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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement submitted on February 08, 2024 is being considered by the Examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 10-14 in the reply filed on June 04, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 4 discloses element 113, which is identified in the Specification, Page 9, lines 7-8, as an "electro-mechanical vibration generator", but is not clearly drawn to any particular component in the figure. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 recites the limitation "wherein the tips of the bristles are arranged in a dissolvable support material" in the body of the claim. When seeking to ascertain the intended structure of the claimed invention, the Examiner reflected upon the intended claim scope in light of the specification. Page 9, lines 3-5 of the Specification describes, inter alia, that “the tips of the bristles 105 are in direct contact with the surface of the dental arch and the teeth 111”. Based on the description of the specification, and for the purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting the “tips” of the bristles to refer to the section of the bristle proximal to where a user’s tooth 111 would be in contact with, as indicated in Figure 7 of the application. To improve clarity, the Examiner suggests the bristle orientations (i.e. the “tips”) be more distinctly identified to match the Applicant’s intentions.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “wherein the ends of the bristles are arranged in a carrier material” in the body of the claim. When seeking to ascertain the intended structure of the claimed invention, the Examiner reflected upon the intended claim scope in light of the specification. Page 3, lines 22-23 of the Specification describes, inter alia, that “the ends of the bristles are exposed from a support material”. However, Page 3, lines 11-12 of the Specification describes, inter alia, that “the tips of the bristles in the disk are exposed from a support material”. The Applicant does describe on Page 3, lines 29-30 of the Specification that “the ends of the bristles can be fixed in the carrier material”, from which the Examiner is using to interpret the “ends” of the bristles to refer to the section of bristle distal to where a user’s tooth 111 would be in contact with, as indicated in Figure 7 of the application. However, to improve clarity, the Examiner suggests the bristle orientations (i.e. the “tips” and “ends”) be more distinctly identified to match the Applicant’s intentions.
Claim 14 recites the limitation, “the tooth surface”, in the body of the claim. This is likely a typographical error. The Examiner suggests the limitation in the body of the claim be edited to read, “a tooth surface”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamada (JP6425359B1), herein after referred to as "Yamada".
Regarding Claim 10, Yamada discloses a disk for producing a dental arch toothbrush (Yamada: see English Translation, Page 4, lines 26-27, wherein “a method for manufacturing a mouthpiece-type toothbrush” is disclosed; see also Page 7, line 23, wherein a “soft sheet 3 is a disc-shaped sheet”) comprising a plastic material (Yamada: see English Translation, Page 6, lines 15-16, wherein “the material used for the flexible sheet 3 can be EVA (ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer resin), polyolefin, polyurethane, etc”) in which bristles of the dental arch toothbrush are embedded (Yamada: see English Translation, Page 8, lines 19-20, wherein "methods for fixing the brush member 4 to the soft sheet 3 include embedding the brush member 4 at the same time as manufacturing the soft sheet 3" is disclosed).
Regarding Claim 13, Yamada discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Yamada further discloses the disk according to claim 10, wherein the ends of the bristles are arranged in a carrier material (Yamada: see English Translation, Page 8, lines 19-20, wherein “methods for fixing the brush member 4 to the soft sheet 3 include embedding the brush member 4 at the same time as manufacturing the soft sheet 3” is disclosed).
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) 11-12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (JP 6425359 B1), herein after referred to as "Yamada", in view of Sörgel and Keiner (EP 3492143 A1), herein after referred to as "Sörgel", and in further view of Weitzman (US 20120267811 A1), herein after referred to as "Weitzman".
Regarding Claim 11, Yamada discloses the disk according to claim 10.
Yamada does not disclose wherein the tips of the bristles are arranged in a dissolvable support material.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Sörgel discloses wherein the tips of the bristles are arranged in a support material (Sörgel: see English Translation, Page 26, lines 14-15 in view of Figs. 1-2, wherein “Fig. 2 shows a detailed view of cleaning structures 14 in the form of cleaning elements that 14 may be provided on the surface of the mouth insert 10 from Fig. 1”).
Sörgel discloses a “cleaning composition” intended for use in “tooth cleaning and care by means of a toothbrushing device” wherein the cleaning composition is distributed “on all cleaning surfaces of the mouthpiece” (Sörgel: see English Translation, Page 3, lines 9 and 28-29, and Page 4, lines 5-6). Specifically, Sörgel discloses a mouth insert that is “individually adapted to the shape of the user’s teeth” through means of “conventional negative-positive impressions, scanning 22 and subsequent 3D printing of the mouth insert, or other suitable methods” (Sörgel: see English Translation, Page 7, lines 20-23 in view of Figs. 1-2). Cleaning structures 14 are provided “on the surface of mouth insert 10”, wherein “other cleaning structures 14 could be provided in each of the areas shown in Fig. 2, i.e. in the area of the posterior tooth surfaces, the occlusal surfaces and the anterior 27 tooth surfaces, for example rubber coating layers and/or strip brushes” (Sörgel: see English Translation, Page 26, lines 14-15 and 26-28).
Similarly, Yamada discloses a “mouthpiece-type toothbrush” with an upper and lower jaw piece “formed by a soft sheet on which a brush member is fixed” (Yamada: see English Translation, Page 3, lines 9-13). In the present embodiment, a dental impression is taken of an upper and lower jaw to create a mold or molds, and a soft sheet, with a brush member fixed in a horseshoe shape, is pressed onto the mold such that the brush member “wraps around and closely fits the entire tooth” of a user (Yamada: see English Translation, Page 4, lines 26-32, and Page 5, lines 1-5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the disc-shaped soft sheet with bristles embedded within, as disclosed by Yamada, with the mouth insert that is individually adapted to a user’s dental impression and has cleaning structures on its surface, as disclosed by Sörgel. One would be motivated to do this for the purposes of improved cleaning characteristics, wherein the cleaning structures 14, disclosed by Sörgel, comprise “diamond-shaped cleaning elements 28” and “cylindrical cleaning elements 30”, and the diamond-shaped elements are harder than the cylindrical element counterparts, resulting in “a more intensive tooth cleaning effect in the area of the chewing surfaces” (Sörgel: see English Translation, Page 26, lines 14-23). Additionally, the bristles can be adapted for individual needs, wherein “cleaning elements 30 can be designed differently on the front and back tooth surfaces”, and “other cleaning structures 14 could be provided in each of the areas shown in Fig. 26 2, i.e. in the area of the posterior tooth surfaces, the occlusal surfaces and the anterior 27 tooth surfaces” (Sörgel: see English Translation, Page 26, lines 24-28). Furthermore, Sörgel offers increased options for manufacturing, including “conventional negative-positive impressions, scanning 22 and subsequent 3D printing of the mouth insert, or other suitable methods” (Sörgel: see English Translation, Page 7, lines 22-23).
However, Sörgel does not disclose a dissolvable support material.
From the same or similar field of endeavor, Weitzman discloses a dissolvable support material (Weitzman: see Paragraph [0049], wherein "curing polymer 105 may be a curing polymer suited for rapid curing such as a polyvinyl, or a vinyl polymer, material").
Weitzman discloses “a method for rapidly creating a custom mouthpiece” utilizing a “ready-made tray, including a void for holding a curing polymer” wherein the curing polymer “conforms to a user’s teeth during the curing process” to create a custom mouthpiece (Weitzman: see Abstract and Paragraph [0022] in view of FIGS. 2A, 2B, and 2C). Here, “the curing polymer 105 may be a curing polymer suited for rapid curing such as a polyvinyl, or a vinyl polymer, material” (Weitzman: see Paragraph [0032]). Lastly, it is noted that “other materials can be introduced into the curing polymer 105, such as strips, pieces, balls, breathing tubes for allowing air to transfer through the mouthpiece can also be introduced into the void so as to be introduced into the curing polymer 105 or into the form 103 to become part of the custom mouthpiece” (Weitzman: see Paragraph [0040]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined Yamada in view of Sörgel, and in further view of Weitzman, such that the plastic disk for producing a dental arch toothbrush in which bristles are embedded, as disclosed by Modified Yamada, is combined with the dissolvable support material, as disclosed by Weitzman, to produce a disk wherein the tips of the bristles are arranged in a dissolvable support material. One would be motivated to do this as the manufacturing of the custom mouthpiece “comprising the curing polymer 105” can be “accomplished in less than 10 minutes” (Weitzman: see Paragraph [0048]). Specifically, “the time between placement in the mouth of the user 102 and removal therefrom is less than ten minutes” (Weitzman: see Paragraph [0042]).
Regarding Claim 12, Yamada in view of Sörgel, and in further view of Weitzman, discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Modified Yamada further discloses the disk according to claim 11, wherein the dissolvable support material comprises polyethylene glycol, polyvinyl alcohol, or a wax (Weitzman: see Paragraph [0032], wherein the curing polymer may be a polyvinyl).
Regarding Claim 14, Yamada in view of Sörgel, and in further view of Weitzman, discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Modified Yamada further discloses the disk according to claim 11, wherein the bristles are arranged directionally, non-directionally, crossed or perpendicular to the tooth surface in the disk (Yamada: see English Translation, Page 7, lines 11-13, wherein it is disclosed, “when the teeth are fitted onto the mouthpiece-type toothbrush 10, 11 the brush member 4 is formed to enclose and tightly surround the entire tooth 6, and to 12 contact the surface of the tooth 6 approximately perpendicularly”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JON M HEGEMIER whose telephone number is (571)467-6405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00 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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/JON M HEGEMIER/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights