DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Medicine
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on 1/26/2024.
The Examiner notes claims 1-17 are currently pending and have been examined.
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.
And/or
(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.
Claim(s) 1 & 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vazquez et al. (US 20080201884), hereinafter Vazquez.
Regarding claim 1. Vazquez discloses an animal toothbrush [The primary embodiment used in this rejection is Fig 12; however Fig 1 does show a handle shape that can be used with Fig 12] comprising:
an elongate handle having a first end and a second end [Fig 1 & 12; 102 has a first end and second end (The first end has the brush head as shown in Fig 12)], the elongate handle having a front face and a back face which extend from the first end to the second end [Fig 1 & 12], the elongate handle having a pair of lateral faces extending from the first end to the second end and from the front face to the back face [Fig 1 & 12; the front and back faces are connected by a pair of lateral faces] ;
a head mounted to the first end of the elongate handle [Fig 12; 104], the head having a size and being configured for fitting within a mouth of an animal [Fig 1 & 12; the brush head can fit within the mouth of an animal]; and
a tooth cleaning substance impregnated into the head [Fig 12; 164 is impregnated in a cavity (134) in the head];
wherein the head comprises a forward face and a plurality of forward protrusions [Fig 12; the head has a plurality of forward protrusions (122) on its forward face], the plurality of forward protrusions being coupled to and extending away from the forward face [Fig 12], wherein each of the forward protrusions has dome shape such that the plurality of protrusions defines a plurality of spaced nubs on the forward face [Fig 12; ¶58; the protrusions can be any variety of shapes which can be dome shaped similar to the shape of 122 in Fig 21].
Regarding claim 3. Vazquez discloses the toothbrush of claim 1, wherein the head has a backward face and a plurality of backward protrusions [Fig 12; the head has backward protrusions (112) on its backward face], the plurality of backward protrusions being coupled to and extending away from the backward face [Fig 12].
Regarding claim 4. Vazquez discloses the toothbrush of claim 1, wherein the elongate handle has a width between the lateral faces which is greater than a depth between the front and back faces [Fig 1].
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) 1, 3-5 & 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurwitz (US 20120055497) in view of Vazquez et al. (US 20080201884), hereinafter Hurwitz.
Regarding claim 1. Hurwitz discloses an animal toothbrush [The primary embodiment used in this rejection is Fig 7A-7D; however Fig 2 does show another handle shape that can be used with Fig 7A-7D] comprising:
an elongate handle having a first end and a second end [Fig 7A-7D; 720 has a first end and second end (706 connects to the first end and 712 connects to the second end)], the elongate handle having a front face and a back face which extend from the first end to the second end [Fig 7A-7D; 720 has a front face facing toward the nub side of 706 (the side with 728) and the back face opposite the front face], the elongate handle having a pair of lateral faces extending from the first end to the second end and from the front face to the back face [Fig 2 & 7A-7D; the front and back faces are connected by a pair of lateral faces (best seen in Fig 2)] ;
a head mounted to the first end of the elongate handle [Fig 7A-7D; 706, 708, & 728 form a head], the head having a size and being configured for fitting within a mouth of an animal [Fig 7A-7D; ¶1; the brush head can fit within the mouth of an animal]; and
a tooth cleaning substance impregnated into the head [Fig 7B-7C; 118 is impregnated in 706; as 118 is placed in a pocket of 706 as per Applicant’s Specification Pg4:¶5];
wherein the head comprises a forward face and a plurality of forward protrusions [Fig 7A-7C; the head has forward protrusions (728) on its forward face], the plurality of forward protrusions being coupled to and extending away from the forward face [Fig 7A-7C],…
Hurwitz may not explicitly disclose wherein each of the forward protrusions has dome shape such that the plurality of protrusions defines a plurality of spaced nubs on the forward face.
However Vazquez teaches wherein each of the forward protrusions has dome shape such that the plurality of protrusions defines a plurality of spaced nubs on the forward face [Fig 12; ¶58; the protrusions can be any variety of shapes which can be dome shaped similar to the shape of 122 in Fig 21]].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shape of the forward protrusions as disclosed by Hurwitz to have each of the forward protrusions has dome shape such that the plurality of protrusions defines a plurality of spaced nubs on the forward face as taught by Vazquez as equivalent shapes for the protrusions [Fig 12 & 21; ¶58]. In addition pursuant of MPEP 2144.04-IV-B, it has been held that absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration (e.g. shape) of the claimed invention is significant, changes in shape are considered to be matters of design choice which a person skilled in the art would have found obvious. The Applicant places no criticality on the dome shape in the specification.
Regarding claim 3. Hurwitz as modified teaches the toothbrush of claim 1, wherein the head has a backward face and a plurality of backward protrusions [Fig 7B-7D; the head has backward protrusions (708) on its backward face], the plurality of backward protrusions being coupled to and extending away from the backward face [Fig 7B-7D].
Regarding claim 4. Hurwitz as modified teaches the toothbrush of claim 1, wherein the elongate handle has a width between the lateral faces which is greater than a depth between the front and back faces [Fig 2 & 7A-7D].
Regarding claim 5. Hurwitz as modified teaches the toothbrush of claim 1, but may not explicitly disclose wherein the head receives the elongate handle into a cavity formed by the head.
However Hurwitz does disclose that there is a cavity that receives an insert but the cavity is in the handle and it receives the head.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have reversed the cavity and insert connection structure as disclosed by Hurwitz to have the head receives the elongate handle into a cavity formed by the head as pursuant of MPEP 2144.04-VI-A, it has been held that mere reversal of parts has no patentable significance absent of new and unexpected results produced by the claimed invention as compared to the prior art, it considered to be matters of design/engineering choice which a person skilled in the art would have found obvious.
Regarding claim 12. Claim(s) 12 recite(s) the same, similar limitations as those addressed for claim(s) 1 & 4-5. Claim(s) 12 is/are therefore rejected for the same reasons set forth for claim(s) 1 & 4-5.
Claim(s) 6 & 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurwitz in view of Vazquez further in view of Wagner (US 6083235), hereinafter Wagner.
Regarding claim 6. Hurwitz as modified teaches the toothbrush of claim 1, but may not explicitly disclose wherein the head comprises a sponge material.
However Wagner discloses a toothbrush wherein the head comprises a sponge material [Fig 1; the head (20) has a sponge material (24)].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the toothbrush as taught by Hurwitz as modified to have the head comprise a sponge material as taught by Wagner for the purpose of cleaning and applying a cleaning substance to the oral cavity to clean and deodorize the oral cavity [Wagner: Col3:line65 – Col4:line14].
Regarding claim 13. Hurwitz as modified teaches the toothbrush of claim 12, the plurality of forward protrusions being coupled to and extending away from the forward face [Fig 7A-7D], the head having a backward face and a plurality of backward protrusions [Fig 7B-7D; the head has backward protrusions (708) on its backward face], the plurality of backward protrusions being coupled to and extending away from the backward face [Fig 7A-7D], ….
Hurwitz may not explicitly disclose the head comprising a sponge material.
However Wagner discloses a toothbrush wherein the head comprises a sponge material [Fig 1; the head (20) has a sponge material (24)].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the toothbrush as disclosed by Hurwitz to have the head comprise a sponge material as taught by Wagner for the purpose of cleaning and applying a cleaning substance to the oral cavity to clean and deodorize the oral cavity [Wagner: Col3:line65 – Col4:line14].
Claim(s) 7, 11, 14, & 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurwitz in view of Vazquez further in view of Wenzler (US 6895629), hereinafter Wenzler.
Regarding claim 7. Hurwitz as modified teaches the toothbrush of claim 1, but may not explicitly disclose wherein the head comprises a loofah material.
However Wenzler teaches a toothbrush wherein the head comprises a loofah material [Fig 1-4A; Col2:line53-57; 26 is a lufa material].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the toothbrush as disclosed by Hurwitz to have the head comprises a loofah material as taught by Wenzler for the purpose of better cleaning of the roof of a mouth and the gum areas [Wenzler: Col2:line13-15].
Regarding claim 11 & 16. Hurwitz as modified teaches the toothbrush of claim 1, but may not explicitly disclose wherein the head has a cylindrical shape, the head being axially aligned with the elongate handle.
However Wenzler teaches a toothbrush wherein the head has a cylindrical shape, the head being axially aligned with the elongate handle [Fig 3; the head has a cylindrical shape along the bottom edge that aligns axially with the handle axis].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the head as disclosed by to have the head be a cylindrical shape, the head being axially aligned with the elongate handle as taught by Wenzler for the purpose of better cleaning of the roof of a mouth and the gum areas [Wenzler: Col2:line13-19].
Regarding claim 14. Hurwitz as modified teaches the toothbrush of claim 12, the plurality of forward protrusions being coupled to and extending away from the forward face [Fig 7A-7D], the head having a backward face and a plurality of backward protrusions [Fig 7B-7D; the head has backward protrusions (728) on its backward face], the plurality of backward protrusions being coupled to and extending away from the backward face [Fig 7A-7D], …
Hurwitz may not explicitly disclose the head comprising a loofah material.
However Wenzler teaches a toothbrush wherein the head comprises a loofah material [Fig 1-4A; Col2:line53-57; 26 is a lufa material].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the toothbrush as disclosed by Hurwitz to have the head comprises a loofah material as taught by Wenzler for the purpose of better cleaning of the roof of a mouth and the gum areas [Wenzler: Col2:line13-15].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited, PTO form 892.
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 AARON R MCCONNELL whose telephone number is (303)297-4608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 0700-1600 MST [0900-1800 EST] 2nd Friday 0700-1500 MST [0900-1700 EST].
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/AARON R MCCONNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723