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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5-12 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 has been amended to contain new matter which was not originally disclosed. The original claims and disclosure do not recite a snap-fit engagement which rotationally and translationally constrains the headpiece along backward and forward rotation directions and backward and forward translation directions with respect to longitudinal, lateral and height axes which are perpendicular to one another and a wide snap fit with two points of contact between each end of the arcuate base and the distal end of the handle.
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, 2, 5-12 and 15-19 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.
The term “wide” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “wide” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 1 recites a “snap fit engagement” and a “wide snap fit” where it is unclear is these are the same or different snap fits.
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, 2, 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dougan et al. (US 20030098037) and Welt et al. (US 8893733).
Regarding claim 1, Dougan et al. disclose a flossing device comprising: a handle (2) comprising a gripping end (end opposite 3) and a distal end (end near 3); and an attachable headpiece (4) having an arcuate base (20,21) and a filament (5) extending from a first end of the arcuate base to a second end of the arcuate base such that the arcuate base and the filament circumscribe an empty area within a transverse plane of the attachable headpiece, wherein the attachable headpiece comprises a member (23) protruding off of the arcuate base at a midpoint between the first end and the second end of the arcuate base; wherein the attachable headpiece is configured to attach at a backside of the distal end of the handle via a concave side of the arcuate base through a snap fit engagement (Refer to paragraphs 0050,0053 and 0060) to rotationally and translationally constrain the headpiece relative to the handle along backward and forward rotation directions and backward and forward translation directions with respect to longitudinal, lateral, and height axes, the longitudinal, lateral, and height axes being perpendicular to one another, such that, when the attachable headpiece is attached, the distal end of the handle is disposed within the empty area circumscribed by the arcuate base and the filament and securely engaged to the concave side of the arcuate base via a wide snap fit (snap fit formed by 25) with two points of contact between each end of the arcuate base and the distal end of the handle, and wherein the backside of the distal end of the handle comprises a horizontal recessed groove (40) and a deeper recess (deeper recess corresponding to 23 of headpiece) located within the horizontal recessed groove, and wherein the member is configured to fit into the deeper recess a pocket located on the backside of the distal end of the handle while at least a portion of the arcuate base fits into the horizontal recessed groove, there by securing the snap-fit engagement between the attachable headpiece to the distal end of the handle, the snap-fit engagement being configure to prevent engagement of the attachable headpiece with the distal end of the handle except when the handpiece and the distal end are in a preferred orientation (Refer to Figures 1-22). However, Douglan et al. do not disclose the member protruding into the empty area between the filament and the arcuate base. Although Douglan et al. provide the protruding member 23 on a side surface of the headpiece rather than on the inner surface, one of ordinary skill in the art understands the location of the protrusion can be modified and Douglan et al. acknowledges this with various embodiments having different coupling protrusion locations and configurations (e.g. two semi-cylindrical or hemispherical protrusions on opposing sides, a single semi-cylindrical protrusion on one side, a combination of one hemispherical protrusion on one side and a protrusion with a semi-cylindrical base and hemispherical head on the opposing side, etc. Refer to Figures 1-22). Welt et al. also demonstrate it is well-known and conventional to place such protruding coupling members in the position claimed (Refer to Figure 43). Welt et al. disclose a dental flosser having a handle (4,6) and attachable headpiece (8), where the headpiece provides a protruding coupling member extending from a central portion of the base, the protruding coupling member can protrude from a back side of the base, as shown in Figure 1, or from an inner side of the base, as shown in Figure 43, meaning the member protrudes into the empty area between the filament (10) and the base. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flossing device of Dougan et al. such that the member protrude into the empty area between the filament and the arcuate base, and the corresponding deeper recess be relocated accordingly, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art and Welt et al. demonstrates it is well-known and conventional for the member to protrude into the empty area between the filament and the arcuate base.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Dougan et al. and Welt et al. disclose the flossing device of claim 1 above, Dougan et al. further disclose a frontside of the distal end of the handle that is opposite from the backside of the distal end of the handle has substantially a same concavity as the concave side of the arcuate base (Refer to Figures 1-3(a), 9(a)-9(b) and 14).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Dougan et al. and Welt et al. disclose the flossing device of claim 1 above, Dougan et al. further disclose the horizontal recessed groove is configured with a convexity that allows the portion of the arcuate base to fit within the horizontal recessed groove (Refer to Figures 1-3(a), 9(a)-9(b) and 14).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Dougan et al. and Welt et al. disclose the flossing device of claim 1 above, Dougan et al. further disclose the handle is a unitary body that incorporates the gripping end and the distal end (Refer to Figures 1 and 2).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Dougan et al. and Welt et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ochs et al. (US 20050172982).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Dougan et al. and Welt et al. disclose the flossing device of claim 1 above. Dougan et al. further disclose a width of the distal end of the handle in line with the horizontal recessed groove is dimensioned to exert a force when the portion of the arcuate base is fit into the horizontal recessed groove, as the connection is disclosed as being a snap fit. However, Dougan et al. do not explicitly say the snap fit connection requires separating the first end and the second end of the arcuate base and increase increasing a tension of the filament when the portion of the arcuate base is fit into the horizontal recessed groove.
Ochs et al. discloses a similar flossing device where an inner concave side of an arcuate base of an attachable headpiece (20) attaches to a backside of a distal end of a handle (Refer to Figures 1-5A). Ochs et al. teach the snap fit coupling mechanism between the headpiece and handle is designed to spread the arms of the headpiece apart such that the distance between the arms is increased and the floss becomes taut (Refer to Figures 2 and 3A and paragraphs 0033 and 0036). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flossing device of the combination of Dougan et al. and Welt et al. such that the coupling the headpiece and handle result in the handle exerting a force separating the first and second ends of the arcuate base and increasing a tension in the filament as taught by Ochs et al. as it is beneficial to provide tension in the filament to ensure effective cleaning.
Claims 7, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Dougan et al. and Welt et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pruett (US 20130239986) as evidenced by Naruse (US 20060174911).
Regarding claims 7, 17 and 18, the combination of Dougan et al. and Welt et al. the flossing device of claim 1 above; however, the combination does not disclose a vibrating motor disposed within the gripping end of the handle, the handle being configured to store a battery for supplying power for vibrating the flossing device and a power button on the handle for operating the vibrating motor that causes vibration of at least the filament. Pruett discloses a similar dental flossing device having the handle is configured to store a battery for supplying power for vibrating the flossing device where a detachable headpiece carrying floss is selectively coupled to a handle (Refer to Figures 1-17), where the handle may be a manual handle (Refer to 500 of Figure 13 and paragraph 0051) similar to the handle provided by Andersen et al. or the handle may be a powered handle (Refer to 20 of Figure 1 and 120 of Figures 6 and 13). The powered handle provides a vibration generating drive mechanism (22, 122) powered by a battery within the gripping portion of the handle (Refer to paragraphs 0035, 0043 and claim 6) and a power button (26,126) located on the handle for operating the vibration generating drive mechanism to cause vibration (Refer to paragraphs 0036, 0044 and claim 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flossing device of the combination of Dougan et al. and Welt et al. to include a vibration generating mechanism within the gripping end of the handle, the handle be configured to store a battery for supplying power thereto and a power button on the handle for operating the vibration generating mechanism to cause vibration of at least the filament as Pruett demonstrates it is well-known to substitute or use interchangeably manual and driven handles, where the driven/vibrating handle facilitates removal of plaque and debris via vibration of the floss and imparting vibration onto the regions of the mouth being treated. Although the combination of Andersen et al. and Pruett does not explicitly state the vibration generating mechanism is a vibrating motor, it is well-known and conventional in the art to use vibrating motors in vibration generating mechanisms as evidenced by Naruse. The vibrating flossing device disclosed by Naruse relies on a vibrating motor 12 to vibrate the headpiece (Refer to paragraphs 0049, 0050, 0055 and 0058). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flossing device of the combination of the combination of Dougan et al., Welt et al. and Pruett such that the vibration generating mechanism provide a vibrating motor as Naruse demonstrates this is common practice in the art.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Dougan et al. and Welt et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tarrson et al. (US 4222143).
Regarding claims 8-10, the combination of Dougan et al. and Welt et al. disclose the flossing device claim 1 above; however, the combination does not disclose each of the gripping end and the distal end are respectively characterized by different center axes, a center axis of the distal end being angled outward from a center axis of the gripping end such that the backside of the distal end is disposed laterally offset from the center axis of the gripping end, the center axis of the distal end is angled outward at an angle that positions the attachable headpiece, when attached to and extending outward from the distal end portion, at a contra-angle with respect to the center axis of the gripping end portion between one and thirty degrees and the center axis of the distal end is angled outward at a contra-angle bend of approximately 160 degrees. Tarrson et al. discloses a flossing device having a headpiece (26, unlabeled pick at end opposite 26) coupled to a distal end portion of the handle, where the distal end portion of the handle is angled relative to the gripping portion of the handle (see angles A and B in Figure 1). Tarrson et al. explains the angle (A, B) is approximately 160 degrees (Refer to col. 3 lines 35-42), whereby the supplementary angle is 30 degrees, where this configuration facilitates insertion of the headpiece in the interdental space. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the handle of the combination of Dougan et al. and Welt et al. such that the center axes of the gripping end and the distal end of the handle be different such that the distal end is angled outward to offset it from the center axis of the gripping end, whereby the center axis of the distal end is angled to position the attachable headpiece at a contra-angle with respect to the center axis of the griping end of 30 degrees (supplemental angle) and the center axis of the distal end is angled outward at a contra-angle bend of approximately 160 degrees as taught by Tarrson et al. in order to facilitate inserting the headpiece in the interdental space and cleaning thereof.
Claim 12, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Dougan et al. and Welt et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Culver (US 20090090380).
Regarding claims 12 and 15, the combination of Dougan et al. and Welt et al. disclose the flossing device of claim 1 above, however, the combination of Dougan et al. and Welt et al. do not disclose a textured surface positioned on a convex side of the attachable headpiece such that the textured surface and the filament that is positioned opposite from the convex side of the attachable headpiece are positioned to engage with different anatomical features that are located in diametrically opposing portions, wherein the textured surface comprises at least one ridge providing a texture applicable for scraping a tongue. Culver discloses a similar flossing device where an attachable headpiece (110) having an arcuate base with floss extending between first and second ends of the arcuate base, where the headpiece is selectively coupled to a handle (Refer to Figures 1B-1E, 3A-3C, 4B and 5a-7C). The backside/convex-side of the headpiece opposite the floss provides a tongue implement/blade (116), interproximal brushes or r-tips (common term for rubber tip stimulator) to provide different cleaning implements in the same device (Refer to paragraphs 0047, 0049 and 0051). The tongue blade providing at least one ridge suitable for tongue scrapping. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flossing device of the combination of Dougan et al. and Welt et al. such that the convex side of the headpiece opposite the filament have a textured surface provided by a tongue blade having at least one ridge as taught by Culver in order to make the device more versatile and effective by providing additional oral cleaning functions in the same device. The combination provides the textured surface and the filament that is opposite from the convex side positioned to engage with different anatomical features that are located in diametrically opposing positions.
Regarding claims 12 and 16, the combination of Dougan et al. and Welt et al. disclose the flossing device of claim 1 above, however, the combination of Dougan et al. and Welt et al. do not disclose a textured surface positioned on a convex side of the attachable headpiece such that the textured surface and the filament that is positioned opposite from the convex side of the attachable headpiece are positioned to engage with different anatomical features that are located in diametrically opposing portions, wherein the textured surface comprises silicone or rubber . Culver discloses a similar flossing device where an attachable headpiece (110) having an arcuate base with floss extending between first and second ends of the arcuate base, where the headpiece is selectively coupled to a handle (Refer to Figures 1B-1E, 3A-3C, 4B and 5a-7C). The backside/convex-side of the headpiece opposite the floss provides a tongue implement/blade (116), interproximal brushes or r-tips (common term for rubber tip stimulator) to provide different cleaning implements in the same device (Refer to paragraphs 0047, 0049 and 0051). suitable for tongue scrapping. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flossing device of the combination of Dougan et al. and Welt et al. such that the convex side of the headpiece opposite the filament have a textured surface in the form of a rubber tip (r-tip) as taught by Culver in order to make the device more versatile and effective by providing additional oral cleaning functions in the same device. The combination provides the textured surface and the filament that is opposite from the convex side positioned to engage with different anatomical features that are located in diametrically opposing positions.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Dougan et al. and Welt et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in as evidenced by Grobbee et al. (US 20150064653).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Dougan et al. and Welt et al. disclose the flossing device of claim 1 above; however, the combination does not disclose the member has an asymmetrical cross-sectional shape configured to prevent the member from fitting into the deeper recess located within the horizontal recessed groove in at least one orientation of the attachable headpiece. Although Dougan et al. depict the member as symmetrical in shape, it is well-known that such coupling protrusions can be of any shape including asymmetrical shapes as evidenced by Grobbee et al. (Refer to paragraph 0051 and Figures 10A and 10B). The dental device of Grobbee et al. provides a protruding member (804) which engages a recess (802) in a snap-fit manner, where the protruding member may be cylindrical, oval, or asymmetrical or may be any other shape suitable for interfacing with snap-fit recess portion 802 (Refer to paragraph 0051). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of the combination of Dougan et al. and Welt et al. such that the member have an asymmetrical cross-sectional shape as Grobbee et al. demonstrate it is well-known and conventional for such protruding coupling members to have an asymmetrical shape, and such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component, where a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (Refer to MPEP 2144.04 IV).
Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 03/12/2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-12 and 15-19 based upon the combination of Dougan and Welt as set forth in the last Office action. The testimony does not provide factual and objective evidence to support allegations/opinions provided. Additionally, there is no nexus to the merits of the claimed invention and the declaration lacks objective evidence of non-obviousness commensurate with the scope of the claims. The declaration explains Applicant’s disclosed invention provides a snap fit engagement architecture which relies on a wide snap feature that wraps around, snaps onto and “hugs” the front of the handle in a manner that creates two points of contact between the head and the handle, where the engagement geometry results in the securement holding against lateral forces and vibration, while also improving the transmission of oscillatory/vibratory movement from the handle to the headpiece and the floss filament rather than losing motion through flexing at the coupling. The disclosed engagement architecture and specific geometry thereof are not claimed (i.e. specific shape of projections, specific shape of recesses, number and location of each projection and recess) nor are any limitations drawn to vibratory or oscillatory motion (resistance or transmission). However, the prior art of record provides the claimed snap fit engagement and is able to resist rotation and translation given the engagement of the snap protrusions 25, 61 with corresponding portions of the handle. It is also noted that Applicant’s disclosure states the connection between the headpiece and handle may be “snap-fit, magnetic, fixed/solid with head, tongue and groove, slide, screw on, straps, fastened, adhesive, among others, or combinations thereof” (Refer to paragraph 0057), meaning other engagement mechanisms are permitted and the specific engagement mechanism claimed is not the only operable securing means.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument: Neither Dougan nor Welt teach the newly added claim language.
Response: Dougan provides a snap fit connection that rotationally and translationally constrain the headpiece relative to the handle as claimed. Dougan provides snap projections 25 and 61 which serve to secure the headpiece to the distal end of the handle and prevent rotation and translation of the device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TATIANA L NOBREGA whose telephone number is (571)270-7228. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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.
/TATIANA L NOBREGA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights