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(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 3-6 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.
It appears that the limitations of claims 3-6 were incorporated into claim 1 in the amendment of 12 August 2026 without canceling or amending claims 3-6.
Claim 1 lines 6-8 recites “a support feature comprising a depression…the depression having an open top end…the depression sized and shaped to receive a bottom portion of the handle component…” Claim 3 recites “…the support feature comprises a depression having an open top end, the depression sized and shaped to receive a bottom portion of the handle component.” Claim 3 fails to further limit the invention.
Claim 1 lines 3-4 recites “the body comprising an annular upstanding wall…” and line 6 recites “…a depression defined by the annular upstanding wall…” Claim 4 recites “…the depression is defined by an annular upstanding wall of the body.” Claim 4 fails to further limit the invention.
Claim 1 lines 3-4 recites “the body comprising an annular upstanding wall…” and lines 11-12 recites “…an engagement feature comprising a first recess in the top edge of the annular upstanding wall…” Claim 5 recites “…the engagement feature comprises at least one recess in a top edge of the upstanding wall of the body.” Claim 5 fails to further limit the invention.
Claim 1 lines 3-4 recites “the body comprising an annular upstanding wall…” and lines 11-14 recites “…an engagement feature comprising a first recess in the top edge of the annular upstanding wall and a second recess in the top edge of the annular upstanding wall, the first and second recesses aligned with one another along an axis that is orthogonal to the central axis of the depression…” Claim 6 recites “…the engagement feature comprises a first recess in the top edge of the upstanding wall of the body and a second recess in the top edge of the upstanding wall of the body, the first and second recesses aligned with one another along an axis that is orthogonal to a central axis of the depression.” Claim 6 fails to further limit the invention.
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
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buchmann, EP 0884009 A2 (see also English translation) in view of Johnson et al., US 2020/0178669.
Regarding claims 1 and 3-6, Buchmann discloses a stand (Figures 1-1.2) for an oral care implement having a handle component and a refill head component (toothbrush, see English translation; the oral care implement is not positively recited as part of the stand, see MPEP 2115), the stand comprising: a body part having a planar bottom surface (Figures 1 and 1.2), the body comprising an annular upstanding wall extending from a bottom end at which the planar bottom surface is located to a top edge (Figures 1 and 1.2); a support feature comprising a depression defined by the annular upstanding wall (open space of the cup, Figures 1-1.2) , the depression having an open top end at the top edge (top end of the cup, Figures 1-1.2) and a central axis (vertical axis of the cup as oriented in Figures 1 and 1.2), the depression is sized and shaped to receive a bottom portion of the handle component (not shown, the depression is of a size and shape capable of receiving a bottom portion of the handle component), the support feature is configured to support the oral care implement in an upright orientation when the stand is positioned on a horizontal surface such that the planar bottom surface is in contact with the horizontal surface (not shown, the support feature is capable of supporting the oral care implement in an upright orientation when the oral care implement is inserted in an upright manner into the cup; note that the oral care implement is not positively recited in the claims); and an engagement feature comprising a first recess in the top edge of the annular upstanding wall and a second recess in the top edge of the annular upstanding wall (two notches, see Figures 1-1.2 and English translation of the claims), the first and second recesses are aligned with one another along an axis that is orthogonal to the central axis of the depression (axis along which the implement is oriented in Figures 1.1-1.2), the engagement feature configured to support the oral care implement and refill head component in a horizontal orientation (Figures 1.1-1.2, see English translation), wherein a user would be capable of applying force onto the refill head component such that the user maintains the refill head in pressurized contact with the support feature and a pulling force onto the handle component so that the handle detaches from a refill head component and the refill head component remains supported by the engagement feature of the stand in the horizontal orientation (this limitation is drawn to the process or function of use by the claimed structure and the stand of Buchmann is capable of performing this process as it includes all of the limitations required of the stand, see also MPEP 2114(II): "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).” Regarding claim 2, wherein each of the support feature and engagement feature are formed in the body (see Figures 1-1.2). Regarding claim 7, the bottom surface is orthogonal to the central axis of the depression (Figures 1 and 1.2). Regarding claim 18, the engagement feature comprises first and second recesses (two notches, Figures 1-1.2), a top edge between the first and second recesses are planar (Figures 1-1.2). Regarding claim 19, the top edge of the upstanding wall extends continuously in an arc between the first recess and the second recess and is planar (Figures 1-1.2). Regarding claim 20, the top edge comprises a first arcuate segment between the first recess and the second recess on a first side of the upstanding wall and a second arcuate segment between the first recess and the second recess on a second side of the upstanding wall opposite the first side (Figure 1.1). Regarding claim 21, the first arcuate segment and the second arcuate segment are planar (Figures 1-1.2).
Buchmann fails to disclose that the bottom surface of the body is formed from an elastomeric material, wherein the bottom surface prevents the stand from sliding along a horizontal surface during use, specifically during detachment of the handle component from the refill head component.
Johnson et al. teach a similar stand for a personal care implement such as a toothbrush or razor (see Figures, paragraph 0012), the stand (16) has a body with a bottom surface formed from an elastomeric material (80, Figures 2-3) so that the stand is prevented from sliding on a resting surface such as a sink or countertop (last two sentences of paragraph 0019).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hemispheric bottom surface of the stand of Buchmann so that it is formed from an elastomeric material, as Johnson et al. teaches, so that the stand is prevented from sliding on a horizontal surface such as a sink or countertop and would also depending on the forces applied, would be capable of also preventing sliding along the horizontal surface during detachment of a handle from a refill head component.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buchmann, EP 0884009 A2 (see also English translation) and Johnson et al., US 2020/0178669 as applied to claim 1, in view of Lim et al., US 9,826,824.
Buchmann and Johnson et al. disclose all elements previously mentioned above. Buchmann fails to disclose a specific material that the body is formed of, specifically an elastomeric gripping material. It is noted that the stand body of Buchmann is intended to be used in an environment of toothbrushes (see English translation).
Lim et al. teach a stand (100) for personal care implements (cosmetic brushes, Title), the stand includes a body having engagement features (126, Figures 1A-1C) configured to support the personal care implements in a horizontal orientation (Figure 1B), the engagement features are formed in the body (Figures 1A-1C). Regarding claim 8, Lim et al. teach that the body is formed of an elastomeric gripping material (column 3 lines 54-59) so that it can be waterproof, flexible, easily manipulated, and retains its original shape (column 3 lines 39-59).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the body of Buchmann as modified by Johnson et al. so that it is formed of an elastomeric gripping material, as taught by Lim et al., so that the material is able to repel water or be waterproof and flexible.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buchmann, EP 0884009 A2 (see also English translation) and Johnson et al., US 2020/0178669 in view of Mochel, US 5,261,430.
Regarding claim 9, Buchmann as modified by Johnson et al. disclose all elements previously mentioned above, including that it is part of a system that comprises an oral care implement (toothbrush having a handle, see English translation and Figures 1.1-1.2) and a stand according to claim 1 (see discussion above relating to claim 1). Regarding claim 10, the stand comprises a body comprising a top end (uppermost end, see Figures 1 and 1.2) and first and second recesses in the top end (two notches, see English translation of the claims and Figures 1-1.2), the first and second recesses configured to receive a portion of the toothbrush (see Figures 1.1-1.2), wherein the stand has an outer diameter measured along the top end that is smaller than the length of a portion of the toothbrush (in that a toothbrush is supported by the notches, see Figures 1.1-1.2). Regarding claim 11, a proximal portion and a distal portion of a part of a toothbrush component are capable of protruding from an outer surface of the stand (Figures 1.1-1.2). Buchmann does not discuss that the toothbrush is an oral care implement having a handle component and a refill head component detachably coupled to the handle component, the distal portion of the refill head comprising a plurality of tooth cleaning elements arranged in a tooth cleaning element field.
Regarding claim 9, Mochel teaches an oral care implement (Abstract) having a handle component (1) and a refill head component detachably coupled to the handle component (3, Figures 1 and 3-8; column 3 lines 49-57 and column 4 lines 12-24). Regarding claim 10, the refill head component comprises a proximal end (end at 14, Figure 1 and unlabeled in Figures 4-5) and a plurality of tooth cleaning elements arranged in a tooth cleaning element field (Figures 4 or 5, toothbrush or interproximal brush), the refill head component having a length measured from the proximal end of the refill head to a proximal end of the tooth cleaning field (Figures 4 or 5).
Figures 1 and 3-8 particularly show that a length of a refill head component varies, but does not specify any dimension of the refill head component in relation to a stand. Mochel teaches that the refill head is detachably coupled in order to replace it with other refill heads of a variety of personal care tools so that the system is versatile and has multiple purposes (column 1 line 65 to column 2 line 6, column 2 lines 41-46).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the oral care system of Buchmann as modified by Johnson et al. so that the toothbrush handle is detachably coupled to a refill head component, as taught by Mochel, so that a user can use the same handle with other refill heads each having structure to fulfill multiple oral care needs. In combination, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Buchmann, Johnson et al., and Mochel so that the stand has an outer diameter smaller than a length of the refill head as Buchmann intends to support the oral care implement horizontally and as the lengths of the refill heads of Mochel vary, and also to arrange the implement of Mochel to nest within the first and second recesses of Buchmann with a distal end protruding from an outer surface, as Buchmann does intend to support the device horizontally and by laying a the refill head of Mochel horizontally the tooth cleaning elements would protrude from an outer surface of the stand of Buchmann.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-13 and 15-17 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior art made of record discloses, teaches, or suggests the method of separating a refill head component as recited in claims 12-13 and 15-17. See also the examiner’s indication of allowable subject matter discussed in the Non-final Office Action of 27 June 2025 and in the Final Office Action of 15 December 2025. In particular, none of the prior art teach a step of “applying a pulling force to the handle component until the refill head component detaches from the handle…maintaining the refill head component in pressurized contact with the stand during application of the pulling force.” Newly cited Buchmann (EP 0884009 A2) also does not disclose this feature.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Laura C Guidotti whose telephone number is (571)272-1272. The examiner can normally be reached typically M-F, 6am-9am, 10am-4:30pm.
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 Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/LAURA C GUIDOTTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
lcg
Prosecution Insights