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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/5/2026 has been entered.
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) 1-5, 7, and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yap (US 2013/0160790) in view of Oczkowski et al. (US 5,538,023).
Yap discloses a device for flossing teeth, the device comprising a body having a first arm (8) and a second arm (9), the first and second arms connected at a vertex (43), the first and second arms extending distally from the vertex and crossing over each other at a crossing over region (see Fig. 1A), so that transverse movement of the first arm relative to the second arm between the vertex and the crossing over region causes an opposite transverse movement at distal ends of the first arm and the second arm; a length of dental floss (5) coupled between the distal ends of the first arm and the second arm at first and second attachment positions (4,15); wherein when in a neutral position with no forces applied to the first arm and the second arm, the distance between the first and second attachment positions is smaller, and thus the length of dental floss looser, relative to when the first and second arms are squeezed together between the vertex and crossing over region such that distance between the first and second attachment positions is larger and the length of dental floss tauter (see Figure 1). Yap does not disclose the body is injected molded with the dental floss embedded into the first and second arms securing the length of the floss between the first and second arms and the crossing over region is greater than or equal to 2.0 mm. Yap teaches the claimed invention except that the floss is removeable instead of embedded in the first and second arms. Oczkowski et al. shows that removable floss and embedding floss are equivalent structures known in the art (col. 8, lines 55-65 and col. 11, lines 50-60). Therefore, because these two floss attachment methods were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute embedded floss for removable floss. Furthermore, one having ordinary skill in the art would find the parameters of the crossing over region to be deemed matters of design choice, will within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results. In this instance case to be of a value to allow for insertion into the user’s mouth and between teeth for flossing.
Regarding claim 4, the first arm and the second arm are resilient (paragraphs 7 and 8). Regarding claim 5, the body is a single, integral piece of the same material (see Figure 1). Regarding claim 9, the method comprising: squeezing the first and second arms together between the vertex and the crossing over region, such that dental floss coupled between the first and second attachment positions becomes taut; inserting the dental floss between two teeth (see Figures 1a and 1b; paragraphs 7 and 8). Regarding claim 10, holding the first and second arms in the neutral position, such that the dental floss coupled between the first and second attachment positions becomes slack (see Fig. 1). Regarding claim 11, further comprising performing C-shaped flossing against at least one of the two teeth (inserting the floss between two teeth would create a c-shape against the adjacent tooth).
Regarding claims 2, 3, and 7 Yap does not disclose the distance between the first and second attachments positions is 17.5 mm, and when the first and second arms are in the neutral position, the distance between the first and second attachment positions is 14.8 mm, the difference in distance between the first and second attachment positions when in the neutral position compared to when the first and second arms are squeezed together between the vertex and the crossing over region is greater than or equal to 3.0 mm, and the body is made of ABS (Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene).
However, one having ordinary skill in the art would find the parameters of the distance between tines to be deemed matters of design choice, will within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the body be made from injection molded ABS, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1/5/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL RUNNING STEITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1917. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm EST.
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, Eric Rosen can be reached at 571-270-7855. 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.
/RACHEL R STEITZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
2/27/2026