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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/3/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 10-11, 18, 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brice (USPN 5121520) in view of Lin (CN 108102325).
With regards to claim 1, Brice teaches a toothbrush comprising a handle (4a) with a bristle carrier (4b) that is attached to the handle via glue (col. 6, lines 17-22). There are bristle filaments (7) attached to the bristle carrier.
With regards to claim 34, the bristle carrier is extended to form a handle body (bristle carrier 4b, extends to 4a and 4c to form the handle body).
Brice teaches all the essential elements of the claimed invention however fails to teach that the handle element is made of an injection-molded fiber material comprising wood pulp and is fully compostable (claim 1, 10-11, 18) and that the handle element overmolds the handle body (claim 34).
Lin teaches a handle for a toothbrush made of an injection-molded fiber material (paragraph 0013; S4), the fiber material comprises wood pulp (straw; paragraph 0010; S1) and consists of fully compostable components (biodegradable) (claim 1). Lin further teaches that that the fiber material comprises cellulose since cellulose is the main component in straw (claim 10), that the fiber material comprises chemical pulp (paragraphs 0010-0013; S1-S2) (claim 11) and that the fiber material is obtained from at least one of wood, straw, hemp, cotton, flax, bamboo, bagasse or kenaf (straw; paragraph 0010) (claim 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brice’s handle with Lin’s handle so that it fully compostable and biodegradable, making it environmentally friendly.
Further, regarding claim 34, it would have been obvious to have the handle body form a core of the toothbrush handle that is encased by the fiber material of the handle element when injection molding so as to further ensure a secure connection between the bristle carrier and the handle that will not easily separate.
Claim(s) 19-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porat (EP 0631742) in view of Lin (CN 108102325).
With regards to claim 19, Porat teaches an interdental brush (figure 1b) with a handle (1) connected to a rod-shaped base consisting of twisted wires (3), wherein bristles (2) are extending transversely to the longitudinal direction of the rod-shaped base.
With regards to claim 23, the rod-shaped base and the handle element are connected with glue (col. 3, lines 37-43).
Porat teaches all the essential elements of the claimed invention however fails to teach that the handle element is made of an injection-molded fiber material comprising wood pulp and is fully compostable (claim 19-22) and that the handle element overmolds the rod-shaped base (claim 24).
Lin teaches a handle for a toothbrush made of an injection-molded fiber material (paragraph 0013; S4), the fiber material comprises wood pulp (straw; paragraph 0010; S1) and consists of fully compostable components (biodegradable) (claim 19). Lin further teaches that that the fiber material comprises cellulose since cellulose is the main component in straw (claim 20), that the fiber material comprises chemical pulp (paragraphs 0010-0013; S1-S2) (claim 21) and that the fiber material is obtained from at least one of wood, straw, hemp, cotton, flax, bamboo, bagasse or kenaf (straw; paragraph 0010) (claim 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Porat’s handle with Lin’s handle so that it fully compostable and biodegradable, making it environmentally friendly.
Further regarding claim 24, 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 rod-shaped base of Porat so that it is overmolded with the fiber material of the handle element of Lin to further have a secure connection that will not easily separate.
Claim(s) 25-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Preciutti (USPN 5010906) in view of Lin (CN 108102325).
With regards to claim 25, Preciutti teaches a dental floss holder (figure 1) for oral hygiene comprising a handle element (20, 80) and a floss thread (100) connected at its two ends to the handle element.
With regards to claim 26, at least one end of the floss thread is provided with an attachment portion (102, 104) made of molded plastic (col. 7, lines 4-7), and in that the handle element is connected to the attachment portion (82 and 88 connect to 102, 104).
With regards to claim 30, the floss thread is connected to the handle element by overmolding the floss thread with the fiber material of the handle element (col. 7, lines 4-7).
With regards to claim 31, the floss thread is connected to the handle element with glue (col. 7, lines 2-4).
With regards to claim 32 and 33, the floss thread is provided with a connection section (102, 104) to which the handle element is connected, wherein the connection section is provided with an adhesion promoter (glue; col. 7, lines 2-4).
Preciutti teaches all the essential elements of the claimed invention however fails to teach that the handle element is made of an injection-molded fiber material comprising wood pulp and is fully compostable (claim 25, 27-29).
Lin teaches a handle for a toothbrush made of an injection-molded fiber material (paragraph 0013; S4), the fiber material comprises wood pulp (straw; paragraph 0010; S1) and consists of fully compostable components (biodegradable) (claim 25). Lin further teaches that that the fiber material comprises cellulose since cellulose is the main component in straw (claim 27), that the fiber material comprises chemical pulp (paragraphs 0010-0013; S1-S2) (claim 28) and that the fiber material is obtained from at least one of wood, straw, hemp, cotton, flax, bamboo, bagasse or kenaf (straw; paragraph 0010) (claim 29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Preciutti’s handle with Lin’s handle so that it fully compostable and biodegradable, making it environmentally friendly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAY LYNN KARLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1268. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th (6am-5pm).
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
/SHAY KARLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights