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 .
Specification
The amendment filed 10/21/2024 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the amendments to “correct several typographical errors concerning specific examples of measurements” appear to change significantly change device measurements which are not included or supported by the originally filed disclosure.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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 8-9, 16-17, and 19-20 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.
In claims 8-9, 16-17, and 19-20, it is unclear how an indentation formed on a right (or left) surface is also positioned on a rear (or front) surface. It is unclear what structure is required for an indentation to be positioned on both claimed surfaces. It is also unclear what is considered to be front or rear as there is no point of reference for determination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chang (12,089,757).
In re. claim 1, with reference to col.10 line 58- col.11 line 24 and Figures 7 A&B, Chang discloses a toothbrush holder (col.6 lines 3-6) comprising a spherical body (Fig. 7A&B and col.4 lines 37-39); a channel formed through a center of the spherical body; and a plurality of finger indentations (7101a) formed on an outer surface of the spherical body.
In re. claim 2, with reference to col.10 lines 58-67 and Figures 7 A&B, Chang discloses a top aperture (7100a) formed within a top surface of the spherical body; and a bottom aperture (7100a) formed within a bottom surface of the spherical body, wherein the top aperture and the bottom aperture are aligned with each other and are positioned at opposite ends of the channel.
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (12,089,757).
In claim 3, with reference to Figure 1B, Chang appears to disclose the top aperture, the bottom aperture, and the channel having approximately the same diameter. However, if not, 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 dimensions disclosed by Chang to any suitable dimensions for the intended use with no change in function of the device and predictable results.
Claim(s) 4-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (12,089,757) in view of Knowlton (US 2015/0272360).
In re. claims 4-9 and 12-17, Chang discloses the claimed invention as described above including 5 finger indentations (Figures 7A&B). Not disclosed are five finger indentations on a right surface and five finger indentations on a left surface.
However, with reference to [0013] and Figures 1 and 3, Knowlton discloses a holder configured to be held by a user and brought into contact with the mouth, wherein the holder body comprises five finger indentations formed on a right surface of the body; and five finger indentations formed on a left surface of the body, wherein the five finger indentations formed on the right surface of the body mirror the five finger indentations formed on the left surface of the body, wherein the five finger indentations formed on the right surface of the body comprise: a thumb indentation; an index finger indentation; a middle finger indentation; a ring finger indentation; and a little finger indentation, wherein the five finger indentations formed on the left surface of the body comprise: a thumb indentation; an index finger indentation; a middle finger indentation; a ring finger indentation; and a little finger indentation, as best understood one of the five finger indentations formed on the right surface of the body and one of the five finger indentations formed on the left surface of the body are also positioned on a rear surface of the body, and as best understood a remaining four of the five finger indentations formed on the right surface of the body and a remaining four of the five finger indentations formed on the left surface of the body are also positioned on a front surface of the body. The advantage of this is to provide grasping means for either hand or for both hands. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the finger indentations of Chang with the finger indentations of Knowlton in order to provide grasping means for either hand or for both hands. It is noted that it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. The prior art included each element claimed although not necessarily in a single reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. The claim would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
In re. claim 10-11 and 18-20, Chang, as modified by Knowlton, discloses the claimed invention as described above except for specifically disclosing the finger indentations being teardrop shaped with a narrow tip and a wide base where a depth of each finger indentation is shallower at its narrow tip than at its wide base. However, Knowlton discloses the finger indentations are appropriately sized for fingers [0013] and Chang discloses the finger indentations are concave and convex corresponding to human fingers (col. 4 lines 4-12). Therefore the examiner contends that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the size and shape of the finger indentations as disclosed by Chang, as modified by Knowlton, to be teardrop shaped as claimed in order to form fit to the shape of a fingertip, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size/shape of a component with no change in function which is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Examiner lists referenced documents on PTO-892 because the references present other/alternative or conceptual designs similar in scope that illustrate relevant features, which may demonstrate the level of novelty in comparison to Applicant’s inventive submission. The record relates to Applicant’s identified material and Examiner’s discovered references concerning Applicant’s subject matter relevant for a patentability determination.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA L PERRY whose telephone number is (571)270-3113. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached at 571-272-6886. 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.
/MONICA L PERRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights