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 1-7 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.
Claims 1 and 2 recite a rod shaped support, where it is unclear what is intended by the term “rod shaped”. Rods can have different shapes (e.g. cylindrical, rectangular, etc.).
Claim 5 requires the coating form a sleeve and claim 1 requires the coating region be arranged between two adjacent rows of the at least two rows and the coating be applied in strips. It is unclear how the coating is both a strip or strips and also a sleeve.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weihrauch (WO 9816169 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Weihrauch an interdental cleaner (Refer to Figures 1a-11) comprising a rod-shaped support (11, 13, 15) made of plastic, which has a cleaning part (portion 13, 14,15,18) made of a soft-elastic plastic (second material forming insert/overlay 14 is made of “soft-elastic” such as thermoplastic elastomer, Refer to page 5 of translation) in an axial end region, wherein the cleaning part is provided with a coating (coating on support formed by additive components which accumulate of the surface, Refer to page 5 of translation) an external surface thereof in a coating region and wherein the coating region comprises only a partial region of the external surface of the cleaning part (additive components which accumulate on the surface of 11,13 between 14, meaning the coating region is only on a partial region of the exterior surface of the cleaning part), wherein the cleaning part carries a plurality of radially outwardly projecting cleaning elements (14b, Refer to Figures 6a, 6b) arranged in at least two rows extending in the longitudinal direction of the rod-like support and the coating region (on 11,13) is arranged between two adjacent rows of the at least two rows. Weihrauch explains that additive components such as flavors, fluoride, xylide, antibacterial or tartar-cleaning compositions, etc. are provided so as to accumulate on the surface of the support/carrier or the insert/overlay. Thus, when these additives are provided on the support/carrier 11,13, the coating formed by the accumulation of these ingredients on the surface of the support between the bristles 14b results in a coating region(s) arranged between two adjacent rows of the at least two rows of bristles.
The claimed phrase “the coating is applied in strips” is being treated as a product by process limitation; that is the process by which the coating is applied involves applying the coating in strips. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 USC 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 2, Weihrauch discloses the coating region extends in a longitudinal direction of the rod shaped support (Refer to Figures 6A and 6B, coating formed by accumulation of additive components on 11,13 portion of the cleaning part, where the coating region extends longitudinally).
Regarding claim 4, Weihrauch discloses the coating region extends over at least 50% of an axial length of the cleaning part (Refer to Figures 6a and 6b).
Regarding claim 5, Weihrauch discloses the coating is arranged on the rod-like support, in a form of a sleeve (coating formed by accumulation of additive components on 11,13 portion of the cleaning part forms a sleeve).
Regarding claim 6, Weihrauch discloses the coating is formed by an antimicrobial substance and/or by an essential oil and/or by a remineralizing substance and/or by a flavoring substance and/or by an anti-inflammatory substance and/or by a desensitizing substance and/or by probiotics and/or by a dentin-strengthening substance or by mixtures of the specified substances (Refer to page 5 of translation which lists flavors, fluoride, xylide, antibacterial agents, tarter cleaning substances like NaF (sodium fluorine), plaque preventing substances and antibiotics).
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kato et al. (US 20170105821) and Bertram (DE 10008954 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kato et al. discloses an interdental cleaner (Refer to Figures 1a-1c) comprising a rod shaped support (2) made of plastic (Refer to paragraphs 0032), which has a cleaning part (3,4,5) made of a soft-elastic plastic (Refer to paragraph 0033) in an axial end region, wherein the cleaning part is provided with a coating (“perfume layer which covers the body” 4, Refer to paragraphs 0033 and 0035) on an external surface thereof in a coating region, wherein the cleaning part carries a plurality of radially outwardly projecting cleaning elements (5) arranged in at least two rows extending in a longitudinal direction of the rod shaped support, wherein the coating region is arranged between two adjacent rows of the at least two rows (coating is applied to body 4 of the cleaning part which exists between the rows of protrusions 5, Refer to Figures 1a-1c). However, Kato et al. do not explicitly disclose the coating region comprises only a partial region of the external surface of the cleaning part. Bertram discloses various interdental cleaning devices where a coating is applied to an exterior surface of the device (Refer to Figures 1-8). Bertram teaches the coating may be applied in a continuous manner or the coating may be provided as discontinuous strips which provide the advantage of facilitating removal or the coating from the device into the oral cavity (Refer to paragraph beginning with “FIG. 3 shows” on page 5 of translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the interdental cleaner of Kato et al. such that the coating be in the form of strips on the base portion of the cleaning part as taught by Bertram in order to facilitate of the coating during use of the device.
The claimed phrase “the coating is applied in strips” is being treated as a product by process limitation; that is the process by which the coating is applied involves applying the coating in strips. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 USC 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. MPEP 2113. The combination of Kato et al. and Bertram provide the coating in the form of strips/segments.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kato et al. and Bertram disclose the interdental cleaner of claim 1 above, wherein the coating region extends in a longitudinal direction of the rod shaped support. Kato et al. disclose the coating region is on the base/body 4 of the cleaning part which extends longitudinally (Refer to Figures 1a-1c).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kato et al. and Bertram disclose the interdental cleaner of claim 1 above, wherein the coating region extends over at least 50% of an axial length of the cleaning part. Kato et al. disclose the coating region is on the base/body 4 of the cleaning part, which extends over more than 50% of the axial length of the cleaning part which is defined as the length of 3,4 (Refer to Figures 1a-1c).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kato et al. and Bertram disclose the interdental cleaner of claim 1 above, wherein the coating arranged on the rod-shaped support (coating is arranged on portion of rod shaped support having the cleaning part 3,4,5) in a form of a sleeve. Kato et al. disclose the coating is on the base/body 4 of the cleaning part (Refer to Figures 1a-1c) and the combination of Kato et al. and Bertram provides the coating in discrete sections/strips which collectively form a sleeve.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kato et al. and Bertram disclose the interdental cleaner of claim 1 above, Kato et al. further discloses the coating is formed by an essential oil and/or by a flavoring substance (Refer to paragraph 0037).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kato et al. and Bertram disclose the interdental cleaner of claim 1 above, wherein a front tip portion of the cleaning part is free of the coating. At least a portion of the front tip portion of the cleaning part is free of the coating as the coating is not applied to the entirety of the cleaning part per the modification outlined in claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument: Weihrauch does not disclose applying the additive components in strips.
Response: The claimed phrase “the coating is applied is strips” is a product by process limitation. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. A coating can be applied in strips and cover all or part of a target surface.
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 TATIANA L NOBREGA whose telephone number is (571)270-7228. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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 Barrett can be reached at 571-272-4746. 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.
/TATIANA L NOBREGA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799