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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The specification fails to have antecedent basis for the following claim terminology:
“fixation device”, “fixation means”, “adhesive bonding”, “peripheral edges”.
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 3 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 3 recites “said fixation means”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation. Claim 1 recites “a fixation device” and it is unclear “said fixation means” is referring to the previously set forth fixation device. Furthermore, claim 3 recites that said fixation means may be “injection molding”. Injection molding is a manufacturing process and not a physical structure in and of itself. Although the process can be used to create physical structures, it is not a physical structure. A fixation means/device is understood to be a physical structure when used in the context of the claims, while “injection molding” is understood to be a manufacturing process. It is therefore, unclear what is meant by “injection molding”. It is unclear if the claim is attempting to claim that one or more of the previously set forth elements is injection molded or if there is a different structure that is injection molded. It is also noted that “adhesive bonding” is a process and not a structure. As best understood, this should read “adhesive”.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xi et al (US 20060052806 A1)
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Xi discloses an improved toothbrush structure (figure 1), comprising:
a handle 14;
a toothbrush head 12 located on one end of the handle, the toothbrush head has a groove 62 (figure 6) located on one side thereof; and
a cleaning device 60 (figure 6) inserted into the groove and engages peripheral edges of the groove (see lack of space between the element 60 and the opening that 60 is inserted into).
The embodiment of figure 6 does not clearly establish that a fixation device in the form of adhesive is used to join the cleaning device to the groove or that the cleaning device is a plastic cleaning device.
However, Xi teaches other embodiments of the cleaning device (projection) that is joined with an adhesive bonding (paragraph 0020: “The base portion is preferably formed as part of the head as shown in FIG. 2, but could be separately formed and attached to the head by adhesive, fasteners or the like”) and wherein the cleaning device is a plastic cleaning device (paragraph 0020: “Polypropylene”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to provide the cleaning device (projection 60) of the figure 6 embodiment with adhesive bonding to join the cleaning device to the groove and make the cleaning device a plastic cleaning device, as taught by other embodiments/disclosures of Xi, for the purpose of using an effective means of attachment between the parts of the device and the cleaning device providing a desired type and level of cleaning.
Regarding claim 2, an end face of said cleaning device 60 (figure 6), oriented for a cleaning action, comprises a planar shape (paragraph 0026: “column 60 of constant cross-section”; wherein the column 60 as shown in figure 6 having constant cross-sectional shape would result in an end face that is planar).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3 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
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 ERIC J ROSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7855. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 930am-6pm.
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, Edward Lefkowitz can be reached at (571) 272-2180. 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.
/ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772