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 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.
Claim 14 recites “coupling means”. This limitation invokes 35 USC 112(f) and is interpreted as projections and corresponding recesses and equivalents thereof, to accomplish the claimed functions ( see at least [Pg. 11 Lines 3-5] of the specification of the instant application)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites “said coupling means”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation as “coupling means”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Janssen (4,428,091, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 1, Janssen teaches A toothbrush head (Fig. 5), comprising an outer base (Ref. 18, Fig. 4)and an inner base (Ref. 19, Fig. 4), each with an inner face (Ref. 20&21. Fig. 4) and an outer face (Ref. 22&23, Fig. 4), at least the inner face of one of said bases comprises a central bridge (Ref. 36, fig. 4) that defines an intermediate separation space (Fig. 5) between both inner faces (Fig. 5), and having cleaning elements (Ref. 34&40, Fig. 4) which emerge from the respective facing inner faces of said bases (Fig. 5) and from a surface of the central bridge (Fig. 5), said toothbrush head further comprising:
a first reinforcing core (Ref. 26&41, Fig. 4-5) integrated inside the outer base (Fig. 5 shows the reinforcing core inside the outer base), said first reinforcing core (41) and said outer base (18) forming an outer part (Fig. 2&5),
a second reinforcing core (Ref. 27&42, Fig. 4-5) integrated inside the inner base (Fig. 5 shows the reinforcing core inside the inner base), said second reinforcing core (42) and said inner base (19) forming an inner part (Fig. 5), and
at least one of said first or second reinforcing cores having a male element (Ref. 43, Fig. 4), for coupling within the central bridge (36, Fig. 5) with a female element (Ref. 43a, Fig. 4) opposite to that of the male element (Fig. 4-5), thereby linking the outer base and the inner base (Fig. 5); and
wherein the first reinforcing core (26&41) and the second reinforcing core (27&42) are between the outer base and the inner base (fig. 5 shows the first and second reinforcing cores are between the outer and inner base's most external portions).
Regarding Claim 2, Jenssen teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the male element and the female element are press-fit or snap-fit coupling means ([Col. 4, Liens 44-56] describe the parts are pressed together and the male element has been deformed to keep the pressed fit connection of the pieces).
Regarding Claim 3, Jenssen teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the coupling between the male element and the female element comprises adhesive ([Col. 4, lines 52-56] describes the parts are pressed together and a solvent to attach the male and female elements).
Regarding Claim 4, Jenssen teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the head is extendable so that the intermediate separation space between the outer base and the inner base adapts to different tooth sizes when pressure is exerted during brushing, returning to the position thereof when said pressure is no longer exerted (note examiner interprets the limitation as intended use, [Col. 3, Line 35-36] describes the head made of soft spongy closed-cell foam material that would be capable of expanding to accommodate teeth of different sizes).
Regarding Claim 7, Jenssen teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the cleaning elements (34&40) are bristles ([Col. 3, Line 61-62 & Col. 4, Line 30] recites bristles).
Regarding Claim 14, Jenssen teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein said coupling means (Ref. 52, Fig. 5) enable the handle to move with respect to the outer base ([Col. 5, Lines 23-28] describes the handle rotatably mounted).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenssen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ahadpour (2008/0216257, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 5, Jenssen teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the male element comprises two anchoring tabs for coupling in two holes within the central bridge. Ahadpour teaches wherein the male element (43) comprises two anchoring tabs (Ref. 310, Fig. 3, [0027]) for coupling in two holes ([0027] describes the tabs to lock in a slot, Ref. 110, Fig. 4)within the central bridge (Fig. 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the cores , as taught by Jenssen, with anchoring tabs and holes, as taught by Ahadpour, to allow for releasable attachment allowing for easy replacement of parts if broken or worn ([0031]).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenssen as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Hegemann (5,305,491, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 8, Jenssen teaches the limitations of claim 7, as described above, and further teaches the bristles (40) emerging from two faces of the central bridge at an angle (Fig. 5). Janssen fails to explicitly teach wherein the bristles of the central bridge emerge from the two faces thereof at an angle of 45 degrees. Hegemann teaches the a toothbrush with a central portion and bristles and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Hegemann teaches bristles (Ref. 17, Fig. 3c) emerge from a face thereof at an angle of 45 degrees (Fig. 3c, [Col. 6, Line 1-3] describes bristles extending from the faces at 45 degrees). Given the teaching of Hegemann, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the angle of the bristles emerging from the faces as taught by Jenssen, to be within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, 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 bristles of Jenssen by making the angle of the bristles emerging from the faces as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 9, Jenssen teaches the limitations of claim 7, as described above, and further teaches wherein the bristles (34) of the outer base (18) have an angle of inclination with respect to the inner a face of said base and the bristles (34) of the inner base (21) has an angle of inclination respect to the inner face of said base. Jenssen fails to explicitly teach the bristles of the outer base have an angle of inclination of between 40° and 50 with respect to the inner face of said outer base and the bristles of the inner base has an angle of inclination less than 35° with respect to the inner face of said inner base. Hegemann teaches the a toothbrush with a central portion and bristles and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Hegemann teaches wherein the bristles of the outer base have an angle of inclination (Ref. alpha, Fig. 3A) of between 40° and 50 with respect to the inner face of said base ([Col. 5, Line 60-61] describes bristles having an angle with respect to the inner face of the base 40 degrees) and the bristles of the inner base has an angle of inclination less than 35° with respect to the inner face of said base ([Col. 5, Line 60-61] describes bristles having an angle with respect to the inner face of the base 35 degrees). Given the teachings of Hegemann, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the angle of inclination to be within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify an angle of inclination between the bristles of the outer base to be between 40 and 50 degrees and the inner a face of said base and the bristles of the inner base has an angle of inclination to be less than 35 degrees with respect to the inner face of said base 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 pp. [0012] indicating the angle “may” be within the claimed range).
Claims 10-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenssen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huber (2008/0315668, previously presented)
Regarding Claim 10, Jenssen teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the outer base and the inner base are made by injection molding. 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 a toothbrush wherein the components thereof are injection molding ([0007] describes injection molding multiple components of the toothbrush). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the outer base and inner base, as taught by Jenssen, to be made by injection molding, as taught by Huber, to allow for flexible mounting of the head elements ([0017]).
Regarding Claim 11, Jenssen teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the outer part and the inner part are made of thermoplastic elastomer or thermoplastic polyurethane. 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 the outer part and the inner part are made of thermoplastic elastomer or thermoplastic polyurethane ([0016] describes parts made of TPE). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the outer part and inner part, as taught by Jenssen, to be made of TPE, as taught by Huber, to allow for good flexibility and rigidity of connecting elements ([0016]).
Regarding Claim 12, Jenssen teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the first and second reinforcing cores are made of a plastic material ([Col. 4, Lines 41-44] describes the cores are made of non-resilient molded plastic material, ABS is a plastic material). Jenssen fails to explicitly teach wherein the cores are made of polypropylene, polycarbonate or acrylonitrile butadiene styrene. 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 elements of the toothbrush head including the cores are made of polypropylene (PP, [0086]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the cores, as taught by Jenssen, to be made of PP, as taught by Huber, to allow rigidity of connecting elements and good adhesion to the bristle handle ([0086]).
Regarding Claim 15, Jenssen teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Jenssen further teaches assembly of the inner part and the outer part by coupling both the inner part and the outer part within a central bridge between the outer base and the inner base (Fig. 4-5). Jenssen fails to explicitly teach injection molding of the first reinforcing core, over-injection molding of the outer base on the first reinforcing core, obtaining an outer part, injection molding of a second reinforcing core, and over-injection molding of the inner base on said second reinforcing core, obtaining an inner 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 wherein multiple components in the head are formed via injection molding ([0007]) and multi-molding components in a toothbrush ([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 have the components, as taught by Jenssen, to be formed by injection molding and over-injection, as taught by Huber, to allow for flexible mounting of the head elements ([0017]).
Claims 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenssen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McLaughlin (2021/0321756).
Regarding Claim 16, Jenssen teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the male element is coupled with the female element between the inner face of the outer base and inner face of the inner base. McLaughlin teaches a toothbrush head comprising an outer base and an inner base and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. McLaughlin further teaches a toothbrush (fig. 1) wherein the male element (Ref. 80, Fig. 23) is coupled with the female element (Ref. 82, Fig. 23) between the inner face of the outer base and inner face of the inner base (fig. 23 shows the male and female elements are between the outer and inner base). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the connection of the male and female elements, as taught by Jenssen, to be between the inner face of the outer base and inner face of the inner base, as taught by McLaughlin, by rearrangement of parts (MPEP 2144.04 VI C) since such a modification would not have impacted the operation of the coupling of the male and female elements.
Claims 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenssen (4,428,091, previously presented) in view of McLaughlin (2021/0321756).
Regarding Claim 17, Janssen teaches a toothbrush head (Fig. 5), comprising an outer base (Ref. 18, Fig. 4)and an inner base (Ref. 19, Fig. 4), each with an inner face (Ref. 20&21. Fig. 4) and an outer face (Ref. 22&23, Fig. 4), at least the inner face of one of said bases comprises a central bridge (Ref. 36, fig. 4) that defines an intermediate separation space (Fig. 5) between both inner faces (Fig. 5), and having cleaning elements (Ref. 34&40, Fig. 4) which emerge from the respective facing inner faces of said bases (Fig. 5) and from a surface of the central bridge (Fig. 5), said toothbrush head further comprising:
a first reinforcing core (Ref. 26&41, Fig. 4-5) integrated inside the outer base (Fig. 5 shows the reinforcing core inside the outer base), said first reinforcing core (41) and said outer base (18)forming an outer part (Fig. 2&5),
a second reinforcing core (Ref. 27&42, Fig. 4-5) integrated inside the inner base (Fig. 5 shows the reinforcing core inside the inner base), said second reinforcing core (42) and said inner base (19) forming an inner part (Fig. 5), and
at least one of said first or second reinforcing cores having a male element (Ref. 43, Fig. 4), for coupling within the central bridge (36, Fig. 5) with a female element (Ref. 43a, Fig. 4) opposite to that of the male element (Fig. 4-5), thereby linking the outer base and the inner base (Fig. 5).
Jenssen fails to explicitly teach wherein the male element is coupled with the female element between the inner face of the outer base and inner face of the inner base. McLaughlin teaches a toothbrush head comprising an outer base and an inner base and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. McLaughlin further teaches a toothbrush (fig. 1) wherein the male element (Ref. 80, Fig. 23) is coupled with the female element (Ref. 82, Fig. 23) between the inner face of the outer base and inner face of the inner base (fig. 23 shows the male and female elements are between the outer and inner base). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the connection of the male and female elements, as taught by Jenssen, to be between the inner face of the outer base and inner face of the inner base, as taught by McLaughlin, by rearrangement of parts (MPEP 2144.04 VI C) since such a modification would not have impacted the operation of the coupling of the male and female elements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the specifications are acknowledged and examiner has withdrawn the specification objections.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are acknowledged and examiner has withdrawn the claim objections and 35 USC 112(b) rejections. However, a new 35 USC 112(b) rejection was added due to the amendments of the claims.
Applicant's arguments filed 02 March, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1, applicant’s amendments change the scope of the claims thereby necessitating a new grounds of rejection and reinterpretation of the prior art. Applicant’s arguments that Janssen fails to teach the first and second reinforcing core are between the inner and outer base have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Janssen teaches wherein the first reinforcing core (26&41) and the second reinforcing core (27&42) are between the outer base and the inner base (fig. 5 shows the first and second reinforcing cores are between the outer and inner base's most external portions). If applicant intended for the reinforcing cores to be entirely enclosed and between the inner and outer base such a limitation is not required.
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 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
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights