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 .
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “brushing girth means”; “girth resizing means”; “control means”; “hydraulic means”; “pneumatic means” in claim 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 22 and 23 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.
Regarding claims 22 and 23, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claim(s) 20-26 and 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creed (US 4,863,380) in view of Elbaz et al. (US 2010/0015567).
Creed discloses an interdental brushing system, comprising brushing girth means (37); and control means (13), a hydraulic means or pneumatic means comprising one fluid chamber (13) which is divided into reservoir region and girth region (33), which are collectively arranged such that control means, and wherein control means comprises a flexible material (col. 1, lines 60-65) which is positioned in, or surrounds, reservoir region, such that it can be squeezed using finger pressure to displace a sufficient amount of fluid from reservoir region into girth region (col. 2, lines 5-15). Creed does not disclose a girth resizing means wherein the girth resizing means is configured to expand or contract the girth to suit the different sizes of gaps in-between teeth. Elbaz et al. teach a dental hygiene tool comprising brushing girth means (26); and control means (105), a hydraulic means or pneumatic means comprising one fluid chamber (107) which is divided into reservoir region and girth region, a girth resizing means wherein the girth resizing means is configured to expand or contract the girth to suit the different sizes of gaps in-between teeth (Fig. 6; paragraph 29). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the brushing girth of Creed be able to resize by expanding or contracting as taught by Elbaz et al. to allow for accommodation of spaces inbetween teeth.
Regarding claim 21, Creed further discloses the system comprises a handle (17) which substantially surrounds control means (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 22, Creed further discloses the fluid chamber comprises hydraulic means, and wherein the hydraulic means comprises a liquid (col. 3, lines 5-15).
Regarding claim 23, Creed further discloses the fluid chamber comprises pneumatic means, and wherein the pneumatic means comprises a gas such as air (col. 3, lines 15-25)
Regarding claim 24, Creed further discloses the fluid chamber is sealed (col. 3, lines 15-20).
Regarding claim 25, Creed further discloses the fluid chamber is configured such that it can be filled, emptied and refilled via plug (col. 2, lines 65-70).
Regarding claim 26, Creed further discloses a mouthwash subsystem, which comprises: mouthwash chamber (13), mouthwash plunger (squeezable portion 13), and mouthwash dispensing means (39), which can comprise holes or permeable membrane (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Creed and Elbaz et al. disclose the brushing girth means comprises surface protrusions or bristles (4) (Elbaz Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 29, Creed discloses which the brushing girth comprises a brushing sheath (37) (Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creed (US 4,863,380) in view of Elbaz et al. (US 2010/0015567) as applied to claims 20-26 and 28-29 above, and further in view of Kandelman et al. (US 6,669,475).
The combination of Creed and Elbaz et al. disclose the claimed invention except for a hinge to facilitate bending around the teeth and comprises a variation in material or a variation in geometry such as in bellows or a mechanical hinge. Kandelman et al. teach a dental device comprising a hinge (22) to facilitate bending around the teeth with a variation in material (col. 5, lines 15-20). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the combination of Creed and Elbaz et al. be made with a hinge as taught by Kandelman et al. to facilitate bending of the cleaning head around the teeth.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL RUNNING STEITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1917. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm EST.
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.
/RACHEL R STEITZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
7/20/2026
Prosecution Insights