DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 1-5 is/are titled improperly because the titles of each figure must be larger than the numbers used for reference characters (see 37 CFR 1.84(u)).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim 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.
Claim(s) 2 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2: recites “wherein the connecting portion…is a contracted form”; however, it is unclear what “a contracted form” is supposed to mean or what shape it is meant to imply making the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. For examination purposes, the claim will be treated as reciting “wherein the connecting portion has a dimension smaller than the contact fabric piece”.
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) 1-7, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Shaykova (US 10264875).
Claim 1: Shaykova discloses a two finger cleaning cap (300, Fig 3 & see annotations) made of mesh or gauze (Col 3, 10-20 & Col 4, 50-62), a known fabric. The cap comprises a contact fabric piece (rear) with a first cleaning portion (covering the index finger) and a second cleaning portion (covering the thumb) with the first cleaning portion joined to the second cleaning portion by a connecting portion that can fold over during use thereby forming a “folded over portion” (see annotations). On the first cleaning portion is a first (front portion covering index finger) cover fabric piece (front of 300, Fig 3C) forming a first finger cap for the index finger including first long sides (see annotations) secured together by a plurality of fixing threads (see annotations; Col 3, 45-60) or stitches and forming an opening for the index finger. A second cover fabric (front portion covering the thumb) encasing the thumb is formed as the second cleaning portion and forms a second finger cap with the contact fabric piece (rear) and together these form a second finger cap space (interior) by joining two second long sides together to form a second opening (for the thumb). The second long sides are joined together by a plurality of fixing threads (see annotations; Col 3, 45-60) or stitches. A length of floss is positioned and secured inside the central connecting portion that can fold (since it forms the joint between the finger caps which is flexible/foldable).
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
396
526
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2: Shaykova discloses the invention of claim 1 and further illustrates the connecting portion having a smaller dimension than the entire contact fabric piece (see annotations) so they have different dimensions, which as best understood is what is meant by “contracted form”.
Claims 3 and 5: Shaykova discloses the invention of claim 1 and further illustrates the length of the first cleaning portion being greater than the length of the second cleaning portion (see annotations). The length of the first front cover fabric is greater than a length of the second cover fabric (see Fig 3).
Claims 4 and 6: Shaykova discloses the invention of claim 1 and further illustrates the width of the second cleaning portion at its tip end being greater than that of the first cleaning portion (see Fig 3A). The width of the second cover fabric at its tip end is greater than the width of the first cover fabric at its tip end (see Fig 3A).
Claim 7: Shaykova discloses the invention of claim 1 and further illustrates a plurality of joining threads distributed evenly or in an equidistant configuration (see Fig 3) and fixing the ends of the floss within the folded over central connecting portion (see Fig 3) with the threads on at least two corresponding sides (top and bottom) of the folded over central connecting portion.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. McDevitt teaches similar finger caps with joined dental floss and teaches thermal bonding, adhesive, and stitching to all be known methods of joining pieces of these types of devices together, as well as joining the floss to the device. Stouffer and Bori each teach single finger caps with separate compartments for the finger and the length of floss.
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-Friday 10:00am-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