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 .
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation 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 1-4 and 7-10 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 1 recites the limitation “the bristle carrier has a thickness of 0.3 mm to 4 mm”. This amended limitation is new matter because the specification does not describe this configuration. Specifically, the specification does not state in a single embodiment, single example, or single instance, that the bristle carrier of the Fig. 103 embodiment has a thickness in the range of “0.3 mm to 4 mm”. Examiner notes that the specification portions indicated by the Applicant (Reply at 5) do not appear to support this limitation. Claims 2-4 and 7-10 are rejected on the basis they incorporate this limitation of claim 1.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Driesen in view of Hess, Goddard, Weihrauch, Schmidt, and Kraemer
Claims 1-3 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20110239391 A1 (“Driesen”) in view of US 20130139338 A1/B1 (“Hess”), US 20170181820 A1 (“Goddard”), US 20040025273 A1 (“Weihrauch”), US 20170128178 A1 (“Schmidt”), and US 20060248667 A1 (“Kraemer”).
Driesen pertains to a toothbrush (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Hess pertains to a toothbrush (Abstr.; Fig. 4). Goddard pertains to a toothbrush (Abstr.; Figs. 1A-B). Weihrauch pertains to a toothbrush (Abstr.; Figs. 1-15; ¶ 0002). Schmidt pertains to a toothbrush (Abstr.; Figs. 1-11). Kraemer pertains to a toothbrush (Abstr.; Figs. 1-20C). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 1, Driesen discloses a brush product (Fig. 1; ¶ 0008), comprising,
a basic body (Fig. 1, element 1; Examiner interprets “basic body” to mean a base or main body) having,
a head part with a front side and a rear side (see annotated Fig. 1 below),
which includes a bristle carrier with a longitudinal axis and a transverse axis as well as a bristle field protruding therefrom (Figs. 1, 15-17, bristle carrier 7 with bristle field including protruding bristles 13a/13b/13c/11/31/32, longitudinal axis (line B-B), transverse axis (line A-A); ¶ 0082),
wherein the bristle field is formed by at least a second group of cleaning elements (Figs. 15-17, tufts 11, 31, 32) and by at least a sixth group of cleaning elements (Figs. 15-17, tufts 13a, 13b, 13c);
a handle part (see annotated Fig. 1 below);
and a neck part which connects the head part to the handle part (see annotated Fig. 1 below),
wherein:
the head part has a round structure... (Fig. 15; ¶ 0082, top view of the head part shows a round structure, “the bristle support 7 is round, however not circular (even though a circular shape is not excluded) but slightly oval and/or elliptical”),
the bristle carrier is provided with bristles... (Fig. 15, bristle tufts 13a, 13b, 13c, 11, 31, 32),
and wherein the bristle carrier comprises a central carrier region, an upper carrier region, a lower carrier region, a right-hand carrier region and a left-hand carrier region, in which the at least one second group of cleaning elements and the at least one sixth group of cleaning elements are arranged (see annotated Fig. 15 below; Examiner interprets this limitation to mean that the second group and sixth group of cleaning elements are arranged in one, some, or all of the five previously stated regions, but are not required to be arranged in any particular region nor all of the regions, and this limitation does not require that both the second group and sixth group exist in the same region (e.g., one second group existing solely in the upper carrier region and one sixth group existing solely in the lower carrier region (and no other bristle groups exist) would meet this limitation)),
in the central carrier region cleaning elements of the at least one sixth group of cleaning elements are arranged symmetrically (Fig. 15, tufts 13a, 13b, 13c are arranged symmetrically in the central carrier region about the longitudinal and transverse axes of the bristle carrier),
in the upper carrier region cleaning elements of the at least one second group of cleaning elements are arranged above the transverse axis of the bristle carrier, in the lower carrier region cleaning elements of the at least one second group of cleaning elements are arranged below the transverse axis of the bristle carrier, in the right-hand carrier region cleaning elements of the at least one second group of cleaning elements are arranged to the right of the longitudinal axis of the bristle carrier and in the left-hand carrier region cleaning elements of the at least one second group of cleaning elements are arranged to the left of the longitudinal axis of the bristle carrier (Fig. 15, tufts 11, 31, 32 are arranged in the four different regions; Examiner interprets this limitation to mean that different subsets of “cleaning elements” of the second group of cleaning elements are arranged in the different regions, as opposed to meaning that the same subset (or all) of these “cleaning elements” are somehow arranged in the different regions),
the at least one second group of cleaning elements includes puck bundles... (Figs. 15-17, tufts 11, 31, 32),
and the at least one sixth group of cleaning elements includes conventional bundles (Figs. 15-17, tufts 13a, 13b, 13c),
only three to seven conventional bundles are arranged in the central carrier region (Fig. 15, the central carrier region includes three to seven conventional bundles (tufts 13a, 13b, and/or 13c); see discussion below re “only”),
and in the upper carrier region one puck bundle is arranged, in the lower carrier region one puck bundle is arranged, in the right hand carrier region one puck bundle is arranged and in the left-hand carrier region one puck bundle is arranged (Fig. 15, tufts 11, 31, 32 are arranged in the four regions; Examiner interprets this limitation to mean that there are different “one puck bundle[s]” of the second group of cleaning elements that are arranged in the different regions, as opposed to meaning that the same “one puck bundle” is arranged in the different regions),
the three to seven conventional bundles are surrounded by the puck bundles and wherein the puck bundles comprise a circle shape (Fig. 15, tufts 11, 31, 32 together form a “circle shape” that corresponds to the circumference of the bristle carrier 7, tufts 11, 31, and 32 surround tufts 13a, 13b, 13c).
[AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (“head part”)][AltContent: textbox (“neck part”)][AltContent: textbox (Front side of head part, rear side is towards element 25)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (“handle part”)][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
1109
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Driesen Fig. 1 (annotated)
[AltContent: textbox (“left-hand carrier region”)][AltContent: textbox (“right-hand carrier region”)][AltContent: textbox (“lower carrier region”)][AltContent: textbox (“central carrier region”)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval][AltContent: textbox (“upper carrier region”)]
PNG
media_image2.png
916
756
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Driesen Fig. 15 (annotated)
Driesen does not explicitly disclose:
the bristle carrier has a thickness of 0.3 mm to 4 mm,
the bristle carrier is provided with bristles in an anchorless manner,
wherein one puck bundle comprises between 200 and 10,000 bristle ends,
only three to seven conventional bundles are arranged in the central carrier region,
each conventional bundle of the three to seven conventional bundles comprises no more than three picks and each pick of the no more than three picks comprises between 20 and 60 bristles.
However, the Driesen/Hess/Goddard/Weihrauch/Schmidt/Kraemer combination makes obvious this claim.
Hess discloses wherein the bristle carrier is provided with bristles in an anchorless manner (Figs. 1, 2, 4; ¶ 0061, bristle carrier 10 has bristles 20/22 attached in an anchorless manner, “AFT method”; Examiner notes that “anchorless manner” includes bristle attachment methods HT, AFT, IMT, AMR, and IAP (Spec. p. 22, lines 14-17; p. 69, line 20 - p. 71, line 11; p. 77, line 20 - p. 79, line 4).
Goddard discloses wherein one puck bundle comprises between 200 and 10,000 bristle ends (Fig. 1B; ¶ 0012, “each bristle tuft including a number of individual bristles 19 in the range of 1-1,000,000 bristles”).
Weihrauch discloses each conventional bundle of the three to seven conventional bundles comprises no more than three picks and each pick of the no more than three picks comprises between 20 and 60 bristles (Fig. 1; ¶ 0033, a conventional bundle having one pick of 42 bristles).
Schmidt discloses the bristle carrier has a thickness of 0.3 mm to 4 mm (¶ 0013, “The bristle carrier is designed as a relatively thin disc with a thickness between 0.5 and 3.0 mm.”).
Kraemer discloses only three to seven conventional bundles are arranged in the central carrier region (Figs. 2-3 and 8-9, showing six conventional bundles (Fig. 3) and four conventional bundles (Fig. 9)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Hess with Driesen by modifying the bristles (tufts) and bristle carrier construction to use an anchorless method of construction and attachment. This would have been obvious because the anchorless method taught by Hess “allows very great freedom of design in the arrangement of soft-elastic structures, in particular the cleaning or massaging elements”, as this eliminates a design constraint (e.g., sizing, geometry) due to needing anchors (Hess ¶¶ 0055, 0061).
Also, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Kraemer with the Driesen/Hess combination by modifying the bristle configuration of Driesen to have only three to seven conventional bundles in the central carrier region. Driesen shows at least three different configurations with twelve conventional bundles in the central carrier region (Figs. 12, 15), but having different bundle shapes. This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary because the bristle bundle configuration, including the number of bristle bundles used in any particular region, is a design choice based on cleaning performance versus cost (e.g., having more bristle bundles generally cost more but could improve cleaning performance due to having more bristles). Applicant has not disclosed that only having three to seven conventional bundles as recited provides an advantage, solves any stated problem, or is used for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with other designs. Absent a teaching as to criticality of the range as claimed, this particular range is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular range. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975). Without evidence of criticality or unexpected results, where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 267 (CCPA 1976); MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Schmidt with the Driesen/Hess/Kraemer combination by modifying the bristle carrier thickness in the range as recited. This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary because the bristle carrier thickness is a design choice based on the desired base height of the bristles relative to the back surface of the head, taking into consideration other geometric aspects of the cleaning head assembly such as the thickness of the bristle melt or attachment underneath the bristle carrier. Applicant has not disclosed the recited thickness range of “0.3 mm to 4 mm” provides an advantage, solves any stated problem, or is used for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with other designs (see Spec. p. 114, lines 13-16, stating a thickness range between 0.3 mm and 2 mm, and a preferable range between 0.4 mm and 1.3 mm). Absent a teaching as to criticality of the range as claimed, this particular range is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular range. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975). Without evidence of criticality or unexpected results, where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 267 (CCPA 1976); MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Goddard and Weihrauch with the Driesen/Hess/Kraemer/Schmidt combination by modifying the “one puck bundle” to have between 200 and 10,000 bristle ends, which is within the range taught by Goddard, and by using conventional bundles constructed as recited (and taught by Weihrauch). The modification with Goddard pertaining to the puck bristles would have been obvious because Driesen teaches that a high density of bristles is desirable to achieve bristle stability and cleaning efficacy: “Usually, the user pushes the central area of the brush head against the tooth surface and the bristles of the central area will bend under the applied force if the bristle density (tuft stability) is too low, which in turn leads to reduced cleaning efficacy.” (Driesen ¶ 0045). The modification with Weihrauch pertaining to the construction of the conventional bundles (i.e., the pick configuration) would have been obvious because this is simply a design choice depending on the desired number, spacing, size, and density of the conventional bundles, which could be adjusted to emphasize a particular brushing task, comfort, and/or aesthetic (Weihrauch ¶ 0013, “The number of bristles in the bristle groups can be the same or differ. The diameters of the bristles in the bristle groups can also be the same or differ. The separation between neighboring bristle groups must be adjusted accordingly.”). A person of ordinary skill would recognize that each of the conventional bundles disclosed by Weihrauch could contain a single pick (US 20170311711 A1 (“Sorrentino”) ¶ 0043, “Each bundle of bristles 301 may be a “pick” or “tuft pick” as those terms are used in the toothbrush manufacturing art”). Applicant has not disclosed that having the claimed “one puck bundle” construction nor that having the claimed “conventional bundle” construction provides an advantage, solves any stated problem, or is used for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with other designs. In fact, Applicant discloses over 100 different bristle pattern designs (for several different brush head shapes; see the various figures) and does not articulate the benefits of each design, nor compare the differences between the designs, such as their brushing efficacy. Furthermore, absent a teaching as to criticality of the configuration as claimed, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to this particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 2, the Driesen/Hess/Goddard/Weihrauch/Schmidt/Kraemer combination makes obvious the brush product of claim 1 as applied above. Driesen further discloses wherein the puck bundles and/or the conventional bundles comprise bristles which abut against one another (Fig. 17, tufts 13c abut against one another; ¶ 0104, “the free ends the two tufts 13c unite and form a joint surface while at the foot end on the bristle support 7 they are spaced from one another”).
Regarding claim 3, the Driesen/Hess/Goddard/Weihrauch/Schmidt/Kraemer combination makes obvious the brush product of claim 1 as applied above. Hess further discloses wherein soft elements and/or injected bristles are formed on the bristle carrier by means of injection molding and from at least one soft material component and/or at least one material for injected bristles (¶ 0014-0018, “molded bristles” and “soft elastic cleaning and massaging elements” are injection molded onto the carrier element; ¶¶ 0020-0021, materials used; Examiner notes that “soft elements” is a very broad term (Spec. p. 12, line 19 - p. 17, line 13).
The obviousness rationale is the same as for claim 1, with the addition that such “molded bristles” and “soft elastic cleaning and massaging elements” are desirable extra features on a toothbrush head because they “have a major influence on the cleaning effect of the brush head” (Hess ¶ 0032).
Regarding claim 7, the Driesen/Hess/Goddard/Weihrauch/Schmidt/Kraemer combination makes obvious the brush product of claim 1 as applied above. Driesen further discloses wherein the outer contours of the puck bundles follow the outer contour of the brush head (Fig. 15, radially outer contours tufts 11, 31 follow the radially outer contour of the brush head (e.g., outer contour of bristle carrier 7); Examiner notes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation does not require every part of the outer contours of every puck bundle to “follow the outer contour” (see claim 8, which further limits this claim)).
Regarding claim 8, the Driesen/Hess/Goddard/Weihrauch/Schmidt/Kraemer combination makes obvious the brush product of claim 7 as applied above. Driesen further discloses wherein the outer contours of the puck bundles follow the outer contour of the brush head at least 50% of the corresponding contour length (Fig. 15, radially outer contours tufts 11, 31 follow the radially outer contour of the brush head (e.g., outer contour of bristle carrier 7) at more than 50% of the corresponding contour length).
Regarding claim 9, the Driesen/Hess/Goddard/Weihrauch/Schmidt/Kraemer combination makes obvious the brush product of claim 1 as applied above. Driesen further discloses wherein the puck bundles and/or the conventional bundles assume an angled position in relation to the bristle carrier (Fig. 17, tufts 11, 13c, and 31 have an angled position (e.g., angled bristles) relative to the bristle carrier 7; Examiner notes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation does not require every puck bundle, nor every bristle of a puck bundle, to “assume an angled position” (see e.g., Spec. p. 20, line 28 - p. 21, line 9).
Claim 9 does not appear to read on the elected species and subspecies due to the inclusion of the limitation “angled position” and is hereby withdrawn as Applicant has not shown how this claim reads on the elected species and subspecies.
Regarding claim 10, the Driesen/Hess/Goddard/Weihrauch/Schmidt/Kraemer combination makes obvious the brush product of claim 1 as applied above.
Driesen further discloses:
wherein an electric motor with a continuous 360° rotary movement is provided (Fig. 1, motor 5; ¶ 0080),
the continuous 360° rotary movement being converted into an oscillating rotary movement of the bristle carrier by means of a gearing (¶¶ 0080-0081, “the rotary motion of the motor 5 is translated by means of a gearing 22 into an oscillatory rotational motion of a drive shaft 23”, which oscillates the bristle carrier 7),
and wherein the rotational axis of the brush head is substantially perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the brush product (Fig. 1; ¶ 0081, “the axis of rotation 9 forms a right angle with the toothbrush longitudinal axis 26”; Examiner notes that the use of “substantially” to modify “perpendicular” in this context appears to be sufficiently definite).
Driesen in view of Hess, Goddard, Weihrauch, Schmidt, Kraemer, and Kressner
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20110239391 A1 (“Driesen”) in view of US 20130139338 A1/B1 (“Hess”), US 20170181820 A1 (“Goddard”), US 20040025273 A1 (“Weihrauch”), US 20170128178 A1 (“Schmidt”), US 20060248667 A1 (“Kraemer”), and US 6021538 A (“Kressner”).
Driesen pertains to a toothbrush (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Hess pertains to a toothbrush (Abstr.; Fig. 4). Goddard pertains to a toothbrush (Abstr.; Figs. 1A-B). Weihrauch pertains to a toothbrush (Abstr.; Figs. 1-15; ¶ 0002). Schmidt pertains to a toothbrush (Abstr.; Figs. 1-11). Kraemer pertains to a toothbrush (Abstr.; Figs. 1-20C). Kressner pertains to a toothbrush (Abstr.; Fig. 1). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 4, the Driesen/Hess/Goddard/Weihrauch/Schmidt/Kraemer combination makes obvious the brush product of claim 1 as applied above. Driesen, Hess, Goddard, Weihrauch, Schmidt, and Kraemer do not explicitly disclose wherein the puck bundles of the second group of cleaning elements assume a surface on the bristle carrier of at least 25 mm2. However, the Driesen/Hess/Goddard/Weihrauch/Schmidt/Kraemer/Kressner combination makes obvious this claim.
Kressner discloses wherein the puck bundles of the second group of cleaning elements assume a surface on the bristle carrier of at least 25 mm2 (Figs. 1-5, for example, in Fig. 5, tufts 60, 76 have a combined bore diameter of 28.27 mm2 (i.e., the tufts occupy at least this “bore diameter” surface on the bristle carrier); 3:47-50, bristle carrier has a diameter between 11mm and 15mm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Kressner with the Driesen/Hess/Goddard/Weihrauch/Schmidt/Kraemer combination by modifying the size of the tufts to have a surface of at least 25 mm2 on the bristle carrier. At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try out and use different bundle sizes and configurations (including the amount of tuft coverage on bristle carrier surface) for a toothbrush in order to determine an optimal dental cleaning effect for a particular application. Applicant has not disclosed that having the surface coverage as claimed provides an advantage, solves any stated problem, or is used for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with other designs. Furthermore, absent a teaching as to criticality of the “at least 25 mm2” surface coverage (see Spec. p. 17, lines 14-18), this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment and remarks have been considered. Claims 5-6 and 11-37 have been canceled. Claims 1-4 and 7-10 are pending. Claim 9 has been withdrawn. Claims 1-4 and 7-10 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. As an initial matter, Examiner notes that Applicant failed to explain how the claim 9 pertains to the elected invention (see 09/26/2025 Office Action at 12). Accordingly, claim 9 is withdrawn from further consideration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 regarding the amended limitation have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the arguments (other than Driesen for the “round structure” limitation, which Applicant does not substantively argue).
With respect to the Weihrauch reference applied in the proposed obviousness combination for claim 1, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive (Reply at 6-9). As discussed in the § 103 rejection of claim 1 above, Weihrauch is relied upon for its disclosure of the limitation “each conventional bundle of the three to seven conventional bundles comprises no more than three picks and each pick of the no more than three picks comprises between 20 and 60 bristles” (Weihrauch Fig. 1; ¶ 0033, a conventional bundle having one pick of 42 bristles). Weihrauch expressly identified this cited portion as prior art (see annotation for Figs. 1-2; ¶¶ 0020-0021). The only other portion cited from Weihrauch is the general statement (that may or may not pertain to Weihrauch’s prior art or disclosed embodiments), “The number of bristles in the bristle groups can be the same or differ. The diameters of the bristles in the bristle groups can also be the same or differ. The separation between neighboring bristle groups must be adjusted accordingly.” (Weihrauch ¶ 0013). Based on this disclosure of Weihrauch, and the cited portions of Driesen and the teaching reference Sorrentino (as set forth in the rejection above), the proposed combination of Weihrauch with the other references discussed for claim 1 would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (in the toothbrush arts) because he would know about the use of picks to construct conventional bristle bundles, including the number of bristles used in the picks and the number of picks used.
Applicant incorrectly overemphasizes the Weihrauch’s disclosed embodiments as evidence against the proposed obviousness combination (Reply at 6-9). The question is not whether an invention was obvious to the inventor, Applicant, or even a single prior-art author, but whether the invention was obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007). There is no requirement under KSR for the prior art to explicitly state an exact technique for obtaining a result (e.g., using one pick of 42 bristles for each conventional bundle) if a person of ordinary skill could ascertain how the result could be accomplished based on the prior art in combination with the person’s logic, judgment, and common sense. Id. at 418 (“the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ”); Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“an analysis of obviousness...also may include recourse to logic, judgment, and common sense available to the person of ordinary skill that do not necessarily require explication in any reference or expert opinion”).
Applicant does not present any further arguments concerning the remaining claims.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 extension fee pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT N SHUM whose telephone number is (703)756-1435. The examiner can normally be reached 1230-2230 EASTERN TIME M-TH.
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, MONICA S CARTER can be reached at (571)272-4475. 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.
/KENT N SHUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723