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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1 and 3-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 15th, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2 recites “the dental floss is placed characterized in that” which is not grammatically correct. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 2 and 13-20 are 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 2 recites the limitation "the plate" in lines 3, 7 and 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Dependent claims 13, 14 and 18 also recite “the plate” and lack antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the first notch" in lines 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the second notch" in lines 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the third notch" in lines 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites “notches” in line 4 and later recites “the first notch”, “the second notch” and “the third notch” where it is unclear if the first, second and third notches make up the “notches” or if these notches are different from the notches in line 4.
Claim 2 recites “two opposite sides” in line 2 and later recites “on one side of the plate” and “on the other side of the plate”, where it is unclear if the two opposite sides refers to opposite sides of the plate or not and if the one side and the other side of the plate are the same or different from the two opposite sides.
Claim 13 requires the dental floss rotate around the plate; however, the claims and disclosure lacks means for rotating the floss. The floss does not appear to rotate around the plate, instead, the floss appears to be wound around the plate. The term rotate is being used improperly and in a manner which is not in agreement with the conventional meaning of the term. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus, the term “rotates” in claim 13 is used by the claim to mean “wound,” while the accepted meaning is “to turn about an axis or a center.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claim 13 requires the floss rotates around the plate on the fastening zones less than on the joining zones, where it is unclear what is meant by rotates around less.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the rotation direction" in lines 2 and 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites “fastening zones” in lines 4-5 where it is unclear if these fastening zones are the same or different from the fastening zones recited in claim 2. If they are the same, claim 14 requires amending to recite “the fastening zones”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the protective package" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 requires at least one side of the protective package have a crease on the joining zone; however, the joining zone is not part of the protective package. Instead, the joining zone is part of the plate per the disclosure. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as requiring a crease on at least one side of the protective package to facilitate tearing in half.
Regarding claim 16, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The “such as” clause recites “other information” where the scope of this language is unclear as it lacks clear metes and bounds.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the surfaces" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the protective package" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, the term "preferably" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 18 recites the broad recitation 5-25 cm, and the claim also recites 7-13 cm which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 19 recites the broad recitation 8-33 mm x 13-63 mm, and the claim also recites 16-23 mm x 33-43 mm which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the protective package" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the unpacked dental product" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the protective package" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the unpacked dental product" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 states the shape of the protective package is a relief; however, a relief is not a shape. Conventionally, a relief is a portion projecting above a surface, where relief have different shapes.
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.
Claims 2, 13, 14, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Whittaker (US 5024324).
Regarding claim 2, Whittaker discloses a dental floss product (Refer to Figures 1-8) comprising a single dental floss (14), end portions (Refer to annotated Figure below), two opposite sides (top and bottom sides), cut edges (Refer to annotated Figure below) forming the plate (3) comprising fastening zones (Refer to annotated Figure below), joining zone (Refer to annotated Figure below) and notches (4, Refer to annotated Figure below), around which the dental floss (14) is placed characterized in that the dental floss (14) comes from the first notch (Refer to annotated Figure below) to the second notch (Refer to annotated Figure below) on one side (bottom side) of the plate (3) and continues forward to the third notch (Refer to annotated Figure below) on the other side (top side) of the plate (3).
PNG
media_image1.png
528
760
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Whittaker discloses the dental floss (14) rotates around the plate (3) on the fastening zones (Refer to annotated Figure above) of the plate less than on the joining zone (Refer to annotated Figure) of the plate.
Regarding claim 14, Whittaker discloses the rotation direction of the dental floss (14) around the plate (3) on the joining zone (Refer to annotated Figure above) is different from the rotation direction of the dental floss around the plate on fastening zones (Refer to annotated Figure above). The floss is rotated at any acute angle in the fastening zones while in the joining zone, it is rotated along a straight vertical line.
Regarding claim 17, Whittaker discloses at least one of the surfaces of the protective package (51) is rough and/or has protrusions (53 forms a series of protrusions/ridges as best shown in Figure 5 resulting in a rough texture).
Regarding claim 18, Whittaker discloses the joining zone (Refer to annotated Figure above) of the plate (3) stores an operational part of the dental floss (14), of 5-25 cm (Refer to Abstract indicating 6 or more turns of floss at the winding position (joining zone), where 13 turns results in 18 inches of floss at the joining zone per col. 4 lines 18-21; thus, 6 turns would result in approximately 21 cm).
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whittaker and McWhorter (US 4986289).
Regarding claim 15, Whittaker discloses a protective packaging (51, Refer to Figure 5); however, Whittaker does not disclose a crease one side of the protective package to facilitate tearing in half. McWhorter discloses a similar dental floss product where a protective packaging (14,16) is provided with a crease (crease formed by 52,54) which facilitates tearing in half. 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 protective packaging of Whittaker to include a crease on at least one side as taught by McWhorter in order to facilitate opening of the package.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whittaker and Hovel (US 4712572).
Regarding claim 16, Whittaker discloses the dental floss product of claim 2 above, where Whittaker provides a protective package (51, Refer to Figure 5). However, Whittaker does not disclose the protective package contains information about the dental floss product, such as the thickness of the dental floss contained in the product or other information provided by the manufacturer. Hovel discloses a similar dental floss product where a protective package (12,32) is provided and the protective package has printed information thereon such as a company or manufacturer logo, oral hygiene instructions for use and disposition of the floss and any message a distributor of the dental floss product may desire to choose (Refer to col. 2 lines 31-41). 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 protective package of Whittaker to include information about the product as taught by Hovel to inform the user on how to use the product, who manufactured the product for future purchase, etc. so as to maximize the beneficial effects of the product and promote the product for the distributor/manufacturer.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whittaker and Corella (US 5322077).
Regarding claim 19, Whittaker discloses the dental floss product of claim 1; however, Whittaker provides a smaller segment of the dental floss product in a protective package (51, Refer to Figure 5). Although Whittaker does not explicitly state the size of the packaging and therefore does not state it is 8–33 mm x 13 – 63 mm, Whittaker does disclose the size of the dental floss product (see Annotated Figure below and Abstract) and one of ordinary skill in the art understands the packaging would be somewhat larger than the product. Whittaker also states “Clearly all of these dimensions ate exemplary only, and are subject to wide variation” (Refer to col. 6 lines 40-42). Corella discloses a similar dental floss product and protective packaging, where various sizes/segments of dental floss are provided in the same protective package (Refer to Figures 1 and 6-8). 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 protective package of Whittaker to accommodate a larger section of the dental product (as shown in annotated Figure above, from cut edge to cut edge) as Corella demonstrates various sections of dental product may be provided in the same protective packaging and for the packaging to be within the claimed range of values as Whittaker explains the dimensions are simply exemplary and may be subject to wide variation.
PNG
media_image2.png
472
626
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Whittaker discloses the dental floss of claim 2 above. Whittaker provides a protective package (51, Refer to Figure 5) where the shape of the protective package is a 3D figure; however, the package does not provide the entire dental floss product of claim 2. Corella discloses a similar dental floss product and protective packaging, where various sizes/segments of dental floss are provided in the same protective package (Refer to Figures 1 and 6-8). 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 protective package of Whittaker to accommodate a larger section of the dental product (as shown in annotated Figure above, from cut edge to cut edge) as Corella demonstrates various sections of dental product may be provided in the same protective packaging.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TATIANA L NOBREGA whose telephone number is (571)270-7228. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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, Thomas Barrett can be reached at 571-272-4746. 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.
/TATIANA L NOBREGA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799