a pin about which the holder is configured to rotate relative to the base body, and the base body and the holder have complementary guide surfaces that engage each other when the holder is fastened to the base body.
Miles teaches the holder and base are formed integrally, or the system may be made in one or more parts and a secondary step of combining the one or more parts to one another may be performed. It has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill. Zambito discloses a dental cleaning system where a floss holder (12) is coupled to a base body (16) via a rotational connection, where the base body includes a pin (20, 24) about which the holder is rotatable and the holder and base body each have complementary guide surfaces (mating surfaces of the holder and base body) which engage one another when fastened together (Refer to Figures 1-7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dental cleaning system of Miles such that the holder be detachably coupled to the base body via a rotational connection as claimed above, as it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill and Zambito demonstrates the claimed rotational connection is well-known and conventional.
Claims 62, 65 and 67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welt et al. (US 8893733).
Regarding claims 62, 65 and 67, Miles discloses the dental cleaning system of claim 31 above; however, Miles does not disclose the holder is configured to be fastened to the base body via a rotational connection, wherein the base body and the holder have complementary guide surfaces that engage each other when the holder is fastened to the base body and at least a portion of the complementary guide surfaces are formed such that the brackets on the holder are caused to spread apart upon connecting the holder to the body to tension the dental floss.
Miles teaches the holder and base are formed integrally, or the system may be made in one or more parts and a secondary step of combining the one or more parts to one another may be performed. It has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill. Welt et al. disclose a dental cleaning system (Refer to Figures 1-72) including a floss holder (8) coupled to a base body (6) via a rotational connection (Refer to Figures 11, 12, 32-34, 36, 37, 66, 67, 69 and 71) where the holder and base body have complimentary guide surfaces (surfaces 15,17,18,19,20,48 of holder and surfaces 70,30,26 and engaging surface of 6 opposite 30 of the base body) which engage one another and cause the brackets to spread apart upon connection to tension the floss (best shown in Figures 21 and 22, connecting the holder to the body cause the slit 16 to close and the brackets to spread apart making the floss taut, Refer to paragraphs 0017, 0091 and 0108). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dental cleaning system of Miles such that the holder be detachably coupled to the base body via a rotational connection as claimed above, as it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill and Welt et al. demonstrate the claimed rotational connection is well-known and conventional.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument: Applicant argues “fastening system” and “rotational connection” do not invoke 112(f).
Response: The limitations “fastening system” and “rotational connection” invoke 112(f) as these limitations do not recite sufficient definite structure. For example, a fastening system could rely on a snap-connection, hook and loop fastener, buttons, frictional engagements, a bayonet coupling, adhesive fastening, a clamp, suction cups, magnets, etc. There are absolutely no details claimed with regard to the structure of the fastening system. The same is true for the rotational connection, as a rotational connection can be achieved via a film hinge, a ball and socket, a bayonet connection, a pin connection, etc. Claim 62 does not recite any definite structure forming the rotational connection.
If Applicant does not wish to invoke 112(f), it is suggested the claims be amended to recite structural details. For example, claim 34 couple be amended to require the specific coupling mechanism of the elected embodiment. Alternatively, claim 34 could be amended to require the holder be detachable coupled to the base body.
Argument: Miles does not provide first grip surfaces which extend longitudinally from the base body as required by the amended claim language. Instead, the grip surfaces extend laterally outward from the base holder.
Response: As highlighted in the annotated Figures provided in the rejection above and included below for convenience, Miles provides protruding wing-like structures that provide gripping surface, where any gripping surface will allow for control of the device during use. The longitudinal direction is shown using a dashed arrow and is defined in the claim as the direction in which the recess is situated for accommodating a fingertip slid into the base body. The Figure clearly shows the wing-like projections, which provide the first grip surfaces per the claim, extend in the longitudinal direction from an end portion of the base body.
PNG
media_image1.png
38
520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
During the interview on January 7, 2026 and in the interview summary mailed on January 9, 2026, the Examiner explained that the claims would require significant amendments to establish various surfaces and ends as well as directions to differentiate the claims from the invention of Miles. Applicant’s base has an upper wall which permits detachable coupling of the holder for dental floss, a lower wall opposite the upper wall and opposing lateral walls disposed between the upper and lower surfaces, where the recess exists between the upper, lower and opposing lateral walls. The base has a proximal end and a distal end. The wing-like projections are provided on the lateral walls and extend longitudinally in alignment with the lateral surfaces. As shown in Figures 11-13, the wing-like projections (9) extend beyond the proximal end of the base body.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TATIANA L NOBREGA whose telephone number is (571)270-7228. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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, Eric Rosen can be reached on 571-270-7855. 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.
/TATIANA L NOBREGA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799