RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
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 .
Request for Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/08/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-2, 4,8, 17-20, 23-25, 31-36 and 38-39 are pending in the application, claims 32-36 and 38-39 are withdrawn due to Applicant’s election.
WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS
The 35 U.S.C. §112 rejections of the claims made of record in the office action mailed on 09/08/2025 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 11/20/2025.
The 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections of the claims made of record in the office action mailed on 09/08/2025 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 11/20/2025.
REJECTIONS
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 23 does not further limit claim 18 because claim 18 already includes a polyethylene filament including UHWMPE. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-2, 4, 8, 17-20, 23-25 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zachariades et al. (EP 0662388) (cited in the IDS filed on 06/04/2024) in view of Dolan et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5,518,012), Kamo et al. (JP 06-123005), Snijder et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 20080156345) and ‘489 (JP 2002-537489).
Regarding claims 1 and 18, Zachariades et al. discloses a thermoplastic tape, ribbon or monofilament. (Abstract). In particular the thermoplastic material may be ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) (Abstract). Zachariades et al. teaches a dental floss composition having a thickness of 0.001 inches or more (i.e. 0.0254 mm) and a width of 0.01 to 0.25 inches (i.e. 0.254 mm to 6.35 mm) (see Example 1), thereby overlapping with the presently claimed ranges. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 199).
Zachariades et al. does not disclose the porosity of the thermoplastic monofilament but does mention adjusting the porosity of the thermoplastic material (Abstract and page 5, lines 23-25).
Dolan et al. teaches a polytetrafluoroethylene dental tape (floss) having improved handling properties. (Abstract). Dolan et al. teaches that the porosity of the floss is important for adjusting the compressibility which makes it easier to handle and more comfortable when applied between teeth and gums. (col. 7, lines 54-67).
Kamo et al. teaches a high-tenacity polyethylene fiber material having good mechanical strength. (Abstract). Kamo et al. teaches that the porosity of the polyethylene having a porosity of 30-85% (par. [0009]) which allows for improved compression/crush resistance. (par. [0014]-[0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the porosity of the thermoplastic monofilament in Zachariades et al. in view of the teachings of both Dolan and Kamo et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the porosity of the thermoplastic filament of Zachariades et al. in view of the teachings in Dolan et al. regarding the desire to obtain good compressibility of the dental floss fibers and the teachings in Kamo et al. that a porosity of 30-85% would obtain improved compression/crush resistance.
Zachariades et al. does not disclose that the UHMWPE includes a copolymer in an amount of 0.001 mol% to 10 mol% as claimed.
Snijder et al. is directed to a dental tape composition including ultra-high molar mass polyethylene. (Abstract). Snijder et al. teaches the inclusion of up to 5 mol% of other co-monomers such as alkenes. (par. [0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide up to 5 mol% of comonomers in the ultra-high molar mass polyethylene dental floss composition of Zachariades et al., as taught in Snijder et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include up to 5 mol% of comonomers in the ultra-high molar mass polyethylene dental tape composition as one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing a composition that is satisfactory for use as a dental floss material. Given the explicit teaching in Snijder et al. that such comonomers may be included in ultra-high molar mass polyethylene for a dental floss composition, it would have been obvious to include them in a composition containing the same type of polymer for the same intended use in Zachariades et al. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.07.
Zachariades in view of Dolan, Kamo and Snijder et al. do not teach interconnected pores.
‘489 teaches a dental floss holding device containing dental floss made from expanded PTFE (Abstract) which includes a continuous pore structure which allows for high friction of the dental floss to remove extra oral debris during interdental irrigation and allows for easier gripping of the floss by the floss holding device. (page 9, 4th paragraph from the bottom)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a polyethylene structure having interconnected pores in Zachariades et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use an interconnected pore structure in order to provide improved friction for debris removal and easier gripping as taught by ‘489.
Regarding claim 2, Zachariades et al. teaches a dental floss composition (Example 1).
Regarding claim 4, Zachariades et al. uses UHMWPE that has been expanded to improve the porosity thereof. (Abstract and page 5, lines 23-25).
Regarding claim 8, Zachariades et al. in view of Dolan and Kamo et al. would render obvious a porosity of 30-80%, for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 17, Zachariades et al. teaches using the thermoplastic material as a tape or ribbon (i.e. a multifilament composition containing the monofilaments). (Abstract and Examples 2-3).
Regarding claims 19-20 and 31, Zachariades et al. teaches braiding, knitting or weaving the filaments with additional fibers (i.e. yarns as claimed). (page 5, lines 41-43).
Regarding claims 23-24, Zachariades et al. uses UHMWPE that has been expanded to improve the porosity thereof. (Abstract and page 5, lines 23-25).
Regarding claim 25, Zachariades et al. in view of Dolan and Kamo et al. would render obvious a porosity of 30-80%, for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Claims 1-2, 4, 8, 17-20, 23-25 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rechliez et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5,032,450) in view of Zachariades et al. (EP 0662388) and Snijder et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 20080156345).
Regarding claims 1 and 18, Rechliez et al. teaches a sheet of a microporous material comprising ultrahigh molecular weight polyolefin including a moisture vapor permeably coating of a hydrophobic polymer on one side of the sheet. (Abstract). Rechliez et al. teaches that the polyolefin may be polyethylene (col. 2, line 56), the porosity thereof is in the range of 70-95% (col. 7, lines 40-49), overlapping with the presently claimed range, and includes interconnected pores. (Abstract).
Rechliez et al. does not disclose that the microporous material is provided in the form of a monofilament having a width and thickness in the range presently claimed.
Zachariades et al. discloses a thermoplastic tape, ribbon or monofilament. (Abstract). In particular the thermoplastic material may be ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) (Abstract). Zachariades et al. discloses that UHMWPE has a wide variety of different properties that make it useful in many different applications. (page 2, lines 11-18), including tapes, sheets, filaments and the like. (page 4, lines 20-24). Zachariades et al. teaches a dental floss composition having a thickness of 0.001 inches or more (i.e. 0.0254 mm) and a width of 0.01 to 0.25 inches (i.e. 0.254 mm to 6.35 mm) (see Example 1), thereby overlapping with the presently claimed ranges.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a thermoplastic tape/monofilament of the composition of Rechliez et al. into an article having a width and thickness in the range disclosed in Zachariades et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form a tape/monofilament from the composition disclosed in Rechliez et al. in view of the disclosure in Zachariades et al. that UHMWPE in fiber/filament form has a wide variety of different useful applications which would therefore increase the likelihood of commercial success of the material of Rechliez et al.
Rechliez et al. does not disclose that the UHMWPE includes a copolymer in an amount of 0.001 mol% to 10 mol% as claimed.
Snijder et al. is directed to a dental tape composition including ultra-high molar mass polyethylene. (Abstract). Snijder et al. teaches the inclusion of up to 5 mol% of other co-monomers such as alkenes. (par. [0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide up to 5 mol% of comonomers in the ultra-high molar mass polyethylene dental floss composition of Rechliez in view of Zachariades et al., as taught in Snijder et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include up to 5 mol% of comonomers in the ultra-high molar mass polyethylene dental tape composition as one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing a composition that is satisfactory for use as a dental floss material. Given the explicit teaching in Snijder et al. that such comonomers may be included in ultra-high molar mass polyethylene for a dental floss composition, it would have been obvious to include them in a composition containing the same type of polymer for the same intended use in Rechliez in view of Zachariades et al. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 2, the filament made according to the combination of Rechliez in view of Zachariades et al. is taught to be useful as a dental floss composition (Example 1).
Regarding claim 4, the composition of Rechliez et al. is produced by stretching (i..e expanding) the precursor of the microporous material. (col. 2, lines 50-60).
Regarding claim 8, Rechliez et al. teaches a porosity in the range of 70-95% (col. 7, lines 40-49), overlapping with the presently claimed range.
Regarding claim 17, Zachariades et al. teaches using the thermoplastic material as a tape or ribbon (i.e. a multifilament composition containing the monofilaments). (Abstract and Examples 2-3).
Regarding claims 19-20 and 31, Zachariades et al. teaches braiding, knitting or weaving the filaments with additional fibers (i.e. yarns as claimed). (page 5, lines 41-43).
Regarding claims 23-24, the composition of Rechliez et al. is produced by stretching (i.e. expanding) the precursor of the microporous material. (col. 2, lines 50-60).
Regarding claim 25, Rechliez et al. teaches a porosity in the range of 70-95% (col. 7, lines 40-49), overlapping with the presently claimed range.
ANSWERS TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed 11/20/2025 regarding the prior art rejections based on Zachariades et al. made of record in the previous office action have been carefully considered but are deemed unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined Zachariades with Dolan, Kamo and Snijder et al. to produce a series of monofilaments having a microporous structure. (Applicant’s arguments filed 11/20/2025, page 7). Applicant argues that Zachariades is concerned with producing a strong, tear resistant tape which would be compromised with a microporous structure.
The Examiner disagrees. Zachariades et al. itself discloses that the tape structure is porous (Abstract) and even contemplates producing porous membranes with the UHMWPE composition. (see Example 1). Zachariades et al. simply does not specify the level of porosity of the tape material when used as dental floss. One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have found it obvious to look to Dolan and Kamo et al. which are within the scope of the prior art to consider how the porosity of the tape structure would affect the properties thereof for use in a dental floss composition. Furthermore, even if there is a reduction in the resistance to tearing to the tape structure in Zachariades et al., it would come at the benefit of improving another material properties such as compressibility and crush resistance, as taught by the secondary references. A combination may result in simultaneous advantages and disadvantages but this does not necessarily obvious motivation to combine. (see MPEP 2143.01 V)
Applicant further argues that the presently claimed invention includes unexpectedly advantageous properties or superior results. (Applicant’s arguments filed 11/20/2025, page 9). Specifically, Applicant argues that the filament includes improved gripping without tendency to shred”. Applicant relies on evidence provided in Table 1 (par. [0070]) of the specification.
In order to traverse a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 based on allegations of unexpected results, the evidence provided must be of probative value, commensurate in scope with the claims and show that the results are unexpected. MPEP 716.02. The evidence must further be weighed against the evidence supporting a prima facie case obviousness. Id. When making allegations of unexpected results, the Applicant bears the burden to demonstrate whether the differences between the prior art and claimed invention differ to such an extent that the difference is unexpected. (MPEP 716.02 and 716.02(b)). The evidence relied upon should establish “that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance”. (MPEP 716.02(b), citing Ex Parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1318, Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). It should be noted that mere allegation of improved properties alone is no sufficient to serve as the basis of unexpected results if they do not show a significance equal to or greater than the expected properties. (see MPEP 716.02(c) I). Furthermore, the unexpected results relied upon by the Applicant for patentability must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support. MPEP 716.02(d).
In the instant case, the evidence in the record does not support a conclusion of unexpected results based on the fact that the evidence is not commensurate in scope with the claims and furthermore the evidence does not demonstrate that the improved properties are unexpected. The provided evidence does not compare the properties over the entirety of the claimed ranges and is limited to a composition that does not include a comonomer. The claims are therefore significantly broader in scope than the data in Table 1. Furthermore, the prior art already recognizes the result effective nature of the porosity on the material properties of a table made of an expanded polyethylene material as taught in the secondary references (see Dolan, Kano and ‘489 as applied to the rejection of claim 1, above). The evidence does not demonstrate that the properties between the claimed invention and the prior art are different to such an extent that they rise to the level of unexpected results, particularly given that the evidence compares PE filament to nylon materials. Therefore, the improved properties as a result of the tape material having a certain porosity cannot be said to be unexpected when viewed in light of the teachings of the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRE F FERRE whose telephone number is (571)270-5763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 am to 4 pm ET.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 5712721490. 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.
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 03/07/2026