DETAILED ACTION
This action is pursuant to claims filed on 01/21/2025. Claims 1-21 are pending, with claim 21 withdrawn. A first action on the merits of claims 1-21 is as follows.
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
Claim 21 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/17/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 6-7, 14, and 17-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 6, line 2, “solids” should read “the solids”
In claim 7, line 2, “solids” should read “the solids”
In claim 14, line 2, “bottom surface” should read “the bottom surface”
In claim 17, line 5, “solids” should read “the solids”
In claim 18, line 4, “oral sampling tip” should read “the oral sampling tip”
In claim 18, line 8, “solids” should read “the solids”
In claim 19, line 5, “solids” should read “the solids”
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.
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 5-7, 11-14, and 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.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites the limitation “a visual indication” in line 3. It is unclear if this limitation is meant to refer to the visual indication from claim 1, line 4, or a different visual indication. If it is meant to refer to the visual indication form claim 5, it needs to refer back to it. If it is meant to refer to a different visual indication, it is unclear what it is a visual indication of, and how the stopper is capable of preventing the visual indication from changing. The broad and indefinite scope of the limitation fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art with reasonable certainty of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention, therefore the claim is rendered indefinite. For purposes of examination, it is being interpreted as referring to the visual indication from claim 1, however it is unclear how the stopper is capable of preventing the visual indication from being changed. Claims 6-7 are also rejected due to their dependence on claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites the limitation “the visual indication” in line 1. It is unclear if this limitation is meant to refer to the visual indication from claim 1, line 4, or the visual indication from claim 5, line 3. For purposes of examination, it is being interpreted as referring to the visual indication from claim 1. Claim 7 is also rejected due to its dependence on claim 7.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites the limitation “about 0.025 mm to about 3.000 mm” in line 2. It is unclear what constitutes as “about” 0.025 mm and “about” 3.000 mm, and how close to these values will still teach on this limitation. The broad and indefinite scope of the limitation fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art with reasonable certainty of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention, therefore the claim is rendered indefinite. For purposes of examination, any value that is plus or minus 5 mm from these values will teach on this limitation.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites the limitation “generally concave curvature” in line 2. It is unclear what constitutes as “generally” concave curvature, and how close to a concave curvature can be considered “generally” concave curvature. The broad and indefinite scope of the limitation fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art with reasonable certainty of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention, therefore the claim is rendered indefinite. For purposes of examination, any surface shape will teach on this limitation. Claims 13-14 are also rejected due to their dependence on claim 12.
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites the limitation “one or more dental conditions” in line 3. It is unclear if this limitation is meant to refer to the one or more dental conditions from claim 16, line 4, or different one or more dental conditions. If it is meant to refer to the one or more dental conditions from claim 16, it needs to refer back to it. If it is meant to refer to a different one or more dental conditions, it needs to be distinguished from the one or more dental conditions from claim 16. For purposes of examination, it is being interpreted as referring to the one or more dental conditions from claim 16.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rizoiu (US 20110200959).
Regarding independent claim 1, Rizoiu teaches an oral sampling device ([0016]: “the disclosure herein refers to the use of a device having activated textured surfaces (e.g., lighted with bristles) for treating tissue (e.g., teeth) surfaces of the oral cavity”) comprising:
a handle configured to be gripped by a user (Handle 4); and
an oral sampling tip extending outwardly from the handle (Brushing head 5 including the bristles is the tip extending outwardly from the handle, as shown in Fig. 1), the oral sampling tip sized to be inserted into an oral cavity of the user ([0121]: “The user follows the instructions and inserts the toothbrush, with the dentifrice thereon and with the source in an off mode, into the mouth and onto the teeth of the user”) and provide a visual indication of biological data for fluids or solids located within the oral cavity ([0032]: “The detector can be used for detecting tissue conditions, such as, for example, in the case of oral applications, dental caries, periodontal disease, bronchitis, tumors, or halitosis”; [0043]: “a detector (e.g., an optical detector) of the handle may discern a tissue condition (e.g., a cut on a user's tongue)”; [0045]: “the electronic input/output device can be configured to provide an indication (e.g., an audible or visual text message or an alarm) that a treatable condition should be brought to the attention of a professional (e.g., a dentist), such as in the case of detection of an advanced caries, periodontal disease, halitosis, or tumorous condition”. The visual text message is the visual indication related to the condition of the user’s mouth, which is the biological data for fluids or solids within the oral cavity.).
Regarding claim 2, Rizoiu teaches the oral sampling device of claim 1, wherein the handle includes a first portion and a second portion, the first portion having a width that is greater than a width of the second portion and the oral sampling tip is coupled to the second portion (Fig. 5 shows a first portion of the handle having a greater width of the second portion. See annotated Fig. 5 below that illustrates the first and second portion and the connection of the second portion to the oral sampling tip.).
PNG
media_image1.png
703
359
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Rizoiu teaches the oral sampling device of claim 1, wherein the oral sampling tip is detachably coupled to the handle ([0081]: “brushing head 5 can be formed as an implement that is readily detachable from handle 4”).
Regarding claim 4, Rizoiu teaches the oral sampling device of claim 2, wherein a shaft extends outwardly from the second portion of the handle and is curved upwardly away from a bottom surface of the handle (Fig. 5 shows reference character 51 (the shaft) curving upwardly away from the bottom surface of the handle.).
Regarding claim 5, Rizoiu teaches the oral sampling device of claim 4 further comprising: a stopper coupled to a distal end of the shaft, the stopper having a diameter that is greater than a diameter of the shaft, the stopper configured to prevent a visual indication of a portion of the sampling tip extending proximally toward the handle from changing (Fig. 1 shows the body 6, which is the stopper, having a diameter that is greater than the diameter of the shaft; [0006]: “Any feature or combination of features described herein are included within the scope of the present invention provided that the features included in any such combination are not mutually inconsistent as will be apparent from the context, this specification, and the knowledge of one skilled in the art”; [0052]: “FIG. 1 depicts a handle coupled with an activated textured surface that can be implemented using one or more of, for example, a repetitive movement mechanism and a treatment energy source (e.g., electromagnetic radiation source). The handle and activated textured surface are embodied, as presently illustrated, in the form of an electromagnetic radiation emitting toothbrush 1 suitable for use with a container 31 of brushing compound; and the collection of implements can be disposed within a package 32. Other implementations of the illustrated embodiment, such as the embodiments depicted in FIGS. 2-6 which embodiments can apply equally to the disclosure set forth herein to the extent compatible or not mutually exclusive or to the extent modifiable by one skilled in the art to be compatible or not mutually exclusive, can have differing constructions of one or more of the handle and activated textured surface (e.g., electromagnetic radiation emitting toothbrush 1) and container 31 of brushing compound as will be apparent to those having skill in the art”. The stopper from Fig. 1 can be combined into the embodiment from Fig. 5, as disclosed in Rizoiu.).
Regarding claim 8, Rizoiu teaches the oral sampling device of claim 1, wherein the oral sampling tip includes a pointed distal tip (Fig. 13A shows that the brushing head can have a plaque remover 97, which is a pointed distal tip.).
Regarding claim 15, Rizoiu teaches the oral sampling device of claim 1, wherein the oral sampling tip is configured to be inserted into one or more of a pit of a tooth, a fissure in a tooth, and an interproximal space in the oral cavity ([0112]: “one of the purposes of tooth brushing is to remove bacteria which have collected on tooth surfaces, frequently in pits and fissures in the tooth enamel. It is known that regardless of the care exercised and time spent in a brushing session, some of the bacteria deposits may not be dislodged and removed from the tooth surfaces”).
Regarding independent claim 16, Rizoiu teaches a method of using an intraoral device ([0014]: “The present invention may be practiced in conjunction with various medical devices that are conventionally used in the art, and only so much of the commonly practiced method steps are included herein as are necessary to provide an understanding of the present invention”), the method comprising:
gripping a handle of the intraoral device (Claim 1: “a handle suitable to be gripped by a hand of a user”);
inserting an oral sampling tip coupled to the handle into an oral cavity of a user ([0121]: “The user follows the instructions and inserts the toothbrush, with the dentifrice thereon and with the source in an off mode, into the mouth and onto the teeth of the user.”); and
determining one or more dental conditions of the oral cavity based on an indication generated by the oral sampling tip relating to biological data of fluids or solids located within the oral cavity ([0032]: “The detector can be used for detecting tissue conditions, such as, for example, in the case of oral applications, dental caries, periodontal disease, bronchitis, tumors, or halitosis”; [0043]: “a detector (e.g., an optical detector) of the handle may discern a tissue condition (e.g., a cut on a user's tongue)”).
Regarding claim 17, Rizoiu teaches the method of claim 16 further comprising: detaching the oral sampling tip from the handle ([0081]: “brushing head 5 can be formed as an implement that is readily detachable from handle 4”); coupling a second oral sampling tip to the handle; inserting the second oral sampling tip into the oral cavity of the user ([0090]: “a cleaning function being provided by a cleaning surface (e.g., bristles) of a first brushhead cartridge and a plaque removing function being provided by an implement (e.g., a pointed sharpened or other suitably-shaped implement) of a second brushhead cartridge. FIG. 7 and others which follow depict examples of such a second brushhead cartridge.”); and obtaining, via the second oral sampling tip, second biological data of the fluids or solids located within the oral cavity ([0032]: “The detector can be used for detecting tissue conditions, such as, for example, in the case of oral applications, dental caries, periodontal disease, bronchitis, tumors, or halitosis”; [0043]: “a detector (e.g., an optical detector) of the handle may discern a tissue condition (e.g., a cut on a user's tongue)”. The detector receives information from the brushhead to make the determinations, therefore if it receives information from the second brushhead, it will be second biological data.).
Regarding claim 18, Rizoiu teaches the method of claim 16, wherein there is a shaft coupling the oral sampling tip to the handle (Fig. 5, reference character 51 shows the shaft.), the shaft being detachably coupled to the handle and the oral sampling tip is fixedly coupled to the shaft, the method further comprising: detaching the shaft and oral sampling tip fixedly coupled thereto from the handle ([0081]: “brushing head 5 can be formed as an implement that is readily detachable from handle 4”. The brushing head is detachable from the handle, however it is unclear whether the shaft is included in the detachment. However, it would have been obvious for the shaft to be included in the detachment, as it is connected to the brushing head and is capable of performing the detachment from the handle.); coupling a second shaft having a second oral sampling tip fixedly coupled thereto to the handle ([0090]: “a cleaning function being provided by a cleaning surface (e.g., bristles) of a first brushhead cartridge and a plaque removing function being provided by an implement (e.g., a pointed sharpened or other suitably-shaped implement) of a second brushhead cartridge. FIG. 7 and others which follow depict examples of such a second brushhead cartridge.”. The second brushhead cartridge can include a second shaft.); inserting the second oral sampling tip into the oral cavity of the user ([0121]: “The user follows the instructions and inserts the toothbrush, with the dentifrice thereon and with the source in an off mode, into the mouth and onto the teeth of the user.”); and obtaining, via the second oral sampling tip, second biological data of the fluids or solids located within the oral cavity ([0032]: “The detector can be used for detecting tissue conditions, such as, for example, in the case of oral applications, dental caries, periodontal disease, bronchitis, tumors, or halitosis”; [0043]: “a detector (e.g., an optical detector) of the handle may discern a tissue condition (e.g., a cut on a user's tongue)”. The detector receives information from the brushhead to make the determinations, therefore if it receives information from the second brushhead, it will be second biological data.).
Regarding claim 20, Rizoiu teaches the method of claim 16, wherein inserting the oral sampling tip into the oral cavity includes inserting the oral sampling tip into one of: a pit of a tooth, a fissure in a tooth or an interproximal space in the oral cavity ([0112]: “one of the purposes of tooth brushing is to remove bacteria which have collected on tooth surfaces, frequently in pits and fissures in the tooth enamel. It is known that regardless of the care exercised and time spent in a brushing session, some of the bacteria deposits may not be dislodged and removed from the tooth surfaces”).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rizoiu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of O’Beirne (US 11173018).
Regarding claim 6, Rizoiu teaches the oral sampling device of claim 5.
However, Rizoiu does not teach wherein the visual indication is representative of a pH value of the fluids or solids located within the oral cavity.
O’Beirne discloses an oral hygiene device. Specifically, O’Beirne teaches wherein the visual indication is representative of a pH value of the fluids or solids located within the oral cavity (Column 11, lines 4-9: “the device 100 may include a pH sensor in pick head 110 and/or pick member 111. The pH sensor may be effective to determine localized pH on particular teeth and/or within particular caries, pockets, and/or furcations of particular teeth. Some periodontal pathogens thrive within environments of a certain range of pH”). Rizoiu and O’Beirne are analogous art as they are both related to the same field of endeavor of devices used to analyze a user’s mouth.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the visual indication being representative of a pH value from O’Beirne into the device from Rizoiu as Rizoiu teaches that the visual indication is related to periodontal diseases, and O’Beirne teaches that certain periodontal pathogens thrive in specific pH ranges, therefore the pH can lead to important information that can be used to determine the disease state of the user, and can be shown as a visual indication.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Rizoiu/O’Beirne combination as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Jabbarzadeh (US 20200072756).
Regarding claim 7, the Rizoiu/O’Beirne combination teaches the oral sampling device of claim 6.
However, the Rizoiu/O’Beirne combination does not teach wherein the stopper is colored to match the visual indication of the oral sampling tip when the pH value of the fluids or solids within the oral cavity indicate a presence of dental caries.
Jabbarzadeh discloses medical swabs used to collect samples from the mouth. Specifically, Jabbarzadeh teaches wherein the stopper is colored to match the visual indication of the oral sampling tip when the pH value of the fluids or solids within the oral cavity indicate a presence of dental caries ([0010]: “The pH indicator exhibits a visually detectable color that is indicative of the pH of a fluid in contact with the pH indicator.”. The pH indicator from the swab of Jabbarzadeh can be included into the stopper from Rizoiu, which will allow the stopper to have the color change to show pH.). Rizoiu, O’Beirne, and Jabbarzadeh are analogous art as they are all related to the same field of endeavor of devices used to analyze a user’s mouth.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the color from Jabbarzadeh into the Rizoiu/O’Beirne combination as it allows the device to clearly show the detected pH value to the user, so they can easily identify the pH value.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rizoiu as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Jabbarzadeh.
Regarding claim 19, Rizoiu teaches the method of claim 16.
However, Rizoiu does not teach wherein inserting the oral sampling tip into the oral cavity causes the oral sampling tip to change from a first color to a second color, and wherein determining one or more dental conditions of the oral cavity includes determining, based on the change from the first color to the second color, a measure of acidity of the fluids or solids located within the oral cavity.
Jabbarzadeh teaches wherein inserting the oral sampling tip into the oral cavity causes the oral sampling tip to change from a first color to a second color, and wherein determining one or more dental conditions of the oral cavity includes determining, based on the change from the first color to the second color, a measure of acidity of the fluids or solids located within the oral cavity ([0010]: “The pH indicator exhibits a visually detectable color that is indicative of the pH of a fluid in contact with the pH indicator.”. The pH indicates the acidity, therefore the color indicative of the pH will change from a first color to a second color.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the color change indicating acidity from Jabbarzadeh into the device from Rizoiu as it allows the device to measure and show pH, which can be used to determine different types of periodontal disease.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rizoiu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Giddings (US 20120310113).
Regarding claim 12, Rizoiu teaches the oral sampling device of claim 1.
However, Rizoiu does not teach wherein the handle includes a top surface and bottom surface each having a generally concave curvature.
Giddings teaches wherein the handle includes a top surface and bottom surface each having a generally concave curvature (Annotated Fig. 2B shows the top surface and bottom surface of the handle being generally concave.).
PNG
media_image2.png
755
317
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the structure of the handle from Giddings into the device from Rizoiu as Rizoiu is silent on the specific structure of the handle, and Giddings discloses a suitable handle structure in an analogous device.
Regarding claim 13, the Rizoiu/Giddings combination teaches the oral sampling device of claim 12, wherein the handle includes first and second side walls opposite one another and each extending between the bottom surface and the top surface, each of the first and second side walls includes a bottom portion extending or not extending downwardly from the bottom surface away from the top surface and a top portion extending upwardly from the top surface away from the bottom surface (Giddings Annotated Figs. 1B and 2B show these features).
PNG
media_image3.png
760
332
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
757
372
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, the Rizoiu/Giddings combination teaches the oral sampling device of claim 12, wherein at least one of the top surface and bottom surface include a plurality of ribbed features extending along the respective top surface and bottom surface (Giddings, Handle rib members 22).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rizoiu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mink (US 20100239458).
Regarding claim 9, Rizoiu teaches the oral sampling device of claim 1.
However, Rizoiu does not teach wherein the oral sampling tip is comprised of an adsorbent material.
Mink discloses an apparatus for assay of oral fluids. Specifically, Mink teaches wherein the oral sampling tip is comprised of an adsorbent material (Abstract: “A porous wick material protrudes from the housing to a collection site exterior of the housing at one end and communicates to the lateral chromatographic strip at the other end. This porous wick material has particulate construction, the particles adsorbing aqueous oral fluid to transport the fluid from the mouth to the lateral chromatographic strip without substantial absorption “; [0023]: “Analytes commonly detected in the assays of this invention include, but are not limited to antibodies, antigens, growth factors, enzymes, therapeutic drugs, drugs of abuse, and the like. Particularly preferred analytes include antibodies and antigens relevant to infectious and non-infectious disease”). Rizoiu and Mink are analogous art as they are both related to the same field of endeavor of devices used to test a user’s mouth for diseases.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the sampling tip material from Mink into the device from Rizoiu, as it allows the device to incorporate a lateral chromatographic strip into the device, which can test for different types of diseases in the oral cavity. This allows the device to monitor for diseases such as periodontal disease or other oral diseases using another testing type, which can increase the accuracy of the detection included in Rizoiu’s disease detection and provide and additional way to test for these diseases. Additionally, Rizoiu is silent on the material of the tip, and Mink discloses a suitable tip material in an analogous device.
Regarding claim 10, Rizoiu teaches the oral sampling device of claim 1.
However, Rizoiu does not teach wherein the oral sampling tip is comprised of paper.
Mink teaches wherein the oral sampling tip is comprised of paper ([0077]: “Lateral flow immunoassays typically involves the application of a liquid test sample suspected of containing an analyte to be detected to an application zone of an lateral flow (immunochromatographic) test strip. The strip is comprised of a matrix material (e.g., paper)”; [0023]: “Analytes commonly detected in the assays of this invention include, but are not limited to antibodies, antigens, growth factors, enzymes, therapeutic drugs, drugs of abuse, and the like. Particularly preferred analytes include antibodies and antigens relevant to infectious and non-infectious disease”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the sampling tip material from Mink into the device from Rizoiu, as it allows the device to incorporate a lateral chromatographic strip into the device, which can test for different types of diseases in the oral cavity. This allows the device to monitor for diseases such as periodontal disease or other oral diseases using another testing type, which can increase the accuracy of the detection included in Rizoiu’s disease detection and provide and additional way to test for these diseases. Additionally, Rizoiu is silent on the material of the tip, and Mink discloses a suitable tip material in an analogous device.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rizoiu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Moskovich (US 7836539).
Regarding claim 11, Rizoiu teaches the oral sampling device of claim 1.
However, Rizoiu does not teach wherein the oral sampling tip has a maximum thickness of between about 0.025 mm to about 3.000 mm.
Moskovich discloses an oral care implement. Specifically, Moskovich teaches wherein the oral sampling tip has a maximum thickness of between about 0.025 mm to about 3.000 mm (Column 24, lines 5-24: “The smaller width or diameter of the tip portion 4807 in conjunction with the length of the conically shaped nub 4803 enable the nubs to sweep into the recesses of the tongue and other surfaces to clean the microbial deposits and other debris from the soft tissue surfaces … the thickness or width of the base of the nub in 0.64 mm, and preferably within the range from about 0.51 mm to about 2.00 mm. Tip 4807 of the nubs is 0.127 mm and preferably within a range from about 0.10 mm to about 0.75 mm for optimal penetration between the recesses of papillae of a user's tongue. The length or height of nubs 303, as measured from base surface 301 to tip 307, is preferably 0.91 mm and preferably within range from about 0.5 mm to about 2.5 mm, and most preferably range between 0.75 mm to 1.5 mm. Nevertheless, nubs of other sizes and shapes outside the given ranges can be used”). Rizoiu and Moskovich are analogous art as they are both related to the same field of endeavor of devices used to clean a user’s mouth.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the thickness from Moskovich into the device from Rizoiu as Rizoiu is silent on the dimensions of the sampling tip, and Moskovich discloses suitable dimensions in an analogous device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN K MCCORMACK whose telephone number is (703)756-1886. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5.
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, Jason Sims can be reached at 5712727540. 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.
/E.K.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/MATTHEW KREMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights