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 § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 11, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ansari et al., US 7,146,675.
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Ansari et al. disclose a brushing component (4) comprising a support surface (7); a first inner group of bristle tufts extending from the support surface and comprising a plurality of angled bristle tufts arranged to have rotational symmetry with respect to a first point of symmetry (25, first point of symmetry at M in Figure 4); a second inner group of bristle tufts extending from the support surface (28), wherein the second inner group of bristle tufts comprises a second plurality of angled bristle tufts arranged to have rotational symmetry with respect to a second point of symmetry (second point of symmetry unlabeled, see Figure 4); and a set of outer groups of bristle tufts extending from the support surface (groups of tufts including 24, 27, 30, 31; Figure 4), each outer group of bristle tufts comprising one or more angled bristle tufts (they each include angled bristle tufts, Figure 3, angled at 90 degrees to the surface of 7), wherein the set of outer groups of bristle tufts is arranged to surround the first and second inner groups of bristle tufts and further arranged to have rotational symmetry with respect to a third point of symmetry (Figure 4, unlabeled center point of tufts 24, 37, 30, 31), wherein the first and second inner groups are arranged in a linear array and spaced apart from one another (Figure 4), and wherein the first point of symmetry, the second point of symmetry, and the third point of symmetry are all positioned a longitudinal axis of the support surface (Figure 4). Regarding claims 3-4, the plurality of angled bristle tufts of the first inner group of bristle tufts are symmetrically arranged with n-fold symmetry, n being an integer greater than one or greater than three (Figure 4). Regarding claim 11, the plurality of outer groups of bristle tufts are symmetrically arranged with n-fold symmetry, n being an integer greater than one (Figure 4). Regarding claim 15, there is additionally a handle (2). See marked up Figure 4 on the next page for a visual aid showing the examiner’s interpretation.
[AltContent: textbox (ring of second inner group of tufts)][AltContent: textbox (grey-filled tufts indicate a set of outer groups of bristle tufts)][AltContent: textbox (axis)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (3rd point of symmetry)][AltContent: textbox (2nd point of symmetry)][AltContent: textbox (1st point of symmetry)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (ring of first inner group of tufts)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval]
PNG
media_image1.png
355
502
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1, 3, 8, 11, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moskovich et al., US 2006/0099162.
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Moskovich et al. disclose a brushing component (13002; embodiment of Figures 23A-23B) comprising a support surface (top surface of 13058); a first inner group of bristle tufts extending from the support surface and comprising a plurality of angled bristle tufts arranged to have rotational symmetry with respect to a first point of symmetry (unlabeled arcuate tufts surrounding one of 12270 and including 12270, Figure 23A; first point of symmetry at 12270); a second inner group of bristle tufts extending from the support surface (other pair of unlabeled arcuate tufts surrounding the other one of 12270 and including the other one of 12270, Figure 23A), wherein the second inner group of bristle tufts comprises a second plurality of angled bristle tufts arranged to have rotational symmetry with respect to a second point of symmetry (second point of symmetry at the other 12270); and a set of outer groups of bristle tufts extending from the support surface (groups of tufts including 12092, 13098 in Figure 23A), each outer group of bristle tufts comprising one or more angled bristle tufts (12092, 13098 in Figure 23A-23B), wherein the set of outer groups of bristle tufts is arranged to surround the first and second inner groups of bristle tufts and further arranged to have rotational symmetry with respect to a third point of symmetry (Figure 23A, third point of symmetry at 13096), wherein the first and second inner groups are arranged in a linear array and spaced apart from one another (Figure 23A), and wherein the first point of symmetry, the second point of symmetry, and the third point of symmetry are all positioned a longitudinal axis of the support surface (Figure 23A). Regarding claim 3, the plurality of angled bristle tufts of the first inner groups of bristle tufts are symmetrically arranged with n-fold symmetry, n being an integer greater than one (two, Figure 23A). Regarding claim 8, the first inner group of bristles comprises a non-angled bristle tuft positioned at the point of symmetry (12270). Regarding claim 9, the distal ends of the bristles of the first inner group of bristle tufts define a brushing surface that is convex (Figure 23B). Regarding claim 11, the plurality of outer groups of bristle tufts are symmetrically arranged with n-fold symmetry, n being an integer greater than one (Figure 23A). Regarding claim 14, the distal ends of the bristles of the first inner groups of bristle tufts define a brushing surface that is convex (Figure 23B). Regarding claim 15, there is additionally a handle (8103, Figure 23B). See marked up Figure 23A on the next page for a visual aid showing the examiner’s interpretation.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (1st inner group, includes arc tuft above and below)][AltContent: textbox (3rd point of symmetry (at 13096))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (2nd point of symmetry)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (longitudinal axis)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (1st point of symmetry)][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (grey-filled tufts indicate a set of outer groups of bristle tufts)][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: textbox (2nd inner group, includes arc tuft above and below)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval]
PNG
media_image2.png
266
420
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10-12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jimenez et al., US 8,387,196.
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Jimenez et al. disclose a brushing component (120) comprising a support surface (121); a first inner group of bristle tufts extending from the support surface and comprising a plurality of angled bristle tufts arranged to have rotational symmetry with respect to a first point of symmetry (set 138 that includes all of 133a-e, 134a-e, 135 and the first point of symmetry at B in Figure 18; see also column 7 lines 39-41); a second inner group of bristle tufts extending from the support surface, wherein the second inner group of bristle tufts comprises a second plurality of angled bristle tufts arranged to have rotational symmetry with respect to a second point of symmetry (second inner group not shown, second inner group is the set 138 including tufts 133a-e, 134a-e, 135 and is discussed in an embodiment in column 14 lines 1-9; see also column 7 lines 39-41); and a set of outer groups of bristle tufts extending from the support surface (alternatively 132a, 132h, 132i, 132f, 131f, 131i, 131h, 131a, Figures 17-18), each outer group of bristle tufts comprising one or more angled bristle tufts (132a, 132h, 132i, 132f, 131f, 131i, 131h, 131a, Figures 17-18), wherein the set of outer groups of bristle tufts is arranged to surround the first and second inner groups of bristle tufts and further arranged to have rotational symmetry with respect to a third point of symmetry (Figures 17-18, third point of symmetry also at B in Figure 18), wherein the first and second inner groups are arranged in a linear array and spaced apart from one another (multiple sets of groups of bristles 138 along axis A-A, not shown, see column 14 lines 1-9; see also column 7 lines 39-41), and wherein the first point of symmetry, the second point of symmetry, and the third point of symmetry are all positioned a longitudinal axis of the support surface (along A-A). Regarding claims 3-4 and 7, the plurality of angled bristle tufts of the first inner group of bristle tufts are symmetrically arranged with n-fold symmetry, n being an integer greater than one or three (five, Figure 18) and wherein the inner group of bristle tufts comprises five angled bristle tufts with 5-fold symmetry (133a-e, Figure 18). Regarding claims 5-6, the first inner group of bristle tufts comprises three or four angled bristled tufts with 3-fold or 4-fold symmetry respectively (column 8 lines 4-6). Regarding claim 8, the first inner group of bristles comprises a non-angled bristle tuft positioned at the point of symmetry (135). Regarding claim 10, the lengths of the bristles of a bristle tuft are substantially equal (top surface of tufts 133a-133e is represented by 145, column 8 lines 24-25, also Figures 5A, 7-8 and 17). Regarding claim 11, the plurality of outer groups of bristle tufts are symmetrically arranged with n-fold symmetry, n being an integer greater than one (Figure 18). Regarding claim 12, the set of outer groups of bristle tufts comprises five outer groups of bristle tufts arranged with 5-fold symmetry (Figure 18). Regarding claim 15, there is additionally a handle (110, Figure 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jimenez et al., US 8,387,196 in view of Hohlbein, US 2005/0000048.
Jimenez et al. disclose all elements previously discussed above, however fail to disclose that the first point of symmetry and the third point of symmetry substantially coincide with each other. Jimenez et al. teach in column 14 lines 1-8 discuss that the inner group of bristle tufts (set 138) can be provided as a plurality of sets and arranged on the support surface aligned along the longitudinal axis A-A of the head. Figure 17 shows just one set of tufts 138, the set of tufts of 138 includes tufts 133a-e, 134a-e (column 6 lines 34-37).
Hohlbein teaches a brushing component having three inner groups of bristle tufts aligned along a longitudinal axis a-a of the support surface (each of the groups include 209 and 207, see Figure 2; support surface is surface of 105) and a set of outer groups of bristle tufts (outer groups includes 205a-c, 215a-c, see Figure 2 and paragraph 0027). Regarding claim 2, a first point of symmetry of a first inner group of tufts (at the center of tuft 207b in Figure 2) and a third point of symmetry of the set of outer groups of bristle tufts (also at the center of tuft 207b in Figure 2) substantially coincide with each other (Figure 2), the tufts of the brushing component are generally symmetric (paragraph 0027).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jiminez et al. to include three inner groups of bristle tufts, as Jimenez et al. teaches that a plurality can be included and as it is obvious to duplicate parts as a “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is provided” (see MPEP 2144.04 VI), and further modifying Jimenez et al. so that the central of the three inner groups of bristle tufts of Jimenez et al. is located central on the support surface of the brushing component as taught by Hohlbein, so that the first point of symmetry and the third point of symmetry substantially coincide with each other thereby arranging the tufts of the inner and outer groups symmetrically.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ansari et al., US 7,146,675 in view of Gleason, US 6,496,999.
Ansari et al. disclose all elements previously discussed above, however fails to disclose that the distal ends of the bristles of the first inner group of bristle tufts define a brushing surface that is convex. Instead, the distal ends of the first inner group of bristle tufts define a planar surface (at L3, L4, L5; Figure 3).
Regarding claim 9, Gleason teaches a brushing component wherein groups of bristle tufts (groups of tufts 20 forming peaks at 26a, 26b, 26c, 26d in Figures 2-3) are arranged to define a brushing surface that is convex (convex at 26a, 26b, 26c, 26d in Figures 2-3). The convex surface allows the bristles to clean in spaces between adjacent teeth (column 3 lines 43-50).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the planar surface of the first inner group of bristle tufts of Ansari et al. to define a brushing surface that is convex, as taught by Gleason, so that the tufts of the first inner group can better clean the spaces between adjacent teeth.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that (A), Ansari, does not disclose “a single arrangement that discloses all elements of claim 1 as claimed.” The applicant alleges that the rejection does not explain how the cited groups collectively constitute the claimed set of outer groups that is arranged to surround both the first and second inner groups, nor does it explain how those cited groups are arranged with rotational symmetry about the asserted third point of symmetry”. The applicant states that the “Office Action also contains uncertainty in its own mapping of the asserted outer-group symmetry center…” and argues that “the present record does not clearly establish the particular set of outer groups and third point of symmetry required by claim 1.” The applicant argues that (B), Moskovich, “does not identify a single, coherent disclosed arrangement containing all elements of claim 1 as claimed.” The applicant argues that the claim “mapping is unclear and incomplete” alleging that the rejection relies on a mixture of different reference numerals without explaining where a single disclosed embodiment contains all the features in the claimed arrangement. The applicant argues that the rejection does not explain the third point of symmetry relating to reference number 13098. The applicant argues that the rejection of (C), Jimenez et al. is “deficient because the Office Action expressly acknowledges that key aspects of the claimed arrangement are not shown” and that the Office Action “presents an internally inconsistent mapping of the claimed inner and outer groups”, specifically citing reference numbers 134a-134e.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicants arguments for the following reasons.
With respect to arguments (A) relating to Ansari, the examiner has provided a marked up version of Figure 4 to assist the applicant in understanding the examiner’s interpretation. The rejection under 35 USC 102(a)(1) remains unchanged as Ansari recites all elements of the invention as claimed. The marked up version is consistent with the written version of the claim mapping. The applicant points to rotation symmetry and inner/outer groups of tufts and it is noted that Ansari has been interpreted in the same manner as the applicant’s invention. Applicant’s Figure 1 is shown below and presents rotational symmetry (in the Applicant’s invention reference numbers 142, 144, 146, 148 correspond to outer groups of bristle tufts, 140 corresponds to the set of bristle tufts).
PNG
media_image3.png
492
497
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to arguments (B) relating to Moskovich, the examiner has provided a marked up version of Figure 23A to assist the applicant in understanding the examiner’s interpretation. It is noted that the rejection made to Moskovich was made in light of one embodiment, Figures 23A-23B and thus, a single coherent arrangement. The examiner does not understand the applicant’s allegation that the rejection was made in light of multiple arrangements or embodiments. The rejection under 35 USC 102(a)(1) remains unchanged as Moskovich recites all elements of the invention as claimed. In the non-final Office action, reference number 13098 was initially used to point to a third point of symmetry, however this was a typographical error that is now corrected. Reference number 13096 is the reference number at the third point of symmetry of Moskovich. The basic thrust of the rejection remains the same and the examiner maintains the rejection under 35 USC 102(a)(1) of claims 1, 3, 8, 11, and 14-15.
With respect to arguments (C) relating to Jiminez et al., the examiner has relied upon the written disclosure as anticipating the claims. As the applicant noted, Jiminez et al. does not provide figures representing the exact embodiment that the examiner is relying on in the rejection. This does not make the rejection deficient, see MPEP 2120 and 2131. MPEP 2131 recites “A claimed invention may be rejected under 35 USC 102 when the invention is anticipated (or is "not novel") over a disclosure that is available as prior art. To reject a claim as anticipated by a reference, the disclosure must teach every element required by the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation. The examiner is relying on a version of an embodiment shown in Figures 17-18 that is only described in column 14 lines 1-9, that there may be a “plurality of the third sets 138 of cleaning elements arranged on the head” and “the third sets 138 of cleaning elements are preferably aligned along the longitudinal axis” A-A of the head 120”. Figure 17 shows only one of the third sets 138. The first inner group of bristle tufts of Jimenez is interpreted as including set 138 as described in the rejection. The second inner group of bristle tufts is an additional set 138, described in column 14 lines 1-9 which is not shown. The outer groups of bristle tufts include 132a, 132h, 132i, 132f, 131f, 131i, 131h, 131a, Figures 17-18. The set of outer groups of bristle tufts is arranged to surround the first and second inner groups of bristle tufts, as the two sets are aligned along the axis as described in column 14 lines 1-9, and is further arranged to have rotational symmetry with respect to a third point of symmetry (Figures 17-18, third point of symmetry also at B in Figure 18 when modified as having three inner groups of bristle tufts). The examiner previously relied on multiple interpretations of Jiminez, however having multiple interpretations of what could be considered as the inner group and outer groups of bristle tufts does not make the rejection deficient.
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 Laura C Guidotti whose telephone number is (571)272-1272. The examiner can normally be reached typically M-F, 6am-9am, 10am-4:30pm.
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 at 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 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.
/LAURA C GUIDOTTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
lcg
Prosecution Insights