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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 16 December 2025 has been entered.
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.
Claims 13 and 14 are 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.
Claims 13 and 14 fail to further limit claim 12 because all of the limitations recited in claims 13 and 14 are first recited in claim 12.
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
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 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 and 4-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorpe (US 7309185) in view of Maloney (US 2016/0324740) in view of Watcharotone (US 2019/0350354).
Regarding claim 1, Thorpe teaches a device capable of applying a cleaning composition to a dental appliance disposed in an oral cavity, comprising: a container (5) containing a cleaning composition (7) to clean a surface of a dental appliance in an oral cavity; an applicator portion (20) configured to apply the cleaning composition to the surface of the dental appliance in the oral cavity and a gap between the dental appliance and the oral cavity, the applicator having a portion (bristles 71) to be deformed (applicator 20 is made of silicone, col. 6, ll. 24-26) to apply the cleaning composition in the gap; and an extruder (27) to extrude the cleaning composition in the container through an outlet to the applicator portion and the portion.
Thorpe does not teach that the cleaning composition comprises at least one surfactant and water- soluble Polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) at a ratio between the at least one surfactant and the water- soluble PVP of from about 0.01 to about 10, wherein the cleaning composition is essentially free of a dental abrasive agent, wherein the dental abrasive agent is a solid particle having a hardness harder than the hardness of the surface of the dental appliance, wherein the cleaning composition exhibits a viscosity of from about 500 cp to about 10,000 cp, and wherein the cleaning composition exhibits about 10 % of the cleaning ability of a tooth paste having a pellicle cleaning rate (PCR) value of about 25%; or that the portion to be deformed can fit into a gap width of about 0.3 mm of the gap to be inserted into the gap by 3 mm or more.
Maloney teaches a cleaning composition comprises at least one surfactant (SLS, see Table on pg. 2) and water-soluble Polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) (Polyvinylpyrrolidone, see Table on pg. 2) at a ratio between the at least one surfactant and the water-soluble PVP of from about 0.01 to about 10 (Table on pg. 2), wherein the cleaning composition is essentially free of a dental abrasive agent (¶0016), wherein the dental abrasive agent is a solid particle having a hardness harder than the hardness of the surface of the dental appliance, wherein the cleaning composition exhibits a viscosity of from about 500 cp to about 10,000 cp (¶0051), and wherein the cleaning composition exhibits about 10 % of the cleaning ability of a tooth paste having a pellicle cleaning rate (PCR) value of about 25%.
It is noted that "[p]roducts of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id. In this case, the composition of Maloney and the claimed composition are the same, so both will have the same cleaning properties of exhibiting “about 10 % of the cleaning ability of a tooth paste having a pellicle cleaning rate (PCR) value of about 25%.”
Watcharotone teaches a toothbrush bristle (600) that can fit in a gap with a width of about 0.3 mm (the maximum diameter of the bristle is 0.2 mm, ¶0032) and can be inserted by 3 mm or more (the bristle is at least 4 mm long, ¶0032).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the cleaning composition taught by Maloney with the device of Thorpe, wherein doing so would merely be a simple matter of using a known cleaning composition with a known applicator with predictable results.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have sized the bristles of Thorpe such that they can fit into a gap with a width of about 0.3 mm and be inserted into the gap be 3 mm or more, as taught by Watcharotone for the purpose of providing a toothbrush that can more easily clean gaps between teeth and between teeth and gums.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Thorpe, Maloney, and Watcharotone teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the cleaning composition further comprises a cross-linked polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) (Maloney, additional cross-linked PVP, see ¶0035), wherein the weight ratio of the water-soluble PVP to the cross-linked PVP is from about 0.01 and to about 0.025 (Table on pg. 2).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Thorpe, Maloney, and Watcharotone teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the cleaning composition further comprises a cross-linked polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), wherein the weight percent of the cross-linked polyvinylpyrrolidone is about 3 wt.% to about 20 wt.%, with respect to the weight of the cleaning composition (Maloney, additional cross-linked PVP at 0.25-10 wt%, see Table on pg. 2).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Thorpe, Maloney, and Watcharotone teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the applicator portion includes a dispersing portion (Thorpe, bristles of brush 20) to disperse the cleaning composition over the surface of the dental appliance, wherein the dispersing portion includes the portion to be to be deformed.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Thorpe, Maloney, and Watcharotone teaches the device of claim 6, wherein the dispersing portion is a brush (Thorpe, 20) to disperse the cleaning composition.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Thorpe, Maloney, and Watcharotone teaches the device of claim 1, further comprising a cleaner portion (Thorpe, 20) to clean the surface of the dental appliance, wherein the cleaner portion includes the portion to be to be deformed.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Thorpe, Maloney, and Watcharotone teaches the device of claim 8, wherein the cleaner portion includes a brush tip (20) having bristles.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Thorpe, Maloney, and Watcharotone teaches the device of claim 9, but does not teach that an average length of the bristles is about 4 mm.
At the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have made the bristles of Thorpe with an average length of about 4 mm because Applicant has not disclosed that the particular length of the bristles provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Thorpe's brush and the applicant's invention to perform equally well with either the bristles taught by Thorpe or the claimed bristles with an average length of 4 mm because both brushes are equally capable of cleaning.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the brush of Thorpe to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Thorpe.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Thorpe, Maloney, and Watcharotone teaches the device of claim 1, further comprising a handle (Thorpe, 11) to move the extruder to extrude the cleaning composition.
Regarding claim 12, Thorpe teaches a device to apply a cleaning composition to a dental appliance disposed in an oral cavity, comprising: a container (5) containing a cleaning composition (7) to clean a surface of a dental appliance in an oral cavity; an applicator portion (20) configured to apply the cleaning composition to the surface of the dental appliance in the oral cavity, the applicator having a portion to be deformed (applicator 20 is made of silicone, col. 6, ll. 24-26) to fit into the gap width of from about 0.02 and up to about 5 mm of the gap to be inserted into the gap to apply the cleaning composition in the gap; and an extruder (27) to extrude the cleaning composition in the container through an outlet (66) to the applicator portion and the portion.
Thorpe does not teach that the cleaning composition comprises at least one surfactant and water-soluble Polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) at a ratio between the at least one surfactant and the water-soluble PVP of from about 0.01 to about 10, wherein the cleaning composition is essentially free of diamond, quartz, silicon carbide, alumina, silica gels and precipitates, calcium carbonate, titanium dioxide, talc, charcoal, and hydrophobic resinous abrasive materials, wherein the cleaning composition exhibits a viscosity of from about 500 cp to about 10,000 cp, and wherein the cleaning composition exhibits about 10 % of the cleaning ability of a tooth paste having a pellicle cleaning rate (PCR) value of about 25%; or that the portion to be deformed can fit into a gap width of about 0.3 mm of the gap to be inserted into the gap by 3 mm or more.
Maloney teaches a cleaning composition that comprises at least one surfactant and water-soluble Polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) at a ratio between the at least one surfactant and the water-soluble PVP of from about 0.01 to about 10 (Table on pg. 2), wherein the cleaning composition is essentially free of diamond, quartz, silicon carbide, alumina, silica gels and precipitates, calcium carbonate, titanium dioxide, talc, charcoal, and hydrophobic resinous abrasive materials (¶0016), wherein the cleaning composition exhibits a viscosity of from about 500 cp to about 10,000 cp (¶0051), and wherein the cleaning composition exhibits about 10 % of the cleaning ability of a tooth paste having a pellicle cleaning rate (PCR) value of about 25%.
It is noted that "[p]roducts of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id. In this case, the composition of Maloney and the claimed composition are the same, so both will have the same cleaning properties of exhibiting “about 10 % of the cleaning ability of a tooth paste having a pellicle cleaning rate (PCR) value of about 25%.”
Watcharotone teaches a toothbrush bristle (600) that can fit in a gap with a width of about 0.3 mm (the maximum diameter of the bristle is 0.2 mm, ¶0032) and can be inserted by 3 mm or more (the bristle is at least 4 mm long, ¶0032).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the cleaning composition taught by Maloney with the device of Thorpe, wherein doing so would merely be a simple matter of using a known cleaning composition with a known applicator with predictable results.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have sized the bristles of Thorpe such that they can fit into a gap with a width of about 0.3 mm and be inserted into the gap be 3 mm or more, as taught by Watcharotone for the purpose of providing a toothbrush that can more easily clean gaps between teeth and between teeth and gums.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Thorpe, Maloney, and Watcharotone teaches the device of claim 12, wherein the portion is to be inserted into the gap by 3 mm or more (Watcharotone, ¶0032).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Thorpe, Maloney, and Watcharotone teaches the device of claim 12, wherein the portion is to be inserted into the gap width of the gap is about 0.3 mm (Watcharotone ¶0032).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Thorpe, Maloney, and Watcharotone teaches the device of claim 12, wherein the cleaning composition further comprises a cross- linked polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) (Maloney, ¶0035), wherein the weight ratio of the water-soluble PVP to the cross-linked PVP is from about 0.01 and to about 0.025 (Maloney, Table on pg. 2).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Thorpe, Maloney, and Watcharotone teaches the device of claim 12, wherein the cleaning composition further comprises a cross-linked polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), wherein the weight percent of the cross-linked polyvinylpyrrolidone is about 3 wt.% to about 20 wt.%, with respect to the weight of the cleaning composition (Maloney, table of pg. 2).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Thorpe, Maloney, and Watcharotone teaches the device of claim 12, wherein the applicator portion includes a dispersing portion (Thorpe, brush 20) to disperse the cleaning composition over the surface of the dental appliance, wherein the dispersing portion includes the portion to be to be deformed, and wherein the dispersing portion includes a brush (Thorpe, 20) to disperse the cleaning composition.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Thorpe, Maloney, and Watcharotone teaches the device of claim 12, further comprising a cleaner portion (Thorpe, brush 20) to clean the surface of the dental appliance, wherein the cleaner portion includes the portion to be to be deformed, wherein the cleaner portion includes a brush tip having bristles, but does not teach that an average length of the bristles is about 4 mm.
At the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have made the bristles of Thorpe with an average length of about 4 mm because Applicant has not disclosed that the particular length of the bristles provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Thorpe's brush and the applicant's invention to perform equally well with either the bristles taught by Thorpe or the claimed bristles with an average length of 4 mm because both brushes are equally capable of cleaning.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the brush of Thorpe to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Thorpe.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that Thorpe provides no disclosure that the bristles are capable of fitting at least 3 mm into a 0.3 mm wide gap, it is noted that the newly cited Watcharotone reference is relied upon to teach these limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY S OLIVER whose telephone number is (571)270-3787. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7-3 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, David Angwin can be reached at (571)270-3735. 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.
/BRADLEY S OLIVER/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/DAVID P ANGWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754