DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/21/25 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 10/26/20, 7/2/21, 10/5/22 was/were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) has/have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 6/2/21. These drawings are objected to.
Figure 1 is objected to for the extraneous matter of “(TOP END SIDE)” and “(BASE END SIDE)” (see annotations).
Figure 1 is objected to because “40a” and “40” and “40b” and “40” are used to point to the same things, which is improper. Applicant can erase “40” and put a bracket similar to what is present for “10” to label “40” to overcome this.
PNG
media_image1.png
338
608
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are 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 8: this claim was amended to recite “a plurality of top end side bristles…in five radial directions different from each other” and “a plurality of base end side bristles…in five radial directions different from each other”; however, this language does not appear in applicant’s disclosure and the figures do not clearly illustrate this either. At best, applicant’s figures illustrate bristles extending in three different directions. So this limitation is new matter; this is a new matter rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 8 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 8: recites “a base portion including a shaft portion that extends from a base end side to a top end side”; however, this appears to directly conflict with applicant’s disclosure. According to applicant’s figures, the top end side is the distal most end of the entire device and the base end side is the proximal most end of the entire device (see Fig 1). The shaft portion (20) does not extend from the base end side to the top end side because the grip portion (30) extends from the shaft portion to the base end side. So this limitation is confusing because is applicant trying to claim that the grip and stem are the same thing? For examination purposes, the claim will be treated as reciting “a base portion including a shaft portion that extends from a top end side towards a top end side”. This claim also recites “a plurality of top end side bristles…in five radial directions different from each other” and “a plurality of base end side bristles…in five radial directions different from each other”; however, it is unclear if applicant is attempting to claim five radial directions or 10 radial directions because the “plurality of base end side bristles” do not refer back to “the five radial directions” set forth in the preceding clause. For examination purposes, the claim will be treated as reciting “the five radial directions” in the third clause. Clarification or correction is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
102(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.
103: 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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zwimpfer (US 20200260853).
Claim 8: Zwimpfer discloses an interdental cleaning tool (1) comprising: a base portion (10+12+13) including a shaft portion (13, see Figs 5 & 10-11) and extends from a base end side (bottom of 10) to a top end side (top of 13) and is insertable in interdental spaces [0018 & 0042]. A top end side cleaning portion (see annotations) including a top end side body covering [0013] a predetermined length (since this can be any arbitrary length) from a top end of the shaft portion toward the base end side and a plurality of top end side bristles (35+36) protruding outward from an outer circumferential surface of the top end side body in five radial directions different from each other (see annotations). A base end side cleaning portion including a base end side body (see annotations) covering a portion of the shaft portion further towards the base end side than the top end side body (see annotations), and a plurality of base end side bristles (35+36) protruding outward from an outer circumferential surface of the top end side body in the five radial direction (see annotations). The shaft portion is thicker in a section where the base end side bristles are formed than where the top end side bristles are formed (see Fig 5). The top end side body and the base end side body are formed at “an interval” in an axial longitudinal direction [0124]. The bristles shorten in length toward the top end side (34, Fig 5), which constitutes “a protruding amount of a whole brush portion including the base end side bristles and the top end side bristles decreases from the base end side to the top end side”. The top end side cleaning portion is made of a thermoplastic elastomer [0043 & 0131 & 0241] into which diamond dust [0245] (which are glass particles or “fibers”) are added to affect the hardness of the different bristles [0264] in intervals along the longitudinal direction [0124]. Zwimpfer already teaches the bristles of the top end side cleaning portion being shorter than the bristles of the base end side cleaning portion (see Figs 1-11), which means the bristles of the top end side cleaning portion are harder than the bristles of the base end side cleaning portion [0378]. Zwimpfer further teaches providing zones with different hardness zones along the length of the device [0124] and to provide the zones by using different materials or different additives [0124] in the material including glass fibers in the form of diamond dust [0245]. Zwimpfer discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for explicitly stating the top end side bristles having more diamond dust than the base end side bristles in order to achieve the prescribed hardness. Since Zwimpfer teaches providing longitudinal zones with different hardnesses, providing the top end region bristles with a hardness greater than the bristles of the base end region, and providing the different hardness regions with different additives including glass fibers. The office interprets this combination as Zwimpfer disclosing the harder top end portion can comprise glass fibers while the additional second zone towards the base end portion does not and this would meet the limitation “an amount of the glass fibers being larger in the top end side cleaning portion than in the base end side cleaning portion”.
Alternatively, if applicant disagrees that Zwimpfer teaches the top end portion having the different hardness because the top end portion comprises the glass fibers or more glass fibers than the base end portion. Zwimpfer teaches it is an art recognized problem for providing brushes with zones of different hardnesses along their length, and there are only a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need/problem as discussed by Zwimpfer including providing the different zones with different materials, with materials of different designs, or with materials having different additives including glass fibers. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. Zwimpfer already teaches providing glass particles in the form of diamond dust [0245 & 0264] as an additive to the bristles in the zones, varying the additive provided to each zone [0124], and varying the hardness of the bristles of each zone [0124] in the longitudinal direction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the top end bristles to include more of the diamond dust in order to achieve a greater hardness at the top end than the base end or to comprise the diamond dust in the top end while omitting it from the base end (note either would meet the claim because the base end bristles not comprising the additive would also achieve this since the claim requires the top end have more glass fibers and not that the bottom end have any explicitly, so the top end having the additive and the bottom end not having the additive would also meet this limitation). See MPEP 2143 (I)(E).
PNG
media_image2.png
209
593
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
234
465
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/21/25 have been fully considered but they are all drawn to the newly presented claim limitations, which the office notes do not have support in the originally filed disclosure, but have been addressed with a modified ground of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jennifer Gill whose telephone number is (571)270-1797. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10:00am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNIFER GILL/
Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/NICHOLAS D LUCCHESI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772