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 .
This Office action is in response to amendments filed on 03/06/2026. Claims 1-18 are pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/06/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner notes the newly amended subject matter in claim 1, ll. 7 (e.g. –each of the plurality of interior bristle arrays form a partial hexagon shape--) appeared to be a mis-type, as best understood from pp. [0018] in original disclosure and the subject matter in claims 6-7 (which depend from claim 1). The Examiner scheduled a telephone call with applicant’s representative, Sheetal S. Patel, for clarification (see Interview Summary). With authorization from applicant’s representative on 08/03/2026, claim 1, ll. 7 is amended to recite each of the plurality of interior bristle arrays form a hexagon shape, thereby aligning with the subject matter of the original disclosure and the subject matter in claims 6-7 (for proper antecedent basis).
Claim 1, ll. 7, --surface area, wherein each of the plurality of interior bristle arrays form a
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 6, 10-12, 14, and 18 are objected to because of the following antecedent basis informalities:
Claim 1, ll. 5, consider amending to, --head surface area, wherein each of the plurality of exterior bristle arrays form a partial hexagon shape; and—
Claim 1, ll. 10, consider amending to, --said each of the plurality of exterior bristle arrays and said each of the plurality of interior bristle—
Claim 4, ll. 1, consider amending to, --The apparatus of claim 1, wherein said each of the plurality of—
Claim 6, ll. 2, consider amending to, --bristle arrays comprise a plurality of bristles arranged in the hexagon
Claim 10, ll. 1, consider amending to, --The apparatus of claim 1, wherein said each of the plurality of—
Claim 11, ll. 5, consider amending to, --head surface area, wherein each of the plurality of exterior bristle arrays form a partial hexagon shape; and—
Claim 11, ll. 7-8, consider amending to, --surface, wherein each of the plurality of interior bristle arrays form a hexagon shape and said each of the plurality of the interior bristle arrays has a larger number of bristles than said each of the plurality—
Claim 11, ll. 12, consider amending to, --said each of the plurality of interior bristle arrays and said each of the plurality of exterior bristle arrays are—
Claim 12, ll. 2, consider amending to, --The apparatus of claim 11, wherein said each of the plurality of—
Claim 14, ll. 2 consider amending to, --bristle arrays comprise a plurality of bristles in the hexagon shape forming an array—
Claim 18, ll. 1, consider amending to, --The apparatus of claim 11, wherein said each of the plurality of—
Appropriate correction is required.
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 7-9 and 15-17 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.
Claim 7 recites, “wherein the plurality of exterior bristle arrays each comprise a plurality of bristles arranged in a pentagon configuration or the partial hexagonal shape forming an array of a plurality of hexagonal shaped bristles surrounding the hexagonal shaped plurality of interior bristles” which renders the claim indefinite. First, it is unclear how the plurality of bristles are arranged in a pentagon configuration or the partial hexagonal shape then form an array of plurality of hexagonal shaped bristles. Second, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the hexagonal shaped plurality of interior bristles” in ll. 4 of the claim. As best understood, “the hexagonal shaped plurality of interior bristles” are the hexagonal shaped plurality of interior bristle arrays, as introduced in claim 1, which claim 7 depends from. For examination purposes, the plurality of bristles are arranged in a pentagon configuration or the partial hexagon shape to form an array of plurality of pentagon or partial hexagon shaped bristles which surround the hexagonal shaped plurality of interior bristle arrays.
Claim 7, --The apparatus of claim 11, wherein the plurality of exterior bristle arrays each comprise a plurality of bristles arranged in a pentagon configuration or the partial hexagonpentagon or partial hexagon shaped bristles surrounding the hexagon arrays.—
Claims 8-9 are rejected accordingly under 35 USC 112(b) since they are dependent on claim 7.
Similarly, claim 15 recites, “wherein the plurality of exterior bristle arrays each comprise a plurality of bristles arranged in a pentagon configuration or the partial hexagonal shape forming an array of a plurality of hexagonal shaped bristles surrounding the hexagonal shaped plurality of interior bristles” which renders the claim indefinite. First, it is unclear how the plurality of bristles are arranged in a pentagon configuration or the partial hexagonal shape then form an array of plurality of hexagonal shaped bristles. Second, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the hexagonal shaped plurality of interior bristles” in ll. 4 of the claim. As best understood, “the hexagonal shaped plurality of interior bristles” are the hexagonal shaped plurality of interior bristle arrays, as introduced in claim 11, which claim 15 depends from. For examination purposes, the plurality of bristles are arranged in a pentagon configuration or the partial hexagon shape to form an array of plurality of pentagon or partial hexagon shaped bristles which surround the hexagonal shaped plurality of interior bristle arrays.
Claim 15, --The apparatus of claim 11, wherein the plurality of exterior bristle arrays each comprise a plurality of bristles arranged in a pentagon configuration or the partial hexagonpentagon or partial hexagon shaped bristles surrounding the hexagon arrays.—
Claims 16-17 are rejected accordingly under 35 USC 112(b) since they are dependent on claim 15.
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, 3-9, and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dengler (US Patent No. 10,575,626) in view of Li (CN206714937), as provided by Examiner in Office action filed on 09/24/2025, and in view of Lee (KR20160050312), as provided by the Examiner in Office action filed on 09/24/2025 and evidenced by Roberts (US Patent No. 5,987,688).
Regarding claim 1, Dengler (US Patent No. 10,575,626) discloses an apparatus (item 100; figs. 1A-2B) comprising:
a brush handle (item 40; figs. 1A-2B); and
a brush head (item 30; figs. 1A-2B) connected to the brush handle (figs. 1A-1B), wherein a brush head surface area (item 32; figs. 2A-2B) comprises
a plurality of exterior bristle arrays (designated by gray highlighted arrays in first annotated fig. 2A below) disposed on an exterior portion of the brush head surface area (exterior portion defined as portion of surface area nearest outer, curved boundary of head 30), wherein the plurality of exterior bristle arrays form a partial hexagon shape (considered a pentagon or five-sided polygon as recited in pp. [0018] of instant disclosure; therefore, exterior bristle arrays form a pentagonal shape, thereby a portion of a hexagonal shape, see annotated fig. below; fig. 2C and col. 6, ll. 58-61 in Dengler); and
PNG
media_image1.png
253
318
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig.
a plurality of interior bristle arrays (defined by non-highlighted arrays in first annotated fig. 2A below) disposed on an interior portion of the brush head surface area (interior portion defined as portion of surface area 32 along axis A, i.e. surrounded by exterior bristle arrays).
PNG
media_image2.png
345
790
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Dengler First Annotated Fig. 2A.
Dengler does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the plurality of interior bristle arrays form a hexagon shape. However, Dengler does disclose arrangements of individual retention rings with any combination of interior wall and exterior wall combinations (e.g. circular and non-circular, or two different non-circular shapes) and a variety of any combination(s) have been contemplated (col. 7, ll. 1-7); the shapes and sizes of the exterior and interior walls can be chosen based on the need to obtain an optimal bristle arrangement for improved brushing (col. 7, ll. 17-19).
Therefore, Li (CN206714937) teaches a brush head (item 410; pp. [0215] in NPL translation; figs. 11-12 embodiment) including a brush head surface area (item 425; pp. [0215]; figs. 11-12) including a plurality of interior bristle arrays (items 442; fig. 11-12) and a plurality of exterior bristle arrays (items 441; figs. 11-12), wherein the plurality of interior bristle arrays comprise a plurality of bristles (items 411; pp. [0224]; fig. 11) arranged in a hexagonal shape (pp. [0217], [0223-0224]; mounting holes for interior bristles 411 are a hexagonal shape thereby, bristles are arranged in hexagonal shape; figs. 11-12).
PNG
media_image3.png
335
281
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Li Fig. 12.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the plurality of interior bristle arrays, as disclosed in Dengler, to be arranged in a hexagonal shape, as taught in Li, in order to easily penetrate into the gaps between teeth, thereby effectively removing foreign matter between the teeth even if the teeth are brushed in any direction (Li; pp. [0072]).
Further, Dengler does not disclose wherein each of the interior bristle arrays has a different size than each bristle of the plurality of exterior bristle arrays. However, Dengler does disclose the plurality of bristles within each array can vary, and can be a function of a number of variables including the type of cleaning desired, the specifies of teeth and gums to be accessed and cleaned, and the desired flexibility of stiffness of the bristles (col. 6, ll. 14-22).
Therefore, Lee (KR20160050312) discloses a brush head (item 10; pp. [0023]; figs. 3-4) including a brush head surface area (defined as outer face area, i.e. gray highlighted region in annotated fig. 4 below) comprising a plurality of exterior bristle arrays (items 20; pp. [0030]; fig. 3) and a plurality of interior bristle arrays (items 30; pp. [0030]; fig. 3) wherein each bristle of the interior bristle arrays has a different diameter (pp. [0030]; the bristles within the exterior bristle arrays 20 have bristles of different thicknesses, i.e. diameters, or different materials than the bristles within the interior bristle arrays 30), smaller size (pp. [0032]; the material of each bristle mounted within item 40, i.e. exterior bristle array(s), has a larger diameter or greater elasticity than the bristles within mounting hole 50, i.e. interior bristle array(s), to improve the cleaning power) than each bristle of the exterior bristle arrays .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the diameter of each bristle within the interior bristle arrays to be a different size than a diameter of each bristle within the exterior bristle arrays, as taught in Lee, in order to improve the cleaning power of teeth when brushing (Lee; pp. [0017-0019]).
PNG
media_image4.png
217
283
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Lee Annotated Fig. 4.
Lastly, Dengler does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the plurality of exterior bristle arrays and each of the plurality of interior bristle arrays are composed of Poly-Butylene Telephtalate composition (PBT). Dengler does disclose that materials depend upon the specific application for which the inventive teachings are used (col. 10, ll. 40-46). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify each bristle to be composed of a polybutylene telephthalate composition since it had been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. As an example, Roberts (US Patent No. 5,987,688) teaches an apparatus comprising a brush head including a plurality of bristles, wherein the bristles are composed of a non-elastomeric material, such as polybutylene terephthalate (PBT; col. 2, ll. 29-37) in order to provide sufficient durability and strength of the bristle during cleaning (col.4, ll. 58-62). Please note in the instant application, pp. [0016], the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 3, Dengler as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein each said bristle of the interior bristle arrays has a diameter that is smaller than a diameter size of each bristle of the exterior bristle arrays (Lee; pp. [0032]; the material of each bristle mounted within item 40, i.e. exterior bristle array(s), has a larger diameter or greater elasticity than the bristles within mounting hole 50, i.e. interior bristle array(s), to improve the cleaning power).
Regarding claim 4, Dengler as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein said each of the plurality of exterior bristle arrays is disposed contiguous with two interior bristle arrays of the plurality of interior bristle arrays (each exterior bristle array, as designated in first annotated fig. 2A above, is contiguous, i.e. next to, two interior bristle arrays diagonally in view of fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 5, Dengler as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the interior bristle arrays comprise two bristle arrays disposed in a center portion of the brush head surface area (center portion defined within bolded rectangular boundary in second annotated fig. 2A below) and two interior bristle arrays disposed on far ends of the center portion (far ends defined as ends to a right of the center portion and to a left of the center portion; designated in second annotated dig. 2A below) of the brush head surface area (designated in second annotated fig. 2A below).
PNG
media_image5.png
426
791
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Dengler Second Annotated Fig. 2A.
Regarding claim 6, Dengler as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the plurality of interior bristle arrays comprise a plurality of bristles (items 21; col. 6, ll. 9-12).
Dengler does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of interior arrays comprise the plurality of bristles arranged in a hexagonal shape forming an array of a plurality of hexagonal shaped bristle arrays (when interior walls 55 of mounting ring 59 is a hexagonal shape, the formation of the bristle arrays are arranged in a hexagonal shape). Dengler does disclose the shape and sizes of the interior wall of the retention ring that forms the formation of the bristle tuft (i.e. bristle array) can be chosen based on the need to obtain an optimal bristle arrangement for improved brushing (col. 7, ll. 8-19) and that any combination of interior wall shape combinations (e.g. circular and non-circular; or two different non-circular shapes, respectively) are contemplated (col. 7, ll. 1-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plurality of interior bristle arrays to each comprise the plurality of bristles arranged in a hexagonal shape (i.e. modify the interior wall 55 to be a hexagonal configuration) since it has been held that unless a new and unexpected result is produced, a change of shape of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04.IV-B).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Dengler as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the exterior bristle arrays comprise a plurality of bristles (items 21; figs. 2A-2B) arranged in a pentagon configuration (when interior walls 55 of mounting ring 59 is a pentagon shape, the formation of the bristle arrays are arranged in a pentagon shape; designated in third annotated fig. 2A below).
Dengler does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of exterior arrays each comprise a plurality of bristles arranged in a pentagon configuration (i.e. each interior wall 55 of the pentagon mounting rings 59 is arranged in a pentagon shape).
However, Dengler discloses the shape and sizes of the interior wall of the retention ring that forms the formation of the bristle tuft (i.e. bristle array) can be chosen based on the need to obtain an optimal bristle arrangement for improved brushing (col. 7, ll. 8-19) and that any combination of interior wall shape combinations (e.g. circular and non-circular; or two different non-circular shapes, respectively) are contemplated (col. 7, ll. 1-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plurality of exterior bristle arrays to each comprise the plurality of bristles arranged in a pentagon configuration (i.e. modify the interior wall 55 to be a pentagon configuration) since it has been held that unless a new and unexpected result is produced, a change of shape of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04.IV-B). The modification results in the pentagon or partial hexagon shaped bristle arrays surrounding the hexagonal shaped plurality of interior bristles (annotated figs. 2A above and below).
PNG
media_image6.png
430
757
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Dengler Third Annotated Fig. 2A.
Regarding claim 8, Dengler as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 7, wherein a portion of the exterior bristle arrays are a first type of pentagon configuration (designated in third annotated fig. 2A above; first type of pentagon configuration corresponding to orientation of pentagon on exterior surface area in above view; similar to applicant’s disclosure, pp. [0012] in instant application), and
a second portion of the exterior bristle arrays are a second type of pentagon configuration (designated in third annotated fig. 2A above; second type of pentagon configuration corresponding to orientation of pentagon on exterior surface area in above view; similar to applicant’s disclosure, pp. [0012] in instant application) that is different from the first type of pentagon configuration (when viewing from above, the first type of pentagon configuration is oriented differently than the second type of pentagon configuration, i.e. flat side of pentagon is closest to outer boundary edge of brush head).
Regarding claim 9, Dengler as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 8. Dengler does not explicitly disclose wherein a surface area of the brush head consumed by one of the interior bristle arrays is larger than a surface area of the brush head consumed by one of the exterior bristle arrays having the first type of pentagon configuration, and wherein a surface area of the brush head consumed by one of the exterior bristle arrays having the second type of pentagon configuration is smaller than the surface area of the brush head consumed by one of the exterior bristle arrays having the first type of pentagon configuration.
However, Dengler discloses the sizes and shapes of the respective interior spaces of the individual retention rings (in which the bristle arrays extend from) can vary (col. 6, ll. 21-22) and the retention rings (items 50 which bristles are inserted into) can be the same size and shape or multiple different sizes and shapes (including an interior wall and an exterior wall; col. 8, ll. 17-22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention change the size of the retention rings for the interior bristle arrays (i.e. the surface area on the brush head consumed by the interior bristle arrays) to be larger than the retention rings of the exterior bristle arrays having the first type of pentagon configuration (i.e. the surface area on the brush head consumed by the exterior bristle arrays having the first type of pentagon configuration) and for the retention ring of one of the exterior bristle arrays having the second type of pentagon configuration (i.e. the surface area) to be smaller than the retention of the exterior bristle array having the first type of pentagon configuration (i.e. the surface area) since Dengler states the size and shape of the surface area of each bristle array can be chosen based on the need to obtain an optimal bristle arrangement for improved brushing (col. 7, ll. 8-19).
Regarding claim 11, Dengler (US Patent No. 10,575,626) discloses an apparatus (item 100; figs. 1A-2B) comprising:
a brush handle (item 40; figs. 1A-2B); and
a brush head (item 30; figs. 1A-2B) connected to the brush handle (figs. 1A-1B), wherein a brush head surface area (item 32; figs. 2A-2B) comprises
a plurality of exterior bristle arrays (designated by gray highlighted arrays in first annotated fig. 2A above) disposed on an exterior portion of the brush head surface area (exterior portion defined as portion of surface area nearest outer, curved boundary of head 30), wherein the plurality of exterior bristle arrays form a partial hexagon shape (considered a pentagon or five-sided polygon as recited in pp. [0018] of instant disclosure; therefore, exterior bristle arrays form a pentagonal shape, thereby a portion of a hexagonal shape, see Examiner’s annotated fig. above; fig. 2C and col. 6, ll. 58-61 in Dengler); and
a plurality of interior bristle arrays (defined by non-highlighted arrays in first annotated fig. 2A above) disposed on an interior portion of the brush head surface area (interior portion defined as portion of surface area 32 along axis A, i.e. surrounded by exterior bristle arrays).
Dengler does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the plurality of interior bristle arrays form a hexagon shape. However, Dengler does disclose arrangements of individual retention rings with any combination of interior wall and exterior wall combinations (e.g. circular and non-circular, or two different non-circular shapes) and a variety of any combination(s) have been contemplated (col. 7, ll. 1-7); and the shapes and sizes of the exterior and interior walls can be chosen based on the need to obtain an optimal bristle arrangement for improved brushing (col. 7, ll. 17-19).
Therefore, Li (CN206714937) teaches a brush head (item 410; pp. [0215] in NPL translation; figs. 11-12 embodiment) including a brush head surface area (item 425; pp. [0215]; figs. 11-12) including a plurality of interior bristle arrays (items 442; fig. 11-12) and a plurality of exterior bristle arrays (items 441; figs. 11-12), wherein the plurality of interior bristle arrays comprise a plurality of bristles (items 411; pp. [0224]; fig. 11) arranged in a hexagonal shape (pp. [0217], [0223-0224]; mounting holes for interior bristles 411 are a hexagonal shape thereby, bristles are arranged in hexagonal shape; figs. 11-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the plurality of interior bristle arrays, as disclosed in Dengler, to be arranged in a hexagonal shape, as taught in Li, in order to easily penetrate into the gaps between teeth, thereby effectively removing foreign matter between the teeth even if the teeth are brushed in any direction (Li; pp. [0072]).
Further, Dengler does not disclose wherein each of the interior bristle arrays has a larger number of bristles than each of the exterior bristle arrays, and wherein bristle diameter sizes of at least two of the interior bristle arrays are the same size and are a different, smaller size than a bristle diameter of at least two of the exterior bristle arrays. However, Dengler does disclose the particular number and arrangement (spacing and placement) of the mounting holes and plurality of bristles within each array can vary, and can be a function of a number of variables including the type of cleaning desired, the specifies of teeth and gums to be accessed and cleaned, and the desired flexibility of stiffness of the bristles (col. 6, ll. 14-22).
Therefore, Lee (KR20160050312) discloses a brush head (item 10; pp. [0023]; figs. 3-4) including a brush head surface area (defined as outer face area, i.e. gray highlighted region in annotated fig. 4 above) comprising a plurality of exterior bristle arrays (items 20; pp. [0030]; fig. 3) and a plurality of interior bristle arrays (items 30; pp. [0030]; fig. 3), wherein each of the interior bristle arrays has a larger number of bristles than each of the exterior bristle arrays (pp. [0025-0026]; a larger number of bristles are inserted within hole 50 of the interior bristle arrays), and
wherein bristle diameter sizes of at least two of the interior bristle arrays are the same size (pp. [0030]; the same type of bristles 30 are inserted to the plurality of interior bristle array mounting holes, i.e. items 50, and thereby, are the same diameter size within the same array) and are a different size than a bristle diameter of at least two of the exterior bristle arrays (pp. [0030] and [0032]; the bristles within the exterior bristle arrays 20 have bristles of different thicknesses, i.e. diameters, or different materials than the bristles within the interior bristle arrays 30, specifically, the material of each bristle mounted within item 40, i.e. exterior bristle array(s), has a larger diameter or greater elasticity than the bristles within mounting hole 50, i.e. interior bristle array(s), to improve the cleaning power).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the amount of bristles within each array of the plurality of interior arrays, as disclosed in Dengler, to have a larger number of bristles within each array than each of the plurality of exterior bristle arrays and also have a different, smaller diameter than each bristle diameter of the exterior bristle arrays, as taught in Lee, to provide greater elasticity when brushing teeth, making it easier to remove plaque and debris between the teeth (Lee; pp. [0026]) and to improve the cleaning power of teeth when brushing (Lee; pp. [0017-0019]).
Lastly, Dengler does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the plurality of exterior bristle arrays and each of the plurality of interior bristle arrays are composed of Poly-Butylene Telephtalate composition (PBT). Dengler does disclose that materials depend upon the specific application for which the inventive teachings are used (col. 10, ll. 40-46). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify each bristle to be composed of a polybutylene telephthalate composition since it had been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. As an example, Roberts (US Patent No. 5,987,688) teaches an apparatus comprising a brush head including a plurality of bristles, wherein the bristles are composed of a non-elastomeric material, such as polybutylene terephthalate (PBT; col. 2, ll. 29-37) in order to provide sufficient durability and strength of the bristle during cleaning (col.4, ll. 58-62). Please note in the instant application, pp. [0016], the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 12, Dengler as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 11, wherein said each of the exterior bristle arrays is disposed contiguous with two interior bristles of the plurality of interior bristle arrays (each exterior bristle arrays, as designated in first annotated fig. 2A above, is contiguous, i.e. next to, two interior bristle arrays in a diagonal direction).
Regarding claim 13, Dengler as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 11, wherein the interior bristle arrays comprise two bristle arrays disposed in a center portion of the brush head surface area (center portion defined within bolded rectangular boundary in second annotated fig. 2A above) and two interior bristle arrays disposed on far ends of the center portion (far ends defined as ends to a right of the center portion and to a left of the center portion; designated in second annotated dig. 2A above) of the brush head surface area (designated in second annotated fig. 2A above).
Regarding claim 14, Dengler as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 11, wherein the plurality of interior bristle arrays comprise a plurality of bristles (items 21; col. 6, ll. 9-12).
Dengler does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of interior arrays comprise the plurality of bristles arranged in a hexagonal shape forming an array of a plurality of hexagonal shaped bristle arrays (when interior walls 55 of mounting ring 59 is a hexagonal shape, the formation of the bristle arrays are arranged in a hexagonal shape). Dengler does disclose the shape and sizes of the interior wall of the retention ring that forms the formation of the bristle tuft (i.e. bristle array) can be chosen based on the need to obtain an optimal bristle arrangement for improved brushing (col. 7, ll. 8-19) and that any combination of interior wall shape combinations (e.g. circular and non-circular; or two different non-circular shapes, respectively) are contemplated (col. 7, ll. 1-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plurality of interior bristle arrays to each comprise the plurality of bristles arranged in a hexagonal shape (i.e. modify the interior wall 55 to be a hexagonal configuration) since it has been held that unless a new and unexpected result is produced, a change of shape of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04.IV-B).
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, Dengler as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 11, wherein the exterior bristle arrays comprise a plurality of bristles (items 21; figs. 2A-2B) arranged in a pentagon configuration (when interior walls 55 of mounting ring 59 is a pentagon shape, the formation of the bristle arrays are arranged in a pentagon shape; designated in third annotated fig. 2A above).
Dengler does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of exterior arrays each comprise a plurality of bristles arranged in a pentagon configuration (i.e. each interior wall 55 of the pentagon mounting rings 59 is arranged in a pentagon shape).
However, Dengler discloses the shape and sizes of the interior wall of the retention ring that forms the formation of the bristle tuft (i.e. bristle array) can be chosen based on the need to obtain an optimal bristle arrangement for improved brushing (col. 7, ll. 8-19) and that any combination of interior wall shape combinations (e.g. circular and non-circular; or two different non-circular shapes, respectively) are contemplated (col. 7, ll. 1-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plurality of exterior bristle arrays to each comprise the plurality of bristles arranged in a pentagon configuration (i.e. modify the interior wall 55 to be a pentagon configuration) since it has been held that unless a new and unexpected result is produced, a change of shape of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04.IV-B).
Regarding claim 16, Dengler as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 15, wherein a portion of the exterior bristle arrays are a first type of pentagon configuration (designated in third annotated fig. 2A above; first type of pentagon configuration corresponding to orientation of pentagon on exterior surface area in above view; similar to applicant’s disclosure, pp. [0012] in instant application), and
a second portion of the exterior bristle arrays are a second type of pentagon configuration (designated in third annotated fig. 2A above; second type of pentagon configuration corresponding to orientation of pentagon on exterior surface area in above view; similar to applicant’s disclosure, pp. [0012] in instant application) that is different from the first type of pentagon configuration (when viewing from above, the first type of pentagon configuration is oriented differently than the second type of pentagon configuration, i.e. flat side of pentagon is closest to outer boundary edge of brush head).
Regarding claim 17, Dengler as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 16. Dengler does not explicitly disclose wherein a surface area of the brush head consumed by one of the interior bristle arrays is larger than a surface area of the brush head consumed by one of the exterior bristle arrays having the first type of pentagon configuration, and wherein a surface area of the brush head consumed by one of the exterior bristle arrays having the second type of pentagon configuration is smaller than the surface area of the brush head consumed by one of the exterior bristle arrays having the first type of pentagon configuration.
However, Dengler discloses the sizes and shapes of the respective interior spaces of the individual retention rings (in which the bristle arrays extend from) can vary (col. 6, ll. 21-22) and the retention rings (items 50 which bristles are inserted into) can be the same size and shape or multiple different sizes and shapes (including an interior wall and an exterior wall; col. 8, ll. 17-22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention change the size of the retention rings for the interior bristle arrays (i.e. the surface area on the brush head consumed by the interior bristle arrays) to be larger than the retention rings of the exterior bristle arrays having the first type of pentagon configuration (i.e. the surface area on the brush head consumed by the exterior bristle arrays having the first type of pentagon configuration) and for the retention ring of one of the exterior bristle arrays having the second type of pentagon configuration (i.e. the surface area) to be smaller than the retention of the exterior bristle array having the first type of pentagon configuration (i.e. the surface area) since Dengler states the size and shape of the surface area of each bristle array can be chosen based on the need to obtain an optimal bristle arrangement for improved brushing (col. 7, ll. 8-19).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dengler (US Patent No. 10,575,626) in view of Li (CN206714937), and in view of Lee (KR20160050312), evidenced by Roberts (US Patent No. 5,987,688), and further in view of Moriguchi (JP 2015123425), as provided by Examiner in Office action filed on 09/24/2025.
Regarding claim 2, Dengler as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein each said bristle of the plurality of interior bristle arrays has a diameter that is larger than a diameter size of each said bristle of the plurality of exterior bristle arrays.
However, Dengler does disclose the plurality of bristles within each array can vary, and can be a function of a number of variables including the type of cleaning desired, the specifies of teeth and gums to be accessed and cleaned, and the desired flexibility of stiffness of the bristles (col. 6, ll. 14-22), and further, Lee discloses various modifications, changes, and substitutions can be made without departing from the essential characteristics of the invention and there is an effect of improving the cleaning power of teeth when brushing teeth by inserting bristles of different sizes onto the brush head (pp. [0032-0033] in Lee).
Therefore, Moriguchi (JP 2015123425) teaches a brush head (item 3; pp. [0012]; figs. 1-2 and 6) including a brush head surface area (defined as outer surface area of item 3 in which items 7, 8, 12, 13 insert into, i.e. facing the user in view of fig. 2) comprises a plurality of exterior bristle arrays (items 11; pp. [0014]; figs. 1-2) and a plurality of interior bristle arrays (items 13; pp. [0016]; figs. 1-2) wherein each bristle of the interior bristle arrays has a diameter size that is larger than a diameter size of each bristle of the exterior bristle arrays (pp. [0016]; the thickness, i.e. diameter, of the bristles 12 within the interior bristle arrays 13 are within the range of 7 to 9 mils while the thickness, i.e. diameter of the bristles 10 within the exterior bristle arrays 11 are within the range of 3 and 5 mils; therefore, the bristles within the interior bristle arrays 13 are larger).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the diameter of each bristle within the interior bristle arrays, as disclosed in Dengler in view of Lee, to be larger than the diameter of each bristle within the exterior bristle arrays, as taught in Moriguchi, in order to improve stain removal and comfortable contact with the gums of the user (pp. [0018] in Moriguchi).
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dengler (US Patent No. 10,575,626) in view of Li (CN206714937), Lee (KR20160050312), evidenced by Roberts (US Patent No. 5,987,688), and further in view of Kimoto (JP2017209147), as provided by the Examiner in Office action filed on 09/24/2025.
Regarding claim 10, Dengler as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1. Though Dengler discloses a height of a majority of the bristles in one of the plurality of exterior bristle arrays (7.70mm, col. 7, ll. 27-31), Dengler does not explicitly disclose a height of a majority of bristles of each of the plurality of interior bristle arrays such that each of the plurality of interior bristle arrays comprise a majority of bristles which have a larger height than the height of the majority of bristles in the one plurality of exterior bristle arrays.
However, Kimoto (JP2017209147) teaches an apparatus comprising a brush handle (item 2; figs. 1 and 3) and a brush head (item 4; figs. 1-3), wherein a brush head surface area (item 5; figs. 1-2) comprises a plurality of exterior bristle arrays (items 22; pp. [0019]; figs. 1-3) and a plurality of interior bristle arrays (items 12; pp. [0018]; figs. 1-4), wherein each of the plurality of interior bristle arrays comprise a majority of bristles (interior bristle arrays 12 include bristles 13 which all, i.e. majority of, have a height t1; fig. 2) having a larger height (item t1; fig. 2) than a height (item t2; fig. 2) of a majority of bristles in the plurality of exterior bristle arrays (height of interior bristles t1 is larger than a height of exterior bristles t1 by distance defined by item t3; fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the majority of the bristles within the interior bristle arrays, as disclosed in Dengler, to have a larger height than the height of the one exterior bristle array, as taught in Kimoto, in order to improve the cleaning performance of the cervical area and improve the comfort of contact with the gums of the user (Kimoto; pp. [0036]).
Regarding claim 18, Dengler as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 11. Though Dengler discloses a height of a majority of the bristles in one of the plurality of exterior bristle arrays (7.70mm, col. 7, ll. 27-31), Dengler does not explicitly disclose a height of a majority of bristles of each of the plurality of interior bristle arrays such that each of the plurality of interior bristle arrays comprise a majority of bristles which have a larger height than the height of the majority of bristles in the one plurality of exterior bristle arrays.
However, Kimoto (JP2017209147) teaches an apparatus comprising a brush handle (item 2; figs. 1 and 3) and a brush head (item 4; figs. 1-3), wherein a brush head surface area (item 5; figs. 1-2) comprises a plurality of exterior bristle arrays (items 22; pp. [0019]; figs. 1-3) and a plurality of interior bristle arrays (items 12; pp. [0018]; figs. 1-4), wherein each of the plurality of interior bristle arrays comprise a majority of bristles (interior bristle arrays 12 include bristles 13 which all, i.e. majority of, have a height t1; fig. 2) having a larger height (item t1; fig. 2) than a height (item t2; fig. 2) of a majority of bristles in the plurality of exterior bristle arrays (height of interior bristles t1 is larger than a height of exterior bristles t1 by distance defined by item t3; fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the majority of the bristles within the interior bristle arrays, as disclosed in Dengler, to have a larger height than the height of the one exterior bristle array, as taught in Kimoto, in order to improve the cleaning performance of the cervical area and improve the comfort of contact with the gums of the user (pp. [0036] in JP’147).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because they are addressing newly amended claim limitations, as compared to the rejection of record. Upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Dengler (US Patent No. 10,575,626) and further in view of Li (CN206714937), Lee (KR20160050312), and evidenced by Roberts (US Patent No. 5,987,688). Dengler, Li, Lee, and Roberts are references utilized in the previous Office action, e.g. Final Rejection filed on 12/31/2025.
Further, the same references, Kimoto (JP 2017209147) and Moriguchi (JP 2015123425), from Final Rejection filed on 12/31/2025, are both utilized in the above rejection(s) as teaching references.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Stoerkel (US 2015/0257520) discloses an apparatus comprising a brush head comprising a brush head surface area having a plurality of exterior bristle arrays and a plurality of interior bristle arrays capable of being arranged and shaped in a variety of different combinations, and wherein each bristle diameter within each array is different in order to provide a sufficient contact pressure during brushing.
Strahler (US Patent No. 11,219,303) discloses an apparatus comprising a brush head comprising a brush head surface area having a plurality of exterior bristle arrays and a plurality of interior bristle arrays capable of being arranged and shaped in a variety of different combinations.
Endo (JP 2000004924), as provided by Examiner, discloses an apparatus comprising a brush head comprising a brush head surface area having a plurality of exterior bristle arrays and a plurality of interior bristle arrays capable of being arranged and shaped in a variety of different combinations.
Abe (WO 2013/164986), as provided by Examiner, discloses an apparatus comprising a brush head having a plurality of exterior bristle arrays and a plurality of interior bristle arrays, wherein the cross-sectional shape of the arrays is a circle, but is not necessarily limited and may be an shape depending on the intended use of the brush, such as an ellipse, a polygon (e.g. a triangle, quadrangle, pentagon, or hexagon), or an irregular shape.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIDNEY D FULL whose telephone number is (571)272-6996. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00a.m.-2:30p.m..
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.
/SIDNEY D FULL/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights