DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 17/567396, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The disclosure of application 17/567396 fails to provide support for the limitation recited in claim 1 lines 22-25 requiring “…the central bristle tuft has a first height…each of the plurality of perimetric bristle tufts has a second height measured along the curved outer edge and a curved third height measure along the inner edge, the first height being greater than the second height and less than the third height.” The disclosure of application 17/567396 fails to provide support for the limitation recited in claim 17 lines 9-12 requiring “…the central bristle tuft has a first height…each of the plurality of perimetric bristle tufts has a second height measured along the curved outer edge and a third height measure along the curved inner edge, the first height being greater than the second height and less than the third height.” In 17/567396 Figure 7 and paragraph [0075] of the specification provides support for “the distal ends of the bristles together define a sloped distal end 281 of the wedge-shaped cleaning element 280 that has a peak furthest from the center of the cavity 230”. This is different than what is recited in each of independent claims 1 and 17 requiring that the first height (of the central bristle tuft) being greater than the second height (of the curved outer edge of each perimetric bristle tuft) and less than the third height (of the curved inner edge of the perimetric bristle tuft).
The disclosure of application 17/567396 fails to provide support for the limitation of claim 6 that recites: “referenced axis extending from the head in a direction perpendicular to the first surface, the central bristle tuft having an outer surface that is parallel to the reference axis, and each of the perimetric bristle comprising further comprising an outer surface that is parallel to the reference axis.” Paragraph [0074] describes “one group 210 of non-parallel tooth cleaning elements 220”; this is the central cleaning element. The disclosure of 17/567396 appears to contradict the limitations of claim 6.
The disclosure of application 17/567396 fails to provide support for “each distal surface of each of the plurality of perimetric distal tufts has a non-linear slope” as required in claim 7.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the recitation in claims 1 and 17 requiring that the central bristle tuft having a first height, each of the plurality of perimetric bristle tufts has a second height measured along the curved outer edge and a third height measure along the curved inner edge, the first height being greater than the second height and less than the third height must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). The recitation in claim 6, a reference axis, the central bristle tuft having an outer surface parallel to the reference axis, and each of the perimetric bristles having an outer surface parallel to the reference axis is not shown in the drawings. The recitation in claim 7 requiring each distal surface of each of the plurality of perimetric distal tufts has a non-linear slope” is also not shown in the drawings. No new matter should be entered.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The specification fails to provide support for the limitation recited in claim 1 lines 22-25 requiring “…the central bristle tuft has a first height…each of the plurality of perimetric bristle tufts has a second height measured along the curved outer edge and a curved third height measure along the inner edge, the first height being greater than the second height and less than the third height.” The specification fails to provide support for the limitation recited in claim 17 lines 9-12 requiring “…the central bristle tuft has a first height…each of the plurality of perimetric bristle tufts has a second height measured along the curved outer edge and a third height measure along the curved inner edge, the first height being greater than the second height and less than the third height.” Figure 7 and paragraph [0075] of the specification provides support for “the distal ends of each of the bristles together define a sloped distal end 281 of the wedge-shaped cleaning element 280 that has a peak furthest from the center of the cavity”. This establishes that the perimetric tuft outer edge has a greater height than the perimetric tuft inner edge. The specification does not describe the heights of the central bristle tuft or the inner and outer edges of the perimetric bristle tufts, specifically that the first height (central tuft) is greater than the second height (perimetric tuft outer edge) and less than the third height (perimetric inner edge). The specification fails to provide support for the limitation of claim 6 that recites: “referenced axis extending from the head in a direction perpendicular to the first surface, the central bristle tuft having an outer surface that is parallel to the reference axis, and each of the perimetric bristle comprising further comprising an outer surface that is parallel to the reference axis.” Paragraph [0074] describes “one group 210 of non-parallel tooth cleaning elements 220”; this is the central cleaning element.
The specification fails to provide support for the limitation in claim 2 requiring that “the curved inner edges of the plurality of perimetric bristle tufts are at least partially in contact with an inner reference ring…and wherein the curved outer edges of the plurality of perimetric bristle tufts are at least partially in contact with an outer reference ring…”
The specification fails to provide support for the limitation in claim 7 requiring “each distal surface of each of the plurality of perimetric distal tufts has a non-linear slope.”
The specification fails to provide support for the limitation of claim 11 requiring that “the major axis length (of the elliptical shape)” being “less than twice the length of the minor axis length”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 24 currently recites “…a curved third height measure along the inner edge…” This appears to include typographical errors and that the applicant may have intended to recite “…a third height measured along the curved inner edge”.
Claim 6 contains numerous typographical errors. First, line 1 recites “a referenced axis” and lines 3 and 4 each recite “the reference axis”. It appears that the axis described in line 1 is meant to be referred to as a “reference axis”. Second, in line 3 “bristle” should be pluralized as “bristles”. Third, the phrase in lines 3-4 “comprising further comprising” repeats the word “comprising” unnecessarily, the phrase appears to be intended as “further comprising”.
Claim 12 lines 4-5 recites “…tuft comprising a: a central bristle tuft…” It appears that one instance of “a” should be removed.
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 1-11 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 lines 18-19 requires that “each of the plurality of perimetric bristle tufts has a distal surface that slopes downward from the curved outer edge to the curved inner edge” and in lines 22-25 recites that “…the central bristle tuft has a first height…each of the plurality of perimetric bristle tufts has a second height measured along the curved outer edge and a curved third height measure along the inner edge, the first height being greater than the second height and less than the third height.” Claim 1 lines 18-19 contradict lines 22-25 relating to the heights and slopes of the perimetric bristle tufts. It is not clear to the examiner as to how the distal surface of the perimetric bristle tufts can slope downward from the curved outer edge to the curved inner edge and where the first height of the central bristle tuft can be greater than the second height of the curved outer edge of the perimetric tuft and less than the third height taken along the inner edge of the perimetric tuft. Therefore claim 1 is indefinite and unclear, claims 2-11 depend from claim 1.
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 pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claim(s) 12 and 15-16 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by DE 20213325U1 (see English translation).
Regarding claim 12, DE 20213325U1 disclose an oral care implement (electric toothbrush, see English translation of Abstract) comprising: a head (6) comprising a first surface (top surface of 6 where bristle field 2 extends, see Figures); a plurality of bristle tufts extending from the first surface of the head (3, 4, 5, 7, 8), the plurality of bristle tufts comprising: a central bristle tuft (7); and a plurality of perimetric bristle tufts circumferentially surrounding the central bristle tuft (perimetric tufts 4, 5; Figures 1-2), each of the plurality of perimetric bristle tufts being wedge shaped and comprising a curved outer edge having a first length measured in a circumferential direction (Figures 1-2) and a curved inner edge having a second length measured in the circumferential direction, the first length being greater than the second length (Figures 1-2); wherein each of the perimetric bristle tufts has a distal surface that slopes downward from the curved outer edge to the curved inner edge (best shown in Figure 2), the curved inner edge of each of the plurality of perimetric bristle tufts being adjacent the central bristle tuft (Figures 1-2). Regarding claim 15, no bristle tufts are located between the curved inner edges of the plurality of perimetric bristle tufts and an outer surface of the central bristle tuft (Figures 1-2 show no bristle tufts between perimetric bristle tufts 4 and 5 and central bristle tuft 7). Regarding claim 16, the inner edge of each of the plurality of perimetric bristle tufts is immediately adjacent the central bristle tuft (Figures 1-2 show an inner edge of each of perimetric bristle tufts 4 and 5 immediately adjacent central bristle tuft 7) and the curved outer edge of each of the plurality of perimetric bristle tufts is immediately adjacent an outer perimeter of the first surface of the head (Figures 1-2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 13 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over DE 20213325U1 (see English translation) as applied to claim 12 in view of Chenvainu et al., US 7,941,886.
DE 20213325U1 discloses all elements discussed above, however fails to disclose that the head has a substantially elliptical shape in plan view.
Regarding claim 13, Chenvainu teaches a toothbrush head (12, 16) having a substantially elliptical outer shape (Figure 1C, Column 3 Lines 26-28) and it has perimetric bristle tufts (52) that extend from a first surface of the elliptical head (Figures 1C and 2-3). Chenvainu also states that it is known for toothbrushes to have a head that is generally circular or oval in shape (Column 1 Lines 16-21).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the generally circular outer shape of the head of DE 20213325U1 to be substantially elliptical in plan view, as taught by Chenvainu et al., as an equivalent alternative as it is known and acceptable for an oral care implement head to be round or elliptical.
3. Claim 14 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over DE 20213325U1 (see also computer generated English translation) as applied to claim 12 in view of Chun et al., US 2012/0204371.
DE 20213325U1 disclose all elements previously disclosed above, however fail to disclose that the central bristle tuft has an elliptical shape in plan view having a major axis and a minor axis, the major axis extending along a longitudinal axis of the head. Further it is noted that MPEP 2144.04 discusses aesthetic design changes and states that “…matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.” (In re Seid, 161 F .d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947)). Also MPEP 2144.04 recites that in regard to changes in shape: In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). The Applicant’s disclosure does not provide evidence or mechanical function that the configuration and shape of the central bristle tuft is significant.
Chun et al. teaches advantages of elliptical shaped tufts of bristles (Figures 1-2) so as to provide an improved distribution of force to allow effective brushing with reduced force on tooth structures (paragraphs 0006, 0019-0020, 0043). In Chun et al. the bristle tufts have an elliptical shape in plan view having a major axis and a minor axis, the major axis extending along the longitudinal axis of the head (Figures 1-2, paragraphs 0006, 0019-0020, 0043).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the generally non-circular central bristle tuft of DE 20213325U1 to have an elliptical shape in plan view having a major axis and a minor axis, the major axis extending along the longitudinal axis of the head as taught by Chun et al. so that there is an improved distribution of force from the bundle of bristles to allow for more effective brushing and additionally so that the shape of the central bristle tuft provides a desired aesthetic.
Claim 17 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over DE 20213325U1 (see English translation) in view of Chenvainu et al., US 7,941,886 and Miller, US 1,981,657.
Regarding claim 17, DE 20213325U1 discloses an oral care implement (electric toothbrush, see English translation of Abstract) including a head comprising a first surface (6, Figure 1), a central bristle tuft extending from the first surface of the head (7, Figure 1), and a plurality of perimetric bristle tufts extending from the first surface of the head and arranged to circumferentially surround the central bristle tuft (perimetric tufts 4 and 5, Figures 1-2), wherein each of the plurality of perimetric bristle tufts has an inner edge adjacent to the central bristle tuft and an outer edge adjacent to an outer edge of the head (Figures 1-2), and wherein the central bristle tuft has a first height and wherein each of the plurality of perimetric bristle tufts has a second height measured along the curved outer edge and a third height measured along the curved inner edge, the first height is greater than the third height and less than the first height (particularly shown in Figure 2). DE 20213325U1 does not disclose that the head has a substantially elliptical outer shape in plan view.
Chenvainu teaches a toothbrush head (12, 16) having a substantially elliptical outer shape (Figure 1C, Column 3 Lines 26-28) and it has perimetric bristle tufts (52) that extend from a first surface of the elliptical head (Figures 1C and 2-3). Chenvainu also states that it is known for toothbrushes to have a head that is generally circular or oval in shape (Column 1 Lines 16-21).
Miller teaches an oral care device (toothbrush , Title) that has a plurality of wedge-shaped perimetric bristle tufts (7, Figure 1). Regarding claim 17, note that the height of each perimetric-tuft is greatest at its inner edge and has a shortest height at its outer edge (see particularly Figures 3-5). Miller teaches that by providing the greatest height at its inner edge and its shortest height at the outer edge that the free ends form faces suited for removing foreign matter from recesses within the teeth or along occlusal faces of the teeth (page 1 lines 51-78).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the generally circular outer shape of the head of DE 20213325U1 to be substantially elliptical in plan view, as taught by Chenvainu et al., as an equivalent alternative as it is known and acceptable for an oral care implement head to be round or elliptical. Further, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second and third heights of the perimetric bristle tufts of DE 20213325U1 so that the second height is the shortest and the third height is the longest, as Miller teaches, resulting in the first height being greater than the second height and less than the third height so that the end face of the bristle tuft is best suited for cleaning within tooth crevices or along occlusal surfaces of teeth.
Claims 18-19 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over DE 20213325U1 (see English translation), Chenvainu et al., US 7,941,886, and Miller, US 1,981,657 as applied to claim 17 in view of Kraemer, US 7,788,756.
DE 20213325U1, Chenvainu et al., and Miller fail to disclose that the central tuft comprises nylon bristles. Further regarding claim 19, the first height of the central bristle of DE 20213325U1 is an average height of each of the bristles (as shown in Figures 1-2).
Kraemer teaches an oral care implement comprising bristles (). Regarding claims 18-19, Kraemer particularly teaches that it is known for toothbrush bristles to conventionally be formed from nylon (column 8 lines 11-15).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the bristles of the central bristle tuft of DE 20213325U1, Chenvainu et al., and Miller from nylon, as Kraemer teaches, as it is a conventional and known material used to form bristles for an electric toothbrush.
Claim 20 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over DE 20213325U1 (see English translation), Chenvainu et al., US 7,941,886 and Miller, US 1,981,657 as applied to claim 17 in view of Jimenez et al., WO 2011/078860.
DE 20213325U1, Chenvainu et al., and Miller fail to disclose that each of the plurality of perimetric bristle tufts comprises tapered bristles.
Jimenez et al. teach an oral care implement also having wedge-shaped perimetric bristle tufts (170, 171, 172; see Figures). Regarding claim 20, Jimenez et al. teach that using soft and tapered bristles (with bristles of 170) may be beneficial for user’s having sensitive teeth, that having softer bristles may provide gentle cleaning and reduce friction at the gum line (paragraph [0057]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bristles of the perimetric bristle tufts of DE 20213325U1, Chenvainu et al., and Miller so that the tufts comprise tapered bristles, as Jimenez et al. teach, to provide a softer brushing experience for a user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Laura C Guidotti whose telephone number is (571)272-1272. The examiner can normally be reached typically M-F, 6am-9am, 10am-4:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAURA C GUIDOTTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
lcg
Prosecution Insights