DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The replacement drawings were received on 3/11/26. These drawings are accepted and overcome the previous objection(s).
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 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 –
102(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) 1-4, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Shaykova (US 10264875).
Claims 1-3: Shaykova discloses a single finger cap (300, Fig 3 & see annotations; note the claims recite “comprising” and not “consisting” so since Shaykova discloses at least one finger cap, this is equivalent to disclosing a “single finger cap”) made of mesh or gauze (Col 3, 10-20 & Col 4, 50-62), a known fabric. The cap comprises a first (front) contact fabric piece (front of 300, Fig 3C) including a first long side (see annotations), a first curved side (see annotations), a first short side (see annotations), and a first slanting side (see annotations); a second contact fabric piece (rear of 300, Fig 3C) including a second long side (see annotations), a second curved side (see annotations), a second short side (see annotations), and a second slanting side (see annotations). A length of floss (303) is secured in a holding space between the long side of the first contact fabric piece and the long side of the second contact fabric piece (see Fig 3B). A plurality of fixing threads (see annotations; Col 3, 45-60) or stitches are located between top and bottom ends of the long side of the first contact fabric piece fixing the floss and its two ends in the holding space between the long sides of the first and second fabric contact pieces (see annotations). A plurality of joining threads or stitches (see annotations) join the first long side to the second long side, the first short side to the second short side and the first curved side to the second side thereby joining the first contact fabric piece to the symmetric second contact fabric piece (see Fig 3 & annotations) and forming at least one finger cap space therebetween (see Fig 3B). Since the two fabric contact pieces are symmetric, they correspond in shape and arrangement to each other (see Fig 3 & annotations).
Regarding the language “hot melt thread”, the applicant is advised that, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In this case, the cited limitations failed to distinguish the claimed structure from the patented threads of Shaykova. See MPEP § 2113.
Alternatively, Shaykova discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for the threads being explicitly “hot melt threads”; the office notes that when melted “hot melt threads” become an adhesive or glue holding the elements together. This makes the limitation “hot melt threads” a product-by-process limitation because applicant is attempting to limit the device by its method of manufacturing when the end result is the same, the end result being that the fabric pieces are joined together and a floss is joined to the fabric pieces with the same attachment means joining the fabric pieces. Furthermore, while Shaykova does not explicitly require the threads to be “hot melt threads”; Shaykova does indicate that any suitable means can be used to join the elements of the device together (Col 3, 45-60) including for example stitching or adhesive. So the office also asserts that if applicant disagrees that the threads of Shaykova teach “hot melt threads”, then the “adhesive” constitutes “hot melt threads” because “hot melt threads” are only threads before the manufacturing process is complete, after it is complete, they are an adhesive.
PNG
media_image1.png
294
528
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 4: Shaykova discloses the invention of claim 1 and further illustrates the plurality of joining threads distributed evenly or in an equidistant configuration (see Fig 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues their device “solves a different technical problem of the inconvenience of carrying multiple tools for cleaning teeth”; however, this argument is confusing and not persuasive because Shaykova discloses a fabric finger cap and floss, which is what applicant discloses and claims. Shaykova solved this problem, so the argument that applicant solves a “different problem” is unpersuasive and confusing.
Applicant argues that Shaykova must be modified to comprise only one finger cap to meet the claims; this is incorrect. Applicant’s claims recite “comprising”, not “consisting of”, so the device must comprise at least one finger cap and not only one. No modification of Shaykova is needed to meet the claim limitation of “a single finger cap” because Shaykova discloses a device including at least one single finger cap.
Applicant argues that a user can open applicant’s device and use the interior for cleaning if desired; the office asserts the same thing is possible with the device of Shaykova. Stitches can be broken with force just like with holt melt threads and a user if they wanted can use the interior of the finger cap for cleaning.
Applicant then argues that “hot melt threads create seamless smooth bonds without knots or rough seams”; however, there is no evidence provided that indicates the seams of Shaykova are not smooth so this argument appears to be applicant’s opinion. Additionally, Shaykova discloses that adhesive can also be used to bond the seams together, which is what “hot melt threads” are when melted (which is when manufacturing is complete), so this argument is also not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jennifer Gill whose telephone number is (571)270-1797. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9:00am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Eric Rosen, can be reached on 571-270-7855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNIFER GILL/
Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/NICHOLAS D LUCCHESI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights