Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art of Chan ((US Pub. No. 2004/0200016), see page 2, filed 04/01/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-3, 5, 8-9 and 11-22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as indicated in the rejection below. Office action is non-final to afford applicant the opportunity to respond to new grounds of rejections.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 18, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 10,076,181 in view of Chan (US Pub. No. 2004/0200016), Hohlbein (US Pub. No. 2005/0166344), and Moskovich (US Patent No. 7,614,111).
A comparison of the subject matter of claim 1 of the instant application with the claim 1 of the Patent shows the following:
Instant Application: 18/238,711
US Patent No. 10,076,181
Claim 1:
A brush head for an electric toothbrush configured for an oscillating motion of tufts of bristles, the brush head comprising a bristle field formed by tufts of bristles,
Claim 1:
A toothbrush comprising: a head region, wherein the upper side of the head region is covered with bristle tufts in an anchor-free manner, said bristle tufts forming a bristle field,
- wherein at least one of the tufts of bristles has bristles with at least two different lengths, wherein free end portions of the bristles with at least two different lengths stand up to different heights from a bristle- carrying upper side of the brush head and form a stepped profile with exactly two stepped end faces,
Claim 1, ll. 58-67
wherein: at least a portion of the bristle tufts comprises a stepped profile with the free bristle ends forming end regions being offset from one another and defining the stepped profile, said stepped profile bristle tufts comprise first and second bristles with at least two different lengths with the free bristle ends standing up to different heights from the bristle-carrying upper side of the head region and forming at least two different areas of use
- wherein the two stepped end faces form at least two different areas of use that are offset from one another, and
Claim 1, ll. 62 and 67
at least a portion of the bristle tufts comprises a stepped profile with the free bristle ends forming end regions
; and forming at least two different areas of use
Claim 1, ll. 59-60
the free bristle ends forming end regions being offset from one another
- wherein the tuft of bristles forming the stepped profile comprises an elongate and arcuate cross-section, and
- wherein in each of the two stepped end faces of the stepped profile, the free end portions of the bristles form a contiguous, continuous profile
The claims of the instant application appear to have a similar scope of their corresponding clams in the patent, other than a slight re-wording of the claims, that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as being obvious variants of each other. However, the patent case is silent wherein the brush head is for an electric toothbrush configured for an oscillating motion of tufts of bristles, wherein the tuft of bristles forming the stepped profile comprises an elongate and arcuate cross-section, and wherein in each of the two stepped end faces of the stepped profile, the free end portions of the bristles form a contiguous, continuous profile.
The prior art of Chan teaches it was known in the art to have a brush head (Figures 6D/7C and see also paragraph 0038) comprising tuft of bristles (element 162) having a stepped profile (see figure 6D showing element 162 having a stepped profile), and wherein the toothbrush is an electronic toothbrush (see paragraph 0016) configured for an oscillating motion of tufts of bristles (see paragraph 0024/0031). It would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the brush head recited in claim 1 of the patent case in order to provide an automatic means of cleaning teeth in order to provide an enhance and more thorough cleaning operation.
The prior art of Hohlbein teaches it was known in the art to have a brush head (Figures 1-7 and see also paragraph 0033) comprising a brush head (element 105) comprising tuft of bristles (element 211a-b and see also paragraph 0047 where the prior art discloses element 211a-b as “tooth cleaning elements” and further states the cleaning elements are provided as “tufts of bristles”) and wherein the tuft of bristles comprises an elongate and arcuate cross-section (see figure 6 annotated below showing a plurality of tuft of bristles including the indicated section of tuft of bristles (element 211a-b) being elongated and see also paragraph 0047 where the prior art discloses the indicated tuft of bristles (element 211a-b) being “arcuate” (as best shown in figure 5), thus having an arcuate cross-section). It would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the brush head recited in claim 1 of the patent case in order to provide the predictable result of allowing the bristles to engage different parts of mouth during cleaning operations, thus removing/cleaning dental plaque.
The prior art of Moskovich also teaches it was known in the art to have a brush head (Figures 24A-B element 14002 and see also col. 16, ll. 33-46) comprising tufts of bristles (see figure 24A annotated below element 14218/Detail A and see also col.4, ll. 31-42) with a plurality of stepped end faces (see figure 24B annotated below Detail B/C with free end portions (top surface)) and wherein in each of the at the two stepped end faces of the stepped profile, the free end portions of the bristles form a contiguous, continuous profile (see annotated figure 24B below showing a plurality of stepped end faces which also include two stepped end faces that have the free end portions of the stepped end faces (Detail B/C) forming a contiguous continuous profile). It would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the brush head recited in claim 1 of the patent case in order to provide a contiguous continuous profile across the entire end face would necessarily provide the predictable result of an uninterrupted cleaning surface, thus enhancing and improving the effects of removing/cleaning dental plaque.
PNG
media_image1.png
527
827
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
904
904
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A comparison of the subject matter of claim 2 of the instant application with the claim 2 of the Patent shows the following:
Instant Application: 18/238,711
US Patent No. 10,076,181
Claim 2:
The brush head according to claim 1,
Claim 2:
The toothbrush as claimed in claim 1
wherein the bristles of the tuft of bristles forming the stepped profile are arranged obliquely with respect to the bristle-carrying upper side of the brush head.
wherein the obliquely arranged bristle tufts
The claims of the instant application appear to have a similar scope of their corresponding clams in the patent, other than a slight re-wording of the claims, that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as being obvious variants of each other. Thus, since the subject matter of the Patent claim anticipates the broader subject matter of the instant claims, the aforementioned nonstatutory Double Patenting is deemed necessary.
A comparison of the subject matter of claim 3 of the instant application with the claim 2 of the Patent shows the following:
Instant Application: 18/238,711
US Patent No. 10,076,181
Claim 3:
The brush head according to claim 2,
Claim 2:
The toothbrush as claimed in claim 1
wherein the obliquely arranged bristle tufts are inclined with respect to the vertical at an angle between 3° and 15°.
wherein the obliquely arranged bristle tufts are inclined with respect to the vertical at an angle between 3° and 15°.
The claims of the instant application appear to have a similar scope of their corresponding clams in the patent, other than a slight re-wording of the claims, that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as being obvious variants of each other. Thus, since the subject matter of the Patent claim anticipates the broader subject matter of the instant claims, the aforementioned nonstatutory Double Patenting is deemed necessary.
A comparison of the subject matter of claim 18 of the instant application with the claim 3 of the Patent shows the following:
Instant Application: 18/238,711
US Patent No. 10,076,181
Claim 18:
The brush head according to claim 1,
Claim 3:
The toothbrush as claimed in claim 1
wherein in the tuft of bristles forming the stepped profile, the distance of free end portions of the lower standing bristles from free end portions of the higher standing bristles is from 0.5 mm to 5 mm.
wherein the distance from the higher standing first bristle free ends to the lower standing second bristle free ends ranges from 0.5 mm to 5 mm.
The claims of the instant application appear to have a similar scope of their corresponding clams in the patent, other than a slight re-wording of the claims, that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as being obvious variants of each other. Thus, since the subject matter of the Patent claim anticipates the broader subject matter of the instant claims, the aforementioned nonstatutory Double Patenting is deemed necessary.
A comparison of the subject matter of claim 21 of the instant application with the claim 1 of the Patent shows the following:
Instant Application: 18/238,711
US Patent No. 10,076,181
Claim 21:
An electronic toothbrush configured for an oscillating motion of tufts of bristles, the electronic toothbrush comprising a head region with the brush head as claimed in claim 1;
Claim 1:
A toothbrush comprising: a head region (see Double Rejection of claim 1 above (pages 6-8)),
a handle region;
Claim 1, ll. 55
a handle region;
and a neck region connecting the handle region and the head region.
Claim 1, ll. 56-57
and a neck region connecting the handle region and the head region
The claims of the instant application appear to have a similar scope of their corresponding clams in the patent, other than a slight re-wording of the claims, that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as being obvious variants of each other. Thus, since the subject matter of the Patent claim anticipates the broader subject matter of the instant claims, the aforementioned nonstatutory Double Patenting is deemed necessary.
Claim 22 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 10,076,181 in view of Chan (US Pub. No. 2004/0200016), Hohlbein (US Pub. No. 2005/0166344), and Moskovich (US Patent No. 7,614,111).
A comparison of the subject matter of claim 22 of the instant application with the claims 1-2 of the Patent shows the following:
Instant Application: 18/238,711
US Patent No. 10,076,181
Claim 1:
A brush head for an electric toothbrush configured for an oscillating motion of tufts of bristles, the brush head comprising a bristle field formed by tufts of bristles,
Claim 1:
A toothbrush comprising: a head region, wherein the upper side of the head region is covered with bristle tufts in an anchor-free manner, said bristle tufts forming a bristle field,
- wherein at least one of the tufts of bristles has bristles with at least two different lengths, wherein free end portions of the bristles with at least two different lengths stand up to different heights from a bristle- carrying upper side of the brush head and form a stepped profile with exactly stepped end faces,
Claim 1, ll. 58-67
wherein: at least a portion of the bristle tufts comprises a stepped profile with the free bristle ends forming end regions being offset from one another and defining the stepped profile, said stepped profile bristle tufts comprise first and second bristles with at least two different lengths with the free bristle ends standing up to different heights from the bristle-carrying upper side of the head region and forming at least two different areas of use
- wherein the two stepped end faces form at least two different areas of use that are offset from one another,
Claim 1, ll. 62 and 67
at least a portion of the bristle tufts comprises a stepped profile with the free bristle ends forming end regions
; and forming at least two different areas of use
Claim 1, ll. 59-60
the free bristle ends forming end regions being offset from one another
- wherein the tuft of bristles forming the stepped profile comprises an elongate and arcuate cross-section
- wherein the bristles of the tuft of bristles forming the stepped profile are arranged obliquely with respect to the bristle-carrying upper side of the brush head, and
Claim 2. ll. 11-12
wherein the obliquely arranged bristle tufts
- wherein the tufts of bristles forming the stepped profile are arranged in outermost regions or peripheral regions of the bristle field
- wherein in each of the two stepped end faces of the stepped profile, the free end portions of the bristles form a contiguous, continuous profile
The claims of the instant application appear to have a similar scope of their corresponding clams in the patent, other than a slight re-wording of the claims, that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as being obvious variants of each other. However, the patent case is silent wherein the brush head is for an electric toothbrush configured for an oscillating motion of tufts of bristles, wherein the tuft of bristles forming the stepped profile comprises an elongate and arcuate cross-section, wherein the tufts of bristles forming the stepped profile are arranged in outermost regions or peripheral regions of the bristle field, and wherein in each of the two stepped end faces of the stepped profile, the free end portions of the bristles form a contiguous, continuous profile.
The prior art of Chan teaches it was known in the art to have a brush head (Figures 6D/7C and see also paragraph 0038) comprising tuft of bristles (element 162) having a stepped profile (see figure 6D showing element 162 having a stepped profile), and wherein the toothbrush is an electronic toothbrush (see paragraph 0016) configured for an oscillating motion of tufts of bristles (see paragraph 0024/0031). It would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the brush head recited in claim 1 of the patent case in order to provide an automatic means of cleaning teeth in order to provide an enhance and more thorough cleaning operation.
The prior art of Hohlbein teaches it was known in the art to have a brush head (Figures 1-7 and see also paragraph 0033) comprising a brush head (element 105) comprising tuft of bristles (element 211a-b and see also paragraph 0047 where the prior art discloses element 211a-b as “tooth cleaning elements” and further states the cleaning elements are provided as “tufts of bristles”) and wherein the tuft of bristles comprises an elongate and arcuate cross-section (see figure 6 annotated below showing a plurality of tuft of bristles including the indicated section of tuft of bristles (element 211a-b) being elongated and see also paragraph 0047 where the prior art discloses the indicated tuft of bristles (element 211a-b) being “arcuate” (as best shown in figure 5), thus having an arcuate cross-section). It would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the brush head recited in claim 1 of the patent case in order to provide the predictable result of allowing the bristles to engage different parts of mouth during cleaning operations, thus removing/cleaning dental plaque.
The prior art of Moskovich teaches it was known in the art to have a brush head (Figures 24A-B element 14002 and see also col. 16, ll. 33-46) comprising a bristle filed (see figures 24A-B annotated tufts of bristles (element 14218 and see also col.4, ll. 31-42) with two stepped end faces (see figure 24B showing free end portions (top surface)), tufts of bristles forming a non-stepped profile (element 14018), and wherein the tufts of bristles forming the stepped profile are arranged in outermost regions or peripheral regions of the bristle field (see figure 24A showing portions of the tufts of bristles forming the stepped profile arranged in peripheral regions (peripheral sides) of the bristle field) and wherein in each of the at the two stepped end faces of the stepped profile, the free end portions of the bristles form a contiguous, continuous profile (see annotated figure 24B below showing a plurality of stepped end faces which also include two stepped end faces that have the free end portions of the stepped end faces (Detail B/C) forming a contiguous continuous profile). It would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the brush head recited in claim 22 of the patent case in order to provide the predictable result of having a diverse cleaning action against the teeth/gums during cleaning operations and provide a contiguous continuous profile across the entire end face would necessarily provide the predictable result of an uninterrupted cleaning surface, thus enhancing and improving the effects of removing/cleaning dental plaque.
PNG
media_image1.png
527
827
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
904
904
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-9, 11-22 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kraemer (US Pub. No. 2010/0223745) in view of Hohlbein (US Pub. No. 2005/0166344) and Moskovich (US Patent No. 7,614,111).
Regarding claim 1, Kramer discloses: a brush head (Figures 1-13 element 10/60 and see also paragraph 0060) for an electric toothbrush (See paragraph 0055) configured for an oscillating motion of tufts of bristles (Applicant is reminded, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (See MPEP 2114 (II)), the brush head comprising a bristle field (see annotated figure 1 and 10 below Detail A) formed by tufts of bristles (elements 101/102/103/104),
- wherein at least one of the tufts of bristles has bristles with at least two different lengths (see annotated figure 10 below showing a plurality of the tufts of bristles having bristles with at least two different lengths (LN1/LN2/LT)), wherein free end portions (see figure annotated figure 10 below Detail B) of the bristles with at least two different lengths (LN2/LT) stand up to different heights from a bristle-carrying upper side (top side of element 13) of the brush head and form a stepped profile with exactly two stepped end faces (see annotated figure 10 below showing at least one of the tufts of bristles (elements 102/103) with different lengths standing up to different heights (element 103 is higher than element 102) from the bristle-carrying upper side (top side of element 13) of the brush head and thus forming a stepped profile with exactly two stepped end faces (Detail C)),
- wherein the two stepped end faces form at least two different areas of use that are offset from one another (see annotated figure 10 below showing portions of the at least two stepped end faces (Detail C) being offset from one another and forming two different areas of use).
PNG
media_image3.png
275
366
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
678
1064
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, Kramer discloses the plural first tufts arranged along a line extending with a longitudinal direction component along the bristle surface and plural second tufts arranged along a line extending with a longitudinal direction component along the bristle surface (as best shown in figure 13), and further discloses such line “may be parallel to the longitudinal direction, at an acute angle to the longitudinal direction, curved, zig-zag or sinuous” (see paragraph 0027).
However, Kramer appears to be silent wherein the tuft of bristles forming the stepped profile comprises an elongate and arcuate cross-section and wherein in each of the two stepped end faces of the stepped profile, the free end portions of the bristles form a contiguous, continuous profile.
Hohlbein teaches it was known in the art to have a brush head (Figures 1-7 and see also paragraph 0033) comprising a brush head (element 105) comprising tuft of bristles (element 211a-b and see also paragraph 0047 where the prior art discloses element 211a-b as “tooth cleaning elements” and further states the cleaning elements are provided as “tufts of bristles”) and wherein the tuft of bristles comprises an elongate and arcuate cross-section (see figure 6 annotated below showing a plurality of tuft of bristles including the indicated section of tuft of bristles (element 211a-b) being elongated and see also paragraph 0047 where the prior art discloses the indicated tuft of bristles (element 211a-b) being “arcuate” (as best shown in figure 5), thus having an arcuate cross-section).
PNG
media_image5.png
510
815
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have modified Kramer with the teachings of Hohlbein to provide wherein the tuft of bristles forming the stepped profile comprises an elongate and arcuate cross-section. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having the tuft of bristles with a desired cross-section would necessarily provide the predictable result of allowing the bristles to engage different parts of mouth during cleaning operations, thus removing/cleaning dental plaque. Furthermore, applicant has not disclosed that the following claim limitations solves any stated problem, indicating simply that the tufts of bristles “may be” configured in a wide variety of cross-sections while also offering other acceptable cross-sections (circular, angular, rectangular, elliptical, trapezoidal, etc.)(see page 11, ll. 30-37) and therefore there appears to no criticality placed on the cross-section produces an unexpected result.
However, Kramer modified appears to be silent wherein in each of the two stepped end faces of the stepped profile, the free end portions of the bristles form a contiguous, continuous profile.
Moskovich teaches it was known in the art to have a brush head (Figures 24A-B element 14002 and see also col. 16, ll. 33-46) comprising tufts of bristles (see figure 24A annotated below element 14218/Detail A and see also col.4, ll. 31-42) with a plurality of stepped end faces (see figure 24B annotated below Detail B/C with free end portions (top surface)) and wherein in each of the at the two stepped end faces of the stepped profile, the free end portions of the bristles form a contiguous, continuous profile (see annotated figure 24B below showing a plurality of stepped end faces which also include two stepped end faces that have the free end portions of the stepped end faces (Detail B/C) forming a contiguous continuous profile).
PNG
media_image1.png
527
827
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
904
904
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have further modified Kramer with the teachings of Moskovich to provide wherein in each of the two stepped end faces of the stepped profile, the free end portions of the bristles form a contiguous, continuous profile. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a contiguous continuous profile across the entire end face would necessarily provide the predictable result of an uninterrupted cleaning surface, thus enhancing and improving the effects of removing/cleaning dental plaque.
Regarding claim 2, Kramer modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1, but appears to be silent wherein the bristles of the tuft of bristles forming the stepped profile are arranged obliquely with respect to the bristle-carrying upper side of the brush head.
Kramer further discloses an alternate embodiment of the brush head (Figure 12 element 121 and see also paragraph 0075) comprising a plurality of bristles of the tuft of bristles forming the stepped profile (element 1241/1242), a bristle-carrying upper side (top side of element 123), and wherein the bristles of the tuft of bristles forming the stepped profile are arranged obliquely with respect to the bristle-carrying upper side of the brush head (see figure 12 showing the bristles of the tuft of bristles (element 1241/1242) arranged obliquely (i.e. neither perpendicular nor parallel) with respect to the bristle-carrying upper side (top side of element 123)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have modified Kramer with the teachings of Kramer alternate embodiment to provide wherein the bristles of the tuft of bristles forming the stepped profile are arranged obliquely with respect to the bristle-carrying upper side of the brush head. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having the tuft of bristles with a desired arrangement including obliquely arranged would necessarily provide the predictable result of allowing for a plurality of different cleaning areas which allows the toothbrush to clean different area, thus enhancing cleaning operations.
