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 amended Specification in regard to the objection to the Drawings of 09 January 2026 were received on 7 April 2026. The amendments are acceptable.
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 1-5 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paradis (U.S. Patent No. 5,069,621 A) in view of Butz (DE 102011101391 A1 and translated PDF).
PNG
media_image1.png
492
384
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
376
598
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
287
296
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
429
617
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 1, Paradis discloses a handheld oral care device (Figs. 1-8, Abstract) comprising:
a shank (11 in Fig. 5A) having a shank longitudinal axis (shank axis in annotated Fig. 5A) extending from a shank distal end (shank distal end in annotated Fig. 5A) to a shank proximal end (shank proximal end in annotated Fig. 5A), the shank having at least three sides extending between the shank distal end and the shank proximal end (top side, bottom side, left side and right side in annotated Fig. 1),
one of the sides (top side in annotated Fig. 1) comprising at least one longitudinally extending groove (12 in Fig. 1, col. 3 lines 10-14), each groove extending at least one third the length of the side (Figs. 5A-5B);
a head (20 In Fig. 1) having a head longitudinal axis (head axis in annotated Fig. 5A) extending from a head proximal end (head proximal end in annotated Fig. 5A) with a pointed oral stimulation tip (20 in Fig. 5A, col. 3 lines 31-33) to a head distal end (head distal end in annotated Fig. 5A), the head longitudinal axis being at least 20 degrees (head angle in annotated Fig. 5A) from parallel to the shank longitudinal axis (Figs. 1 and 5A, col. 2 lines 17-21 and col. 3 lines 15-21, head 20 inserted with its axis perpendicular to groove, and is located on neck which is angled relative to shank, therefore the annotated head angle of Fig. 5A is greater than 90 degrees); and
a neck (neck in annotated Figs. 1 and 5A) extending from the shank proximal end to the head distal end (Figs. 1, 5A, and 7).
Paradis does not disclose wherein each of the sides comprise at least one groove.
Butz teaches an apparatus (Fig. 17) comprising a shank (3 in Fig. 17) having at least three sides (top, bottom, left and right sides in annotated Fig. 17), each of the sides comprise at least one groove (grooves in annotated Fig. 17, para. 0050)
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of interdental cleaning devices. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the left, right, and bottom sides of Paradis by adding at least one groove as taught by Butz in order to allow for the device to be rotated between the user’s fingers to make it easier to reach difficult areas between the teeth (Butz para. 0011).
In regard to claim 2, Paradis in vies of Butz discloses the invention of claim 1. Paradis further discloses wherein: the at least three sides include left (left side in annotated Fig. 1), right (right side in annotated Fig. 1), and top sides (top side in annotated Fig. 1), the top side extending laterally from the left side to the right side (Fig. 1), and the left, right, and top sides being located at least in a proximal portion of the shank (Figs. 1 and 5A).
In regard to claim 3, Paradis in vies of Butz discloses the invention of claim 2. Paradis further discloses wherein: the at least three sides further includes a bottom side (bottom side in annotated Fig. 1), the bottom side extending laterally from the left side to the right side (Fig. 1), and the bottom side being located at least in the proximal portion of the shank (Figs. 1 and 5A).
In regard to claim 4, Paradis in view of Butz discloses the invention of claim 2. Paradis does not disclose wherein the top side has a side profile that is convex at least in a distal portion of the shank.
Butz teaches an apparatus (Fig. 17) wherein the top side (top side in annotated Fig. 17) has a side profile that is convex (convex section in annotated Fig. 17) at least in a distal portion of the shank (Fig. 17, para. 0050, hyperboloid shape, cross section tapers towards center).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of interdental cleaning devices. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the top side of Rabinowitz in view of Butz to have a side profile that is convex at least in a distal portion of the shank as taught by Butz in order to allow for the device to be rotated between the user’s fingers to make it easier to reach difficult areas between the teeth (Butz para. 0011).
In regard to claim 5, Paradis in view of Butz discloses the invention of claim 2. Paradis does not disclose wherein the top side has a side profile that is concave at least in a proximal portion of the shank.
Butz further teaches wherein the top side (top side in annotated Fig. 17) has a side profile that is concave (concave section in annotated Fig. 17) at least in a proximal portion of the shank (Fig. 17, para. 0050, hyperboloid shape, cross section tapers towards center).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of interdental cleaning devices. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the top side of Rabinowitz in view of Butz to have a side profile that is concave at least in a proximal portion of the shank as taught by Butz in order to allow for the device to be rotated between the user’s fingers to make it easier to reach difficult areas between the teeth (Butz para. 0011).
In regard to claim 10, Paradis in view of Butz discloses the invention of claim 1. Paradis further discloses wherein the pointed oral stimulation tip (20 in Fig. 5A, col. 3 lines 31-33) is a singular pointed oral stimulation tip (21 in Fig. 1) formed of a unitary body (Figs. 1-3, 5A, 7).
In regard to claim 11, Paradis in vies of Butz discloses the invention of claim 1. Paradis further discloses wherein the head comprises at least two ridges (ridge 1 and ridge 2 in annotated Fig. 7) extending between the head proximal end and the head distal end (Fig. 7, col. 3 line 5).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paradis in view of Butz and Rabinowitz (U.S. Patent No. 4,653,480 A) as evidenced by RD Rubber (https://web.archive.org/web/20221128014837/https://rdrubber.com/materials/synthetic-rubber/ and attached PDF).
In regard to claim 12, Paradis in view of Butz discloses the invention of claim 1. Paradis does not disclose wherein the head is formed of a semi-rigid material.
Rabinowitz teaches an apparatus (Figs. 1-3) wherein the head (14 in Fig. 1) is formed of a semi-rigid material (col. 2 lines 46-48 and col. 3 lines 64-67).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of interdental cleaning devices. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the head of Paradis in view of Butz to be formed of a semi-rigid material as taught by Rabinowitz in order to prevent damage to the user’s gums (Rabinowitz col. 2 lines 46-48).
In regard to claim 13, Paradis in view of Butz and Rabinowitz discloses the invention of claim 12. Paradis does not disclose wherein the semi-rigid material comprises a polymeric material.
Rabinowitz further discloses wherein the semi-rigid material (col. 2 lines 46-48 and col. 3 lines 64-67) comprises a polymeric material (col. 3 lines 66-67, synthetic rubber; as evidenced by RD Rubber, synthetic rubber is a polymer material (p. 1, “What is Synthetic Rubber?”)).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of interdental cleaning devices. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specified the semi-rigid material of Paradis in view of Butz and Rabinowitz comprises a polymeric material as taught by Rabinowitz in order to prevent damage to the user’s gums (Rabinowitz col. 2 lines 46-48).
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paradis in view of Butz and Tsurukawa et al (U.S. Publication No. 2008/0044791 A1, hereinafter “Tsurukawa”).
PNG
media_image5.png
401
341
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 14, Paradis in view of Butz discloses the invention of claim 1. Paradis does not disclose further comprising a cap removably mountable to the neck for enclosing the head.
Tsurukawa teaches an apparatus (Figs. 1a-3b and 7a-7d) further comprising a cap (50 in Fig. 7a, para. 0041) removably mountable to a neck (neck in annotated Fig. 7a, para. 0041) for enclosing a head (2 in Fig. 7a, paras. 0020 and 0041).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of interdental cleaning devices. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specified the oral care device of Paradis in view of Butz further comprises a cap removably mountable to the neck for enclosing the head as taught by Tsurukawa in order to allow for storage of the device while maintaining a sanitary condition (Tsurukawa para. 0020).
In regard to claim 15, Paradis in view of Butz and Tsurukawa discloses the invention of claim 14. Paradis does not disclose wherein the cap comprises at least one slit extending along at least half a length of the cap.
Tsurukawa further teaches an apparatus (Figs. 1a-3b and 7a-7d) wherein the cap (50 in Fig. 7a, para. 0041) comprises at least one slit (53 in Figs. 7a, 7c and 7d) extending along at least half a length of the cap (Figs 7a, 7c and 7d).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of interdental cleaning devices. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specified the cap of Paradis in view of Butz and Tsurukawa further comprises at least one slit extending along at least half a length of the cap as taught by Tsurukawa in order to allow for storage of the device while maintaining a sanitary condition (Tsurukawa para. 0020).
In regard to claim 16, Paradis in view of Butz and Tsurukawa discloses the invention of claim 14. Paradis does not disclose wherein the cap comprises at least two protrusions extending from an interior surface of the cap, the protrusions abutting one or more of the shank or the head when the cap is mounted to the neck.
Tsurukawa further teaches wherein the cap (50 in Fig. 7a, para. 0041) comprises at least two protrusions (54 in Fig. 7b) extending from an interior surface of the cap (Fig. 7b, para. 0042), the protrusions abutting the shank (shank in annotated Fig. 7a) when the cap is mounted to the neck (neck in annotated Fig. 7a, Figs. 7b and 7d, para. 0042).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of interdental cleaning devices. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specified the cap of Paradis in view of Butz and Tsurukawa further comprises at least two protrusions extending from an interior surface of the cap, the protrusions abutting one or more of the shank or the head when the cap is mounted to the neck as taught by Tsurukawa in order to allow for attachment and detachment of the cap (Tsurukawa para. 0042) to allow storage of the device while maintaining a sanitary condition (Tsurukawa para. 0020).
Claims 6-7, 17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paradis in view of Butz and Ohnishi et al (WO 2008153070 A1 and translated PDF, hereinafter “Ohnishi”).
In regard to claim 6, Paradis in view of Butz discloses the invention of claim 1. Paradis does not disclose wherein at least one of the at least one longitudinally extending groove has a groove depth that varies longitudinally.
Ohnishi teaches an apparatus (Figs. 1-6B) comprising at least one longitudinally extending groove (7 In annotated Fig. 1, p. 11 lines 15-19) wherein at least one of the at least one longitudinally extending groove has a groove depth that varies longitudinally (p. 12 lines 1-5).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of handheld dental cleaning devices. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specified that at least one of the at least one longitudinally extending groove of Paradis in view of Butz have a groove depth that varies longitudinally as taught by Ohnishi in order to allow for optimization of the anti-slip effects and operability (Ohnishi p. 6 lines 12-16).
In regard to claim 7, Paradis in view of Butz and Ohnishi discloses the invention of claim 6. Paradis does not disclose wherein the groove depth decreases towards the shank distal end.
Ohnishi teaches an apparatus (Figs. 1-6B) comprising at least one longitudinally extending groove (7 In annotated Fig. 1, p. 11 lines 15-19) wherein the groove depth decreases towards the shank distal end (p. 12 lines 1-5, depth decreases from 2a down toward 2c in Fig. 1).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of handheld dental cleaning devices. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specified that at least one of the longitudinally extending grooves of Paradis in view of Butz and Ohnishi have a groove depth that decreases towards the shank distal end as taught by Ohnishi in order to allow for optimization of the anti-slip effects and operability (Ohnishi p. 6 lines 12-16).
In regard to claim 17, Paradis discloses a handheld oral care device (Figs. 1-8, Abstract) comprising:
a shank (11 in Fig. 5A) having a shank longitudinal axis (shank axis in annotated Fig. 5A) extending from a shank distal end (shank distal end in annotated Fig. 5A) to a shank proximal end (shank proximal end in annotated Fig. 5A), the shank having at least three sides extending between the shank distal end and the shank proximal end (top side, bottom side, left side and right side in annotated Fig. 1),
one of the sides (top side in annotated Fig. 1) comprising at least one longitudinally extending groove (12 in Fig. 1, col. 3 lines 10-14);
a head (20 In Fig. 1) having a head longitudinal axis (head axis in annotated Fig. 5A) extending from a head proximal end (head proximal end in annotated Fig. 5A) with a pointed oral stimulation tip (20 in Fig. 5A, col. 3 lines 31-33) to a head distal end (head distal end in annotated Fig. 5A), the head longitudinal axis being at least 20 degrees from parallel to the shank longitudinal axis (Figs. 1 and 5A, col. 2 lines 17-21 and col. 3 lines 15-21, head 20 inserted with its axis perpendicular to groove, and is located on neck which is angled relative to shank, therefore the annotated head angle of Fig. 5A is greater than 90 degrees); and
a neck (neck in annotated Figs. 1 and 5A) extending from the shank proximal end to the head distal end (Figs. 1 and 5A).
Paradis does not disclose wherein each of the sides comprise at least one groove, each groove having a groove depth that varies longitudinally.
Butz teaches an apparatus (Fig. 17) comprising a shank (3 in Fig. 17) having at least three sides (top, bottom, left and right sides in annotated Fig. 17), each of the sides comprise at least one groove (grooves in annotated Fig. 17, para. 0050)
Ohnishi teaches an apparatus (Figs. 1-6B) comprising grooves (7 In annotated Fig. 1, p. 11 lines 15-19) wherein at least one groove has a groove depth that varies longitudinally (p. 12 lines 1-5).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of handheld dental cleaning devices.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the left, right, and bottom sides of Paradis by adding at least one groove as taught by Butz in order to allow for the device to be rotated between the user’s fingers to make it easier to reach difficult areas between the teeth (Butz para. 0011).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specified the grooves of Paradis in view of Butz have a groove depth that varies longitudinally as taught by Ohnishi in order to allow for optimization of the anti-slip effects and operability (Ohnishi p. 6 lines 12-16).
In regard to claim 21, Paradis in view of Butz and Ohnishi discloses the invention of claim 17. Paradis does not disclose wherein the groove depth decreases towards the shank distal end.
Ohnishi teaches an apparatus (Figs. 1-6B) comprising at least one longitudinally extending groove (7 In annotated Fig. 1, p. 11 lines 15-19) wherein the groove depth decreases towards the shank distal end (p. 12 lines 1-5, depth decreases from 2a down toward 2c in Fig. 1).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of handheld dental cleaning devices. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specified the grooves of Paradis in view of Butz and Ohnishi have a groove depth that decreases towards the shank distal end as taught by Ohnishi in order to allow for optimization of the anti-slip effects and operability (Ohnishi p. 6 lines 12-16).
Claims 8-9, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paradis in view of Butz and Buisson (FR 2679426 A1 and translated PDF).
PNG
media_image6.png
630
372
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 8, Paradis in view of Butz discloses the invention of claim 1. Paradis does not disclose wherein at least one of the at least one longitudinally extending groove has a groove width that varies longitudinally.
Buisson teaches an apparatus (Figs. 1-3) comprising at least one longitudinally extending groove (5 and 7 in Figs. 1-2) wherein at least one of the at least one longitudinally extending groove has a groove width (groove widths 1 and 2 in annotated Fig. 1) that varies longitudinally (para. 0008).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of handheld dental cleaning devices. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specified that at least one of the at least one longitudinally extending grooves of Paradis in view of Butz have a groove width that varies longitudinally as taught by Buisson in order to allow for improving the grip of the handle on the fingers of the hand (Buisson para. 0009).
In regard to claim 9, Paradis in view of Butz and Buisson discloses the invention of claim 8. Paradis does not disclose wherein the groove width decreases towards the shank proximal end.
Buisson teaches an apparatus (Figs. 1-3) comprising least one longitudinally extending groove (5 and 7 in Figs. 1-2) wherein the groove width (groove width 1 and 2 in annotated Fig. 1) decreases towards the shank proximal end (shank proximal end in annotated Fig. 1, para. 0008).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of handheld dental cleaning devices. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specified the groove widths of Paradis in view of Butz and Buisson decreases towards the shank proximal end as taught by Buisson in order to allow for improving the grip of the handle on the fingers of the hand (Buisson para. 0009).
In regard to claim 19, Paradis discloses a handheld oral care device (Figs. 1-8, Abstract) comprising:
a shank (11 in Fig. 5A) having a shank longitudinal axis (shank axis in annotated Fig. 5A) extending from a shank distal end (shank distal end in annotated Fig. 5A) to a shank proximal end (shank proximal end in annotated Fig. 5A), the shank having at least three sides extending between the shank distal end and the shank proximal end (top side, bottom side, left side and right side in annotated Fig. 1),
one of the sides (top side in annotated Fig. 1) comprising at least one longitudinally extending groove (12 in Fig. 1, col. 3 lines 10-14);
a head (20 In Fig. 1) having a head longitudinal axis (head axis in annotated Fig. 5A) extending from a head proximal end (head proximal end in annotated Fig. 5A) with a pointed oral stimulation tip (20 in Fig. 5A, col. 3 lines 31-33) to a head distal end (head distal end in annotated Fig. 5A), the head longitudinal axis being at least 20 degrees (head angle in annotated Fig. 5A) from parallel to the shank longitudinal axis (Figs. 1 and 5A, col. 2 lines 17-21 and col. 3 lines 15-21, head 20 inserted with its axis perpendicular to groove, and is located on neck which is angled relative to shank, therefore the annotated head angle of Fig. 5A is greater than 90 degrees); and a neck (neck in annotated Figs. 1 and 5A) extending from the shank proximal end to the head distal end (Figs. 1 and 5A).
Paradis does not disclose wherein each of the sides comprise at least one groove, each groove having a groove width that varies longitudinally.
Butz teaches an apparatus (Fig. 17) comprising a shank (3 in Fig. 17) having at least three sides (top, bottom, left and right sides in annotated Fig. 17), each of the sides comprise at least one groove (grooves in annotated Fig. 17, para. 0050)
Buisson teaches an apparatus (Figs. 1-3) comprising grooves (5 and 7 in Figs. 1-2) wherein at least one groove has a groove width (groove widths 1 and 2 in annotated Fig. 1) that varies longitudinally (para. 0008).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of handheld dental cleaning devices.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the left, right, and bottom sides of Paradis by adding at least one groove as taught by Butz in order to allow for the device to be rotated between the user’s fingers to make it easier to reach difficult areas between the teeth (Butz para. 0011).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specified the grooves of Paradis in view of Butz have a groove width that varies longitudinally as taught by Buisson in order to allow for improving the grip of the handle on the fingers of the hand (Buisson para. 0009).
In regard to claim 22, Paradis in view of Butz and Buisson discloses the invention of claim 19. Paradis does not disclose wherein the groove width decreases towards the shank proximal end.
Buisson teaches an apparatus (Figs. 1-3) comprising at least one longitudinally extending groove (5 and 7 in Figs. 1-2) wherein the groove width (groove width 1 and 2 in annotated Fig. 1) decreases towards the shank proximal end (shank proximal end in annotated Fig. 1, para. 0008).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of handheld dental cleaning devices. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specified the groove widths of Paradis in view of Butz and Buisson decreases towards the shank proximal end as taught by Buisson in order to allow for improving the grip of the handle on the fingers of the hand (Buisson para. 0009).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant argues that Paradis does not disclose the limitations of a neck extending from the shank proximal end to the head distal end of amended independent claims 1, 17 ,and 19. Applicant argues that in Paradis, the head 20 includes a head proximal end 21 at one end and a head distal end 24 at the opposite end, and in Figs. 2 and 3, the neck 13 defines an aperture 15 through which the head 20 passes, and the neck connects to the head 20 by engaging a detent 23 located between the tip 21 and the hub 24. Applicant argues that therefore, in Paradis, the neck connects to a middle portion of the head at the detent, and the head distal end 24 protrudes freely from the opposite side of the aperture and is emphatically not connected to the neck. Applicant argues that because the neck in Paradis does not connect to the head distal end, Paradis fails to teach the claimed structural arrangement, and it would not be obvious to modify Paradis in view of any other reference to have the claimed neck connection because to do so would destroy the intended function and advantages that Paradis teaches with regard to the protrusion of hub 24 beyond the aperture.
Examiner notes that in the above rejection, Figures 5A and 7 of Paradis have been re-annotated in order to show the locations of the head distal end and head proximal end in view of the amendments. Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments are narrower than the claim limitations, as connecting via a detent in the middle of head 20 does not exclude the neck from extending from the shank proximal end to the head distal end. Examiner notes that Applicant argues that the neck in Paradis does not connect to the head distal end, however the neck of Paradis extends from the shank proximal end to the head distal end as annotated Figs. 5A and 7. Examiner notes that Paradis discloses a neck (neck in Figs. 1 and 5A) extending from the shank proximal end (shank proximal end in annotated Figs. 1 and 5A) to the head distal end (head distal end in annotated Figs. 5A and 7), as claimed. Applicant is directed to the rejections in view of the amendments.
Applicant argues that secondary reference, Butz, does not cure this fundamental structural deficiency, and the combination of Paradis and Butz fails to teach or suggest the limitations of amended independent claim 1, 17, and 19. Applicant argues that the additional references applied by the Examiner to the dependent claims and remaining independent claims, Rabinowitz (and RD Rubber), Tsurukawa, Ohnishi, and Buisson, do not address, teach, suggest, or otherwise cure the primary deficiencies of Paradis and Butz regarding the claimed neck-to-head connection. Applicant argues that because the cited combinations fail to teach all of the limitations of the independent claims, both the independent claims and the claims depending therefrom are non-obvious, and accordingly, requests the withdrawal of the rejections under 35 U S.C. § 103 for independent claims 1, 17, and 19, as well as all of their respective dependent claims (claims 2-16, 21, and 22).
Examiner notes that, as noted above, Paradis discloses the amended limitation of amended independent claims 1, 17, and 19, as claimed. Applicant is directed to the rejections in view of the amendments.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY N HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-7219. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-5:00PM (EST) flex, 2nd Friday off.
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, Eric Rosen can be reached at (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 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.
/COURTNEY N HUYNH/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights