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 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 1-7, 9-10, 12, 14-15, 19, 26, and 28 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 “wherein the brush head member is shaped to support the brush head” and is not supported in the specifications. The specifications recite “the at least one support member is shaped to support the brush head” but fails to disclose the limitations of claim 1. Claims 2-7, 9-10, 12, 14-15, 19, 26, and 28 are rejected due to being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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 1-7, 9-10, 12, 14-15, 19-23, 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 20 recites “the brush head” it is unclear to the examiner if applicant intended for a new structure or is referring to “a brush head member”. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation as “the brush head member”.
Claim 26 recites “wherein the support member is shaped is shaped to support the brush head member” in lines 1-2 of the claim, but Claim 1 was amended to recite, ”wherein the brush head member is shaped to support the brush head”. It is unclear the examiner if applicant intended to incorporate claim 26 into claim 1 or if the change in the claim language from “the support member” to “the brush head was intentional . For purpose of examination, examiner has interpreted the limitation of claim 26 as intending to be incorporated into claim 1 and examiner notes claim 26 would not further limit claim 1.
Claims 26 recites “a transverse distance”, “a proximal portion”, “ a distal portion”, and “a void”. It is unclear to the examiner if applicant intends for the limitations to be new structures or the same structures in claim 1. For purpose of examination examiner interprets the limitation as the same as in claim 1.
Claims 27 recites “a transverse distance”, “a proximal portion”, “ a distal portion”, and “a void”. It is unclear to the examiner if applicant intends for the limitations to be new structures or the same structures in claim 20. For purpose of examination examiner interprets the limitation as the same as in claim 20. Claim 27 further recites “the support member” it is unclear to the examiner if applicant intended for a new structure or is referring to “at least one support member” in claim 20. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation as “the at least one support member”. Claim 27 is further unclear to the examiner if applicant intends to be incorporated fully into claim 20 or if applicant intends to or if the change in the claim language in claim 27. For purpose of examination, examiner has interpreted the limitation of claim 26 as intending to be incorporated into claim 20 and examiner notes claim 27 would not further limit claim 1.
Claims 2-7, 9-10, 12, 14-15, 19, 21-23, and 28 are rejected due to being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-10, 20, 22, and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kamemizu (JP2877772A, previously presented).
Regarding claim 1, Kamemizu teaches A toothbrush product (Fig. 9A) for cleaning an exposed mesial or distal surface of a tooth or tooth prosthesis (Fig. 9B) comprising:
an elongate member (Ref. 45, Fig. 9A) comprising a forward end (See annotated Fig. 9A below) and a backward end (See annotated Fig. 9A below) , wherein the elongate member comprises a handle portion (Ref. 46, Fig. 1) and the elongate member extends in a longitudinal direction from the forward end to the backward end (Fig. 9A annotated below);
a brush head member (Ref. 49, Fig. 1) comprising a forward surface (See annotated Fig. 9B below) facing a forward direction (See annotated Fig. 9B below) and a backward surface (See annotated Fig. 9B below) facing a backward direction (See annotated Fig. 9B below), wherein the brush head member comprises a first plurality of tufts (Ref. 51, Fig. 9) provided at the forward surface for contacting the exposed mesial surface (Fig. 9B) and/or a second plurality of tufts provided at the backward surface of the brush head member for contacting the exposed distal surface; and
at least one support member (Ref. 48 Fig. 9B, left and right leg members) for the brush head member disposed at the forward end of the elongate member (Fig. 9A) wherein the brush head member is shaped to support the brush head at a transverse distance from the elongate member (Fig. 9A shows the brush head member (49) extending transversely from the elongate member (45)), wherein the at least one support member (48) comprises a proximal portion (See annotated Fig. 9A below) extending laterally (Fig. 9 shows the proximal portion extends laterally) and a distal portion (See annotated Fig. 9A below) extending transversely (Fig. 9 shows the distal portion extending transversely) thereby to provide a void (See annotated Fig. 9 below) between the forward end of the elongate member and the brush head across said transverse distance (Fig. 9) and wherein at least part of the support member extends away from the forward end of the elongate member in the transverse direction such that the void is provided in a substantially transverse plane (Fig. 9 shows the support members extending downwards and away in a transverse direction from the elongate member and creating a transverse plane where the void sits), wherein the at least one support member comprises a first support member (Ref. 9B left leg member) and a second support member (Ref. 9B right leg member) disposed on opposing sides of the elongate member (Fig. 9A show opposite sides in a lateral direction)and wherein the brush head member spans the distance between distal portions of the first and second support members (Fig. 9) such that at least the brush head member and the first and second support members form a closed loop (fig. 9 shows a closed loop), and
wherein the brush head member (49) comprises a longest dimension spanning a lateral direction relative to the transverse distance (Fig. 9B the top down view shows the brush head member having the longest dimension in a lateral direction (left and right direction)).
PNG
media_image1.png
241
399
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
314
348
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
314
491
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Kamemizu teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the at least one support member and brush head member comprises a loop profile (Fig. 9 shows a closed loop).
Regarding Claim 3, Kamemizu teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches a shoulder coupling (Ref. 47, Fig. 9A) between the elongate member (45) and the at least one support member (48, left and right leg members, Fig. 9A).
Regarding Claim 5, Kamemizu teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the at least one support member (48 leg members) comprises a curved profile in the lateral direction (Fig. 9B shows a curved profile in a lateral direction) and/or a curved profile in the transverse direction (Fig. 9A, shows the support members curved in the transverse direction).
Regarding Claim 6, Kamemizu teaches the limitations of claim 5, as described above, and further teaches wherein the curved profile in the transverse direction (Fig. 9a shows the profile is curved downward) and in the lateral direction (Fig. 9b shows the curved profile in a lateral direction) is selected to correspond to a curved profile of a tooth or tooth prosthesis (Fig. 9B).
Regarding Claim 7, Kamemizu teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the distal portion of the at least one support member (48) curves either towards or away from the handle portion (46) (Fig. 9A shows the distal portion curving away from the handle in a vertical direction).
Regarding Claim 9, Kamemizu teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches a forward portion (See annotated Fig. 9A below) disposed between the handle portion (46) and the support member (48) wherein the forward portion is inclined and/or curved or straight relative to the handle portion (Fig. 9A&B shows the support portion as straight).
PNG
media_image4.png
137
242
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 10, Kamemizu teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches herein the brush head member extends laterally from the distal end of the support member (Fig. 9B) and comprises least one of a), b), c):
a) a profile that is at least one of: curved, concave, convex, tear-drop, arched, flat, straight (Fig. 9B shows a profile that is straight);
b) a profile that comprises a void at a lower or upper side edge;
c) a flat section.
Regarding Claim 20, Kamemizu teaches A brush head assembly (Fig. 9A) configured to be coupled to an elongate member (Ref. 45, Fig. 9A) comprising a handle portion (Ref. 46, Fig. 1), wherein the brush head assembly comprises:
a brush head member (Ref. 49, Fig. 1) comprising a plurality of tufts (Ref. 51, Fig. 9) provided at a forward and/or a backward surface of the brush head member (See annotated Fig. 9B below) and/or a second plurality of tufts provided at a backward surface of the brush head member and
at least one support member (Ref. 48 Fig. 9B, left and right leg members) for the brush head member (Fig. 9) and a brush head assembly coupling (Ref. 47, Fig. 9B) for coupling the at least one support member to an elongate member (Ref. 45, Fig. 9A) comprising a handle portion (Ref. 46, Fig. 1), wherein the brush head member extends laterally from a distal end of the at least one support member (Fig. 9B shows the brush head extending laterally from the end of the support member), wherein the at least one support member is shaped to provide the brush head at a distance from the brush head assembly coupling (Fig. 9A shows the brush head member (49) extending a distance from the coupling (45))and
wherein the at least one support member comprises a proximal portion (See annotated Fig. 9A below) extending laterally (Fig. 9 shows the proximal portion extends laterally) and a distal portion (See annotated Fig. 9A below) extending transversely from the brush head assembly coupling (47) (Fig. 9 shows the distal portion extending transversely from the brush head assembly coupling), such that a void (See annotated Fig. 9 below) is provided between the brush head assembly coupling and the brush head across said distance (Fig. 9);
and wherein at least part of the support member extends away from the forward end of the elongate member in a transverse direction such that the void is provided in a substantially transverse plane (Fig. 9 shows the support members extending downwards and away in a transverse direction from the elongate member and creating a transverse plane where the void sits);
wherein the at least one support member comprises a first support member (Ref. 9B left leg member) and a second support member (Ref. 9B right leg member) disposed on opposing sides of the elongate member (Fig. 9A show opposite sides in a lateral direction) and wherein the brush head member spans the distance between distal portions of the first and second support members (Fig. 9) such that at least the brush head member and the first and second support members form a closed loop (fig. 9 shows a closed loop); and
wherein the brush head member (49) comprises a longest dimension spanning a lateral direction relative to the transverse distance (Fig. 9B the top down view shows the brush head member having the longest dimension in a lateral direction (left and right direction)).
PNG
media_image1.png
241
399
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
314
491
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 22, Kamemizu teaches a kit of parts comprising:
a brush head assembly (Fig. 9A) configured to be coupled to an elongate member (Ref. 45, Fig. 9A) comprising a handle portion (Ref. 46, Fig. 1), wherein the brush head assembly comprises:
a brush head member (Ref. 49, Fig. 1) comprising a plurality of tufts (Ref. 51, Fig. 9) provided at a forward and/or a backward surface of the brush head member (See annotated Fig. 9B below) and/or a second plurality of tufts provided at a backward surface of the brush head member and
at least one support member (Ref. 48 Fig. 9B, left and right leg members) for the brush head member (Fig. 9) and a brush head assembly coupling (Ref. 47, Fig. 9B) for coupling the at least one support member to an elongate member (Ref. 45, Fig. 9A) comprising a handle portion (Ref. 46, Fig. 1), wherein the brush head member extends laterally from a distal end of the at least one support member (Fig. 9B shows the brush head extending laterally from the end of the support member), wherein the at least one support member is shaped to provide the brush head at a distance from the brush head assembly coupling (Fig. 9A shows the brush head member (49) extending a distance from the coupling (45))and
wherein the at least one support member comprises a proximal portion (See annotated Fig. 9A below) extending laterally (Fig. 9 shows the proximal portion extends laterally) and a distal portion (See annotated Fig. 9A below) extending transversely from the brush head assembly coupling (47) (Fig. 9 shows the distal portion extending transversely from the brush head assembly coupling), such that a void (See annotated Fig. 9 below) is provided between the brush head assembly coupling and the brush head across said distance (Fig. 9);
and wherein at least part of the support member extends away from the forward end of the elongate member in a transverse direction such that the void is provided in a substantially transverse plane (Fig. 9 shows the support members extending downwards and away in a transverse direction from the elongate member and creating a transverse plane where the void sits);
wherein the at least one support member comprises a first support member (Ref. 9B left leg member) and a second support member (Ref. 9B right leg member) disposed on opposing sides of the elongate member (Fig. 9A show opposite sides in a lateral direction) and wherein the brush head member spans the distance between distal portions of the first and second support members (Fig. 9) such that at least the brush head member and the first and second support members form a closed loop (fig. 9 shows a closed loop); and
wherein the brush head member comprises a longest dimension spanning a lateral direction (See annotated fig. 9A below).
PNG
media_image1.png
241
399
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
143
242
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
314
348
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
314
491
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 26, Kamemizu teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the support member is shaped to support the brush head member at a transverse distance from the elongate member (Fig. 9 shows the support members showing the brush head member supported across the elongated member in a lateral direction), wherein the at least one support member comprises a proximal portion (See annotated Fig. 9B above) extending laterally and a distal portion (See annotated Fig. 9B above) extending transversely thereby to provide a void (See annotated Fig. 9B above) between the forward end of the elongate member and the brush head member across said transverse distance and wherein at least part of the support member extends away from the forward end of the elongate member in the transverse direction such that the void is provided in a substantially transverse plane (Fig. 9 shows the support members extending downwards and away creating a more perpendicular plate to the elongated member).
Regarding Claim 27, Kamemizu teaches the limitations of claim 20, as described above, and further teaches wherein the support member is shaped to provide the brush head member at a distance from the brush head member assembly coupling (Fig. 9A&B show the support member (48) providing distance for the brush member (51)) and wherein the at least one support member comprises a proximal portion (See annotated Fig. 9B above) extending laterally (fig. 9B) and a distal portion (See annotated Fig. 9B above) extending transversely from the brush head assembly coupling (Fig. 9), such that a void (See annotated Fig. 9B above) is provided between the brush head assembly coupling and the brush head member across said distance (fig. 9B).
Regarding Claim 28, Kamemizu teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the first plurality of tufts (51) and/or the second plurality of tufts are arranged such that free ends of the first plurality of tufts (Fig. 9A&B) and/or the second plurality of tufts comprise a curved and/or an inclined and/or a vertical side profile (Fig. 9A shows some vertical side profile, note, examiner interprets a vertical side profile as any profile in a vertical direction).
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 4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamemizu as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Vieten ( US 4,763,375, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 4, Kamemizu teaches the limitations of claim 3, as described above, and teaches the shoulder coupling couples the elongate member and the at least one support member (Fig. 9A) but fails to explicitly teach wherein the shoulder coupling couples the elongate member and the at least one support member such that the at least one support member is projected from the elongate member in a transverse direction at an angle in the range between 15 degrees and 250 degrees or between 80 degrees and 120 degrees. Vienten teaches a toothbrush with an elongate member and at least one support member and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Vienten teaches a toothbrush product (Ref. 2, Fig. 1) comprising an elongate member (Ref. 4, Fig. 1), a brush head member (Ref. 14, Fig. 2), and at least one support member (Ref. 12&18, Fig. 2), wherein the shoulder coupling (Ref. 18, Fig. 2) couples the elongate member (4) and the at least one support member (12) such that the at least one support member (12) is projected from the elongate member in a transverse direction at an angle in the range between 15 degrees and 250 degrees (Fig. 2 shows the support member (12) is projected form the elongate member at an 180 degree angle) or between 80 degrees and 120 degrees. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the shoulder coupling and elongated and at least one support member, as taught by Kamemizu, such that the at least one support member is projected from the elongate member in a transverse direction at an angle in the range between 15 degrees and 250 degrees, as taught by Vienten, to provide improved cleansing of teeth and allow the inside of a person’s teeth while holding a toothbrush normally ([Col. 3, Lines 29-33]).
Regarding Claim 19, Kamemizu teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the elongate member and/or the brush head member and/or the at least one support member is manufactured out of at least one of:
a biodegradable material, plastic, bamboo, an elastomer, elastomer coated and/or bristles of the plurality of tufts comprise any suitable material, for example, elastomer and/or nylon and/or an antimicrobial material and/or wherein the tufts comprise a material that is plaque repellent and/or wherein the tufts are replaceable.
Vienten teaches a toothbrush with an elongate member and at least one support member and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Vienten teaches wherein the elongate member is manufactured out of plastic ([Col. 5, Lines 7-9] teach the elongated member is made from plastic). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the elongated member, as taught by Kamemizu, to be manufactured out of plastic, as taught by Vienten, to provide improved cleansing of teeth and allow the inside of a person’s teeth while holding a toothbrush normally ([Col. 3, Lines 29-33]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamemizu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Harada (US 6,230,355, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 12, Kamemizu teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the plurality of tufts are arranged such that the tufts at the most transverse part of the brush head member extend further from the brush head surface than tufts provided at the least transverse part of the brush head member. Harada teaches a toothbrush with a curved brush head member and plurality of tufts and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Harada further teaches a brush head member (Ref. 210, Fig. 2) with a plurality of tufts (Ref. 207, Fig. 2&4) arranged such that the tufts at the most transverse part of the brush head member (Ref. 411, Fig. 4) extend further from the brush head surface than tufts provided at the least transverse part of the brush head member (Ref. 415, Fig. 2-4 show the plurality of tufts towards the most traverse part extending further than the tufts at the least traverse part). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrange the plurality of tufts, as taught by Kamemizu, to have the plurality of tufts towards the most traverse part extending further than the tufts at the least traverse part, as taught by Harada, to increase the quantity of bristles that will continuously engage a tooths surface ([Col. 3, Line 20-25]).
Claims 14-15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamemizu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brackin (US 6,345,405, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 14, Kamemizu teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches a plurality of tufts (51) on the forward surface of the brush head member (Fig. 9). Kamemizu fails to explicitly teach a second plurality of brush heads on the backward surface of the brush head member. Brackin teaches a brush head (Ref. 14 Fig. 1-2) with a first plurality of tufts (Ref. 20, Fig. 1-2) on a forward surface (Ref. 16, Fig. 1) and a second plurality of tufts (Ref. 22, Fig. 1-2) on the backward surface of the brush head member (Ref. 18, Fig. 1) with the first and second tufts extending 180 degrees away from each other ([Col. 3, Lines 20-21]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the head member, as taught by Kamemizu, with a first plurality of tufts to extend 180 degrees away from a second plurality of tufts, as taught by Brackin, to add further functionality of cleaning multiple teeth simultaneously ([Col. 3, Lines 1-2]).
Regarding Claim 15, Kamemizu as modified teaches the limitations of claim 14, as described above, Brackin further teaches the first and second tufts extending 180 degrees from each other. Brackin further teaches wherein the first plurality of tufts are aligned along a first tuft axis (Fig. 2 annotated below, [Col. 3, Lines 15-20] describe the first tufts are perpendicular from the face, note examiner interprets the tuft axis as along the direction or angle the tufts extend in, Brackin) and the second plurality of tufts are aligned along a second tuft axis (Fig. 2 annotated below, [Col. 3, Lines 15-20] describe the first tufts are perpendicular from the face, note examiner interprets the tuft axis as along the direction or angle the tufts extend in, Brackin) and the angle between the first tuft axis and the second tuft axis is in the range from 30 degrees to 280 degrees ([Col. 3, Lines 20-21] describes the tufts extending 180 degrees away from each other, Fig. 2 below, Brackin). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the angle between the first tuft axis and the second tuft axis be 180 degrees to add further functionality of cleaning both the upper and lower teeth simultaneously ([Col. 3, Lines 1-2]).
PNG
media_image6.png
325
595
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamemizu as applied to claims 20 and 22 above, and further in view of Sato (US 5,842,249, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 21, Kamemizu teaches the limitations of claim 20, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach the brush head assembly is configured to be coupled to an electric toothbrush. Sata teaches a toothbrush assembly with a brush head, elongate member, and a handle portion and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Sato teaches A brush head assembly (Ref. A2, Fig. 4) configured to be coupled to an elongate member (Ref. 1a&5, Fig. 4) comprising a handle portion (Ref. 5, Fig. 4), wherein the brush head assembly comprises:
a brush head member (Ref. 2, Fig. 4), at least one support member (Ref. 10, Fig. 4), wherein the brush head assembly is configured to be coupled to an electric toothbrush (Fig. 4, Ref. 52 describes a battery powered toothbrush). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the brush head assembly, as taught by Kamemizu, to be coupled to an electric toothbrush, as taught by Sato, to allow for higher efficiency of brushing ([Col. 8, Lines 50-51]).
Regarding Claim 23, Kamemizu teaches the limitations of claim 22, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the brush head assembly comprises a first mating feature at the brush head assembly coupling and the elongate member comprise a second corresponding mating feature configured to mate to the first mating feature. Sato teaches a toothbrush assembly with a brush head, elongate member, and a handle portion and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Sato teaches A brush head assembly (Ref. A2, Fig. 4) configured to be coupled to an elongate member (Ref. 1a&5, Fig. 4) comprising a handle portion (Ref. 5, Fig. 4), wherein the brush head assembly comprises:
a brush head member (Ref. 2, Fig. 4), at least one support member (Ref. 10, Fig. 4), wherein the brush head assembly comprises a first mating feature (Ref. 20,Fig. 4 left side) at the brush head assembly coupling (20) and the elongate member comprise a second corresponding mating feature (Ref. 11, Fig. 4) configured to mate to the first mating feature (Fig. 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the brush head assembly and elongate member, as taught by Kamemizu, to have a first mating feature and a second corresponding mating feature, as taught by Sato, to allow for easy replacement of the brush head when worn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the drawings are acknowledged and examiner has withdrawn the drawing objections.
Applicant’s amendments to the specifications are acknowledged and examiner has withdrawn the specification objections.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 20 are acknowledged and examiner has withdrawn the claim objections.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are acknowledged and the previous 35 USC 112(b) rejections are withdrawn. However new 35 USC 112(b) and 112(d) rejections have been applied based upon the modifications.
Applicant's arguments filed 17 October, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has amended claims 1 and 20 thereby changing the scope of the claim necessitating a new grounds of rejection and reinterpretation of the prior art.
In response to applicant's argument that Kamemizu would not be used to clean exposed surfaces of a tooth, is a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Further Applicant’s arguments in regards Kamemizu failing to teach a brush head member having a forward and backward surface with respective tufts, have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Examiner has applied Kamemizu to the 35 USC 102 rejection above. Kamemizu teaches a brush head member (Ref. 49, Fig. 1) comprising a forward surface (See annotated Fig. 9B above) facing a forward direction (See annotated Fig. 9B above) and a backward surface (See annotated Fig. 9B above) facing a backward direction (See annotated Fig. 9B above), wherein the brush head member comprises a first plurality of tufts (Ref. 51, Fig. 9) provided at the forward surface for contacting the exposed mesial surface (Fig. 9B). Examiner notes the brush head member (49) of Kamemizu even as a wire based brush would still have a front surface and a backwards surface. The limitations of the claim do not require the brush head member to have flat forwards surfaces and flat backward surfaces. Further the bristles extending from the wire do still make up bristle tufts and while wrapped radially are provided at the forward surface of the brush head member. Examiner notes a plurality of tufts as a plurality of bristles. If applicant intends for the plurality of bristle members to sit within tuft holes such a limitation is not required.
Further applicant’s arguments that Kamemizu does not describes a void in a substantially transverse plane has been fully considered and is not persuasive. Examiner has applied Kamemizu to the 35 USC 102 rejection above. Kamemizu teaches a void (See annotated Fig. 9 above) provided in a substantially transverse plane (Fig. 9 shows the void is provided partially within the transverse plane). If applicant intends for the void to sit fully in a transverse plane 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