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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 63/617899, filed on January 5, 2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Swanson et al (US 5947132 A) herein after Swanson.
Regarding claim 1, Swanson discloses a dental floss device for removing plaque and debris from in between teeth comprising: a dental floss device (22); a plurality of looped dental flosses (Figure 2A); and a dispenser (Figure 3, 22a); wherein each of said plurality of looped dental flosses having a closed loop shape (Figure 1A, 12); wherein said closed loop shape comprising a circular band (Figure 1A, 12);
and further wherein each of said plurality of looped dental flosses dispensable individually from said dispenser (page 2, lines 47,48).
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 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swanson in view of Donovan et al (US4523600A) herein after Donovan.
Regarding claim 17, Regarding claim 1, Swanson teaches a dental floss device for removing plaque and debris from in between teeth comprising: a dental floss device (22); a plurality of looped dental flosses (Figure 2A); and a dispenser (Figure 3, 22a); wherein each of said plurality of looped dental flosses having a closed loop shape (Figure 1A, 12); wherein said closed loop shape comprising a circular band (Figure 1A, 12); and further wherein each of said plurality of looped dental flosses dispensable individually from said dispenser (page 2, lines 47,48).
Swanson does not explicitly teach inserting at least one finger from each hand into said closed loop of one of said plurality of looped dental flosses; pulling said one of said plurality of looped dental flosses taught with said at least one finger from each hand; and inserting a portion of said one of said plurality of looped flosses in between teeth for removing plaque and debris.
Donovan teaches a method of using a circular closed looped flosser, inserting at least one finger from each hand into said closed loop of one of said plurality of looped dental flosses; pulling said one of said plurality of looped dental flosses taught with said at least one finger from each hand; and inserting a portion of said one of said plurality of looped flosses in between teeth for removing plaque and debris (Abstract lines 3-5, Figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the application to use the looped dental floss of Swanson according to the known method taught by Donovan, as this represents the predictable manner of using looped dental floss for its intended purpose.
Claim(s) 2-4, 10-12, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swanson in view of Blass et al (WO 9210978 A1) herein after Blass.
Regarding claim 2, Swanson teaches a dental floss device, containing a circular band (12) as in claim 1, however does not teach the band having a width from 1 mm to 4 mm.
Blass teaches a floss band having a width from 1 mm to 4 mm (Page 2, lines 4-5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the application to incorporate a band having a width around 1-4mm taught by Blass into the dental floss of Swanson, in order to accommodate between teeth gaps and provide increased contact surface for effective cleaning.
Regarding claim 3, Swanson teaches a dental floss device containing a circular band (12) as in claim 1, however does not teach the band having a width from 2 mm to 3 mm.
Blass teaches a floss band having a width from 2 mm to 3 mm (Page 2, lines 4-5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the application to incorporate a band having a width around 2-3mm taught by Blass into the dental floss of Swanson, in order to accommodate between teeth gaps and provide increased contact surface for effective cleaning.
Regarding claim 4, Swanson teaches a dental floss device as in claim 2 containing a circular band (12), however does not teach the band having a wax coating.
Blass teaches a floss band having a wax coating (Page 2, lines 17-18). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the application to incorporate a band having a wax coating taught by Blass into the dental floss of Swanson, as wax coatings are conventionally applied to dental floss as a surface treatment to reduce friction during insertion between teeth and facilitate smoother sliding during cleaning.
Regarding claim 10, Swanson teaches a dental floss device for removing plaque and debris from in between teeth comprising: a dental floss device (22); a plurality of looped dental flosses (Figure 2A); and a dispenser (Figure 3, 22a); wherein each of said plurality of looped dental flosses having a closed loop shape (Figure 1A, 12); wherein said closed loop shape comprising a circular band (Figure 1A, 12); and further wherein each of said plurality of looped dental flosses dispensable individually from said dispenser (page 2, lines 47,48).;
Swanson further teaches a dental floss device, wherein said dispenser having a top end opening (Figure 3, 26) for accessing an individual one of said plurality of looped dental flosses.
Swanson further teaches a dental floss device containing a circular band (12), however does not teach the band having a width from 1 mm to 4 mm.
Blass teaches a floss band having a width from 1 mm to 4 mm (Page 2, lines 4-5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the application to incorporate a band having a width around 1-4mm taught by Blass into the dental floss of Swanson, as this in order to accommodate between teeth gaps and provide increased contact surface for effective cleaning.
Regarding claim 11, Swanson teaches a dental floss device containing a circular band (12) as in claim 10, however does not teach the band having a width from 2 mm to 3 mm.
Blass teaches a floss band having a width from 2 mm to 3 mm (Page 2, lines 4-5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the application to incorporate a band having a width around 2-3mm taught by Blass into the dental floss of Swanson, in order to accommodate between teeth gaps and provide increased contact surface for effective cleaning.
Regarding claim 12, Swanson teaches a dental floss device as in claim 11 containing a circular band (12), however does not teach the band having a wax coating.
Blass teaches a floss band having a wax coating (Page 2, lines 17-18). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the application to incorporate a band having a wax coating taught by Blass into the dental floss of Swanson, as wax coatings are conventionally applied to dental floss as a surface treatment to reduce friction during insertion between teeth and facilitate smoother sliding during cleaning.
Regarding claim 18, Swanson teaches a dental floss device containing a circular band (12) wherein said dispenser having a top end opening (Figure 3, 26) for accessing an individual one of said plurality of looped dental flosses as in claim 17, however does not teach the band having a width from 1 mm to 4 mm.
Blass teaches a floss band having a width from 1 mm to 4 mm (Page 2, lines 4-5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the application to incorporate a band having a width around 1-4mm taught by Blass into the dental floss of Swanson, in order to accommodate between teeth gaps and provide increased contact surface for effective cleaning.
Regarding claim 19, Swanson teaches a dental floss device as in claim 18 containing a circular band (12), however does not teach the band having a wax coating.
Blass teaches a floss band having a wax coating (Page 2, lines 17-18). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the application to incorporate a band having a wax coating taught by Blass into the dental floss of Swanson, as wax coatings are conventionally applied to dental floss as a surface treatment to reduce friction during insertion between teeth and facilitate smoother sliding during cleaning.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swanson in view of Paulson et al (US4796783A) herein after Paulson.
Regarding claim 5, Swanson teaches a dental floss device as in claim 4, however does not teach a cylindrical floss holder. Paulson teaches a cylindrical floss holder (Figure 1, 10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the application to incorporate a cylindrical floss holder taught by Paulson into the dental floss of Swanson, as cylindrical and non-cylindrical dispenser housing represent known alternative geometries for floss dispensers and does not alter the operation of the device.
Regarding claim 13, Swanson teaches a dental floss device as in claim 12, however does not teach a cylindrical floss holder. Paulson teaches a cylindrical floss holder (Figure 1, 10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the application to incorporate a cylindrical floss holder taught by Paulson into the dental floss of Swanson, as cylindrical and non-cylindrical dispenser housing represent known alternative geometries for floss dispensers and does not alter the operation of the device.
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swanson.
Regarding claim 6, Swanson teaches a dental floss device for removing plaque and debris from in between teeth of claim 5, wherein said dispenser having a top end opening (Figure 3, 26) for accessing an individual one of said plurality of looped dental flosses.
Claims 7, 9, 14, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swanson in view of Marwah et al (US20020078973A1) herein after Marwah.
Regarding claim 7, Swanson teaches a dental floss device for removing plaque and debris from in between teeth of claim 6, however does not teach flosses having a material of a high-density polyethylene (HDPE).
Marwah teaches a dental floss having a material of a high-density polyethylene (HDPE) (Page 1, Paragraph 5, line 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the application to incorporate a material of a high-density polyethylene taught by Marwah into the dental floss of Swanson, as such materials represent known substitutions commonly used in the dental floss devices and their selection does not alter the structure or use of the device.
Regarding claim 9, Swanson teaches a dental floss device for removing plaque and debris from in between teeth of claim 6, however does not teach flosses having a material of a high-density polyethylene (HDPE) such as a material selected from the group consisting of an acrylic, a polycarbonate, a polyethylene, a polyethylene terephthalate, a polyvinyl chloride, and a polystyrene.
Marwah teaches a dental floss having a material of a high-density polyethylene (HDPE) such as polyethylene (Page 1, Paragraph 5, Line5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the application to incorporate a material of a high-density polyethylene such as polyethylene taught by Marwah into the dental floss of Swanson, as such materials represent known substitutions commonly used in the dental floss devices and their selection does not alter the structure or use of the device.
Regarding claim 14, Swanson teaches a dental floss device for removing plaque and debris from in between teeth of claim 13, however does not teach flosses having a material of a high-density polyethylene (HDPE).
Marwah teaches a dental floss having a material of a high-density polyethylene (HDPE) (Page 1, Paragraph 5, line 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the application to incorporate a material of a high-density polyethylene taught by Marwah into the dental floss of Swanson, as such materials represent known substitutions commonly used in the dental floss devices and their selection does not alter the structure or use of the device.
Regarding claim 16, Swanson teaches a dental floss device for removing plaque and debris from in between teeth of claim 13, however does not teach flosses having a material of a high-density polyethylene (HDPE) such as a material selected from the group consisting of an acrylic, a polycarbonate, a polyethylene, a polyethylene terephthalate, a polyvinyl chloride, and a polystyrene.
Marwah teaches a dental floss having a material of a high-density polyethylene (HDPE) such as polyethylene (Page 1, Paragraph 5, Line5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the application to incorporate a material of a high-density polyethylene such as polyethylene taught by Marwah into the dental floss of Swanson, as such materials represent known substitutions commonly used in the dental floss devices and their selection does not alter the structure or use of the device.
Regarding claim 20, Swanson teaches a dental floss device for removing plaque and debris from in between teeth of claim 19, however does not teach flosses having a material of a high-density polyethylene (HDPE) such as a material selected from the group consisting of an acrylic, a polycarbonate, a polyethylene, a polyethylene terephthalate, a polyvinyl chloride, and a polystyrene.
Marwah teaches a dental floss having a material of a high-density polyethylene (HDPE) such as polyethylene (Page 1, Paragraph 5, Line5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the application to incorporate a material of a high-density polyethylene such as polyethylene taught by Marwah into the dental floss of Swanson, as such materials represent known substitutions commonly used in the dental floss devices and their selection does not alter the structure or use of the device.
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swanson in view of Finkelstein et al (US4583564A) herein after Finkelstein.
Regarding claim 8, Swanson teaches a dental floss device for removing plaque and debris from in between teeth of claim 6, however does not teach a dental floss having a material selected from the group consisting of a nylon, a heat-sealable polymer, a polypropylene, and an acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS).
Finkelstein teaches a floss device having a material selected from the group consisting of a nylon, a heat-sealable polymer, a polypropylene, and an acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS) (Page 1, Lines 39-41). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the application to incorporate a material such as nylon and polypropylene taught by Finkelstein into the dental floss of Swanson, as such materials represent known substitutions commonly used in the dental floss devices and their selection does not alter the structure or use of the device.
Regarding claim 15, Swanson teaches a dental floss device for removing plaque and debris from in between teeth of claim 13, however does not teach a dental floss having a material selected from the group consisting of a nylon, a heat-sealable polymer, a polypropylene, and an acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS).
Finkelstein teaches a floss device having a material selected from the group consisting of a nylon, a heat-sealable polymer, a polypropylene, and an acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS) (Page 1, Lines 39-41). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the application to incorporate a material such as nylon and polypropylene taught by Finkelstein into the dental floss of Swanson, as such materials represent known substitutions commonly used in the dental floss devices and their selection does not alter the structure or use of the device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARA N. SAMARASEKARA whose telephone number is (571)272-9653. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at 571-270-5614. 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.
/SARA N SAMARASEKARA/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/EDELMIRA BOSQUES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772