Regarding claim 3, Kramer modified discloses: the brush head according to claim 2, wherein the obliquely arranged bristle tufts are inclined with respect to a vertical at an angle between 3° and 15° (see paragraph 0075 where the prior art discloses the bristle tufts (element 1241) being inclined with an angle (element A1) being between “75-85°”, thus having an angle between 5° and 15° with respect to the vertical (i.e. 90°) and therefore meeting the claim limitation).
Regarding claim 5, Kramer modified discloses: the brush head according to claim 1, wherein the tuft of bristles forming the stepped profile comprise different types of bristles (see paragraph 0071 and annotated figure 10 above stating/showing that bristles can have different shapes/lengths, thus being different bristles).
Regarding claim 8, Kramer modified discloses: the brush head according to claim 5, wherein the bristles forming the stepped profile differ with respect to a shape of the free end portions (see paragraph 0071).
Regarding claim 9, Kramer modified discloses: the brush head according to claim 5, wherein the stepped profile is formed by conventional cylindrical bristles and by pointed bristles (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 11, Kramer modified discloses: the brush head according to claim 1, wherein the bristle field comprises a group of two neighboring tufts of bristles forming the stepped profile (see annotated figure 10 below showing the bristle field (Detail A) comprising a plurality of different neighboring tufts of bristles (elements 101/102/103/104) forming the stepped profile, thus having a group of two).
PNG
media_image4.png
678
1064
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Kramer modified discloses: the brush head according to claim 1, wherein in the tuft of bristles forming the stepped profile, the bristles of one end face surround the bristles of the at least one other end face (see figure 10 annotated figure above showing different portions (left and right portion) of the lower end face surrounding the taller end face bristle end face).
Regarding claim 13, Kramer modified discloses: the brush head according to claim 1, wherein in the tuft of bristles forming the stepped profile, the bristles of shorter length surround the bristles of greater length (see figure 10 annotated figure above showing the shorter length (element LN2) bristles surrounding the bristles of greater length (LN1)).
Regarding claim 14, Kramer modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1, but appears to be silent wherein the bristle field also contains tufts of bristles forming a non-stepped profile.
Moskovich teaches it was known in the art to have a brush head (Figures 24A-B element 14002 and see also col. 16, ll. 33-46) comprising tufts of bristles (element 14218 and see also col.4, ll. 31-42) with two stepped end faces (see figure 24B annotated above Detail A/B with free end portions (top surface)) and wherein the bristle field also contains tufts of bristles forming a non-stepped profile (element 14018).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have further modified Kramer with the teachings of Moskovich to provide wherein the bristle field also contains tufts of bristles forming a non-stepped profile. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a combination of different tuft profiles would necessarily provide the predictable result of having a diverse cleaning action against the teeth/gums during cleaning operations.
Regarding claim 15, Kramer modified discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 14, but appears to be silent wherein the tufts of bristles forming the stepped profile are arranged in outermost regions or peripheral regions of the bristle field and the tufts of bristles forming the non- stepped profile are arranged in an inner area of the bristle field.
Moskovich teaches it was known in the art to have a brush head (Figures 24A-B element 14002 and see also col. 16, ll. 33-46) comprising a bristle filed (see figures 24A-B annotated tufts of bristles (element 14218 and see also col.4, ll. 31-42) with two stepped end faces (see figure 24B annotated below Detail A/B with free end portions (top surface)), tufts of bristles forming a non-stepped profile (element 14018), and wherein the tufts of bristles forming the stepped profile are arranged in outermost regions or peripheral regions of the bristle field (see annotated figure 24A below showing portions of the tufts of bristles forming the stepped profile arranged in peripheral regions (Detail B) of the bristle field (Detail A)) and the tufts of bristles forming the non-stepped profile are arranged in an inner area of the bristle field (see annotated figure 24A below showing portions of the tufts of bristles forming the non-stepped profile arranged in inner area (Detail C) of the bristle field (Detail A)).
PNG
media_image6.png
813
732
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have further modified Kramer with the teachings of Moskovich to provide wherein the tufts of bristles forming the stepped profile are arranged in outermost regions or peripheral regions of the bristle field and the tufts of bristles forming the non- stepped profile are arranged in an inner area of the bristle field. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a combination of different tuft profiles arranged in different portions of the bristle filed would necessarily provide the predictable result of having a diverse cleaning action against the teeth/gums during cleaning operations.
Regarding claim 16, Kramer modified discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 14, but appears to be silent wherein the bristles of said tufts forming the non-stepped profile have a shorter bristle length than the bristles of the stepped profile bristle tufts.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have modified Kramer to provide wherein the bristles of said tufts forming the non-stepped profile have a shorter bristle length than the bristles of the stepped profile bristle tufts, since such a modification would involve 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). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having different length bristles would necessarily provide the predictable result of having a plurality of different cleaning areas which allows the toothbrush to clean different area, thus enhancing cleaning operations (See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A)).
Regarding claim 17, Kramer modified discloses: the brush head according to claim 14, wherein the tufts of bristles forming the non-stepped profile have a circular cross-section (see figures 24A-B of prior art of Moskovich showing portions of the non-stepped profile (element 14018) having a circular shape, thus having a circular cross-section).
Regarding claim 18, Kramer modified discloses all the limitations of claims 1, but appears to be silent wherein in the tuft of bristles forming the stepped profile, the distance of free end portions of the lower standing bristles from free end portions of the higher standing bristles is from 0.5 mm to 5 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have modified Kramer to provide wherein in the tuft of bristles forming the stepped profile, the distance of free end portions of the lower standing bristles from free end portions of the higher standing bristles is from 0.5 mm to 5 mm, since such a modification would involve 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). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having different length bristles would necessarily provide the predictable result of having a plurality of different cleaning areas which allows the toothbrush to clean different area, thus enhancing cleaning operations (See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A)).
Regarding claim 19, Kramer modified discloses all the limitations of claims 1, but appears to be silent wherein in the tuft of bristles forming the stepped profile, the lower standing bristles have a height of 6 mm to 11 mm, and the higher standing bristles have a height of 9 mm to15 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have modified Kramer to provide wherein in the tuft of bristles forming the stepped profile, the lower standing bristles have a height of 6 mm to 11 mm, and the higher standing bristles have a height of 9 mm to15 mm, since such a modification would involve 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). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having different length bristles would necessarily provide the predictable result of having a plurality of different cleaning areas which allows the toothbrush to clean different area, thus enhancing cleaning operations (See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A)).
Regarding claim 20, Kramer modified discloses: the brush head according to claim 1, wherein rearward end portions of the bristles of the tufts of bristles are melted to the brush head and are fastened in an anchor-free manner to the brush head (The applicant is claiming a product-by-process limitation (melted and fastened in an anchor-free manner), MPEP 2113 clearly states "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different processes." In this instance, the product taught by Kramer is the same as or makes the product claimed obvious, meeting the limitation of the claim).
Regarding claim 21, Kramer modified discloses: an electronic toothbrush (Figure 1 and see also paragraph 0060) configured for an oscillating motion of tufts of bristles (Applicant is reminded, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (See MPEP 2114 (II)), the electronic toothbrush comprising
a head region (see figure 1 annotated below Detail A) with the brush head as claimed in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above (pages 4-7));
a handle region (element 11); and
a neck region (element 12) connecting the handle region and the head region (see figure 1 annotated below).
PNG
media_image7.png
412
896
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22, Kramer discloses: a brush head (Figures 1-11 element 10/60 and see also paragraph 0060) for an electric toothbrush (see paragraph 0055) configured for an oscillating motion of tufts of bristles (Applicant is reminded, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (See MPEP 2114 (II)), the brush head comprising a bristle field (see annotated figure 1 and 10 below Detail A) formed by tufts of bristles (elements 101/102/103/104),
- wherein at least one of the tufts of bristles has bristles with at least two different lengths (see annotated figure 10 below showing a plurality of the tufts of bristles having bristles with at least two different lengths (LN1/LN2/LT)), wherein free end portions (see figure annotated figure 10 below Detail B) of the bristles with at least two different lengths (LN2/LT) stand up to different heights from a bristle-carrying upper side (top side of element 13) of the brush head and form a stepped profile with exactly two stepped end faces (see annotated figure 10 below showing at least one of the tufts of bristles (elements 102/103) with different lengths standing up to different heights (element 103 is higher than element 102) from the bristle-carrying upper side (top side of element 13) of the brush head and thus forming a stepped profile with exactly two stepped end faces (Detail C)),
- wherein the two stepped end faces form at least two different areas of use that are offset from one another (see annotated figure 10 below showing portions of the at least two stepped end faces (Detail C) being offset from one another and forming two different areas of use).
PNG
media_image3.png
275
366
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
678
1064
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, Kramer discloses the plural first tufts arranged along a line extending with a longitudinal direction component along the bristle surface and plural second tufts arranged along a line extending with a longitudinal direction component along the bristle surface (as best shown in figure 13), and further discloses such line “may be parallel to the longitudinal direction, at an acute angle to the longitudinal direction, curved, zig-zag or sinuous” (see paragraph 0027).
However, Kramer appears to be silent wherein the tuft of bristles forming the stepped profile comprises an elongate and arcuate cross-section, wherein the bristles of the tuft of bristles forming the stepped profile are arranged obliquely with respect to the bristle-carrying upper side of the brush head, wherein the tufts of bristles forming the stepped profile are arranged in outermost regions or peripheral regions of the bristle field, and wherein in each of the two stepped end faces of the stepped profile, the free end portions of the bristles form a contiguous, continuous profile.
Hohlbein teaches it was known in the art to have a brush head (Figures 1-7 and see also paragraph 0033) comprising a brush head (element 105) comprising tuft of bristles (element 211a-b and see also paragraph 0047 where the prior art discloses element 211a-b as “tooth cleaning elements” and further states the cleaning elements are provided as “tufts of bristles”) and wherein the tuft of bristles comprises an elongate and arcuate cross-section (see figure 6 annotated below showing a plurality of tuft of bristles including the indicated section of tuft of bristles (element 211a-b) being elongated and see also paragraph 0047 where the prior art discloses the indicated tuft of bristles (element 211a-b) being “arcuate” (as best shown in figure 5), thus having an arcuate cross-section).
PNG
media_image5.png
510
815
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have modified Kramer with the teachings of Hohlbein to provide wherein the tuft of bristles forming the stepped profile comprises an elongate and arcuate cross-section. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having the tuft of bristles with a desired cross-section would necessarily provide the predictable result of allowing the bristles to engage different parts of mouth during cleaning operations, thus removing/cleaning dental plaque. Furthermore, applicant has not disclosed that the following claim limitations solves any stated problem, indicating simply that the tufts of bristles “may be” configured in a wide variety of cross-sections while also offering other acceptable cross-sections (circular, angular, rectangular, elliptical, trapezoidal, etc.)(see page 11, ll. 30-37) and therefore there appears to no criticality placed on the cross-section produces an unexpected result.
However, Kramer modified appears to be silent wherein the bristles of the tuft of bristles forming the stepped profile are arranged obliquely with respect to the bristle-carrying upper side of the brush head, wherein the tufts of bristles forming the stepped profile are arranged in outermost regions or peripheral regions of the bristle field, and wherein in each of the two stepped end faces of the stepped profile, the free end portions of the bristles form a contiguous, continuous profile.
Kramer further discloses an alternate embodiment of the brush head (Figure 12 element 121 and see also paragraph 0075) comprising a plurality of bristles of the tuft of bristles forming the stepped profile (element 1241/1242), a bristle-carrying upper side (top side of element 123), and wherein the bristles of the tuft of bristles forming the stepped profile are arranged obliquely with respect to the bristle-carrying upper side of the brush head (see figure 12 showing the bristles of the tuft of bristles (element 1241/1242) arranged obliquely (i.e. neither perpendicular nor parallel) with respect to the bristle-carrying upper side (top side of element 123)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have modified Kramer with the teachings of Kramer alternate embodiment to provide wherein the bristles of the tuft of bristles forming the stepped profile are arranged obliquely with respect to the bristle-carrying upper side of the brush head. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having the tuft of bristles with a desired arrangement including obliquely arranged would necessarily provide the predictable result of allowing for a plurality of different cleaning areas which allows the toothbrush to clean different area, thus enhancing cleaning operations
However, Kramer modified appears to be silent wherein the tufts of bristles forming the stepped profile are arranged in outermost regions or peripheral regions of the bristle field and wherein in each of the two stepped end faces of the stepped profile, the free end portions of the bristles form a contiguous, continuous profile.
Moskovich teaches it was known in the art to have a brush head (Figures 24A-B element 14002 and see also col. 16, ll. 33-46) comprising tufts of bristles (see figure 24A annotated below element 14218/Detail A and see also col.4, ll. 31-42) with a plurality of stepped end faces (see figure 24B annotated below Detail B/C with free end portions (top surface)), wherein the tufts of bristles forming the stepped profile are arranged in outermost regions or peripheral regions of the bristle field (see annotated figure 24A below showing portions of the tufts of bristles forming the stepped profile arranged in peripheral regions (Detail B) of the bristle field (Detail A)) and wherein in each of the at the two stepped end faces of the stepped profile, the free end portions of the bristles form a contiguous, continuous profile (see annotated figure 24B below showing a plurality of stepped end faces which also include two stepped end faces that have the free end portions of the stepped end faces (Detail B/C) forming a contiguous continuous profile).
PNG
media_image6.png
813
732
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
527
827
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
904
904
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have further modified Kramer with the teachings of Moskovich to provide to provide wherein the tufts of bristles forming the stepped profile are arranged in outermost regions or peripheral regions of the bristle field and wherein in each of the two stepped end faces of the stepped profile, the free end portions of the bristles form a contiguous, continuous profile. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having arranged in different portions of the bristle filed would necessarily provide the predictable result of having a diverse cleaning action against the teeth/gums during cleaning operations and having a contiguous continuous profile across the entire end face would necessarily provide the predictable result of an uninterrupted cleaning surface, thus enhancing and improving the effects of removing/cleaning dental plaque.
Claim 4 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kraemer (US Pub. No. 2010/0223745) in view of Hohlbein (US Pub. No. 2005/0166344) and Moskovich (US Patent No. 7,614,111) as applied to claims 1-2 are above, and further in view of Bielfeldt (US Pub. No. 2008/0201886).
Regarding claim 4, Kramer modified discloses all the limitations of claims 1, but appears to be silent wherein the bristle field further comprises perpendicular tufts of bristles.
Bielfeldt teaches it was known in the art to have a brush head (Figures 1-5 element 1 and see also paragraph 0028) comprising a bristle filed (element 3), a plurality of obliquely arranged tuft of bristles (elements 5/6), and wherein the bristle field further comprises perpendicular tufts of bristles (element 4 and see also paragraph 0030).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have further modified Kramer with the teachings of Bielfeldt to provide wherein the bristle field further comprises perpendicular tufts of bristles. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having the tuft of bristles with a plurality of different arrangements would necessarily provide the toothbrush to no longer be moved successively into different defined positions in order to clean the different areas of the teeth, thus an effective cleaning of the different areas takes place concurrently even during a simple movement along the row of teeth referred to as the horizontal scrubbing technique as disclosed by Bielfeldt (see paragraph 0007).
Claim 6 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kraemer (US Pub. No. 2010/0223745) in view of Hohlbein (US Pub. No. 2005/0166344) and Moskovich (US Patent No. 7,614,111) as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Burge (US Patent No. 3,263,258).
Regarding claim 6, Kramer modified discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 5, but appears to be silent wherein the bristles forming the stepped profile differ with respect to color.
Burge teaches it was known in the art to have a brush (Figures 1-4 and see also col. 2, ll. 3-8) comprising a head region (element 10) with a plurality of tufts (element 11) having bristles (elements 13/14/15), and wherein the bristles differ with respect to color (see col. 3, ll. 4-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have further modified Kramer with the teachings of Burge to provide wherein the bristles forming the at least two stepped end faces differ with respect to color. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having different color bristles would necessarily provide aesthetic appeal to the brush as disclosed by Burge (see col. 3, ll. 4-5).
Claim 7 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kraemer (US Pub. No. 2010/0223745) in view of Hohlbein (US Pub. No. 2005/0166344) and Moskovich (US Patent No. 7,614,111) as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Clemens (US Patent No. 3,103,679).
Regarding claim 7, Kramer modified discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 5, but appears to be silent wherein the bristles forming the stepped profile differ with respect to diameter.
Clemens teaches it was known in the art to have a brush head (Figures 1-5 element 14 and see also col. 2, ll. 66-72) comprising a plurality of tufts (element 16) having bristles (elements 22/24) forming the at least two stepped end faces (see figure 4), and wherein the bristles forming the at least two stepped end faces differ with respect to diameter (see col. 3, ll. 50-56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have further modified Kramer with the teachings of Clemens to provide wherein the bristles forming the stepped profile differ with respect to diameter. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having different diameter bristles would necessarily provide the predictable result of having a well-known construction of bristles for cleaning both interproximal spaces and the surface of teeth and gums, thus enhancing cleaning operations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 3 and 5 of the of the “Remarks”, the applicant argues the prior art of Moskovich, which the office action relies on to allegedly teach the stepped faces forming a contiguous, continuous profile, does not discloses stepped end faces within a single tuft of the bristles, as required in the claim. The applicant further argues that the prior art stepped configuration arises from multiple separate tufts positioned at different heights and thus, does not meet the claim limitation.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a single tuft of the bristles) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, as indicated in the rejection above (see pages 23-24 and 40-43), the examiner has considered the entirety of the selected Detail A to be the tuft of bristles having the two stepped end faces (Detail B/C with free end portions (top surface)) of a stepped profile and where int the free end portions of the bristles form a contiguous, continuous profile (see figure 24B annotated above), thus meeting the claim limitation. Therefore, the arguments are unpersuasive.
On page 4 and 5 of the of the “Remarks”, the applicant argues the prior art of Kraemer, which the office action relies on to disclose a tuft of bristles forming two stepped end faces based on the presences of the bristles of two different lengths. However, the claim does not merely require bristles of different lengths, but rather: a.) the bristles form exactly two stepped end faces, and in each stepped end face the free end portions of the bristles (i.e. the bristle tips) form contiguous, continuous profile. Lastly, the applicant argues that the
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument regarding the contiguous, continuous profile, the examiner is not relying on the prior art of Kramer to disclose the claimed feature, but rather utilized the prior art of Moskovich to teach the claimed feature. Furthermore, as indicated in the rejection above (see pages 19-20 and 34-36), the examiner has considered the entirety of the selected Detail B/C to be the stepped profile having exactly two stepped end faces (see figure 10 annotated above), thus meeting the claim limitation. Therefore, the arguments are unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERTO SAENZ whose telephone number is (313)446-6610. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30PM 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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights