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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters “110” and “110a” have both been used to designate the bottom side (para. 0034).
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. 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 6-10 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 6 recites the limitation "at least one groove" in lines 1-2. This limitation is unclear as it is unclear if the groove being referred to is one of the at least one longitudinally extending grooves of the at least three sides of the device of Claim 1, all of the at least one longitudinally extending grooves of each of sides of the device of Claim 1, or if the groove being referred to is separate from these grooves. In light of the Specification, for purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret the limitation as referring to all of the at least one longitudinally extending grooves of each of sides of the device of Claim 1 and suggests Applicant amend to clarify.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "at least one groove" in lines 1-2. This limitation is unclear as it is unclear if the groove being referred to is one of the at least one longitudinally extending grooves of the at least three sides of the device of Claim 1, all of the at least one longitudinally extending grooves of each of sides of the device of Claim 1, or if the groove being referred to is separate from these grooves. In light of the Specification, for purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret the limitation as referring to all of the at least one longitudinally extending grooves of each of sides of the device of Claim 1 and suggests Applicant amend to clarify.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a singular pointed oral stimulation tip” in line 2. However, claim 1 recites the limitation “a pointed oral stimulation tip” in lines 7-8, and it is unclear if the limitation “a singular pointed oral stimulation tip” is referring to the pointed oral stimulation tip of claim 1 or a different oral stimulation tip. In light of the Specification and Figures, for purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret the limitation of claim 10 line 2 as referring to the same stimulation tip and suggests amending to clarify.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for their dependence on one or more rejected base and/or intervening claims.
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
429
617
media_image3.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) connecting 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.
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 head (20 in Fig. 1) has a singular pointed oral stimulation tip (21 in Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image4.png
287
296
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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 groove has a groove depth that varies longitudinally.
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 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 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 grooves (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).
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) connecting 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 grooves (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 groove has a groove width that varies longitudinally.
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 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 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 grooves (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) connecting 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 grooves (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).
Conclusion
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