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 .
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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 11 and 13 – 22 are pending. Claim 12 is cancelled.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 25, 2026 has been entered.
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 1 – 12 and 14 – 22 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.
Claims 1 and 22 recites the limitation “the brush element is robust enough that it breaks only under the effect of a pull-out force of greater than 15N” in lines 11 – 12 and 7 – 8 respectively. The limitation is a blanket statement without any evidence as to how this is achieved. How is it determined if the connection is “robust enough”? Applicant has not provided any data, testing, or specific materials that would achieve the said limitation. Applicant is advised to provide support for the limitation or to delete it as it fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 2 – 11 and 13 – 21 are rejected as dependents of rejected claim 1.
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.
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.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (JP2018 047368 A) in view of Discko Jr. et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 5,150,495 A).
Regarding Claim 22, Ito teaches interdental cleaning device (1) having a handle element (10) and a brush element (20), wherein the handle element (10) is formed from a fibrous material, paper, or cardboard (Paragraph [0019]), and the brush element (20) is connected to the handle element (10), wherein a receiving portion (Annotated Fig. 2) of the handle element (10) is arranged around a connecting (Annotated Fig. 2) of the brush element (20).
Ito does not explicitly teach the handle element having an opening that receives a connecting portion, an adhesive is applied to the connecting portion of the brush element, to the handle element or to both the brush element and the handle element before the brush element is connected to the handle element to form an adhesive bond therebetween; and wherein the connection formed by the adhesive bond between the handle element and the brush element is robust enough that it breaks only under the effect of a pull-out force of greater than 15N.
Discko, however, teaches the handle element (100) having an opening (bore, 102) that receives a connecting portion (104), an adhesive is applied to the connecting portion (104) of the brush element (103; Col. 9, lines 5 – 21), to the handle element (100) or to both the brush element and the handle element before the brush element is connected to the handle element to form an adhesive bond therebetween (Col. 9, lines 5 – 21).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ito to further include an adhesive is applied to the connecting portion of the brush element or to the handle element before the brush element is connected to the handle element, as taught by Discko, to provide a device that is easy to manufacture thus saving costs.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 25, 2026 have been fully considered, however, patentability of claims 1 – 12 and 14 – 21 could not be determined as claim 1 is currently rejected under 112(a) 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.
Applicant's arguments filed August 25, 2026 have been fully considered, however, applicant has failed to provide arguments regarding the rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. 103, therefore the rejection is maintained. Regarding the arguments of claim 1 that could be read on claim 22 – that being the brush element is robust enough that it breaks only under the effect of a pull-out force of greater than 15N, the limitation fails to find support in the specification and the limitation needs to be cancelled.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATINA N HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday; 5:30am to 3:30pm.
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 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.
/KATINA N. HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights