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 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8-9, and 28-32 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 28 recites “a first inner surface” and it unclear to the examiner if applicant intends for the limitation to be a new structure or if it is referring to “an inner surface of the first annular member”. For purpose of examination examiner interprets the limitation as the same as an inner surface of the first annular member.
Claims 3-4, 8-9, and 29-32 are rejected due to being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8-9, and 28-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erskine-Smith (2010/0306941, previously presented) in view of Jimenez (2017/0360186, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 1, Erskine-Smith teaches an oral care implement (Ref. 2, Fig. 1, [0039]) comprising:
a head (Fig. 1) having a front surface (Ref. 8, Fig. 1, [0039]) and extending from a proximal end (Ref. 14, Fig. 2, [0041]) to a distal end (Ref. 16, Fig. 2, [0041]) along a longitudinal axis (See annotated Fig. 2 below);
a plurality of cleaning elements (Ref. 36&34, Fig. 2, [0041]) extending from the front surface of the head (Fig. 2), the plurality of cleaning elements comprising:
a first annular cleaning component (Ref. 34, Fig. 2, [0041]) teaches a plurality of bristle tufts (Fig. 2-3, [0041]) from an outer surface of the first annular cleaning component (See annotated Fig. 2 below) to an inner surface of the first annular cleaning component (See annotated Fig. 2 below), the first annular cleaning component comprising a first inner surface (See annotated Fig. 2 below) defining a first cavity (See annotated Fig. 2 below) and a first distal end (Fig. 2&3, end of the bristles) that, in a side-profile plane (Fig. 3) that is perpendicular to the front surface of the head (Fig. 3) and contains the longitudinal axis, is sloped from a first low point (see annotated Fig. 3 below) to a first high point (see annotated Fig. 3 below), the first low point being a portion of the first distal end located closest to the proximal end of the head (Fig. 3 below) and the first high point being a portion of the first distal end located closest to the distal end of the head (Fig. 3 below); and
a second annular cleaning component (Ref. 36, Fig. 2, [0041]) comprising a plurality of bristle tufts (Fig. 2-3, [0041]), the second annular cleaning component comprising a second inner surface (See annotated Fig. 2 below) defining a second cavity (See annotated Fig. 2 below) and a second distal end (Fig. 2&3 end of the bristles) that, in the side-profile plane (Fig. 2), is sloped from a second low point (See annotated Fig. 3 below) to a second high point (See annotated Fig. 3 below), the second low point being a portion of the second distal end located closest to the distal end of the head (Fig. 2&3 below) and the second high point being a portion of the second distal end located closest to the proximal end of the head (Fig. 2&3 below); and
wherein the first annular cleaning component is located within the second cavity of the second annular cleaning component (Fig. 2), and wherein the first and second distal ends are sloped in opposite directions (Fig. 3, examiner interprets the distal ends are sloped in different directions when looking at opposite sides of the directions); and
Wherein the first low point is adjacent to the second high point while the first high point is adjacent to the second low point in the side-profile plane (Fig. 3, examiner notes the term adjacent is interpreted as near).
Erskine-Smith fails to explicitly teach a single first tuft hole and forming a continuous bristle wall that is free of gaps so that no direct line of sight exists from an outer surface of the first annular cleaning component to an inner surface of the first annular cleaning component and the plurality of bristle tufts disposed in respective second tuft holes that collectively surround the first tuft hole. Jimenez teaches a tooth brush with various tufts and can be considered analogous art because it is within the field of endeavor. Jimenez teaches a first annular cleaning component (Ref. 170, Fig. 2) disposed in a single first tuft hole ([0065] describes tuft holes) and forming a continuous bristle wall (Ref. 175, Fig. 2, [0066]) that is free of gaps so that no direct line of sight exists from an outer surface of the first annular cleaning component to an inner surface of the first annular cleaning component (Fig. 1A, [0065]) and a plurality of second tuft holes (Fig. 1a shows a plurality of tuft holes) that collectively surround the first tuft hole (Fig. 1a). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the first annular cleaning component, as taught by Erskine-Smith, to be a continuous bristle wall that is free of gaps, as taught by Jimenez, to provide more surface area to contact the tooth and by simple substitution of a known element to produce the result of effectively brushing and cleaning teeth. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to secure the tuft of bristles, as taught by Erskine-Smith, within tuft holes formed in the front surface of the head, as taught by Jimenez, to ensure the bristles are securely attached to the head and will not fall out during use and since such as modification would yield the predictable result of holding bristles onto a head of a toothbrush.
PNG
media_image1.png
489
719
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
494
648
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Erskine-Smith as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Erskine-Smith further teaches wherein the first distal end lies on a first plane that is oblique to the front surface of the head and the second distal end lies on a second plane that is oblique to the front surface of the head (Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 4, Erskine-Smith as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Erskine-Smith further teaches a central cleaning element (Ref. 32, Fig. 2, [0041]) located within the first cavity of the first annular cleaning component (Fig. 2), wherein the central cleaning element has a height than is greater than a maximum height of each of the first and second annular cleaning components (Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 8, Erskine-Smith as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Erskine-Smith further teaches wherein the first distal end forms an annular top surface of the first annular cleaning component (Fig. 2, [0041]) and the second distal end forms an annular top surface of the second annular cleaning component (Fig. 2, [0041]).
Regarding Claim 9, Erskine-Smith as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Erskine-Smith further teaches wherein the second inner surface of the second annular cleaning component is spaced apart from an outer surface of the first annular cleaning component by an annular gap along an entirety of a length of the first and second annular cleaning components (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 28, Erskine-Smith teaches an oral care implement (Ref. 2, Fig. 1, [0039]) comprising:
a head (Fig. 1) having a front surface (Ref. 8, Fig. 1, [0039]) and extending from a proximal end (Ref. 14, Fig. 2, [0041]) to a distal end (Ref. 16, Fig. 2, [0041]) along a longitudinal axis (See annotated Fig. 2 below);
a plurality of cleaning elements (Ref. 36&34, Fig. 2, [0041]) extending from the front surface of the head (Fig. 2), the plurality of cleaning elements comprising:
a first annular cleaning component (Ref. 34, Fig. 2, [0041]) teaches a plurality of bristle tufts (Fig. 2-3, [0041]) from an outer surface of the first annular cleaning component (See annotated Fig. 2 below) to an inner surface of the first annular cleaning component (See annotated Fig. 2 below), the first annular cleaning component comprising a first inner surface (See annotated Fig. 2 below) defining a first cavity (See annotated Fig. 2 below) and a first distal end (Fig. 2&3, end of the bristles) that, in a side-profile plane (Fig. 3) that is perpendicular to the front surface of the head (Fig. 3) and contains the longitudinal axis, is sloped from a first low point (see annotated Fig. 3 below) to a first high point (see annotated Fig. 3 below), the first low point being a portion of the first distal end located closest to the proximal end of the head (Fig. 3 below) and the first high point being a portion of the first distal end located closest to the distal end of the head (Fig. 3 below); and
a second annular cleaning component (Ref. 36, Fig. 2, [0041]) comprising a plurality of bristle tufts (Fig. 2-3, [0041]), the second annular cleaning component comprising a second inner surface (See annotated Fig. 2 below) defining a second cavity (See annotated Fig. 2 below) and a second distal end (Fig. 2&3 end of the bristles) that, in the side-profile plane (Fig. 2), is sloped from a second low point (See annotated Fig. 3 below) to a second high point (See annotated Fig. 3 below), the second low point being a portion of the second distal end located closest to the distal end of the head (Fig. 2&3 below) and the second high point being a portion of the second distal end located closest to the proximal end of the head (Fig. 2&3 below); and
wherein the first annular cleaning component is located within the second cavity of the second annular cleaning component (Fig. 2), and wherein the first and second distal ends are sloped in opposite directions (Fig. 3, examiner interprets the distal ends are sloped in different directions when looking at opposite sides of the directions); and
Wherein the first low point is adjacent to the second high point while the first high point is adjacent to the second low point in the side-profile plane (Fig. 3, examiner notes the term adjacent is interpreted as near).
