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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/24/2025.
Status of Claims
The action is in reply to the Application filed on 04/02/2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Claims 14-17 are withdrawn. The examiner acknowledges the amendments of claims 2-5, 7-8, and 10. Claims 1-13 and 18-20 are being examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/14/2025 has been received and considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In page 002, ll. 7 and page 007, ll. 9 “a bristle patten” should be “a bristle pattern”;
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 10 “a bristle patten” should be “a bristle pattern”;
In claims 2-10, line 1 “The device of claim” should be “The oral hygiene device of claim”
In claim 7, line 10 “a cleaning head bristle patten” should be “a cleaning head bristle pattern”;
In claim 8, line 4 “the length of the long bristles” should be “[[the]] a length of the long bristles”
In claim 10, line 1 “wherein the neck” should be “wherein the neck portion”
In claim 11, line 2 “the device of claim 1” should be “the oral hygiene device of claim 1”
In claim 20, line 1 “the device of claim 1” should be “the oral hygiene device of claim 1”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-13 and 18-20 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 1 recites the limitation "the oral cavity" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "optionally" in lines 2, 7, 8, 18, 22, and 28. The recitation of “optionally” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if the limitation following the use of the term optionally are include or not included as part of the claim (are the following claim limitations part of the claim or not?), thus rendering the claim indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner is to interpret the claim limitation of optionally to be an option that can either be met or not by the prior art.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "bristles" in lines 6, 10, 13, 16, 17, 18, and 20. It is unclear if applicant is referring to multiple different bristles or if the applicant is referring back to the bristles as introduced in claim 1, line 3, thus rendering the claim indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner is to interpret the claim limitation to be referring to a single set of bristles of the cleaning head.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a cleaning head" in lines 9, 12, 15, and 20. It is unclear if applicant is referring to multiple different cleaning heads or if the applicant is referring to the cleaning head as introduced in claim 1, line 5, thus rendering the claim indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner is to interpret the claim limitation to be referring to a single cleaning head of the oral hygiene device.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the cleaning head having distal and proximal ends” in lines, 9-10 and 12-13. It is unclear if applicant is referring to multiple different distal and proximal ends or f the applicant is referring back to the distal and proximal ends of the cleaning head as introduced in claim 1, lines 5-6, thus rendering the claim indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner is to interpret the claim limitation to be referring to a single distal and a single proximal ends of the cleaning head.
The term “a tongue-like shape” in claim 3, line 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “tongue-like” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examining purposes, the Examiner is to interpret the claim limitation to be “tongue shape”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "bristles" in line 3. It is unclear if applicant is referring to multiple different bristles or if the applicant is referring back to the bristles as introduced in claim 1, line 3, thus rendering the claim indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner is to interpret the claim limitation to be referring to a single set of bristles of the cleaning head.
The term “the range of about 5° to about 40°, about 10° to about 35°, 12° to about 20°, or about 13° to about 19°” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examining purposes, the Examiner is to interpret the claim limitation to be “the range of
Claim 10 recites the limitation "optionally" in line 3. The recitation of “optionally” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if the limitation following the use of the term optionally are include or not included as part of the claim (are the following claim limitations part of the claim or not?), thus rendering the claim indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner is to interpret the claim limitation of optionally to be an option that can either be met or not by the prior art.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a distal direction” in lines 2 and 4. It is unclear if applicant is referring to multiple different distal directions or if the applicant is referring back to the distal direction as introduced in claim 10, line 1, thus rendering the claim indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner is to interpret the claim limitation to be referring to a single distal direction.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the device comprising" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear what device applicant is referring to since “an oral hygiene system” is being claimed (i.e. not a device), thus rendering the claim indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner is to interpret the claim limitation to be “the system comprising".
Claims 3-5, 7-8, 11-13, and 20 depends on claim 1, claim 19 depends claim 18, and are therefore rejected accordingly under 35 USC 112(b).
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by West (US Patent No. 2,473,773).
Regarding claim 1, West discloses: an oral hygiene device (Figures 1-3 and see also col. 1, ll. 40-46) for use in the oral cavity of a pet (Applicant is reminded, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (See MPEP 2114 (II)), the device comprising a proximal portion (see figure 1 annotated below Detail A) comprising a handle (element 5) to be held by a user (Giving that the prior art discloses the handle (element 5) and there is no structural difference or any additional structure provided, thus the prior art would be capable of having the handle be held by a user, as recited.), the handle optionally being along a central axis (see figure 1 annotated below X-X axis) of the proximal portion, and a distal portion (see figure 1 annotated below Detail B), the distal portion including bristles (element 7 and see also col. 1, ll. 44), the device including one or more of the following features:
the distal portion of the device including a cleaning head (element 6), the cleaning head including bristles (see figure 1) and having distal and proximal ends (see figure 1 annotated below Detail C and Detail D), the distal end of the cleaning head including a distally-extending protuberance (element 8), optionally the protuberance configured to taper from wider to narrower as it extends distally (see figure 2 and see also col. 1, ll. 57-58), optionally the protuberance curves away from the cleaning head (see figure 2 showing the protuberance (element 8) being bendable (phantom lines), thus being capable of curving away when being bend from portions of the cleaning head (element 6) during operations);
the distal portion of the device including a cleaning head, the cleaning head having distal and proximal ends, and including bristles having a bristle patten that is wider towards the proximal end as compared to the distal end (Giving the limitation requires “the device including one or more of the following features”, and since the prior art meets at least one of the features, thus the prior art meets claim 1),
the distal portion of the device including a cleaning head, the cleaning head having distal and proximal ends, and including bristles that are longer towards the proximal end as compared to the distal end (Giving the limitation requires “the device including one or more of the following features”, and since the prior art meets at least one of the features, thus the prior art meets claim 1),
the distal portion of the device including a cleaning head, the cleaning head including bristles, wherein the bristles are arranged on the cleaning head in the form of clusters of the bristles, wherein each cluster of bristles is spaced apart from other clusters of bristles on the cleaning head; optionally wherein bristles of each cluster are arranged in a staggered pattern on the cleaning head (Giving the limitation requires “the device including one or more of the following features”, and since the prior art meets at least one of the features, thus the prior art meets claim 1),
the distal portion including a cleaning head having bristles, the distal portion including a neck portion that is proximal to the cleaning head, the neck portion extending from the distal end of the proximal portion of the device, wherein part of the neck portion is angled away from the central axis of the proximal portion of the device, optionally the neck portion having a curved configuration (Giving the limitation requires “the device including one or more of the following features”, and since the prior art meets at least one of the features, thus the prior art meets claim 1); and/or
the distal portion of the device being detachable from the proximal portion of the device, optionally wherein the proximal portion of the device includes a protrusion on its distal end, and the distal portion of the device includes a recession on its proximal end, wherein the protrusion and recession can mate to lock the distal and proximal portions of the device together, optionally wherein locking occurs by twisting the proximal and distal portions relative to each other when the protrusion and recession are mated (Giving the limitation requires “the device including one or more of the following features”, and since the prior art meets at least one of the features, thus the prior art meets claim 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
578
1343
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, West discloses: the device of claim 1 wherein the distal portion of the device comprises the distally-extending protuberance which tapers from wider to narrower as it extends distally (see figure 2 and see also col. 1, ll. 57-58), and wherein the distally-extending protuberance is angled away from the cleaning head (see figure 2 showing the protuberance (element 8) being bendable (phantom lines), thus being capable of curving away when being bend from portions of the cleaning head (element 6) and therefore being angled away from the cleaning head) and has a tongue(see figures 2-3 showing portions (element 12) being tongue shaped).
Regarding claim 3, West discloses: the device of claim 1 wherein the distal portion of the device comprises the distally-extending protuberance having surfaces comprising top surface (see figure 2 annotated below Detail A), a bottom surface (see figure 2 annotated below Detail B), a first curved side surface (see figure 3 annotated below Detail C), and a second curved side surface (see figure 3 annotated below Detail D), wherein the first curved side surface meets the second curved side surface at the distal end of the device and forms a rounded tip (see figure 2 annotated below Detail E).
PNG
media_image2.png
754
743
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
776
821
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, West discloses: the device of claim 1 wherein the first curved side of the protuberance extends from a first curved side wall of the cleaning head, and the second curved side surface of the protuberance extends from a second curved side wall of the cleaning head (see figure 1 showing the device curved ends that extend from the right of element 5 and extends to a curved end by element 9, thus the cleaning head (element 6) would necessarily have two curved side walls (left and right walls) which the first and second curved sides (Detail C/D) of the protuberance would indirectly extend from via elements 10/11).
Regarding claim 6, West discloses: the device of claim 1 wherein the distal portion of the device comprises the distally-extending protuberance having surfaces and none of the surfaces of the protuberance comprise bristles (see figure 2 showing the distally-extending protuberance (element 8) having a plurality of surfaces with no bristles).
Claims 1, 9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shipp (US Patent No. 4,738,001).
Regarding claim 1, Shipp discloses: an oral hygiene device (Figures 1-6 and see also col. 3, ll. 61-62) for use in the oral cavity of a pet (see col. 1, ll. 5-12) the device comprising a proximal portion (see figure 1 annotated below Detail A) comprising a handle (element 12) to be held by a user (Giving that the prior art discloses the handle (element 12) and there is no structural difference or any additional structure provided, thus the prior art would be capable of having the handle be held by a user, as recited.), the handle optionally being along a central axis (element 20) of the proximal portion, and a distal portion (see figure 1 annotated below Detail B), the distal portion including bristles (element 26 and see also col. 4, ll. 7), the device including one or more of the following features:
the distal portion of the device including a cleaning head, the cleaning head including bristles and having distal and proximal ends, the distal end of the cleaning head including a distally-extending protuberance, optionally the protuberance configured to taper from wider to narrower as it extends distally, optionally the protuberance curves away from the cleaning head (Giving the limitation requires “the device including one or more of the following features”, and since the prior art meets at least one of the features (as shown below), thus the prior art meets claim 1);
the distal portion of the device including a cleaning head (element 14), the cleaning head having distal and proximal ends (see figure 1 annotated below Detail C and Detail D), and including bristles having a bristle patten that is wider towards the proximal end as compared to the distal end (see figure 2 annotated below showing the bristles (element 26) forming a bristle pattern wherein it wider towards the proximal end (see Detail W1) as compared to the distal end (see Detail W2)),
the distal portion of the device including a cleaning head, the cleaning head having distal and proximal ends, and including bristles that are longer towards the proximal end as compared to the distal end (see col. 4, ll. 15-18 and see figure 2 annotated below showing the distal end (Detail D) bristles at element 34 being shorter than the longer bristles towards the proximal end (Detail C)),
the distal portion of the device including a cleaning head, the cleaning head including bristles, wherein the bristles are arranged on the cleaning head in the form of clusters of the bristles (see figure 2 and see also col. 4, ll. 7 where the prior art discloses the bristles (element 26) as “tufts” (i.e. clusters)), wherein each cluster of bristles is spaced apart from other clusters of bristles on the cleaning head (see figure 2); optionally wherein bristles of each cluster are arranged in a staggered pattern on the cleaning head (The examiner indicates that the claim feature, specifically “cluster are arranged in a staggered pattern” is directed to the non-elected species (Species II, Figures 8-11) as disclosed in the specification page 016, ll. 31 - 017, ll. 1 and ll. 13-15. Therefore, the claimed feature of “optionally wherein bristles of each cluster are arranged in a staggered pattern on the cleaning head” is withdrawn from consideration.),
the distal portion including a cleaning head having bristles, the distal portion including a neck portion (element 22) that is proximal to the cleaning head (see figure 1), the neck portion extending from the distal end of the proximal portion of the device (see figure 1 annotated below), wherein part of the neck portion is angled (element A and see also col. 4, ll. 1-4) away from the central axis of the proximal portion of the device, optionally the neck portion having a curved configuration (see figure 1 annotated below showing portions of the neck being curved (Detail E), thus having a curved configuration); and/or
the distal portion of the device being detachable from the proximal portion of the device, optionally wherein the proximal portion of the device includes a protrusion on its distal end, and the distal portion of the device includes a recession on its proximal end, wherein the protrusion and recession can mate to lock the distal and proximal portions of the device together, optionally wherein locking occurs by twisting the proximal and distal portions relative to each other when the protrusion and recession are mated (Giving the limitation requires “the device including one or more of the following features”, and since the prior art meets at least one of the features, thus the prior art meets claim 1).
PNG
media_image4.png
543
1247
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
471
861
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Shipp discloses: the device of claim 1 wherein the neck portion is angled away from the central axis of the proximal portion (CA-PP) (see figure 1 annotated below Detail A) and the distal portion has a central axis (CA-DP) ) (see figure 1 annotated below Detail B), and the angle of lines CA-PP and CA-DP at their intersection is in the range of (see col. 4, ll. 1-3 where the prior art discloses the angle (element A) that of lines CA-PP (Detail A) and CA-DP (Detail B) being “15°”, thus being in the range of 5° to 40°, 10° to °, 12° to 20°, or 13° to 19°).
PNG
media_image6.png
504
1289
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Shipp discloses: a method for providing oral hygiene to a pet that is an animal (see Abstract), comprising introducing the device of claim 1 into the oral cavity of the animal and contacting gums or teeth of the animal with at least a portion of device (see figures 4-6, see also col. 4, ll. 58-68 and col. 5, ll. 1-8).
Regarding claim 12, Shipp discloses: the method of claim 11 wherein the animal is a cat (see col. 5, ll. 9-12).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lai (US Pub. No. 2019/0099249).
Regarding claim 18, Lai discloses: an oral hygiene system (Figures 1-6 and see also paragraph 0020) for use in the oral cavity of a pet (Applicant is reminded, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (See MPEP 2114 (II)), the device comprising a proximal portion configured as a handle (element 10 and see also paragraph 0020), and a distal portion comprising a cleaning head with bristles (element 25 and see also paragraph 0024), the distal portion being detachable from the proximal portion (see figure 3), wherein the proximal portion includes a protrusion (element 11) on its distal end (see figure 3 annotated below Detail A), and the distal portion includes a recession (element 21) on its proximal end (see figure 3 annotated below Detail B), wherein the protrusion and recession can mate to lock the distal and proximal portions together (see paragraph 0020), wherein locking occurs by twisting the proximal and distal portions relative to each other when the protrusion and recession are mated (see figure 3 and see also paragraph 0024 where the prior art discloses the connection being “a screw type”).
PNG
media_image7.png
528
656
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Lai discloses: the oral hygiene system of claim 18, wherein the system comprises at least two different distal portions (elements 22/23/24 and see also paragraph 0023), wherein the different distal portions are configured for use in different pets (Giving that there are no structural distinguish of the system and the prior art, and since all structural limitations are met (i.e. at least two different distal portions), the prior art would be capable of having the different distal portions be used in different pets, as recited.).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over West (US Patent No. 2,473,773).
Regarding claim 5, West discloses: the device of claim 1 wherein the cleaning head has a top surface (see figure 1 annotated below Detail A) and bottom surface (see figure 1 annotated below Detail A) defining a cleaning head thickness (see figure 1 annotated below Detail C), and the protuberance has a top surface (see figure 2 annotated below Detail D) and bottom surface (see figure 2 annotated below Detail E) defining a protuberance thickness (see figure 2 annotated below Detail F).
PNG
media_image8.png
576
1336
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
754
785
media_image9.png
Greyscale
However, West does not explicitly discloses the cleaning head thickness is greater than the protuberance thickness.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the oral hygiene device of West et al. to have the cleaning head thickness be greater than the protuberance thickness, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of West would not operate differently with the claimed cleaning head thickness. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the following claim limitations solves any stated problem, therefore there is no criticality placed on the cleaning head thickness being greater than the protuberance thickness such that it produces an unexpected result.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shipp (US Patent No. 4,738,001).
Regarding claim 7, Shipp discloses: the device of claim 1 wherein the cleaning head comprises a cleaning head bristle patten that is wider towards the proximal end as compared to the distal end of the cleaning head (see figure 2 annotated below showing a cleaning head bristle pattern that is wider towards the proximal end (see Detail W1) as compared to the distal end (see Detail W2), and the cleaning head has a width (Detail W2) at its narrowest part and a width (Detail W1) of the cleaning head at its widest part.
PNG
media_image5.png
471
861
media_image5.png
Greyscale
However, Shipp appears to be silent wherein the cleaning head has the width at its narrowest part that is in the range of 50-90% of the width of the cleaning head at its widest part.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the oral hygiene device of West et al. to have the cleaning head width at its narrowest part be in the range of 50-90% of the width of the cleaning head at its widest part, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of West would not operate differently with the claimed range width. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the following claim limitations solves any stated problem, indicating simply that the range “can be” within the claimed range (see page 011, ll. 4-6 of the specification), therefore there is no criticality placed on the cleaning head has the width at its narrowest part that is in the range of 50-90% of the width of the cleaning head at its widest part such that it produces an unexpected result.
Regarding claim 8, Shipp discloses: the device of claim 1 wherein the cleaning head has long bristle towards the proximal end and short bristles towards the distal end of the cleaning head (see col. 4, ll. 15-18 and see figure 2 annotated below showing the distal end (Detail D) bristles at element 34 being shorter than the longer bristles towards the proximal end (Detail C)).
PNG
media_image4.png
543
1247
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, Shipp appears to be silent wherein the short bristles have a length in the range of 35-70%, or 40-60% of the length of the long bristles.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the oral hygiene device of West et al. to have wherein the short bristles have a length in the range of 35-70%, or 40-60% of the length of the long bristles, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of West would not operate differently with the claimed length. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the following claim limitations solves any stated problem, indicating simply that the length of the bristles “can optionally” be within the claimed range (see page 012, ll. 12-14 of the specification), therefore there is no criticality placed on the short bristles have a length in the range of 35-70%, or 40-60% of the length of the long bristles such that it produces an unexpected result.
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shipp (US Patent No. 4,738,001) in view of Matsuo (JP 2013118944).
Regarding claim 13, Shipp discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claim 1, but appears to be silent wherein the neck, in a distal direction, has a diameter or a cross-sectional area that gradually becomes smaller in a distal direction, and also has a cross-sectional shape that changes in a distal direction, optionally wherein the cross-sectional shape changes from circular to oblong or oval, in a distal direction.
Matsuo is also concern in providing an oral hygiene device (Figures 1-2 and see also paragraph 0011) comprising a handle (element 6), a cleaning head (element 2) having bristles (see paragraph 0015), and a neck portion (element 4). Matsuo further teaches wherein the neck, in a distal direction (starting at element P1 and heading towards element P2), has a diameter or a cross-sectional area that gradually becomes smaller in a distal direction, and also has a cross-sectional shape that changes in a distal direction (see figure 2 and see also paragraph 0031 where the prior art discloses the neck portion (element 4) “moves from the tip P1 to the rear end P2, its cross-sectional contour changes from a roughly circular shape to a roughly square shape” and “tapers from the rear end P2 of the neck portion towards the front end P1 of the neck portion”, thus the neck portion in the distal direction has a diameter that gradually becomes smaller (i.e. taper) in the distal direction, cross-sectional shape that changes in a distal direction (see figures 2a-2b), and also has a cross-sectional shape that changes in the distal direction (i.e. from square to circular)), optionally wherein the cross-sectional shape changes from circular to oblong or oval, in a distal direction (The limitation is considered as an option that is not necessarily required.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shipp to incorporate the teachings of Matsuo to provide wherein the neck, in a distal direction, has a diameter or a cross-sectional area that gradually becomes smaller in a distal direction, and also has a cross-sectional shape that changes in a distal direction, optionally wherein the cross-sectional shape changes from circular to oblong or oval, in a distal direction. One of ordinary skilled in the art would recognize that having a desired neck portion being different in diameter/area/shape would necessarily allow the neck portion to be flex more effectively relieving the pressure applied to the area to be cleaned and making the brushing pressure more appropriate as disclosed by Matsuo (see paragraph 0031).
Claims 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagstaff (US Pub. No. 2013/0255590) in view of Shipp (US Patent No. 4,738,001).
Regarding claim 20, Wagstaff discloses: a kit (Figure 22 element 2260 and see also paragraph 0046 where the prior art discloses element 2260 as “a kit”) for providing oral hygiene to an animal (see paragraph 0174), comprising an oral treatment composition (element 2262 and see also paragraph 0174).
Furthermore, Wagstaff discloses utilizing the kit with an oral hygiene device (element 2200) and provides various different embodiments of the oral hygiene device (Figures 1A-20). However, Wagstaff appears to be silent wherein kit comprises the device of claim 1.
Shipp teaches it was known in the art to have an oral hygiene device (Figures 1-6 and see also col. 3, ll. 61-62) for use in the oral cavity of a pet (see col. 1, ll. 5-12) and further comprising the device of claim 1 (see rejection above on pages 13-16).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wagstaff to incorporate the teachings of Shipp to provide the device of claim 1. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that providing the kit with the particular structure of the oral hygiene device of claim 1 would necessarily provide the predictable result of utilizing both the device in combination with the oral treatment composition in order to thoroughly clean the teeth of the of the animal which would will necessarily prevent cavities and other known mouth diseases.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 13 recites limitation related to the method, specifically the steps of “contacting and then moving a lip of the animal with the protuberance of the distal end of the device, and then contacting the pet's teeth and/or gums of the animal with the bristles of the cleaning head”.
The prior art of West discloses the limitations of claim 1 including the device including a cleaning head (element 6) having a distally-extending protuberance (element 8) which is configured to engage gums and teeth at the gum line of a user (see col. 2, ll. 11-13). However, the prior art does not disclose the method for providing oral hygiene to a pet that is an animal and the steps of contacting and then moving a lip of the animal with the protuberance of the distal end of the device, and then contacting the pet's teeth and/or gums of the animal with the bristles of the cleaning head.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERTO SAENZ whose telephone number is (313)446-6610. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30PM 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights