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 § 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, 5, 7-8, 10, 13, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yuu (US 2009/0297253).
Regarding claim 1, Yuu discloses a toothbrush, comprising: a head (15c) having a plurality of bristles (17); a handle portion (11) connected to the head; and a syringe (18) having a plunger (13) positioned within the handle portion, whereby the syringe is configured to dispense fluid through the nozzle by applying a pushing force to the plunger (¶0017) and extract fluid and debris by applying an opposite pulling force on the plunger without detaching the syringe from the handle portion (the device of Yuu is inherently capable of extracting fluid and debris because pulling the plunger will create a low pressure that sucks in fluid or debris through nozzle 16; note that Yuu does not include any valve or obstruction that would prevent the flow of fluid and/or debris in through the nozzle).
Regarding claim 5, Yuu discloses the toothbrush according to claim 1, wherein the handle includes a recess (interior of 18) for receiving the plunger.
Regarding claim 7, Yuu discloses the toothbrush according to claim 1, further comprising an interior compartment (interior of 18).
Regarding claim 8, Yuu discloses the toothbrush according to claim 7, wherein the interior compartment is accessible via a removable component (12).
Regarding claim 10, Yuu discloses a portable toothbrush, comprising: a head (15c) having a plurality of bristles (17) and a nozzle (16); a handle (11); a body (15a) connecting the handle to the head; a syringe system (18 and 13) including a pre-determined amount of fluid (14) embedded within an interior portion of the toothbrush, wherein the syringe system is configured to dispense the pre-determined amount of fluid through the nozzle to facilitate brushing (¶0017) and extract debris from a user's mouth after brushing through the nozzle (the syringe is capable of extracting fluid and debris through the nozzle when a user pulls back the plunger, see ¶0017).
Regarding claim 13, Yuu discloses the portable toothbrush according to claim 10, wherein the handle portion has a tapered distal end (at 15b).
Regarding claim 16, Yuu discloses the portable toothbrush according to claim 10, wherein the body is substantially cylindrical (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, Yuu discloses the portable toothbrush according to claim 10, wherein the body has a clear window (Fig. 1) to view at least a portion of the syringe system.
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(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fischer (US 5816804).
Regarding claim 2, Yuu teaches the toothbrush according to claim 1, but does not teach that the toothbrush is made from a plastic material.
Fischer teaches a toothbrush (14) made from a plastic material (col. 7, ll. 31-32).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the toothbrush of Yuu from a plastic material as taught by Fischer, wherein doing so would merely have been a matter of selecting a known material that is known to be suitable for use as a toothbrush.
Regarding claim 3, Yuu teaches the toothbrush according to claim 1, but does not teach that the syringe is made from a plastic material.
Fischer teaches a syringe (12) that is made from a plastic material (col. 7, ll. 44-46).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the syringe of Yuu from a plastic material as taught by Fischer, wherein doing so would merely have been a matter of selecting a known material that is known to be suitable for use as a syringe.
Regarding claim 4, Yuu teaches the toothbrush according to claim 1, but does not teach that the plurality of bristles is made from nylon.
Fischer teaches a plurality of bristles (50) that are made from nylon (col. 6, ll. 30-32).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the bristles of Yuu from nylon as taught by Fischer, wherein doing so would merely have been a matter of selecting a known material that is known to be suitable for use as toothbrush bristles.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuu as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Liu (US 6033385).
Regarding claim 6, Yuu teaches the toothbrush according to claim 5, but does not teach that the recess is substantially X- shaped in cross-section.
Liu teaches a recess that is substantially X-shaped in cross section (formed by channels 46b).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the recess of Yuu such that the recess is substantially X- shaped in cross-section as taught by Liu for the purpose of preventing the plunger from slipping out of the syringe (Liu, col. 5, ll. 53-55).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuu as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Gordon (US 6729789).
Regarding claim 9, Yuu teaches the toothbrush according to claim 8, but does not teach that the interior compartment houses a flossing attachment.
Gordon teaches an interior compartment that houses a flossing attachment (22).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the interior compartment of Yuu with a flossing attachment for the purpose of enabling the device to dispense floss (Gordon, col. 3, ll. 8-10).
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuu as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Robinson (US 8282298).
Regarding claim 11, Yuu teaches the portable toothbrush according to claim 10, but does not teach that the plurality of bristles is impregnated with toothpaste.
Robinson teaches a plurality of bristles (26) that are impregnated with toothpaste (313).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the device of Yuu such that the plurality of bristles is impregnated with toothpaste as taught by Robinson for the purpose of providing a quick burst of flavor to a user (Robinson, col. 14, ll. 49-51).
Regarding claim 12, Yuu teaches the portable toothbrush according to claim 10, but does not teach that the head includes a tongue scraper opposite the plurality of bristles.
Robinson teaches a toothbrush head that includes a tongue scraper (421) opposite a plurality of bristles (26).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the head of Yuu with a tongue scraper opposite the plurality of bristles for the purpose of enabling a user to better clean their tongue and cheeks (Robinson, col. 15, ll. 43-48).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuu as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Owens (US 6331088).
Regarding claim 14, Yuu teaches the portable toothbrush according to claim 10, but does not teach that the handle portion has at least two grooves for gripping the toothbrush.
Owens teaches a handle portion with at least two grooves (20) for gripping the toothbrush.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the handle of Yuu with at least two grooves for gripping the toothbrush as taught by Owens for the purpose of providing ergonomic handling (Owens, col. 4, ll. 44-47).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuu.
Regarding claim 15, Yuu teaches the portable toothbrush according to claim 10, but does not teach that the body has a plurality of cylindrical rings around an entirety of a circumference of the body.
Instead, Yuu teaches a single cylindrical ring around an entirety of a circumference of the body (Fig. 5).
At the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a plurality of cylindrical rings because Applicant has not disclosed that the number of cylindrical rings provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Yuu's device and the applicant's invention to perform equally well with either the single ring taught by Yuu or the claimed plurality of rings because both sets of rings are equally capable of providing a user with a grip on the handle when they are operating the plunger.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the handle of Yuu to obtain the invention as specified in claim 15 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Yuu. Furthermore, it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Claim(s) 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuu as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Zimmerman (US 3734106).
Regarding claim 18, Yuu teaches a manual toothbrush for cleaning an individual's mouth and teeth, comprising: a brushing end having a nozzle (16); an opposite handle end (11); a body (15a) connecting the handle end to the brushing end; and a syringe system (18 and 13) including a pre-loaded syringe with fluid (14) connected to a plunger (13) and an outlet (38) in fluid communication with the nozzle embedded within an interior portion of the toothbrush, whereby the syringe system is configured to dispense the fluid into the mouth when the plunger is depressed in a first direction (¶0017) and to extract the fluid and debris from the mouth when plunger is extended in a second, opposite direction (the syringe is capable of extracting fluid and debris, see ¶0017).
Yuu does not teach that the nozzle includes a removable seal.
Zimmerman teaches a toothbrush with a nozzle (24) that includes a removable seal (41).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the nozzle of Yuu with a removable seal for the purpose of enabling a user to close the nozzle (Zimmerman, col. 3, ll. 31-36).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Yuu and Zimmerman the manual toothbrush according to claim 18, wherein the nozzle is positioned behind (Fig. 1) a plurality of bristles (17) on the brushing end.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 17 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Yuu does not anticipate claim 1 because Yuu does not describe the plunger being pulled back to extract fluid and debris without detaching the syringe from the handle.
In response, it is noted that this limitation is a functional limitation and if an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40, 100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The burden then shifts to applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432; In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213, 169 USPQ 226, 228 (CCPA 1971). See MPEP 2114(I).
In this case, as noted in the rejection of claim 1 above, the device of Yuu is inherently capable of performing the claimed function because pulling the plunger will create a low pressure that sucks in fluid or debris through the nozzle 16. Yuu does not include any valve or obstruction that would prevent the flow of fluid and/or debris in through the nozzle, so any fluid will be pulled through the nozzle.
Applicant argues that Yuu does not teach nozzles that extract debris from a user’s mouth.
In response, it is noted that eh nozzles of Yuu are fully capable of being used to extract debris from a user’s mouth as noted above.
Applicant argues that the toothbrush of Yuu could not be combined with the seal of Zimmerman because the combination would require substantial modification of the Yuu device.
Examiner disagrees. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to fit a seal like that of Zimmerman in the nozzle(s) of Yuu without having to modify the brush head. All that is needed to appropriate sizing of the seal(s), which is well within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant argues that Yuu would not have been motivated to modify Yuu to include the seal of Zimmerman because the modification would make the bristles less sanitary.
In response, it is first noted that the standard for an obviousness rejection is what would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention, not what would have been obvious to the various authors and inventors of the prior art. Furthermore, Applicant has not linked this “unsanitary” argument to the seal of Zimmerman, which is completely unrelated to whether or not debris is extracted through the nozzle(s) of Yuu. No modification of Yuu is necessary for a user to extract debris through the nozzles as discussed above.
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 BRADLEY S OLIVER whose telephone number is (571)270-3787. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7-3 ET.
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 Angwin can be reached at (571)270-3735. 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.
/BRADLEY S OLIVER/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/DAVID P ANGWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754