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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Amendments/Response filed on December 3, 2025. Claim(s) 1, 16 and 23 have been amended. No additional claims have been added. Claim(s) 9, 14, and 20 have been cancelled. Claims 1-8,10-13,15-19 and 21-23 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
The examiner fully acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 16 and 23 filed on December 3, 2025.
The applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 23 are sufficient to overcome the rejection of claims, as presented in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, which applied Milheim (WO 2006115963), Lee (KR 102019665) Tobe (JP 2001309818), and Paciullo (US Patent No. 8402591).
The applicant’s amendments to claim 16 are sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, as presented in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, which applied Milheim (WO 2006115963), Tobe (JP 2001309818), and Paciullo (US Patent No. 8402591).
The applicant’s amendments however are not considered sufficient to overcome the art. See the updated rejection set forth in the action, which now depends primarily upon Tobe modified by teachings of Lee, Milheim, Paciullo.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-19, filed December 3, 2025 have been fully considered.
103 Rejection of claims 1, 16 and 23 – grooves extend from the first side to the second side: Applicant has argued that the references fail to disclose the grooves extending from a first side to second side. However, this argument appears to depend upon a particular interpretation of the art. The examiner has annotated figure 2 from Tobe to illustrate the interpretation applied in the action:
PNG
media_image1.png
462
858
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
390
888
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As figure 2 of Tobe is showing the flat wire (10), it shows a piece in the entirety, and not a segment. It has two faces (13), on opposing sides. As such, the grooves (12) are embedded in a surface (11) and extend from one side (lateral faces 13) to another. The applicant’s remarks that the feature is not addressed are not found persuasive.
103 rejection of claim 5: Applicant remarks that Dingizian fails to overcome the deficiencies. However, these arguments are considered unpersuasive as Dingizian is not required to addresses the amended limitations, which have been found in Tobe.
103 Rejection of claim 17: Applicant remarks towards justifying applying a ratio relationship between features of the anchors have been considered but are not persuasive. Per applicant’s specification [0048], the ranges of ratio values/relationships are not necessitated/critical to the toothbrush (…in some embodiments a ratio…may be between…) As such, a skilled artisan may reach these proportions and measurements through routine optimization.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
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 CFR 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.
Claim(s) 1-8,10-13,15-19 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tobe (JP 2001309818) in view of Milheim (WO 2006115963), Lee (KR 102019665), and Paciullo (US Patent No. 8402591).
In regards to claim 1, Tobe discloses
a toothbrush comprising:
a body (brush body 1, fig. 1 and 7) comprising a handle portion (extending from head portion) and a head portion (flocking portion 2, fig. 1 and 7) extending along a longitudinal axis and comprising a front surface (see fig. 1 - ann. 1), the body (brush body 1, fig. 1 and 7) formed;
a plurality of tuft holes (flocking hole 4, fig. 1 and 7) formed into the front surface (see fig. 1 - ann. 1) of the head portion (flocking portion 2, fig. 1 and 7),
PNG
media_image3.png
364
1092
media_image3.png
Greyscale
each of the tuft holes (flocking hole 4, fig. 1 and 7) comprising a floor (see fig. 1- ann. 1) that is recessed relative to the front surface of the head portion;
a bristle tuft (brush bundle 3, fig. 1 and 7) positioned within each of the tuft holes (flocking hole 4, fig. 1 and 7);
an anchor wire (flat wire 10, fig. 1, 2 and 7) positioned within each of the tuft holes (flocking hole 4, fig. 1 and 7) to secure the bristle tufts (brush bundle 3, fig. 1 and 7) to the head portion (flocking portion 2, fig. 1 and 7);
each of the anchor wires (flat wire 10, fig. 1, 2 and 7) comprising a bottom end adjacent to the floor of the tuft hole within which the anchor wire is positioned (see bottom of anchor in fig. 1),
a top end opposite the bottom end (see fig. 2 – ann. 1),
a first anchor wire axis extending from the bottom end to the top end (see fig. 2 – ann. 1),
first and second surfaces (side surfaces 11, fig. 1 and 2) extending from the bottom end to the top end (see fig. 2 – ann. 2),
a first side (see fig. 2 – ann. 1),
a second side opposite the first side (see fig. 2 – ann. 1), and
a second wire axis extending from the first side to the second side and perpendicular to the first anchor wire axis (see fig. 2 – ann. 1);
PNG
media_image1.png
462
858
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a plurality of first grooves (concave stripes 12, fig. 1, 2) formed into the first surface of each of the anchor wires and a plurality of second grooves (concave stripes 12, fig. 1, 2) formed into the second surface of each of the anchor wires (see fig. 2- ann. 2),
each of the first and second grooves (concave stripes 12, fig. 1, 2) extending along a groove axis that is perpendicular to the first anchor wire axis and parallel to the second anchor wire axis (see fig. 2- ann. 2),
PNG
media_image4.png
390
875
media_image4.png
Greyscale
each of the first grooves (concave stripes 12, fig. 1, 2) spaced apart from each adjacent one of the first grooves (concave stripes 12, fig. 1, 2) and each of the second grooves (concave stripes 12, fig. 1, 2) spaced apart from each adjacent one of the second grooves by a groove to groove spacing distance (fig. 2 – ann. 3);
wherein each of the first and second grooves (concave stripes 12, fig. 1, 2) extends an entirety of a width of the anchor wire from the first side to the second side (see fig. 2 – ann. 3); and
PNG
media_image2.png
390
888
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein each of the first and second grooves (concave stripes 12, fig. 1, 2) has a groove width measured in a direction parallel to the first anchor wire axis, the groove width being substantially equal to the groove to groove spacing distance (see fig. 2).
Tobe fails to disclose the body of the toothbrush being formed “from bamboo”. Tobe is silent towards the material used for the toothbrush body.
Lee, which discloses a toothbrush, teaches making a toothbrush body from bamboo:
Background-Art [0003]: On the other hand, bamboo is used in the manufacture of various household goods because the wood is hard, elastic, straight, hard in the longitudinal direction, and not easily broken. According to the recent environmental trends, bamboo having such characteristics is used for manufacturing toothbrushes, and the spread of bamboo toothbrushes is increasing.
Tobe and Lee are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field endeavor of toothbrushes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tobe and provide a bamboo body as taught by Lee, creating a durable, flexible, and environmentally considerate product (Lee [0002-0003]).
Tobe fails to disclose each of the anchor wires (flat wire 10, fig. 1, 2 and 7) formed from a metal alloy comprising nickel. Tobe is silent to the material of its anchors.
Milheim, which also discloses a toothbrush with bristle tufts secured by anchors/staples, teaches a material for the anchors.
Page 6 ¶2-3: The staples of the present invention are easily formed from round wire stock…The metal utilized for the staples will depend upon factors such as cost, use of fabrication, corrosion resistance, etc. Widely employed alloys are those of copper, nickel and zinc.
Tobe and Milheim are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field endeavor of toothbrushes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to configure the anchors of Tobe out of nickel, 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. MPEP 2144.07
Tobe fails to disclose the second anchor axis and the groove axis are oblique to the longitudinal axis and the head portion (flocking portion 2, fig. 1 and 7).
Pacuillo, which also discloses a toothbrush with bristle tufts secured by anchors/staples, teaches providing anchors at an angle oblique to the a longitudinal axis of the handle (see fig. 4):
PNG
media_image5.png
312
805
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Col. 6 lines 29-38: The two lateral edges 12-13 of each staple 10 are seen to extend slightly into opposite sidewalls of each hole 215. The rotational orientation of the plane which contains each staple 100 is not critical, i.e., the staple 100 may be installed by rotating it, before installation, about its central vertical axis differently from the rotational orientation of about 45 degrees to assume any desired orientation.
Tobe and Paciullo are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field endeavor of toothbrushes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tobe and provide anchors and tuft rotated as taught by Paciullo, wherein any desired orientation is possible given the orientation does not critically impact the operation of the toothbrush (col. 6 lines 29-38).
In regards to claim 2, Tobe as modified discloses
the toothbrush according to claim 1 wherein each of the first grooves (concave stripes 12, fig. 1, 2) comprises
a floor (see fig. 2 – ann. 4),
a first sidewall extending from the floor to the first surface (surface 11, fig. 2) of the anchor wire (see fig. 2 – ann. 4), and
a second sidewall extending from the floor to the first surface of the anchor wire (see fig. 2 – ann. 4),
the first and second sidewalls of the first grooves being perpendicular to the floor of the first grooves (see fig. 2 – ann. 4), and
wherein each of the second grooves (concave stripes 12, fig. 1, 2 on the opposite side of the anchor) comprises a floor (see fig. 2 – ann. 4),
a first sidewall extending from the floor to the second surface of the anchor wire (see fig. 2 – ann. 4), and
a second sidewall extending from the floor to the second surface of the anchor wire (see fig. 2 – ann. 4),
the first and second sidewalls of the second grooves being perpendicular to the floor of the second grooves (see fig. 2 – ann. 4).
PNG
media_image6.png
603
1095
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 3, Tobe as modified discloses
the toothbrush according to claim 2 wherein each of the first grooves (concave stripes 12, fig. 1, 2) has
a first groove depth (see fig. 2 – ann. 5) measured from the floor of the first groove to the first surface of the anchor wire and
wherein each of the second grooves (concave stripes 12, fig. 1, 2) has
a second groove depth (see fig. 2 – ann. 5) measured from the floor of the second groove to the second surface of the anchor wire, the first and second groove depths being the same (see fig. 2 – ann. 5).
PNG
media_image7.png
603
1095
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 4, Tobe as modified discloses
the toothbrush according to claim 3, but fails to disclose that a ratio of the groove width to each of the first and second groove depths is between 5:1 and 8:1.
Pursuant of MPEP 2144.05.II.A-B (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)), it has been found that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed int he prior art, the discovery of optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation is not inventive, given a lack of evidence indicating the claimed range is critical:
[0048] Thus, in certain embodiments, the first groove width WG1 and the first groove to groove spacing distance D2 are the same. Furthermore, the first groove width WG1 and the first groove to groove spacing distance D2 are greater than the first groove to end spacing distance D3. A ratio of the first groove width WG1 to the first groove to end spacing distance D3 may be between 1.1:1 and 1.3:1. Moreover, in some embodiments a ratio of the first groove width WG1 to the first groove depth D1 may be between 5:1 and 8:1, and more specifically 5.5:1 and 6.5:1. In some embodiments, a ratio of the thickness T1 of the anchor wire 200 to the first groove depth D1 may be greater than 4:1 and less than 6:1.
[0055] Thus, in certain embodiments, the second groove width WG2 and the second groove to groove spacing distance D5 are the same. Furthermore, the second groove width WG2 and the second groove to groove spacing distance D5 are greater than the second groove to end spacing distance D6. A ratio of the second groove width WG2 to the second groove to end spacing distance D6 may be between 1.1:1 and 1.3:1. Moreover, in some embodiments a ratio of the second groove width WG2 to the second groove depth D2 may be between 5:1 and 8:1, and more specifically 5.5:1 and 6.5:1. In some embodiments, a ratio of the thickness T1 of the anchor wire 200 to the second groove depth D4 may be greater than 4:1 and less than 6:1.
As such, it would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention, as the Supreme Court held that "obvious to try" is a valid rationale for an obviousness finding, for example, when there is a "design need" or "market demand" and there are a "finite number" of solutions. In the case of the instant application, the anchor wires received within the tuft holes will have a specific dimensionality, and finding the correct dimensions for the anchors in order to accommodate the tufts being secured within the tuft holes would address design needs and market demands.
In regards to claim 5, Tobe as modified discloses
the toothbrush according to claim 1 wherein one of the first grooves (concave stripes 12, fig. 1, 2) adjacent to the bottom end of the anchor wire (see fig. 2 – ann. 6) and
one of the second grooves (concave stripes 12, fig. 1, 2) adjacent to the bottom end of the anchor wire (see fig. 2 – ann. 6) are spaced apart from the bottom end of the anchor wire by a groove to end spacing distance (see fig. 2 – ann. 6).
PNG
media_image8.png
603
1095
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Tobe fails to explicitly disclose that the groove width and the groove to groove spacing distance are greater than the groove to end spacing distance.
Pursuant of MPEP 2144.05.II.A-B (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)), it has been found that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed int he prior art, the discovery of optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation is not inventive, given a lack of evidence indicating the claimed range is critical:
[0048] Thus, in certain embodiments, the first groove width WG1 and the first groove to groove spacing distance D2 are the same. Furthermore, the first groove width WG1 and the first groove to groove spacing distance D2 are greater than the first groove to end spacing distance D3….
As such, it would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention, as the Supreme Court held that "obvious to try" is a valid rationale for an obviousness finding, for example, when there is a "design need" or "market demand" and there are a "finite number" of solutions. In the case of the instant application, it would be obvious try given finite solutions of providing groove widths and spacing that are either shorter, the same, or greater in length than the groove to end spacing.
In regards to claim 6, Tobe as modified discloses
the toothbrush according to claim 5, but fails to explicitly a ratio of the groove width to the groove to end spacing distance is between 1.1:1 and 1.3:1, and wherein a ratio of the groove to groove spacing distance and the groove to end spacing distance is between 1.1:1 and 1.3:1.
Pursuant of MPEP 2144.05.II.A-B (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)), it has been found that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed int he prior art, the discovery of optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation is not inventive, given a lack of evidence indicating the claimed range is critical (see [0048]).
As such, it would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention, as the Supreme Court held that "obvious to try" is a valid rationale for an obviousness finding, for example, when there is a "design need" or "market demand" and there are a "finite number" of solutions. Finding appropriate sizing of the anchor, including the relative proportions of the grooves and spacing between addresses how the anchors will engage and secure the tufts within the tuft holes, addressing design needs and market demands.
In regards to claim 7, Tobe as modified discloses
the toothbrush according to claim 1 wherein each of the anchor wires (flat wire 10, fig. 1, 2 and 7) comprises a length measured from the bottom end to the top end and a width measured from a first side end to a second side end, the width being greater than the length ([0009]: Has a diameter of 1.0 to 3.5 mm, a length L of the flat wire 10 of 1.2 to 4.5 mm, a height H of 1.0 to 2.0 mm).
In regards to claim 8, Tobe as modified discloses
the toothbrush according to claim 1 wherein the body (brush body 1, fig. 1 and 7) extends along a longitudinal axis from a proximal end to a distal end, and wherein each of the anchor wires (flat wire 10, fig. 1, 2 and 7) is positioned within one of the tuft holes (flocking hole 4, fig. 1 and 7) so that the groove axes of the first and second grooves (concave stripes 12, fig. 1, 2) of the anchor wires intersect the longitudinal axis of the body portion at an oblique angle, and wherein the oblique angle is between 10° and 20° (Per Paciullo: the staple 100 may be installed by rotating it, before installation, about its central vertical axis differently from the rotational orientation of about 45 degrees to assume any desired orientation).
In regards to claim 10, Tobe as modified discloses
the toothbrush according to claim 1 wherein for each of the anchor wires (flat wire 10, fig. 1, 2 and 7), each of the first grooves (concave stripes 12, fig. 1, 2) in the first surface of the anchor wire is aligned with one of the second grooves (concave stripes 12, fig. 1, 2) in the second surface of the anchor wire (see fig. 2 - ann. 7).
PNG
media_image9.png
603
1095
media_image9.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 11, Tobe as modified discloses
the toothbrush according to claim 1 wherein each of the anchor wires (flat wire 10, fig. 1, 2 and 7) comprises
a thickness measured from the first surface to the second surface (see fig. 2 – ann. 8), and wherein each of the first and second grooves (concave stripes 12, fig. 1, 2) has a depth.
PNG
media_image10.png
603
1095
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Tobe fails to explicitly disclose a ratio of the thickness of the anchor wire to the depth of the first and second grooves is greater than 4:1 and less than 6:1.
Pursuant of MPEP 2144.05.II.A-B (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)), it has been found that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed int he prior art, the discovery of optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation is not inventive, given a lack of evidence indicating the claimed range is critical (see [0048], [0055]).
As such, it would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention, as the Supreme Court held that "obvious to try" is a valid rationale for an obviousness finding, for example, when there is a "design need" or "market demand" and there are a "finite number" of solutions. Finding appropriate sizing of the anchor, including the relative proportions of the grooves, thicknesses and spacing between addresses how the anchors will engage and secure the tufts within the tuft holes, addressing design needs and market demands.
In regards to claim 12, Tobe as modified discloses
the toothbrush according to claim 1 wherein each of the anchor wires (flat wire 10, fig. 1, 2 and 7) comprises a thickness measured from the first surface to the second surface (see fig. 2), but fails to explicitly disclose that the groove width is greater than the thickness (see fig. 2 – ann. 9).
Pursuant of MPEP 2144.05.II.A-B (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)), it has been found that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed int he prior art, the discovery of optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation is not inventive, given a lack of evidence indicating the claimed range is critical (see [0048], [0055]).
As such, it would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention, as the Supreme Court held that "obvious to try" is a valid rationale for an obviousness finding, for example, when there is a "design need" or "market demand" and there are a "finite number" of solutions. Finding appropriate sizing of the anchor, including the relative proportions of the grooves, thicknesses and spacing between addresses how the anchors will engage and secure the tufts within the tuft holes, addressing design needs and market demands.
In regards to claim 13, Tobe as modified discloses
the toothbrush according to claim 1 wherein the metal alloy comprises nickel, copper, and zinc, but fails to disclose the nickel comprising 8-15wt% of the metal alloy and the copper comprising 50-70wt% of the metal alloy.
Pursuant of MPEP 2144.05.II.A-B (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)), it has been found that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed int he prior art, the discovery of optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation is not inventive, given a lack of evidence indicating the claimed range is critical:
[0033] In accordance with the invention set forth herein, the anchor wires 200 may be formed from a metal alloy that comprises nickel. In some embodiments, the anchor wire 200 may be formed from a metal alloy comprising nickel, copper, and zinc. In other embodiments, the metal alloy may comprise nickel, copper, lead, and zinc. In one exemplary embodiment, the metal alloy may comprise 8-15wt% nickel and 50-70wt% copper. In another more particular embodiment, the metal alloy may comprise 11-12wt% nickel and 61-62wt% copper. In some embodiments, the remainder of the metal alloy is formed from zinc. In other embodiments there may be a small amount of lead, such as between 0.1wt% and 2wt%, or approximately 0.3wt o lead with the remainder formed by zinc. In other embodiments, the metal alloy may comprise copper and nickel in the noted weight percentages and other metal materials. However, in accordance with embodiments of the invention set forth herein, the metal alloy used to form the anchor wires 200 of the toothbrush 100 comprises at least 10wt% nickel.
As such, it would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention, as the Supreme Court held that "obvious to try" is a valid rationale for an obviousness finding, for example, when there is a "design need" or "market demand" and there are a "finite number" of solutions. Finding appropriate proportions of chemicals in the alloy should be done considering anchor strength and resistance to corrosion, addressing design needs and market demands.
In regards to claim 15, Tobe as modified discloses
the toothbrush according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose the groove width is approximately 0.3mm, wherein the groove to groove spacing distance is approximately 0.3mm, wherein a thickness of the anchor wire measured from the first surface to the second surface is approximately 0.28mm, wherein a depth of the first and second grooves (concave stripes 12, fig. 1, 2) is approximately 0.05mm, and wherein a distance between the first and second grooves (concave stripes 12, fig. 1, 2) positioned closest to the bottom and top ends of the anchor wire and the bottom and top ends of the anchor wire is approximately 0.25mm.
Pursuant of MPEP 2144.05.II.A-B (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)), it has been found that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed int he prior art, the discovery of optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation is not inventive, given a lack of evidence indicating the claimed range is critical (see [0028], [0039], [0044-0045], [0047], [0051-0054]).
As such, it would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention, as the Supreme Court held that "obvious to try" is a valid rationale for an obviousness finding, for example, when there is a "design need" or "market demand" and there are a "finite number" of solutions. Finding appropriate sizing of the anchor, including the relative proportions and lengths of the grooves, thicknesses and spacing between addresses how the anchors will engage and secure the tufts within the tuft holes, addressing design needs and market demands.
In regards to claim 16, Tobe discloses
a toothbrush comprising:
a body (brush body 1, fig. 1 and 7) comprising a handle portion and a head portion (flocking portion 2, fig. 1 and 7) extending along a longitudinal axis and comprising a front surface, the body (brush body 1, fig. 1 and 7);
a plurality of tuft holes (flocking hole 4, fig. 1 and 7) formed into the front surface of the head portion, each of the tuft holes (flocking hole 4, fig. 1 and 7) comprising a floor (see fig. 1- ann. 1) that is recessed relative to the front surface of the head portion;
a bristle tuft (brush bundle 3, fig. 1 and 7) positioned within each of the tuft holes (flocking hole 4, fig. 1 and 7);
an anchor wire (flat wire 10, fig. 1, 2 and 7) positioned within each of the tuft holes (flocking hole 4, fig. 1 and 7) to secure the bristle tufts (brush bundle 3, fig. 1 and 7) to the head portion (flocking portion 2, fig. 1 and 7);
each of the anchor wires comprising a bottom end adjacent to the floor of the tuft hole within which the anchor wire is positioned (see bottom of anchor in fig. 1),
a top end opposite the bottom end (see fig. 2 – ann. 1),
a first anchor wire axis extending from the bottom end to the top end (see fig. 2 – ann. 1),
first and second surfaces (side surfaces 11, fig. 1 and 2) extending from the bottom end to the top end (see fig. 2 – ann. 2),
a first side (see fig. 2 – ann. 1),
a second side opposite the first side (see fig. 2 – ann. 1), and
a second wire axis extending from the first side to the second side and perpendicular to the first anchor wire axis (see fig. 2 – ann. 1);
a plurality of first grooves (concave stripes 12, fig. 1, 2) formed into the first surface of each of the anchor wires and a plurality of second grooves (concave stripes 12, fig. 1, 2) formed into the second surface of each of the anchor wires (see fig. 2 – ann. 2),
each of the first and second grooves (concave stripes 12, fig. 1, 2) extending along a groove axis that is perpendicular to the first anchor wire axis and parallel to the second anchor wire axis (see fig. 2 – ann. 2);
wherein each of the first and second grooves (concave stripes 12, fig. 1, 2) extends continuously from the first side of the anchor wire to the second side of the anchor wire (see fig. 2); and
wherein each of the first grooves comprises a floor (see fig. 2 – ann. 4),
a first sidewall extending from the floor to the first surface of the anchor wire (see fig. 2 – ann. 4), and
a second sidewall extending from the floor to the first surface of the anchor wire (see fig. 2 – ann. 4),
the first and second sidewalls being perpendicular to the floor (see fig. 2 – ann. 4), and
wherein each of the second grooves comprises a floor (see fig. 2 – ann. 4),
a first sidewall extending from the floor to the second surface of the anchor wire (see fig. 2 – ann. 4), and
a second sidewall extending from the floor to the second surface of the anchor wire (see fig. 2 – ann. 4), the first and second sidewalls being perpendicular to the floor (see fig. 2 – ann. 4).
Tobe fails to disclose the body of the toothbrush being formed “cellulosic material”. Tobe is silent towards the material used for the toothbrush body.
Lee, which discloses a toothbrush, teaches making a toothbrush body from bamboo, which is a cellulosic material per the applicant’s specification:
Background-Art [0003]: On the other hand, bamboo is used in the manufacture of various household goods because the wood is hard, elastic, straight, hard in the longitudinal direction, and not easily broken. According to the recent environmental trends, bamboo having such characteristics is used for manufacturing toothbrushes, and the spread of bamboo toothbrushes is increasing.
Tobe and Lee are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field endeavor of toothbrushes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tobe and provide a bamboo body as taught by Lee, creating a durable, flexible, and environmentally considerate product (Lee [0002-0003]).
Tobe fails to disclose each of the anchor wires (flat wire 10, fig. 1, 2 and 7) formed from a metal alloy comprising nickel. Tobe is silent to the material of its anchors.
Milheim, which also discloses a toothbrush with bristle tufts secured by anchors/staples, teaches a material for the anchors.
Page 6 ¶2-3: The staples of the present invention are easily formed from round wire stock…The metal utilized for the staples will depend upon factors such as cost, use of fabrication, corrosion resistance, etc. Widely employed alloys are those of copper, nickel and zinc.
Tobe and Milheim are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field endeavor of toothbrushes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to configure the anchors of Tobe out of nickel, 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. MPEP 2144.07
Tobe fails to disclose the second anchor axis and the groove axis are oblique to the longitudinal axis and the head portion (flocking portion 2, fig. 1 and 7).
Pacuillo, which also discloses a toothbrush with bristle tufts secured by anchors/staples, teaches providing anchors at an angle oblique to the a longitudinal axis of the handle (see fig. 4):
Col. 6 lines 29-38: The two lateral edges 12-13 of each staple 10 are seen to extend slightly into opposite sidewalls of each hole 215. The rotational orientation of the plane which contains each staple 100 is not critical, i.e., the staple 100 may be installed by rotating it, before installation, about its central vertical axis differently from the rotational orientation of about 45 degrees to assume any desired orientation.
Tobe and Paciullo are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field endeavor of toothbrushes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tobe and provide anchors and tuft rotated as taught by Paciullo, wherein any desired orientation is possible given the orientation does not critically impact the operation of the toothbrush (col. 6 lines 29-38).
In regards to claim 17, Tobe as modified discloses
the toothbrush according to claim 16 wherein each of the first grooves (concave stripes 12, fig. 1, 2) and each of the second grooves (concave stripes 12, fig. 1, 2) has
a groove width measured in a direction parallel to the first anchor wire axis, wherein each of the first grooves is spaced apart from each adjacent one of the first grooves and each of the second grooves is spaced apart from each adjacent one of the second grooves by a groove to groove spacing distance, and wherein the groove width and the groove to groove spacing distance are the same (see fig. 2).
In regards to claim 18, Tobe as modified discloses
the toothbrush according to claim 17 wherein each of the first grooves (concave stripes 12, fig. 1, 2) and each of the second grooves (concave stripes 12, fig. 1, 2) comprises a groove depth, but fails to explicitly disclose a ratio of the groove width to the groove depth is between 5:1 and 8:1.
Pursuant of MPEP 2144.05.II.A-B (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)), it has been found that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed int he prior art, the discovery of optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation is not inventive, given a lack of evidence indicating the claimed range is critical ([0048])
As such, it would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention, as the Supreme Court held that "obvious to try" is a valid rationale for an obviousness finding, for example, when there is a "design need" or "market demand" and there are a "finite number" of solutions. In the case of the instant application, the anchor wires received within the tuft holes will have a specific dimensionality, and finding the correct dimensions for the anchors in order to accommodate the tufts being secured within the tuft holes would address design needs and market demands.
In regards to claim 19, Tobe as modified discloses
the toothbrush according to claim 17 wherein the plurality of first grooves (concave stripes 12, fig. 1, 2) comprises
a first end groove (see fig. 2 – ann. 6) spaced a first groove to end spacing distance from the bottom end of the anchor wire and a second end groove spaced a second groove to end spacing distance from the top end of the anchor wire (see fig. 2 – ann. 6), but fails to explicitly disclose the groove width and the groove to groove spacing distance are greater than the first and second groove to end spacing distances, wherein a ratio of the groove width to each of the first and second groove to end spacing distances is between 1.1:1 and 1.3:1.
Pursuant of MPEP 2144.05.II.A-B (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)), it has been found that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed int he prior art, the discovery of optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation is not inventive, given a lack of evidence indicating the claimed range is critical (see [0048]).
As such, it would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention, as the Supreme Court held that "obvious to try" is a valid rationale for an obviousness finding, for example, when there is a "design need" or "market demand" and there are a "finite number" of solutions. Finding appropriate sizing of the anchor, including the relative proportions of the grooves and spacing between addresses how the anchors will engage and secure the tufts within the tuft holes, addressing design needs and market demands.
In regards to claim 21, Tobe as modified discloses
the toothbrush according to claim 16 wherein the cellulosic material comprises bamboo (per modification in view of Lee, see rejection of claim 16).
In regards to claim 22, Tobe as modified discloses
the toothbrush according to claim 16 wherein each of the anchor wires (flat wire 10, fig. 1, 2 and 7) comprises a thickness measured from the first surface to the second surface, and wherein each of the first grooves (concave stripes 12, fig. 1, 2) and each of the second grooves (concave stripes 12, fig. 1, 2) has a groove width measured in a direction parallel to the first anchor wire axis, but fails to explicitly disclose that the groove width is greater than the thickness (see fig. 2 – ann. 9).
Pursuant of MPEP 2144.05.II.A-B (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)), it has been found that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed int he prior art, the discovery of optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation is not inventive, given a lack of evidence indicating the claimed range is critical (see [0048], [0055]).
As such, it would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention, as the Supreme Court held that "obvious to try" is a valid rationale for an obviousness finding, for example, when there is a "design need" or "market demand" and there are a "finite number" of solutions. Finding appropriate sizing of the anchor, including the relative proportions of the grooves, thicknesses and spacing between addresses how the anchors will engage and secure the tufts within the tuft holes, addressing design needs and market demands.
In regards to claim 23, Tobe discloses
a toothbrush comprising: a body (brush body 1, fig. 1 and 7) comprising a handle portion and a head portion (flocking portion 2, fig. 1 and 7) extending along a longitudinal axis and comprising a front surface, the body (brush body 1, fig. 1 and 7);
a plurality of tuft holes (flocking hole 4, fig. 1 and 7) formed into the front surface of the head portion, each of the tuft holes (flocking hole 4, fig. 1 and 7) comprising a floor (see fig. 1- ann. 1) that is recessed relative to the front surface of the head portion;
a bristle tuft (brush bundle 3, fig. 1 and 7) positioned within each of the tuft holes (flocking hole 4, fig. 1 and 7);
an anchor wire (flat wire 10, fig. 1, 2 and 7) positioned within each of the tuft holes (flocking hole 4, fig. 1 and 7) to secure the bristle tufts (brush bundle 3, fig. 1 and 7) to the head portion (flocking portion 2, fig. 1 and 7);
each of the anchor wires comprising a bottom end adjacent to the floor of the tuft hole within which the anchor wire is positioned (see bottom of anchor in fig. 1),
a top end opposite the bottom end (see fig. 2 – ann. 1),
a first anchor wire axis extending from the bottom end to the top end (see fig. 2 – ann. 1),
first and second surfaces (side surfaces 11, fig. 1 and 2) extending from the bottom end to the top end (see fig. 2 – ann. 2),
a first side (see fig. 2 – ann. 1),
a second side opposite the first side (see fig. 2 – ann. 1),
a second wire axis extending from the first side to the second side and perpendicular to the first anchor wire axis (see fig. 2 – ann. 1) and
a thickness measured from the first surface to the second surface (see fig. 2);
a plurality of first grooves (concave stripes 12, fig. 1, 2) formed into the first surface of each of the anchor wires and a plurality of second grooves (concave stripes 12, fig. 1, 2) formed into the second surface of each of the anchor wires, each of the first and second grooves (concave stripes 12, fig. 1, 2) extending along a groove axis that is perpendicular to the first anchor wire axis and parallel to the second anchor wire axis (see fig. 2- ann. 2);
wherein each of the first and second grooves (concave stripes 12, fig. 1, 2) extends an entirety of a width of the anchor wire from the first side to the second side (see fig. 2 – ann. 3); and
wherein each of the first and second grooves (concave stripes 12, fig. 1, 2) has a groove width measured in a direction parallel to the first anchor wire axis, wherein the groove width is greater than the thickness of the anchor wire (see fig. 2 – ann. 8).
Tobe fails to disclose the body of the toothbrush being formed “from bamboo”. Tobe is silent towards the material used for the toothbrush body.
Lee, which discloses a toothbrush, teaches making a toothbrush body from bamboo:
Background-Art [0003]: On the other hand, bamboo is used in the manufacture of various household goods because the wood is hard, elastic, straight, hard in the longitudinal direction, and not easily broken. According to the recent environmental trends, bamboo having such characteristics is used for manufacturing toothbrushes, and the spread of bamboo toothbrushes is increasing.
Tobe and Lee are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field endeavor of toothbrushes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tobe and provide a bamboo body as taught by Lee, creating a durable, flexible, and environmentally considerate product (Lee [0002-0003]).
Tobe fails to disclose each of the anchor wires (flat wire 10, fig. 1, 2 and 7) formed from a metal alloy comprising nickel. Tobe is silent to the material of its anchors.
Milheim, which also discloses a toothbrush with bristle tufts secured by anchors/staples, teaches a material for the anchors.
Page 6 ¶2-3: The staples of the present invention are easily formed from round wire stock…The metal utilized for the staples will depend upon factors such as cost, use of fabrication, corrosion resistance, etc. Widely employed alloys are those of copper, nickel and zinc.
Tobe and Milheim are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field endeavor of toothbrushes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to configure the anchors of Tobe out of nickel, 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. MPEP 2144.07
Tobe fails to disclose the second anchor axis and the groove axis are oblique to the longitudinal axis and the head portion (flocking portion 2, fig. 1 and 7).
Pacuillo, which also discloses a toothbrush with bristle tufts secured by anchors/staples, teaches providing anchors at an angle oblique to the a longitudinal axis of the handle (see fig. 4):
PNG
media_image5.png
312
805
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Col. 6 lines 29-38: The two lateral edges 12-13 of each staple 10 are seen to extend slightly into opposite sidewalls of each hole 215. The rotational orientation of the plane which contains each staple 100 is not critical, i.e., the staple 100 may be installed by rotating it, before installation, about its central vertical axis differently from the rotational orientation of about 45 degrees to assume any desired orientation.
Tobe and Paciullo are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field endeavor of toothbrushes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tobe and provide anchors and tuft rotated as taught by Paciullo, wherein any desired orientation is possible given the orientation does not critically impact the operation of the toothbrush (col. 6 lines 29-38).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON KHALIL HAWKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-5446. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 8-5PM.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/JASON KHALIL HAWKINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights