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 .
Objections to Missing Drawings
1. The subject matter of this application admits of illustration by a drawing to facilitate understanding of the invention. Applicant is required to furnish a drawing under 37 CFR 1.81(c). No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d).
Objection to the Specification
2. The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are: the specification does not have any reference numerals that correspond to the drawings. Additionally, internet articles are described without providing context with the present invention and with random references to sources to supply. Additionally, a table should be provided to delineate comparisons between examples on page 5.
Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 112
3. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In independent claim 4 is rejected since it claims a brushware having bristles, head, handle or neck, which is generally described as a toothbrush in the specification. However, since there are no drawings to depict the invention it is not clear what type of toothbrush/brushware is being claimed since there is no corresponding drawing to illustrate the head, handle or neck for the brushware.
Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 103
4. 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.
Claims 2-4, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication (2013/0291320) to Kirchhofer et al. in view of U.S. Patent Publication (2015/0257525) to Kang et al.
Regarding independent claim 4, Kirchhofer et al. teaches most of the elements of independent claim 4 including monofilaments or bristles (18), at least one head (32), handle (28), and/or neck (30) with that the constituents comprise or consist of polymers and/or copolymers from the same polymer class (See paragraphs [0257] and FIG. 1): and with that the polymer class is selected from the group consisting of polyamides and polyesters (See claim 29). Except, Kang et al. is silent regarding the polymer or copolymer is selected from among polymers derived from the monomers selected from the group consisting of hexamethylenediamine/azelaic acid, hexamethylenediamine/dodecanedioic acid, 11- aminoundecanoic acid, co-aminododecanoic acid, laurolactam, tetramethylenediamine/adipic acid, dodecanediamine/dodecanedioic acid, caprolactam/laurolactam,hexamethylenediamine/decanedioic acid, and 1,10-decamethylenediamine/1,10-decanedioic acid. However, Kang et al. teaches a tapered bristles (90) having adipic acid (See paragraphs [0021]-[0025] of Kang et al.). Kang et al. teaches that the adipic acid provides bristles with better solubility than other materials. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before filing date of the invention to modify Kirchhofer et al. to include the adipic acid in order to provide durability due to improve solubility.
Regarding claim 2, Kirchhofer et al. as modified with Kang et al. teaches claim 2. In particular, Kirchhofer et al. teaches that at least one head, handle (28), and/or neck has at least one grip element (40) and the at least one grip element comprises or consists of polymers from the same polymer class as the constituents (See paragraph [0465] and claim 37 of Kirchhofer et al.). As mentioned above, It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before filing date of the invention to modify Kirchhofer et al. to include the adipic acid in order to provide durability due to improve solubility.
Regarding claim 3, Kirchhofer et al. as modified with Kang et al. teaches claim 3. Kirchhofer et al. teaches that the constituents consist of polymers of the same polymer class (See paragraph [0036] of Kirchhofer et al.). As mentioned above, It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before filing date of the invention to modify Kirchhofer et al. to include the adipic acid in order to provide durability due to improve solubility.
Regarding claim 6, Kirchhofer et al. as modified with Kang et al. teaches claim 2. In particular, Kirchhofer et al. that the polymer is selected from the group consisting of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), acid-modified polyethylene terephthalate (PETA), glycol-modified polyethylene terephthalate (PETG), polybutylene terephthalate (PBT), acid-modified polycyclohexylenedimethylene terephthalate (PCT-A), and glycol-modified polycyclohexylenedimethylene terephthalate (PCT-G) (See paragraph [0069]). As mentioned above, It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before filing date of the invention to modify Kirchhofer et al. to include the adipic acid in order to provide durability due to improve solubility.
Regarding claim 7, Kirchhofer et al. as modified with Kang et al. discloses that the brushware is a toothbrush (10) (See paragraph [0256]). As mentioned above, It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before filing date of the invention to modify Kirchhofer et al. to include the adipic acid in order to provide durability due to improve solubility.
Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent (2013/0291320) to Kirchhofer et al. in view of U.S. Patent Publication (2015/0257525) to Kang et al. and further in view WIPO Publication (2014/0325778) to Chang.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kirchhofer et al. and Kang et al. is silent regarding that the polymer or copolymer is a polymer derived from the monomers selected from the group consisting of laurolactam, 11-aminoundecanoic acid, o-aminododecanoic acid, dodecanediamine/dodecanedioic acid, and 1,10-decamethylenediamine/1,10-decanedioic acid[[,]]preferablyacid, co-aminododecanoic acid, laurolactam. However, Chang teaches that the aminooudecanoic acid provides vitamins and nutritional benefits (See paragraphs [0040] and [0051]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before filing date of the invention to modify the combination of Kirchhofer et al. with Kang et al. to include the aminooudecanoic acid in order to provide nutritional ingridients for the body while brushing.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kirchhofer et al. and Kang et al. are silent regarding that the monomers are selected from the group consisting of 11-aminoundecanoic acid, co-aminododecanoic acid, and laurolactam. However, Chang teaches that the aminooudecanoic acid provides vitamins and nutritional benefits (See paragraphs [0040] and [0051]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before filing date of the invention to modify the Kirchhofer et al. and Kang et al. to include the aminooudecanoic acid in order to provide nutritional ingridients for the body while brushing.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s argues that the application does not need drawings. However, this assertion is not supported by the record; therefore, the previous 112 rejection is maintained since certain elements like the brushware including the handle, head, neck etc. need to be depicted. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 2-8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
5. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 MICHAEL D. JENNINGS whose telephone number is (571)270-1536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30pm. 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, Monica S. 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.
MICHAEL DEANGILO. JENNINGS
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/MICHAEL D JENNINGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights