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 § 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 1-2, 4, 6-11, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dragan (6,634,051) in view of Hohlbein (2011/0239387) and Chen (CN111904641A).
Regarding Claim 1, Dragan teaches An applicator (Fig. 1) comprising:
an applicator head (Ref. 18&20, Fig. 1) with an application tip (Ref. 25, Fig. 1&2) and an elongate body part (Ref. 11&26, Fig. 1),
the applicator comprises first (Ref. 22, Fig. 1) and second kinks (Ref. 24, Fig. 1), the first kink (22) being arranged at a part of the applicator where the two different parts (26&20) at least partially overlap one another (Fig. 1&4, shows the parts would overlap when viewed in a direction indicated by cross section 4 along the longitudinal axis),
one of the first (22) and second (24) kinks arranged directly adjacent to part of the elongate body (Fig. 1).
Dragan fails to explicitly teach the applicator comprises two parts of different material. Hohlbein teaches an applicator for applying materials to teeth and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Hohlbein further teaches the applicator (Ref. 10, fig. 1) comprising two parts of different material (Ref. 18&16, Fig. 1, [0042] describes the grip portion and handle are two different materials). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the elongated member, as taught by Dragan, to be a gripping material, as taught by Hohlbein, to facilitate gripping of the handle ([0043]).
Dragan further teaches wherein a cross-section of the elongate body part (Fig. 3-4) along at least a majority of a length (L) of the elongate body part (Fig. 1). Dragon as modified fails to explicitly teach the cross section of the elongate body part is at least substantially formed by one of a triangle and a Reuleaux triangle. Chen teaches a toothbrush with a handle and an applicator for applying materials to teeth and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Chen teaches an elongate body (Ref. 2-1, Fig. 1-4) comprising a cross-section of the elongate body part along at least a majority of a length of the elongate body part at least substantially formed by one of a triangle and a Reuleaux triangle ([Abstract] describes the elongated body (handle) to be a Reuleaux triangle). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the cross section, as taught by Dragan as modified, with a triangle cross section and a Reuleaux triangle, as taught by Chen, since such a modification would achieve the predictable result of allowing a user to handle the applicator and to provide more ergonomic and comfortable grip of the elongated member ([Abstract]).
Regarding Claim 2, Dragan as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Dragan further teaches wherein a first part of the two parts is the elongate body part (26) and a second part of the two parts is the applicator head (20), at least a part of the applicator head overlapping at least a part of the elongate body part (Fig. 1&4, shows the head and elongated body part would overlap when viewed in a direction indicated by cross section 4 along the longitudinal axis).
Regarding Claim 4, Dragan as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Dragan further teaches wherein the application tip comprises one of a brush with bristles and a foam, or the application tip is configured to store a liquid (Ref. 27, [Col. 4, Line 1-9] describes containing dental material such as fluids).
Regarding Claim 6, Dragan as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Dragan further teaches wherein the application tip is a brush with bristles (Ref. 27, Fig. 1), and the brush is formed by at least one of a thermoplastic elastomer ([col. 4, Lines 1-9] describe the bristles as a nylon fibers which as a type of thermoplastic elastomer), a thermoplastic polyurethane, a thermoplastic vulcanizate, and a thermoplastic olefin elastomer.
Regarding Claim 7, Dragan as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Dragan further teaches wherein the first and second kinks are configured to be bent in one direction (Fig. 1 shows the kinks bent), such that the application tip is capable of facing upwardly relative to the elongate body part (Fig. 1 shows the application tip is capable of bending to be upward relative to the elongate body part when sideways).
Regarding Claim 8, Dragan as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Dragan further teaches wherein at least one of the first and second kinks is a peripherally extending groove (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 9, Dragan as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and given the teachings of the material of grip portion being applied to the elongated portion, Dragon as modified further teaches wherein the applicator head is made from a material different from the elongate body part ([0042], Hohlbein).
Regarding Claim 10, Dragan as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and given the teachings of the material of grip portion being applied to the elongated portion, Hohlbein further teaches wherein the elongate body part is made from one of polypropylene ([0042] describes the elongate portion being made of polypropylene) and polylactide.
Regarding Claim 11, Dragan as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Dragan further teaches wherein the applicator head comprises a material selected from the group of members consisting of a thermoplastic elastomer ([col. 4, Lines 1-9] describe the bristles as a nylon fibers which as a type of thermoplastic elastomer), a thermoplastic polyurethane, a thermoplastic vulcanizate, a thermoplastic olefin elastomer, polyethylene, polypropylene, poly vinyl chloride, polyurethane, polystyrene and combinations thereof.
Regarding Claim 15, Dragan as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Dragan further teaches an undulating surface (Ref. 34, Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 16, Dragan as modified teaches the limitations of claim 15, as described above, and Dragan further teaches herein the undulating surface covers a portion of an outer surface of the elongate body part (Fig. 1). However, Dragan as modified fails to explicitly teach the undulating surface covers between 5 and 30 %, of an outer surface of the elongate body part. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the surface coverage of the undulating surface, as taught by Dragan, to between 5 and 30% degrees since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see [0035] indicating the undulating surface “can” be within the claimed range).
Regarding Claim 17, Dragan as modified teaches the limitations of claim 15, as described above, and Dragan further teaches wherein the undulating surface comprises a plurality of peaks and valleys (Fig. 4 annotated below).
PNG
media_image1.png
201
257
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dragan as modified as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Black (6,546,588).
Regarding Claim 14, Dragan as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Dragan further teaches wherein the application tip is a foam application tip ([Col. 1, Lines 23-25] describes applicators being made of a foam). Dragan as modified fails to explicitly teach a foam application tip made from an open cell foam having pores. Black teaches a cleaning device to hold liquids and can be considered analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor to hold and deliver liquid to a surface. Black teaches a foam application tip (Ref. 60, Fig. 1) made from an open cell foam having pores (Fig. 1, [col. 3, Line 13-14] describes large, open cell foam). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the foam application tip, as taught by Dragan as modified, to be made from an open cell foam having pores, as taught by Black, to allow for the tip to retain dimensional stability when applying to the surface and to have better wear-resistance([Col. 3, Line 13-17]).
Claims 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dragan as modified as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huber (2008/0315668).
Regarding Claim 18, Dragan as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach one or more first points of injection. Huber teaches a toothbrush with bristles and a handle and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Huber further teaches wherein one or more first points of injection ([0002] describes injection points at different points to form the handle or elongated portions) to create multiple different components of the toothbrush by injection molding ([0007]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the applicator, as taught by Dragan as modified, with one or more first points of injection, as taught by Huber, to create injection molded parts thereby allowing for flexible mounting of the head elements ([0017]).
Regarding Claim 19, Dragan as modified teaches the limitations of claim 18, as described above, and given the teaching of the injection points, Huber further teaches wherein the one or more first points of injection are provided at the elongate body part ([0002] describes using injection molding to form the elements such as the gripping zone by different injection points).
Regarding Claim 20, Dragan as modified teaches the limitations of claim 15, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach one or more first points of injection, and one of the one or more first points of injection is disposed at the undulating surface. Huber teaches a toothbrush with bristles and a handle and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Huber further teaches wherein one of the one or more first points of injection at the undulating surface ([0002] describes injection points at different points to form the handle or the gripping zone by different injection points) to create multiple different components of the toothbrush by injection molding ([0007]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the undulating surface, as taught by Dragan as modified, with one of the one or more first points of injection, as taught by Huber, to create injection molded parts allowing for easy manufacturing and since such a limitation would yield the predictable result of having a structure to allow the user to manipulate the head.
Regarding Claim 21, Dragan as modified teaches the limitations of claim 18, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach one or more first points of injection. Huber teaches a toothbrush with bristles and a handle and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Huber further teaches one or more second points of injection ([0002] describes injection points at a second point to form the head and bristle portions). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the applicator, as taught by Dragan as modified, with one or more second points of injection, as taught by Huber, to create injection molded parts thereby allowing for flexible mounting of the head elements ([0017]).
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dragan as modified as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wolfsgruber (2015/0164207).
Regarding Claim 22, Dragan as modified teaches the limitations of claim 21, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the one or more second points of injection are provided at the applicator head. Wolfsgruber further teaches a toothbrush with bristles and a handle and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Wolfsgruber further teaches wherein the one or more second points of injection are provided at the applicator head (Fig. 3, [0036] describes injection molding through cavities at the applicator head to form the bristles). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the second points of injection, as taught by Dragan as modified, at the applicator head, as taught by Wolfsgruber, to easily manufacturing bristles and to yield the predictable result of creating an applicator tip to apply and store a liquid to a surface.
Regarding Claim 23, Dragan as modified teaches the limitations of claim 21, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the one or more second points of injection are provided at one of the first and second kinks arranged at the applicator head. Wolfsgruber further teaches a toothbrush with bristles and a handle and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Wolfsgruber further teaches wherein the one or more second points of injection are provided at one of the first and second kinks arranged at the applicator head (Fig. 3, [0036] describes injection molding through cavities at the applicator head to form the bristles). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the second points of injection, as taught by Dragan as modified, at one of the first and second kinks arranged the applicator head, as taught by Wolfsgruber, to easily manufacturing bristles and to yield the predictable result of creating an applicator tip to apply and store a liquid to a surface.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dragan (6,634,051) in view of Hohlbein (2011/0239387), Hubber (2008/0315668), and Chen (CN111904641A).
Regarding Claim 24, Dragan teaches A method of forming an applicator (Fig. 1) comprising:
an applicator head (Ref. 18&20, Fig. 1) with an application tip (Ref. 25, Fig. 1&2) and an elongate body part (Ref. 11&26, Fig. 1), the applicator comprises first (Ref. 22, Fig. 1) and second kinks (Ref. 24, Fig. 1), the first and second kink being arranged at a part of the applicator where the two different parts (26&20) at least partially overlap one another (Fig. 1&4 shows the parts would overlap when viewed in a direction indicated by cross section 4 along the longitudinal axis), one of the first (22) and second (24) kinks arranged directly adjacent to part of the elongate body (Fig. 1 shows the second kink directly adjacent to part of the elongate body (11&26)).
Dragan fails to explicitly teach the applicator comprises two parts of different material. Hohlbein teaches an applicator for applying materials to teeth and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Hohlbein further teaches the applicator (Ref. 10, fig. 1) comprising two parts of different material (Ref. 18&16, Fig. 1, [0042] describes the grip portion and handle are two different materials). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the elongated member, as taught by Dragan, to be a gripping material, as taught by Hohlbein, to facilitate gripping of the handle ([0043]).
Dragan as modified fails to explicitly teach injection molding the elongate body part and then injection molding the applicator head with parts of the applicator head being over molded onto parts of the elongate body part. Huber teaches a toothbrush with bristles and a handle and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Huber further teaches injection molding the elongate body part ([0007] describes injection molding multiple components of the toothbrush) and then injection molding the applicator head with parts of the applicator head ([0007] describes injection molding multiple components of the toothbrush) being over molded onto parts of the elongate body part ([0012] describes components overfilled to distribute from one injection point to another and examiner interprets this as over-injection of the molds to create other parts). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the applicator, as taught by Dragan as modified , to be formed by injection moulding and over-injection, as taught by Huber, to allow for flexible mounting of the head elements ([0017]).
Dragan further teaches wherein a cross-section of the elongate body part (Fig. 3-4) along at least a majority of a length (L) of the elongate body part (Fig. 1). Dragon as modified fails to explicitly teach the cross section of the elongate body part is at least substantially formed by one of a triangle and a Reuleaux triangle. Chen teaches a toothbrush with a handle and an applicator for applying materials to teeth and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Chen teaches an elongate body (Ref. 2-1, Fig. 1-4) comprising a cross-section of the elongate body part along at least a majority of a length of the elongate body part at least substantially formed by one of a triangle and a Reuleaux triangle ([Abstract] describes the elongated body (handle) to be a Reuleaux triangle). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the cross section, as taught by Dragan as modified, with a triangle cross section and a Reuleaux triangle, as taught by Chen, since such a modification would achieve the predictable result of allowing a user to handle the applicator and to provide more ergonomic and comfortable grip of the elongated member ([Abstract]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the specifications are acknowledge and examiner has withdrawn the specification objections.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are acknowledged and examiner has withdrawn the 35 USC 112(b) rejection.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11 December, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 24 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Dragon as modified. Chen is to teach the Reuleaux triangle cross section ([Abstract]), see the 35 USC 103 rejections above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Discko (5,001,803), Slater (3,609,789), and Discko (5,150,495) teach an applicator with an applicator head with an elongate body part and an application tip and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA L POON whose telephone number is (571)272-6164. The examiner can normally be reached on General: 6:30AM-3:30PM.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANA LEE POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights