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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/7/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khademhosseini (USPN 10813792) in view of Houtan (PGPub 20090216172).
Khademhosseini teaches a tapered sponge (170; col. 5, lines 47-53); a handle (174) coupled to and extending from a rear surface of the tapered sponge.
Khademhosseini teaches all the essential elements of the claimed invention however fails to teach an individually sealed package that surrounds the tapered sponge and the handle. Houtan teaches a pre-moistened cotton swab that is individually wrapped (figure 4; paragraph 0007). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Khademhosseini so that each device it is individually wrapped as taught by Houtan to preserve the moisture of the product and to keep the device sanitary before use.
With regards to claim 2, the tapered sponge has a conical shape (figure 20-26).
With regards to claim 3, the sponge includes at least one helical groove (figure 20-26).
With regards to claim 4, the tapered sponge has an auger shape.
With regards to claim 5, the cleaning solution releasably encapsulated within the handle (132; figure 12).
With regards to claim 7, the handle is opaque (the handle is not see through).
With regards to claim 8, at least a portion of the tapered sponge is adapted to be placed into a belly button. This limitation is considered to be intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Thus, since Khademhosseini teaches the same structure, it would be capable of performing the intended use.
With regards to claim 9, the handle is adapted to be twisted to cause the tapered sponge to spin.
With regards to claim 10, Khademhosseini teaches a method of making the brush comprising providing a handle; and attaching a tapered sponge to the handle. Khademhosseini teaches all the essential elements of the claimed invention however fails to teach surrounding the sponge and handle with an individually sealed package. Houtan teaches a pre-moistened cotton swab that is individually wrapped (figure 4; paragraph 0007, 0014, 0014). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Khademhosseini so that each device it is individually wrapped as taught by Houtan to preserve the moisture of the product and to keep the device sanitary before use.
With regards to claim 11, the cleaning solution is released a top of the tapered sponge (the liquid is expelled through the holes, to the top surface of the sponge).
With regards to claim 12, the tapered sponge has a conical shape with a helical groove (138) and the cleaning solution is released through the at least one helical groove (when the liquid is dispensed through the holes, it will be released through the groove since the holes are located on the under the sponge and the liquid will flow thru the surface of the sponge with the groove).
With regards to claim 13 and 14, the handle is adapted to be squeezed (130; figure 12) to release a cleaning solution (liquid; figure 12) through the tapered sponge (col. 6, lines 8-11).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khademhosseini (‘792) and Houtan (‘172) in view of Perez (USPN 7951106)
Khademhosseini and Houtan teach all the essential elements of the claimed invention however fail to teach that the handle is transparent. Perez teaches a personal cleaning device comprising a swab with a transparent handle that houses a medication (col. 2, lines 37-43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Khademhosseini so that the handle is transparent as taught by Perez to allow the user to view amount of cleaning solution in the handle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAY LYNN KARLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1268. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th (6am-5pm).
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
/SHAY KARLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights