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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 1/5/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no undue search burden. This is not found persuasive because the reasons for insisting upon election of one Group, are the fact relied upon for the conclusion that there are claims restricted respectively to two or more patentably different Groups that are disclosed in the application. Applicant’s assertion that a search of one would be pertinent to both groups does not overcome the Examiner’s finding that additional and distinct searches would nevertheless be required for the respective groups. Overlap in search fields does not preclude restriction where, as here, the inventions are directed to different statutory classes or materially different aspects of the technology.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 19-27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 1/5/2026.
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) 1 and 3-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Longoni (US 7,174,903) in view of Soloway (US 2011/0297181).
Longoni discloses an expandable dental floss, comprising a plurality of texturized threads twisted together forming a floss element (col. 1, lines 60-67), each thread comprising a plurality of pre-oriented yarn (POY) filaments (col. 1, lines 60-65); a first set of the plurality of texturized threads (first set is interpreted as a first grouping of threads that are twisted; col. 2, lines 1-5); and a second set of the plurality of texturized threads (interpreted as a second groupings of threads that are twisted with the first group col. 2, lines 1-11) having their POY filaments infused with an composition (col. 2, lines 10-15). Longoni does not disclose the first set is infused with Nigella sativa and the second set is infused with an antiseptic. Soloway teaches a dental floss thread that is infused with compositions wherein the compositions are antimicrobial such as nigella sativa and eucalyptus (paragraph 33). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the dental floss threads be infused with nigella sativa and eucalyptus since both provide antimicrobial properties used in dental floss to aid in dental hygiene.
Regarding claim 3, Longoni discloses each texturized thread in first and second sets of the plurality of texturized threads comprises between about 28 and 67 POY filaments (see Longoni claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Longoni discloses the first and second sets of the plurality of texturized threads are twisted together at a density of about 60 to 120 twists per meter (see col. 2, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 5, Longoni discloses the floss element has a linear mass density value in the range of about 1,100 to 1,500 dtex (col. 2, lines 40-42).
Regarding claim 6, Longoni discloses the POY filaments comprise polyester filaments (col. 2, lines 55-56).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Longoni and Soloway teaches the antiseptic composition comprises Eucalyptus (Soloway paragraph 33).
Regarding claim 8, Longoni discloses wherein the floss element comprises about 10 to 20 texturized threads twisted together (see Longoni claim 1).
Regarding claim 9, Longoni discloses about 5 to 10 texturized threads from the first set are twisted with about 5 to 10 texturized threads from the second set (the claim is interpreted as 5 of the Longoni threads being the first set and 5 of Longoni threads being the second set (see Longoni claim 1)).
Regarding claim 10, Longoni discloses the floss element comprises about 350 to 700 texturized, POY filaments formed from the first and second sets (see Longoni claim 1).
Regarding claim 11, Longoni and Soloway disclose the claimed invention except for the Nigella sativa comprises a supercritical CO2 derived Nigella sativa seed oil extract having a thymoquinone concentration of about 27% w/w to 57% w/w of the seed oil extract. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the composition of Longoni and Soloway be Nigella sativa comprising a supercritical CO2 derived Nigella sativa seed oil extract having a thymoquinone concentration of about 27% w/w to 57% w/w of the seed oil extract., since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 12, Longoni discloses floss element is free of any binding agent (col. 2, lines 10-15).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Longoni (US 7,174,903) in view of Soloway (US 2011/0297181) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsumoto (US 2016/0262352).
The combination of Longoni and Soloway disclose the claimed invention except for the first set of the plurality of threads is a first color and the second set of the plurality of threads is a second color. Matsumoto teaches providing dental floss with different colored filaments and also teaches using different colors for different filaments containing different nutrients (paragraph 80). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the dental floss of Longoni and Soloway be colored with a first and second color as taught by Matsumoto to provide a distinction between different nutrients/compositions in the dental floss.
Claim(s) 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Longoni (US 7,174,903) in view of Soloway (US 2011/0297181) and Matsumoto (US 2016/0262352).
Longoni discloses an expandable dental floss, comprising about 10 to 20 texturized threads twisted together at a density of about 60 to 120 twists per meter forming a floss element (col. 1, lines 60-67; col. 2, lines 1-15), each thread comprising a plurality of pre-oriented yarn (POY) filaments (col. 1, lines 60-65); a first set of the plurality of texturized threads (first set is first group that is twisted; col. 2, lines 1-5); and a second set of the plurality of texturized threads (second group that is twisted with the first group col. 2, lines 1-11) having their POY filaments infused with an composition (col. 2, lines 10-15) the floss element has a linear mass density value in the range of about 1,100 to 1,500 dtex and is free of any binding agent (col. 2, lines 10-15 and 40-41). Longoni does not disclose the first set is infused with Nigella sativa and the second set is infused with antiseptic. Soloway teaches a dental floss thread that is infused with compositions wherein the compositions are antimicrobial such as nigella sativa and eucalyptus (paragraph 33). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the dental floss threads be infused with nigella sativa and eucalyptus since both provide antimicrobial properties used in dental floss to aid in dental hygiene. Longoni further does not disclose the first set of the plurality of threads is a first color and the second set of the plurality of threads is a second color. Matsumoto teaches providing dental floss with different colored filaments and also teaches using different colors for different filaments containing different nutrients (paragraph 80). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the dental floss of Longoni be colored with a first and second color as taught by Matsumoto to provide a distinction between different nutrients/compositions in the dental floss.
Regarding claim 14, Longoni discloses each texturized thread in first and second sets of the plurality of texturized threads comprises between about 28 and 67 POY filaments (see claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Longoni and Soloway teaches the antiseptic composition comprises Eucalyptus (Soloway paragraph 33).
Regarding claim 16, Longoni discloses about 5 to 10 texturized threads from the first set are twisted with about 5 to 10 texturized threads from the second set (the claim is interpreted as 5 of the Longoni threads being the first set and 5 of Longoni threads being the second set (see Longoni claim 1)).
Regarding claim 17, Longoni discloses the floss element comprises about 350 to 700 texturized, POY filaments formed from the first and second sets (Longoni claim 1).
Regarding claim 18, Longoni and Soloway disclose the claimed invention except for the Nigella sativa comprises a supercritical CO2 derived Nigella sativa seed oil extract having a thymoquinone concentration of about 27% w/w to 57% w/w of the seed oil extract. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the composition of Longoni and Soloway be the Nigella sativa comprising a supercritical CO2 derived Nigella sativa seed oil extract having a thymoquinone concentration of about 27% w/w to 57% w/w of the seed oil extract., since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
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
2/24/2026