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 1-4, 7-23 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 and 2 recite “substantially perpendicular forming an angle of 90 degrees ± 10 degrees to the longitudinal axis”. This is not found in the originally filed specification and is considered new matter.
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 1-4, 7-23 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.
The term “substantially perpendicular” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Further, it is noted that perpendicular correlates to 90 degrees, so it is either perpendicular at 90 degrees or not perpendicular if not 90 degrees. Claim 1 now recites “substantially perpendicular forming an angle of 90 degrees ± 10 degrees to the longitudinal axis”. This is not found in the originally filed specification and is considered new matter. The scope remains unclear.
The term “substantially perpendicular” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Further, it is noted that perpendicular correlates to 90 degrees, so it is either perpendicular at 90 degrees or not perpendicular if not 90 degrees. Claim 2 now recites “substantially perpendicular forming an angle of 90 degrees ± 10 degrees to the longitudinal axis”. This is not found in the originally filed specification and is considered new matter. The scope remains unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 1-4, 7-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altmann (PGPub 2019/0125065) in view of Alinski (PGPub 2019/0104833).
Re Claim 1, as best understood, Altmann discloses a cleaning section for an electric oral hygiene device 1, the cleaning section comprising: a carrier 4 mounted for at least one of driven rotation and oscillating rotation around a rotation axis; and at least a plurality of first cleaning elements 6/7 and a plurality of second cleaning elements 5, the cleaning elements mounted on a mounting surface of the carrier, the carrier having an outer rim and an inner portion, the plurality of first cleaning elements being arranged at the inner portion of the carrier, and the plurality of second cleaning elements being arranged at the outer rim of the carrier, wherein each of the plurality of first cleaning elements has a longitudinal axis and a substantially non-circular shaped cross-sectional area extending in a plane substantially perpendicular forming an angle of 90 degrees ± 10 degrees to the longitudinal axis (Fig. 1-5; para. 19, 24), wherein at least some of the first cleaning elements are at least partially arranged to encircle the rotation axis and wherein at least some of the first cleaning elements are circumferentially inclined in the same circumferential direction with respect to the rotation axis (Fig. 1-5; para. 19). Altmann does not disclose each of the plurality of first cleaning elements has a substantially cross-shaped cross-sectional area having four projections and four channels, the projections and channels being arranged in an alternating manner. However, Alinski teaches each of a plurality of cleaning elements has a substantially cross-shaped cross-sectional area having four projections and four channels, the projections and channels being arranged in an alternating manner (Fig. 1-2; para. 61, 63). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize substantially cross-shaped cross-sectional area, as taught by Alinski, for the purpose of utilizing a shape that is effective for cleaning teeth and also since it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the cleaning elements of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Re Claim 2, Altmann discloses each of the plurality of second cleaning elements has a longitudinal axis and a cross-sectional area extending in a plane substantially perpendicular forming an angle of 90 degrees ± 10 degrees to the longitudinal axis, the cross-sectional area of the second cleaning elements area being different from the cross-sectional area of the first cleaning elements (Fig. 1-5; para. 24, 26).
Re Claim 3, Altmann discloses at least one of the first plurality of cleaning elements and the second plurality of cleaning elements comprise filaments arranged in tufts or an elastomeric cleaning element (Fig. 1-5; para. 18-19, 24, 26).
Re Claim 4, Altmann discloses the first plurality of cleaning elements comprise filaments arranged in tufts (Fig. 1-5; para. 18-19, 24, 26) but is silent to having a packing factor of from about 45% to about 57%. However, Alinski teaches plurality of cleaning elements comprise filaments arranged in tufts having a packing factor of from about 45% to about 57% (Fig. 1-2; para. 61). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize packing factor of from about 45% to about 57%, as taught by Alinski, for the purpose of utilizing a packing factor that is highly effective for cleaning teeth and since it is well known to adjust the packing factor as needed for creating an effective toothbrush.
Re Claim 7, Altmann discloses at least some of the plurality of second cleaning elements are at least partially arranged to encircle the rotation axis along the outer rim of the carrier (Fig. 1-5).
Re Claim 8, Altmann discloses at least some of the plurality of first cleaning elements are arranged in the center of the carrier (Fig. 1-5).
Re Claim 9, Altmann discloses at least some of the first plurality of cleaning elements and some of the second plurality of cleaning elements are arranged in an alternating manner in circumferential direction with respect to the rotation axis (Fig. 1-5).
Re Claim 10, Altmann discloses each of the first plurality of cleaning elements has a cross-sectional area having an outer diameter, but is silent to the outer diameter of at least some of the plurality of first cleaning elements is from about 0.1 mm to about 0.3 mm. However, Alinski teaches each of the first plurality of cleaning elements has a cross-sectional area having an outer diameter, and the outer diameter of at least some of the plurality of first cleaning elements is from about 0.1 mm to about 0.3 mm (Fig. 1-2; para. 64). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have outer diameter of at least some of the plurality of first cleaning elements is from about 0.1 mm to about 0.3 mm, as taught by Alinski, for the purpose of utilizing a size that is effective for cleaning teeth and since the diameter of Altmann is likely in this range anyway as this is a common size range for toothbrushes and also since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Re Claim 11, Altmann does not disclose each projection of the first plurality of cleaning elements have a maximum thickness of from about 0.025 mm to about 0.045 mm. However, Alinski teaches each projection of the first plurality of cleaning elements have a maximum thickness of from about 0.025 mm to about 0.045 mm (para. 68; fig. 1-2). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have each projection of the first plurality of cleaning elements have a maximum thickness of from about 0.025 mm to about 0.045 mm, as taught by Alinski, for the purpose of utilizing a size that is effective for cleaning teeth and also since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Re Claim 12, Altmann does not disclose each channel of the first plurality of cleaning elements has a concave curvature formed by neighboring and converging projections, the concave curvature having a radius of from about 0.02 mm to about 0.09 mm. However, Alinski teaches each channel of the first plurality of cleaning elements has a concave curvature formed by neighboring and converging projections, the concave curvature having a radius of from about 0.02 mm to about 0.09 mm (para. 65; fig. 1-2). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have each channel of the first plurality of cleaning elements has a concave curvature formed by neighboring and converging projections, the concave curvature having a radius of from about 0.02 mm to about 0.09 mm, as taught by Alinski, for the purpose of utilizing a size that is effective for cleaning teeth and also since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Re Claim 13, Altmann does not disclose each projection of at least some of the plurality of first cleaning elements has an end-rounded distal end forming a curvature having a radius of from about 0.01 mm to about 0.02 mm. However, Alinski teaches each projection of at least some of the plurality of first cleaning elements has an end-rounded distal end forming a curvature having a radius of from about 0.01 mm to about 0.02 mm (para. 67-68; fig. 1-2). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have each projection of at least some of the plurality of first cleaning elements has an end-rounded distal end forming a curvature having a radius of from about 0.01 mm to about 0.02 mm, as taught by Alinski, for the purpose of utilizing a size that is effective for cleaning teeth and also since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Re Claim 14, Altmann discloses at least some of the plurality of first cleaning elements are made from a thermoplastic polymer (para. 26-27; claim 13).
Re Claim 15, Altmann discloses an electric oral hygiene device comprising a handle and a cleaning section of claim 1, the cleaning section being repeatedly attachable to and detachable form the handle (para. 2; Fig. 1-5).
Re Claim 16, Altmann discloses a shape of the cross-section area of the second cleaning elements is selected from a group consisting of a substantially circular shape, a trilobal shape, a shape having a plurality of indentations, and any combination thereof (para. 24; Fig. 1-5).
Re Claim 17-18, Altmann does not disclose the packing factor is from about 45% to about 55% and the packing factor is from about 48% to about 50%. However, Alinski teaches the packing factor is from about 45% to about 55% and the packing factor is from about 48% to about 50% (para. 61; fig. 1-2). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize packing factor of from about 45% to about 55% and the packing factor is from about 48% to about 50%, as taught by Alinski, for the purpose of utilizing a packing factor that is highly effective for cleaning teeth and since it is well known to adjust the packing factor as needed for creating an effective toothbrush.
Re Claim 19, Altmann does not disclose the outer diameter of at least some of the plurality of first cleaning elements is about 0.256 mm. Alinski teraches the outer diameter of at least some of the plurality of first cleaning elements is about 0.256 mm (Fig. 1-2; para. 64). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the outer diameter of at least some of the plurality of first cleaning elements is about 0.256 mm, as taught by Alinski, for the purpose of utilizing a size that is effective for cleaning teeth and also since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Re Claim 20, Altmann does not disclose the maximum thickness of each projection of the first plurality of cleaning elements is from about 0.037 to about 0.041 mm. However, Alinski teaches the maximum thickness of each projection of the first plurality of cleaning elements is from about 0.037 to about 0.041 mm (para. 68; fig. 1-2). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the maximum thickness of each projection of the first plurality of cleaning elements is from about 0.037 to about 0.041 mm, as taught by Alinski, for the purpose of utilizing a size that is effective for cleaning teeth and also since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Re Claim 21, Altmann does not disclose the radius is from about 0.03 mm to about 0.06 mm. However, Alinski teaches the radius is from about 0.03 mm to about 0.06 mm (para. 65; fig. 1-2). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the radius is from about 0.03 mm to about 0.06 mm, as taught by Alinski, for the purpose of utilizing a size that is effective for cleaning teeth and also since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Re Claim 22, Altmann does not disclose the radius is about 0.015 mm. However, Alinski discloses the radius is about 0.015 mm (para. 67-68; fig. 1-2). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the radius is about 0.015 mm, as taught by Alinski, for the purpose of utilizing a size that is effective for cleaning teeth and also since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Re Claim 23, Altmann does not disclose the thermoplastic polymer comprises polybutylene terephthalate (PBT). However, Alinski teaches thermoplastic polymer comprises polybutylene terephthalate (PBT) (para. 47-48). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize thermoplastic polymer comprises polybutylene terephthalate (PBT), as taught by Alinski, for the purpose of utilizing a material that is effective for cleaning teeth and also 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 7-23 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 RYAN J WALTERS whose telephone number is (571)270-5429. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm 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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/Ryan J. Walters/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