Erskine-Smith fails to explicitly teach a single first tuft hole and forming a continuous bristle wall that is free of gaps so that no direct line of sight exists from an outer surface of the first annular cleaning component to an inner surface of the first annular cleaning component and the plurality of bristle tufts disposed in respective second tuft holes that collectively surround the first tuft hole. Jimenez teaches a tooth brush with various tufts and can be considered analogous art because it is within the field of endeavor. Jimenez teaches a first annular cleaning component (Ref. 170, Fig. 2) disposed in a single first tuft hole ([0065] describes tuft holes) and forming a continuous bristle wall (Ref. 175, Fig. 2, [0066]) that is free of gaps so that no direct line of sight exists from an outer surface of the first annular cleaning component to an inner surface of the first annular cleaning component (Fig. 1A, [0065]) and a plurality of second tuft holes (Fig. 1a shows a plurality of tuft holes) that collectively surround the first tuft hole (Fig. 1a). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the first annular cleaning component, as taught by Erskine-Smith, to be a continuous bristle wall that is free of gaps, as taught by Jimenez, to provide more surface area to contact the tooth and by simple substitution of a known element to produce the result of effectively brushing and cleaning teeth. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to secure the tuft of bristles, as taught by Erskine-Smith, within tuft holes formed in the front surface of the head, as taught by Jimenez, to ensure the bristles are securely attached to the head and will not fall out during use and since such as modification would yield the predictable result of holding bristles onto a head of a toothbrush.
PNG
media_image1.png
489
719
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
494
656
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 29, Erskine-Smith as modified teaches the limitations of claim 28, as described above, and Erskine-Smith further teaches wherein the first distal end lies on a first plane that is oblique to the front surface of the head and the second distal end lies on a second plane that is oblique to the front surface of the head (Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 30, Erskine-Smith as modified teaches the limitations of claim 28, as described above, and Erskine-Smith further teaches a central cleaning element (Ref. 32, Fig. 2, [0041]) located within the first cavity of the first annular cleaning component (Fig. 2), wherein the central cleaning element has a height that is greater than a maximum height of each of the first and second annular cleaning components (Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 31, Erskine-Smith as modified teaches the limitations of claim 28, as described above, and Erskine-Smith further teaches wherein the first distal end forms an annular top surface of the first annular cleaning component (Fig. 2, [0041]) and the second distal end forms an annular top surface of the second annular cleaning component (Fig. 2, [0041]).
Regarding Claim 32, Erskine-Smith as modified teaches the limitations of claim 28, as described above, and Erskine-Smith further teaches wherein the second inner surface of the second annular cleaning component is spaced apart from an outer surface of the first annular cleaning component by an annular gap along an entirety of a length of the first and second annular cleaning components (Fig. 2).
Claims 16 and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jimenez (2017/0360186, previously presented) in view of Meadows (US 2009/0007357, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 16, Jimenez teaches an oral care implement (Ref. 100, Fig. 1, [0021]) comprising:
a head (Ref. 110, Fig. 1, [0026]) having a front surface (Ref. 111, Fig. 1, [0026]);
a plurality of cleaning elements (Ref. 115, Fig. 1, [0026]) extending from the front surface of the head (Fig. 1), the plurality of cleaning elements comprising:
a first annular cleaning component (Ref. 170, Fig. 2, [0065]) comprising a first inner surface (Ref. 171, Fig. 2, [0065]) defining a first cavity (Ref. 172, Fig. 2, [0065]) and a first distal end (See annotated Fig. 2 below);
a second annular cleaning component (Ref. 230, Fig. 2, [0076]) surrounding the first annular cleaning component, the second annular cleaning component comprising a second inner surface (See Fig. 2 annotated below) defining a second cavity (See Fig. 2 annotated below) and a second distal end (See annotated Fig. 2 below); and
wherein the second annular cleaning component comprises a plurality of cleaning elements (Ref. 232a-b, 234a-c, 233a-b, Fig. 2&3, [0076]) arranged in a loop (Fig. 2), wherein a portion of the loop comprises a plurality of taller cleaning elements (Ref. 232a, Fig. 2-3, [0067]) and a plurality of shorter cleaning elements (Ref. 233a &234a, Fig. 3, [0076]) arranged to create side-profile (Fig. 3); and
wherein each of the plurality of taller cleaning elements and each of the plurality of shorter cleaning elements terminates in a distal bristle surface (Fig. 2) that is angled obliquely (note examiner interprets obliquely as at a non-ninety degree angle) relative to the front surface of the head (Fig. 3).
Jimenez fails to explicitly teach the plurality of shorter and taller cleaning elements arranged to create a side-profile having a plurality of apexes and a plurality of valleys. Meadows teaches a toothbrush with a brush head with annular cleaning components and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Meadows teaches an oral care implement (Ref. 10, Fig. 1A) comprising:
a head (Ref. 12, Fig. 1A) having a front surface (Ref. 14', Fig. 1C);
a plurality of cleaning elements (Ref. 20,22,24,&30, Fig. 1C) extending from the front surface of the head (Fig. 1C), the plurality of cleaning elements comprising:
a first annular cleaning component (Ref. 20, Fig. 1B);
a second annular cleaning component (Ref. 22,24,&30, Fig. 1A-B) surrounding the first annular cleaning component (Fig. 1B) having a non-planar stepped profile (Fig. 1C); and
wherein the second annular cleaning component comprises a plurality of cleaning elements (Ref. 22,24,&30, Fig. 1A-B) arranged in a loop (Fig. 1B), wherein a portion of the loop comprises a plurality of taller cleaning elements (Ref. 30, Fig. 1C) and a plurality of shorter cleaning elements (Ref. 22&24, Fig. 1C) arranged to create a non-planar stepped side-profile (Fig. 1C) having a plurality of apexes and a plurality of valleys (Fig. 1B-C shows multiple apexes and valleys) in a side-profile plane that is perpendicular to the front surface and contains a longitudinal axis of the head at the second distal end of the second annular cleaning component (Fig. 1C);
wherein each of the plurality of taller cleaning elements and each of the plurality of shorter cleaning elements terminates in a distal bristle surface (Fig. 1A-C); and
wherein, for that portion of the loop, the second annular cleaning component is arranged such that each of the plurality of taller cleaning elements is immediately adjacent to two of the plurality of shorter cleaning elements (examiner notes each of the plurality of taller (30) and two of the plurality of shorter cleaning elements (22&24) cleaning elements is interpreted as one of the cluster of taller cleaning elements (30)and as one of the shorter cleaning elements (22&24), Fig. 1C shows the plurality of taller cleaning elements is between two of the plurality of shorter cleaning elements) and each of the plurality of shorter cleaning elements is immediately adjacent to two of the plurality of taller cleaning elements (examiner notes each of the plurality of taller (30) and two of the plurality of shorter cleaning elements (22&24) cleaning elements is interpreted as one of the cluster of taller cleaning elements (30) and as one of the shorter cleaning elements (22&24, Fig. 1C shows the plurality of shorter cleaning elements is between two of the plurality of taller cleaning elements). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the taller and shorter cleaning elements, as taught by Jimenez, to create a side profile with a plurality of valleys and apexes, having each of the plurality of taller cleaning elements is immediately adjacent to two of the plurality of shorter cleaning elements and each of the plurality of shorter cleaning elements is immediately adjacent to two of the plurality of taller cleaning elements, as taught by Meadows, to allow for the cleaning elements to reach different parts of the teeth and optimize brushing for enhanced cleaning and polishing of teeth ([0028]).
PNG
media_image4.png
1015
649
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 18, Jimenez as modified teaches the limitations of claim 16, as described above, and Jimenez further teaches wherein each of the plurality of cleaning elements is a bristle tuft comprising a plurality of bristles Fig. 3, [0076]), and wherein the bristle tufts of the second annular cleaning component are disposed on the head in a spaced apart manner (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 19, Jimenez as modified teaches the limitations of claim 16, as described above, and given the teachings of Meadows for the profile of the annular cleaning components, Jimenez as modified further teaches wherein one or more of the plurality of taller cleaning elements of the second annular cleaning component have a greater height than the first annular cleaning component (Fig. 1C, shows the height of the taller cleaning element (30 is taller than the first annular cleaning component (20), Meadows), and wherein one or more of the plurality of shorter cleaning elements of the second annular cleaning component have a lesser height than the first annular cleaning component (Fig. 1C, shows second annular cleaning components (24) are shorter than the first cleaning component (20)).
Regarding Claim 20, Jimenez as modified teaches the limitations of claim 16, as described above, and Jimenez further teaches wherein the first annular cleaning component has a constant height such that the distal end of the first annular cleaning component is planar (Ref. 170, Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 21, Jimenez as modified teaches the limitations of claim 16, as described above, and given the teachings of Meadows for the profile of the annular cleaning components, Jimenez as modified further teaches wherein, for the portion of the loop, each of the plurality of shorter cleaning elements (22&24, Meadows) has a maximum height (H4&H3, Fig. 1C, Meadows) that is less than a minimum height of each of the plurality of taller cleaning elements (H5, Fig. 1C, Meadows) that are immediately adjacent to the shorter cleaning element (Fig. 1B-C, Meadows).
Regarding Claim 22, Jimenez as modified teaches the limitations of claim 16, as described above, and given the teachings of Meadows for the profile of the annular cleaning components, Jimenez as modified further teaches wherein, for the portion of the loop, each of the plurality of taller cleaning elements has a minimum height (H5, Fig. 1C, Meadows) that is greater than a maximum height (H4&H3, Fig. 1C, Meadows) of each of the plurality of shorter cleaning elements (22&24, Meadows) that are immediately adjacent to the taller cleaning element (fig. 1B-C, Meadows).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are acknowledged and have withdrawn the previous 35 USC 112(b) rejections. However, new 35 USC 112(b) rejections are presented above.
Applicant's arguments filed 06 October, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has amended the claims thereby changing the scope of the claim thereby necessitating reinterpretation of the prior art. Applicant’s arguments that claim 1 that the prior art fails to teach the plane specific geometry and annular structure of the slopes and continuous wall have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Examiner has applied Erskine-Smith in view of Jimenez to the 35 USC 103 rejection above. Erskine-Smith teaches an oral care implement (Ref. 2, Fig. 1, [0039]) comprising a first annular cleaning component (Ref. 34, Fig. 2, [0041]) teaches a plurality of bristle tufts (Fig. 2-3, [0041]) from an outer surface of the first annular cleaning component (See annotated Fig. 2 below) to an inner surface of the first annular cleaning component (See annotated Fig. 2 below), the first annular cleaning component comprising a first inner surface (See annotated Fig. 2 below) defining a first cavity (See annotated Fig. 2 below) and a first distal end (Fig. 2&3, end of the bristles) that, in a side-profile plane (Fig. 3) that is perpendicular to the front surface of the head (Fig. 3) and contains the longitudinal axis, is sloped from a first low point (see annotated Fig. 3 below) to a first high point (see annotated Fig. 3 below), the first low point being a portion of the first distal end located closest to the proximal end of the head (Fig. 3 below) and the first high point being a portion of the first distal end located closest to the distal end of the head (Fig. 3 below), and a second annular cleaning component (Ref. 36, Fig. 2, [0041]) comprising a plurality of bristle tufts (Fig. 2-3, [0041]), the second annular cleaning component comprising a second inner surface (See annotated Fig. 2 below) defining a second cavity (See annotated Fig. 2 below) and a second distal end (Fig. 2&3 end of the bristles) that, in the side-profile plane (Fig. 2), is sloped from a second low point (See annotated Fig. 3 below) to a second high point (See annotated Fig. 3 below), the second low point being a portion of the second distal end located closest to the distal end of the head (Fig. 2&3 below) and the second high point being a portion of the second distal end located closest to the proximal end of the head (Fig. 2&3 below); and
wherein the first annular cleaning component is located within the second cavity of the second annular cleaning component (Fig. 2), and wherein the first and second distal ends are sloped in opposite directions (Fig. 3, examiner interprets the distal ends are sloped in different directions when looking at opposite sides of the directions); and
wherein the first low point is adjacent to the second high point while the first high point is adjacent to the second low point in the side-profile plane (Fig. 3, examiner notes the term adjacent is interpreted as near). Jimenez teaches a first annular cleaning component (Ref. 170, Fig. 2) disposed in a single first tuft hole ([0065] describes tuft holes) and forming a continuous bristle wall (Ref. 175, Fig. 2, [0066]) that is free of gaps so that no direct line of sight exists from an outer surface of the first annular cleaning component to an inner surface of the first annular cleaning component (Fig. 1A, [0065]) and a plurality of second tuft holes (Fig. 1a shows a plurality of tuft holes) that collectively surround the first tuft hole (Fig. 1a). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the first annular cleaning component, as taught by Erskine-Smith, to be a continuous bristle wall that is free of gaps, as taught by Jimenez, to provide more surface area to contact the tooth and by simple substitution of a known element to produce the result of effectively brushing and cleaning teeth. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to secure the tuft of bristles, as taught by Erskine-Smith, within tuft holes formed in the front surface of the head, as taught by Jimenez, to ensure the bristles are securely attached to the head and will not fall out during use and since such as modification would yield the predictable result of holding bristles onto a head of a toothbrush.
Applicant’s arguments in regards to claim 16 that the prior art does not teach the second annular cleaning component is arranged such that each of the plurality of taller cleaning is flanked by shorter cleaning elements and vice versa has been fully considered and are not persuasive. Examiner has applied Jimenez in view of Meadows to the 35 USC 103 rejection above. Meadows teaches wherein the second annular cleaning component comprises a plurality of cleaning elements (Ref. 22,24,&30, Fig. 1A-B) arranged in a loop (Fig. 1B), wherein a portion of the loop comprises a plurality of taller cleaning elements (Ref. 30, Fig. 1C) and a plurality of shorter cleaning elements (Ref. 22&24, Fig. 1C) arranged to create a non-planar stepped side-profile (Fig. 1C) having a plurality of apexes and a plurality of valleys (Fig. 1B-C shows multiple apexes and valleys) in a side-profile plane that is perpendicular to the front surface and contains a longitudinal axis of the head at the second distal end of the second annular cleaning component (Fig. 1C) and wherein, for that portion of the loop, the second annular cleaning component is arranged such that each of the plurality of taller cleaning elements is immediately adjacent to two of the plurality of shorter cleaning elements (examiner notes each of the plurality of taller (30) and two of the plurality of shorter cleaning elements (22&24) cleaning elements is interpreted as one of the cluster of taller cleaning elements (30)and as one of the shorter cleaning elements (22&24), Fig. 1C shows the plurality of taller cleaning elements is between two of the plurality of shorter cleaning elements) and each of the plurality of shorter cleaning elements is immediately adjacent to two of the plurality of taller cleaning elements (examiner notes each of the plurality of taller (30) and two of the plurality of shorter cleaning elements (22&24) cleaning elements is interpreted as one of the cluster of taller cleaning elements (30) and as one of the shorter cleaning elements (22&24, Fig. 1C shows the plurality of shorter cleaning elements is between two of the plurality of taller cleaning elements). Examiner notes that the language of each of the plurality of taller cleaning elements is interpreted as each cluster of taller cleaning elements and each of the plurality of shorter cleaning elements as each cluster of shorter cleaning elements. If applicant intended for the plurality of taller cleaning element to comprise a taller cleaning element that is flanked by a shorter cleaning element of the plurality of shorter cleaning elements such a limitation is not required.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA L POON whose telephone number is (571)272-6164. The examiner can normally be reached on General: 6:30AM-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, David Posigian can be reached on (313) 446-6546. 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 https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/DANA LEE POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723