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 .
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.
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are: plastic dripping/dispensing parts/portions and the use of terms such as “color fastness”, “hardness”, and “friction coefficient” without providing the necessary degree of detail to determine which procedures for measuring or comparing the terms. Additionally, the specification appears to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and is replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors such as grammatically incomplete or incoherent sentences. For example “Cleaning, while the raised point structure design also helps to bring out food residues in the teeth, thereby achieving deep cleaning” or “Clean, versatile and practical.” Are not grammatically complete sentences.
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 1-11 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only.
Additionally, claim 1 recites the limitation of "the friction coefficient of the plastic protrusions is greater than that of the concave and convex parts". Coefficient of friction is a complex property dependent on not only the material and geometric properties of the interfacing objects, but also environmental factors such as temperature. It appears that the specification is concerned with a kinetic friction coefficient between each of the parts and the teeth and gums, but it is not clear how this would adequately define the claim limitation such that one of ordinary skill would understand the scope of what was claimed.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the color fastness to rubbing of the plastic dripping part acting on the object to be cleaned is 4.0-5.0”. Color fastness is measured using different standards and it is unclear which standard applies to the claimed invention.
Similarly, claim 5 recites the limitation of "the hardness of the plastic dripping part is greater than the hardness of the concave and convex parts". Hardness measurements are typically classified based on the form being tested (e.g., scratch hardness, indentation hardness, or rebound hardness) as well as the specific test being used (e.g. Mohs, Shore, Vickers, Leeb, etc.). Because the disclosure does not offer guidance as to which hardness is being used for the claimed statement of relative hardness, the scope of the claimed subject matter is unclear to one of ordinary skill.
For these reasons, claims 1-11 are rejected as indefinite. For purposes of examination, the claims will be interpreted as best understood by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDevitt et al. (US 6721987, "McDevitt") in view of Meadows et al. (US PGPub 2009/0007357, "Meadows"), and at least one of Yu (KR 20040041240), Huang (CN 202313789), or Capozza et al. (US 20160255948, "Capozza").
Regarding claims 1-11. McDevitt teaches cleaning finger wipes (10) including first (20) and second (30) cleaning surfaces, wherein the first cleaning surface may include a plurality of concave and convex cleaning portions (first surface may include bristles, McDevitt fig. 2 and 10:27-38), and the second surface may include a plurality of protrusions (tufts 31, McDevitt fig. 3 and 15:8-20), wherein the protrusions are arranged in patterns (McDevitt 5:51-6:7) and are formed from a plastic material (protrusions made by bonding a polymeric material, i.e. a plastic, McDevitt 16:64-17:16), and wherein the first and second cleaning sections comprise different materials (only first section 20 includes an elastic component, McDevitt fig. 2 and 5:51-58).
McDevitt additionally teaches that the cleaning finger wipe may include a waterproof layer (McDevitt 6:31-48), that the first and second cleaning surfaces may be connected by ultrasonic bonding (McDevitt 25:65-26:2), that the surfaces of the wipe may be made from a variety of synthetic fibers including polyester or rayon (McDevitt 12:5-67), that the protrusions may have a height in the range of 0.1mm to 3mm (McDevitt 4:64-5:5), and that the wipe may include a variety of additives such as antibacterial or cleaning agents applied during manufacturing or immediately prior to use (see McDevitt 27:54-30:30, specifically 28:45-66 and 29:16-49) such that it included a functional fiber such as an antibacterial fiber. Finally, McDevitt teaches that the cleaning wipe is configured to receive a finger (McDevitt fig. 1), includes a closed end (McDevitt fig. 2), and has a width of 0.5-2.5 inches (which converts to a range of 12.7 mm to 63.5 mm, depending on how many fingers the wipe is configured to receive, McDevitt 26:14-26).
Although McDevitt suggests the possibility of having different surface properties, it does not explicitly teach a single embodiment including one surface with concave portions and a second surface with raised bumps. However, each of Yu (including bristles 12 on one side and bumps 16 on the other side, see Yu figs. 1-3), Huang (including bumps 302 and textured surface involving convex portions 3021 and concave portions 3022, see Huang figs. 3-6), and Capozza (cleaning head 1 includes bristles 30 on one side and bumps 50 on an opposing side, see Capozza figs. 1-6) teach the concept of providing two different surfaces on a finger wipe.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the teachings of at least one of Yu, Huang, or Capozza for a further modification of the finger wipes of McDevitt such that they included two cleaning surfaces, each including a different type of cleaning projections than the other surface, as doing so represents the combination of known prior art elements according to known methods, and the results of such a combination would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill.
McDevitt further teaches that materials and shapes may be selected based on desired friction properties (yarn shape may increase friction, see McDevitt 6:15-30; bristle orientation may modify friction coefficient based on contact direction, see McDevitt 35:42-53), but does not explicitly teach that concave and convex parts are made from different materials than the plastic protrusions or that the friction coefficients of the protrusions is greater than the concave/convex parts.
McDevitt as modified does not specifically teach any details regarding the relative hardnesses or frictions of different surfaces. However, Meadows teaches that varying physical properties in an oral cleaning implement allows control over performance. Specifically, Meadows teaches that varying relative hardness and element geometry allows maximizing cleaning and massaging while minimizing damage to soft tissue (Meadows [0057]) and that varying the relative friction between different cleaning elements and teeth or gums will allow control of how effectively an element scrubs teeth or slips between teeth (Meadows [0087]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the relative hardnesses and frictional properties of each of the cleaning elements of McDevitt as modified such that the plastic protrusions on a second side were harder and would produce higher-friction interactions with teeth and gums than the protrusions on a first side, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05(II) The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, those parameters are hardness and friction which are taught by Meadows to achieves the recognized results of balancing cleaning effectiveness and control with the risk of damaging sensitive parts of the mouth, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Further, the disclosure provides no evidence indicating the claimed range is critical.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN R ZAWORSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7804. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00, Fridays 9:00-1:00.
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.
/J.R.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723