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 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 1-23 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.
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.
Regarding claim 17, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1- 5, 7, 9-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 and a2 as being anticipated by Alinski (PGPub 2019/0104833).
Re Claim 1, as best understood, Alinski discloses a cleaning section 14 for an electric oral hygiene device 10, the cleaning section comprising: a carrier 18 mounted for at least one of driven rotation and oscillating rotation around a rotation axis; and at least a plurality of first cleaning elements 16 and a plurality of second cleaning elements 96, the cleaning elements mounted on a mounting surface of the carrier, the carrier having an outer rim (top portion of 18; Fig. 1) and an inner portion (middle portion of 18; Fig. 1), 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 cross-shaped cross-sectional area extending in a plane substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, the 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).
Re Claim 2, Alinski discloses each of the plurality of second cleaning elements has a longitudinal axis and a cross-sectional area extending in a plane substantially perpendicular 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. 1-2; para. 61, 63).
Re Claim 3, Alinski 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. 1-2; para. 61).
Re Claim 4, Alinski discloses the first 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).
Re Claim 5, Alinski discloses at least some of the plurality of first cleaning elements are at least partially arranged to encircle the rotation axis (Fig. 1-2; para. 61).
Re Claim 7, Alinski 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. 1-2; para. 61).
Re Claim 9, Alinski 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. 1-2; para. 61).
Re Claim 10, Alinski discloses 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).
Re Claim 11, Alinski discloses 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).
Re Claim 12, Alinski discloses 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).
Re Claim 13, Alinski discloses 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).
Re Claim 14, Alinski discloses at least some of the plurality of first cleaning elements are made from a thermoplastic polymer (para. 47-48).
Re Claim 15, Alinski 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. 56, 61; fig. 1-2).
Re Claim 16, Alinski 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. 61; Fig. 1).
Re Claim 17, as best understood, Alinski discloses the packing factor is from about 45% to about 55%, further preferably from about 48% to about 50% (para. 61; fig. 1-2).
Re Claim 18, Alinski discloses the packing factor is from about 48% to about 50% (para. 61; fig. 1-2).
Re Claim 19, Alinski discloses the outer diameter of at least some of the plurality of first cleaning elements is about 0.256 mm (Fig. 1-2; para. 64).
Re Claim 20, Alinski discloses 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).
Re Claim 21, Alinski discloses the radius is from about 0.03 mm to about 0.06 mm (para. 65; fig. 1-2).
Re Claim 22, Alinski discloses the radius is about 0.015 mm (para. 67-68; fig. 1-2).
Re Claim 23, Alinski discloses the thermoplastic polymer comprises polybutylene terephthalate (PBT) (para. 47-48).
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alinski in view of Driesen (PGPub 2013/0007969).
Re Claim 6, Alinski does not disclose at least some of the plurality of first cleaning elements are circumferentially inclined in the same circumferential direction with respect to the rotation axis. However, Driesen teaches at least some of a plurality of first cleaning elements are circumferentially inclined in the same circumferential direction with respect to the rotation axis (Abstract; para. 3-5, 35-44; Fig. 1-8). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize inclining in this manner, as taught by Driesen, for the purpose of providing an arrangement of cleaning elements that provides good cleaning efficacy of hard to reach areas such as interproximal spaces, recessed areas of molars or surfaces of malpositioned teeth (para. 3-5) and to improve cleaning capabilities of the device.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alinski in view of Alinski ‘205 (US 10,874,205).
Re Claim 8, Alinski does not disclose at least some of the plurality of first cleaning elements are arranged in the center of the carrier. However, Alinski ‘205 teaches at least some of the plurality of first cleaning elements 16 are arranged in the center of the carrier (Fig. 1, 4; col. 12). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange some of the plurality of first cleaning elements in the center of the carrier, as taught by Alinski ‘205, for the purpose of obtaining a desired orientation for optimal cleaning effect and also since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Conclusion
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.
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, Singh K. Sunil can be reached at (571) 272-43460. 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