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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a support feature” and “an engagement feature” in claims 1-2. Corresponding structure includes a depression (support feature, see paragraph 0031 of the specification) and a recess or notch (engagement feature, see paragraph 0032 of the specification).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thompson, US 2,117,504.
Regarding claim 1, Thompson discloses a stand (10) for an oral care implement having a handle component and a refill head component (toothbrush, 20; the oral care implement is not positively recited as part of the stand, see MPEP 2115), the stand comprising: a support feature (inner walls of 10) configured to support the oral care implement in an upright orientation when the stand is positioned on a horizontal surface (as oriented in Figure 2), and an engagement feature (26) configured to support the oral care implement and refill head component in a horizontal orientation (capable of supporting the oral care implement in a horizontal orientation, when the toothbrush is positioned as shown in Figures 4-7 and the surface the stand is positioned on is horizontal; page 1 column 2 lines 43-52), 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 Thompson 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). Regarding claim 3, the support feature comprises a depression (unlabeled region that supports the brush vertically, Figure 2, region that supports the end of end 18) having an open top end (unlabeled top as oriented in Figure 2, facing rightwards in Figures 4-5 and 7), the depression sized and shaped to receive a bottom portion of the handle component (sized and shaped to receive 18, see Figure 2). Regarding claim 8, the body is formed of an elastomeric gripping material (page 2 column 1 lines 44-52). Regarding claim 18, the engagement feature consists of a first recess and a second recess (each slot 26, allows support of one toothbrush, see Figures), wherein a top edge between the first and second recesses are planar.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20-0383248 (see also English translation) in view of Johnson et al., US 2020/0178669.
Regarding claim 1, KR 20-0383248 disclose a stand (10) 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 support feature (receiving hole 21) configured to support the oral care implement in an upright orientation when the stand is positioned on a horizontal surface (as oriented in Figures 1 and 1a or 2 and 2a, see English translation), and an engagement feature (fixing member with recess 40, 41) configured to support the oral care implement and refill head component in a horizontal orientation (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 KR 200383248 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). Regarding claim 3, the support feature comprises a depression (21) having an open top end (unlabeled, see Figures 1 and 1a, 2 and 2a), the depression sized and shaped to receive a bottom portion of the handle component (sized and shaped to receive a toothbrush handle, see English translation). Regarding claim 4, the depression is defined by an annular upstanding wall of the body (40, see Figures). Regarding claim 5, the engagement feature comprises at least one recess in a top edge of the upstanding body (41, see Figures 1 and 1a, 2 and 2a). Regarding claim 6, the engagement feature comprises a first recess in the top edge of the upstanding wall of the body (first one of 41) and a second recess in the top edge of the upstanding wall of the body (another one of 41, see Figures), the first and second recesses are aligned with one another along an axis that is orthogonal to a central axis of the depression (see Figures 1-2). Regarding claim 7, the bottom surface is orthogonal to the central axis of the depression (bottom surface of 30, see Figures).
KR 20-0383248 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 KR 20-0383248 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 KR 20-0383248 (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.
KR 20-0383248 and Johnson et al. disclose all elements previously mentioned above. KR 20-0383248 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 KR 20-0383248 is intended to be used in an environment of toothbrushes and/or razors (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 KR 20-0383248 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 KR 20-0383248 (see also English translation) and Johnson et al., US 2020/0178669 in view of Mochel, US 5,261,430.
Regarding claim 9, KR 20-0383248 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 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 (end at 40, see Figures) and first and second recesses in the top end (41, Figures 1-2), the first and second recesses configured to receive a portion of the toothbrush (see English translation), 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 recesses 41 of member 40, see English translation). 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 (in that a toothbrush is supported by the recesses 41 of member 40, see English translation). KR 20-0383248 does not discuss details of the toothbrush, particularly that it 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 KR 20-0383248 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 KR 20-0383248, Johnson et al., and Mochel so that the stand has an outer diameter smaller than a length of the refill head as KR 20-0383248 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 KR 20-0383248 with a distal end protruding from an outer surface, as KR 20-0383248 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 KR 20-0383248.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20-0383248 (see also English translation) and Johnson et al., US 2020/0178669 as applied to claim 1, in view of Thompson, US 2,177,504.
KR 20-0383248 and Johnson et al. disclose all elements previously mentioned above. Regarding claim 18, KR 20-0383248 discloses that the engagement feature comprises first and second recesses, but fails to disclose that it consists of a first recess and a second recess, wherein a top edge between the first and second recesses are planar. In KR 20-0383248 a top edge between recesses are not planar.
Thompson discloses all elements discussed above and further regarding claim 18 discloses that the engagement feature consists of a first recess and a second recess (each slot 26, allows support of one toothbrush, see Figures), wherein a top edge between the first and second recesses are planar.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the engagement feature of KR 20-0383248 as modified by Johnson et al. so that it consists of a first recess and a second recess, wherein a top edge between the first and second recesses are planar, as taught by Thompson, so that the engagement feature supports only one toothbrush.
Claim(s) 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20-0383248 (see also English translation) and Johnson et al., US 2020/0178669 as applied to claim 6, in view of Thompson, US 2,177,504.
KR 20-0383248 and Johnson et al. disclose all elements previously mentioned above. Regarding claims 19-20, KR 20-0383248 fails to disclose that the top edge of the upstanding wall extends continuously in an arc between the first recess and the second recess and is planar or that there is 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.
Thompson discloses all elements discussed above and further regarding claim 19 discloses that a top edge extends continuously in an arc between the first recess and the second recess and is planar (unlabeled top edge of 10, surface where reference number 32 is extending from in Figure 7; see also Figure 7 for the continuous arc of the top edge and Figures 1-2 and 4-6 that show the planar nature of the top edge). 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 perimeter and a second arcuate segment between the second recess on a second side of the perimeter opposite the first (Figure 6, arcuate segments on either side of the toothbrush 20, 22). Regarding claim 21, the first and second arcuate segments are planar (see Figures 1-2 and 4-6 that show the planar nature of the top edge). The shape of the top edge is suitable for securing and supporting a toothbrush that is not in use (see Figures).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the engagement feature of KR 20-0383248 as modified by Johnson et al. so that it comprises the top edge of the upstanding wall extends continuously in an arc between the first recess and the second recess and is planar or that there is 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, as taught by Thompson, so that the engagement feature supports only one toothbrush.
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.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that KR 20-0383248 does not disclose that: (1) the stand comprises a body having a bottom surface formed from an elastomeric material; (2) the support feature configured to support the oral care implement in an upright orientation when the stand is positioned on a horizontal surface such that the bottom surface is in contact with the horizontal surface; and (3) wherein the bottom surface prevents the stand from sliding along the horizontal surface during detachment of the handle component from the refill head component. The applicant argues that Lim and Mochel do not overcome the deficiencies of KR 20-0383248.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding point (1), the limitation requiring that the bottom surface is elastomeric is newly introduced. The examiner relies upon Johnson et al. (see rejection above) as teaching a bottom surface having an elastomeric member forming at least part of the bottom surface so that that the bottom does not slide on a sink or countertop horizontal surface. The examiner maintains that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the hemispheric bottom surface of KR 20-0383248 to comprise an elastomeric material as taught by Johnson et al. so that it does not slide when resting on a horizontal surface. Regarding point (2) the examiner maintains that KR 20-0383248 does have a support feature that is configured to support the oral care implement in an upright orientation when the stand is positioned on a horizontal surface such that the bottom surface is in contact with the horizontal surface. The support feature is the receiving hole (21), a user places the implement within the support feature receiving hole and it is then supported in an upright orientation. This occurs when the stand is positioned on a horizontal surface (see Figures and English translation) and the shape and weight of the body prevents the body of the stand from tipping so that toiletries do not come into contact with the outside (see English translation). Regarding point (3), the examiner notes that KR 20-0383248 is concerned with the stand tipping due to the weight of the toiletries stored within or outside forces being applied to the stand. KR 20-0383248 is silent as to any concern regarding the stand sliding on a horizontal surface. Newly introduced Johnson et al. (see rejection above) teaches a bottom surface having an elastomeric member forming at least part of the bottom surface so that that the bottom does not slide on a sink or countertop horizontal surface. The examiner maintains that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the hemispheric bottom surface of KR 20-0383248 to comprise an elastomeric material as taught by Johnson et al. so that it does not slide when resting on a horizontal surface.
Conclusion
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