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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/12/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “wall of the hole” in lines 8 and 10. However, since a “hole” is a void and has no structure, the recitation has been interpreted as - - a wall [[of]] defining the hole comprises - -. Furthermore, applicant is requested to review the entire recitation “wherein a wall of the hole comprises two grooves running in parallel to the longitudinal axis and extending beyond the basic shape of the hole cross-section injection molded in the wall of the hole”. In view of the specification, it appears that the limitation is intending to say that the two grooves are injection molded; however, the language is not clear.
Claim 1 recites “the U-shaped profile”, which lacks antecedent basis, and is presumed to be - - [[the]] a U-shaped profile - -.
Claim 2 recites “when viewed in the direction observed in the direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis”, in lines 2-3. As best understood, the limitation has been interpreted as - - when viewed in the direction
Claims 2-6 depend from claim 1 and are therefore objected to, accordingly.
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.
Claim 5 is 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 5 recites the limitation "the constant section" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, claim 5 will be interpreted as - - The toothbrush according to claim 1, wherein the width of the combination section is greater than a thickness of the anchoring plate - -.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the constant section" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, claim 1 will be interpreted as - - The toothbrush according to claim 1, wherein the width of the combination section is greater than the thickness of the anchoring plate by at least 5% and by at most 100% - -.
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 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) 1, 3-5, 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borghi S.P.A. – WO2023/148671 in view of Zahoransky – DE19519291, hereinafter Borghi and Zahoransky, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Borghi discloses in at least Figures 12-17 plastic brush head (see Title, and see at least Page 10, lines30-33 “…(body 2, bristle bundles 30, anchoring elements 4) all made of plastic material…”), at least one folded bristle bundle (30 – Fig. 12-17), and at least one plastic anchor plate (4, see at least Page 10, lines30-33 “…(body 2, bristle bundles 30, anchoring elements 4) all made of plastic material…”)
the brush head having a hole (21) for one of the at least one folded bristle bundle (30), with a longitudinal axis and a hole cross-section with a basic shape (see at least Figures 16 and 17 for the longitudinal axis and the circular shape) for receiving the one of the at least one folded bristle bundle (30), and an anchor plate (4) fixed in the hole for the purpose of anchoring a respective on of the at least one bristle bundle (see at least Figures 14 and 15),
wherein a wall of the hole comprises two grooves (23) running in parallel to the longitudinal axis and extending beyond the basic shape of the hole cross-section in the wall of the hole (see at least Figure 17 wherein 23 extends beyond the circle hole 21), wherein
the anchor plate is fixed in the two grooves in the U-shaped profile (see Fig. 15 interpreted as best understood from the drawings, in which the two grooves in combination with the hole define a U-shaped profile), and
the two grooves(23) have, adjacent to an entrance of the hole, a combination section with centering and tapering section, which, when viewed in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis has a depth and a width which successively decrease with increasing distance from an entrance to the hole (see at least page 7lines 8-12 “… anchoring walls 23b and a second anchoring wall 23c that are inclined and converging toward the inside).
However, Borghi does not explicitly disclose:
the brush being a toothbrush;
the two grooves being made by injection molding
the anchor plate being fixed by a weld
In regards to the brush being a “toothbrush” and the two grooves being made by injection molding, it is first noted that Borghi in page 1, lines 2-3 states that the invention relates to bristle tools for domestic use, such as a brush. Further, the examiner takes Official Notice the fact that it is old and known in the brush art to make toothbrushes as described by Borghi, and in addition to use injection molding to create brush heads with holes (i.e. grooves) through this process. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the invention of Borghi to manufacture toothbrushes by using an injection molding process to produce grooves/holes in the toothbrush head.
In regards to the anchor plate being fixed by a weld, Zahoransky teaches the fact that it is old and well known in the brush art to use friction, welding, and positive locking individually or in combination in order to hold anchor plates (4) within holes (2) of the brush (see at least paragraphs [0005] and [0006]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used known methods as friction welding for holding the anchor plates of Borghi, since as discussed by Zahoransky the welding provides an additional hold to the friction-fit connections.
Even further, regarding the injection molding process and the anchor plates being fixed by a weld in claim 1. These recitations are considered to be a product by process limitation. MPEP 2113 clearly states "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different processes." In this instance, the product taught by Borghi is the same as or makes the product claimed obvious, meeting the limitation of the claim.
Regarding claim 3 and 4, Borghi as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the depth (claim3) or width(claim 4) of the combined section with centering and tapering section decreases in two stages.
Zahoransky further teaches in Fig. 7 wherein from the entrance of the hole there is a two-stage shape (see annotated drawing below; note that there are different portions/stages that would have different angles). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary sill in the art to have modified the invention of Borghi, since per MPEP 2144.04-IV-B, it has been held that absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape was significant, it is just a matter of design choice. A review of the filed specification, does not provide any criticality for the claimed two stage section. In fact, applicant’s specification notes these are optional features.
PNG
media_image1.png
913
721
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, as best understood (see rejection of claim 5 under 35 USC 112(b), above), Borghi as modified discloses, the toothbrush according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the width of the combination section is greater than a thickness of the anchoring plate (shown in Fig. 17 of Borghi, clearly the width of the grooves (23) is bigger than the thickness of the plate (4), at least at the entrance).
Regarding claim 7, please refer to the rejection of claim 1, as all the limitations have been addressed.
Regarding claim 9, as best understood (see rejection of claim 9 under 35 USC 112(b), above), Borghi as modified discloses, the toothbrush according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the width of the combination section is greater than the thickness of the anchoring plate (as set forth above in the rejection of claim 5). However, Borghi as modified does not explicitly disclose being greater by at least 5% and by at most 100%. However, since Borghi does, however, disclose that the width of the combination section at the entrance is greater than the thickness of the anchoring plate, and it slants until they touch, the percentage of how much greater the width is, is considered a result effective variable; i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, if it’s too much bigger, then the head of the toothbrush would have to be a lot thicker/tall in order to be able to accommodate the anchor plate in the right position, and if it is too small it would be more difficult to insert the anchor plate. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that width is bigger than the thickness of the anchor plate, were disclosed in the prior art by Borghi, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the width of the combination section being greater than the thickness of the anchoring plate by at least 5% and by at most 100%. Furthermore, the range of 5% to 100% is recognized by the Examiner to be a very broad range, and a range that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found obvious.
Claim(s) 2-4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borghi S.P.A. – WO2023/148671 in view of Zahoransky – DE19519291, and further in view of Ahiko et al. – JP2009-125084, hereinafter Borghi, Zahoransky, and Ahiko, respectively.
Regarding claim 2, Borghi teaches different embodiments in which the grooves have constant depth and width (see at least Figure 5) or only one of the dimensions is constant (see Figure 8), however, as modified, does not explicitly disclose wherein the two grooves each have a constant section which when viewed in the direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis has a width and a depth which are constant along the longitudinal axis.
Ahiko teaches in Figures 11 and 12(b) the anchor (4) within a toothbrush (1) head; and specifically discloses shows in Figure 11 the width and depth remaining constant; and in Figure 12(b) is a two-stage shape consisting of a wider upper section (32a) and a narrower lower section (32b), which has a constant dimension. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Borghi, since per MPEP 2144.04-IV-B, it has been held that absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape was significant, it is just a matter of design choice. A review of the filed specification, does not provide any criticality for the claimed constant section.
Regarding claim 3 and 4, Borghi as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the depth (claim 3) or width (claim 4) of the combined section with centering and tapering section decreases in two stages.
Ahiko teaches in 12(b) the anchor (4) within a toothbrush (1) head; and specifically teaches that Figure 12(b) is a two-stage shape consisting of a wider upper section (32a) and a narrower lower section (32b). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary sill in the art to have modified the invention of Borghi, since per MPEP 2144.04-IV-B, it has been held that absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape was significant, it is just a matter of design choice. A review of the filed specification, does not provide any criticality for the claimed two stage section. In fact, applicant’s specification notes these are optional features.
Regarding claim 6, Borghi as modified does not explicitly disclose an anchoring direction formed by the two grooves is at an angle greater than zero to a hole line direction of directly neighboring holes. However, in Figure 2, Ahiko does disclose an anchoring direction formed by the two grooves is at an angle greater than zero (5-85 degrees see at least paragraph [0020]) to a hole line direction of directly neighboring holes for the purposes of being able to accommodate more bristles in the bristle bundles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was filed to have the invention of Borghi to include an anchoring direction formed by the two grooves is at an angle greater than zero to a hole line direction of directly neighboring holes, in view of the teachings of Ahiko, in order to be able to accommodate more bristles in the bristle bundles (see paragraph [0020] of Ahiko).
Regarding claim 8, refer to the rejection of claim 2.
Potential Allowable Subject Matter
The Office recognizes the difference between the prior art used for rejecting the claims and Applicant's invention. However, the prior art reads on the claims as currently filed. If applicant further introduces positively, in the independent claims:
that the two grooves comprise a constant section immediately after the combination section, wherein the constant section has a height in a direction parallel to the longitudinal direction that is greater than a height of the anchor plate the direction parallel to the longitudinal direction, wherein the constant section when viewed in the direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis has a width and a depth which are constant along the longitudinal axis and the width of the constant section is greater than a thickness of the anchoring plate, wherein the width of the constant section and the thickness of the anchoring plate extend perpendicular to the longitudinal axis and perpendicular to the direction that extends from one groove to the other groove of the two grooves, the Office may look favorably on such claim limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KR10-2012-0097352: discloses the manufacturing of toothbrushes using injection molding, wherein the holes for inserting the bristles and anchors are made in the injection molding process.
Spinelli – US PG Pub. 2021-0259402: discloses making toothbrushes, and holes in the brush head which are made in the injection molding process.
CN112293927 – discloses welding the anchoring mechanism.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ORLANDO E AVILES whose telephone number is (571)270-5531. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-3:30PM.
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, Jonathan C. Teixeira Moffat can be reached at 571-272-4390. 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.
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights