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 .
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.
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, 4-5, 7-8, 10-16, and 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ernest et al. (US 4399582, "Ernest") in view of Haeusser (WO 8901303) and Kang (KR 100922289).
Regarding claims 1 and 19, Ernest teaches a toothbrush system comprising:
a replaceable head (15), a handle (13) coupled with the head (15), the handle including;
at least one longitudinal portion (25) positioned relative to the head such that a hand of the provider is oriented at a distinct angle from the head while brushing the teeth of the other person and holding the at least one longitudinal portion (a provider's hand would inherently be oriented at an angle while holding the brush).
Ernest further teaches that the head may be one of a plurality of different heads (See Ernest figs. 6-11 and 5:10-37).
Ernest does not teach an embodiment wherein the head includes an approximately dumbbell-shaped core and a set of brushing portions extending from the approximately dumbbell-shaped core, the set of brushing portions including an upper brushing portion and a lower brushing portion, wherein the upper brushing portion and the lower brushing portion are oriented and spaced apart relative to one another to enable a provider to brush upper teeth and lower teeth of another person without removing the head from the mouth of the other person.
However, Haeusser teaches a head for a toothbrush including an approximately dumbbell-shaped core (see Haeusser fig. 1) and a set of brushing portions (6a-6e) extending from the approximately dumbbell-shaped core (see Haeusser fig. 1), the set of brushing portions including an upper brushing portion and a lower brushing portion, wherein the upper brushing portion and the lower brushing portion are oriented and spaced apart relative to one another to enable a provider to brush upper teeth and lower teeth of another person without removing the head from the mouth of the other person (see Haeusser fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to provide the toothbrush of Ernest with a toothbrush head of the sort taught by Haeusser as one of the replaceable heads such that the toothbrush included a head comprising an approximately dumbbell-shaped core and a set of brushing portions extending from the approximately dumbbell-shaped core, the set of brushing portions including an upper brushing portion and a lower brushing portion, wherein the upper brushing portion and the lower brushing portion are oriented and spaced apart relative to one another to enable a provider to brush upper teeth and lower teeth of another person without removing the head from the mouth of the other person, as doing so represents the simple substitution of one design for a toothbrush head for another in a system configured to include replaceable heads of various configurations, and the results of such a substitution would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill.
The system of Ernest as modified does not teach that the handle comprises at least two distinct grip portions extending from the at least one longitudinal portion, the at least two distinct grip portions including a forward grip portion and a rear grip portion, the forward grip portion being longer than the rear grip portion.
However, Kang teaches an improvement to a handle for a toothbrush including a forward grip portion (34) and a rear grip portion (33) extending from a longitudinal portion (20), wherein the forward grip portion is longer than the rear grip portion (34 is longer than 33, see Kang fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the toothbrush handle of Ernest as modified to incorporate grip portions as taught by Kang such that it included at least two distinct grip portions extending from the at least one longitudinal portion, the at least two distinct grip portions including a forward grip portion and a rear grip portion, the forward grip portion being longer than the rear grip portion, as doing so represents the combination of known prior art handle elements according to known methods, the results of such a combination being predictable to one of ordinary skill.
2. Ernest as modified teaches the toothbrush of claim 1, wherein the at least one longitudinal portion of the handle is capable of being positioned relative to the head to enable the hand of the provider to remain in a handshake position while brushing the teeth of the other person,
wherein the handshake position includes a neutral wrist, a sideways facing palm, and fingers and thumb wrapped opposably around the at least one longitudinal portion of the handle (the toothbrush of Ernest as modified would have two grip portions at the end of the handle to facilitate a handshake-like holding position).
4. Ernest as modified teaches the toothbrush of claim 2, wherein the handle has an offset from the head allowing the provider to view the mouth of the other person while brushing the upper teeth and the lower teeth (handle 13 has an offset central portion, see Ernest fig. 2).
5. Ernest as modified teaches the toothbrush of claim 1, wherein the head enables brushing of an entirety of the teeth of the other person without removing the head from the mouth of the other person (toothbrush head of Haeusser enables simultaneous brushing of both top and bottom teeth, see Haeusser fig. 3).
7. Ernest as modified teaches the toothbrush of claim 5, wherein the head enables brushing the upper teeth and the lower teeth of the other person without rotating the handle more than 90 degrees along an axis of the handle (toothbrush head of Haeusser enables simultaneous brushing of both top and bottom teeth, see Haeusser fig. 3).
8. Ernest as modified teaches the toothbrush of claim 7, wherein the upper brushing portion includes three distinct upper brushing surfaces and wherein the lower brushing portion includes three distinct lower brushing surfaces, each of the distinct brushing surfaces having a set of bristles for brushing the teeth of the other person (3 sets of brushing surfaces for each of upper and lower portions, see Haeusser fig. 1).
10. Ernest as modified teaches the toothbrush of claim 8, wherein the at least one longitudinal portion of the handle includes two distinct longitudinal portions that are offset from one another by a connecting portion to facilitate the user viewing the mouth of the other person while brushing the teeth (handle 13 has an offset central portion and two longitudinal sections, see Ernest fig. 2), and wherein the at least two distinct grip portions extend from a rear one of the two distinct longitudinal portions (Kang teaches the grip portions extend from an end of a toothbrush handle distal to the head, see Kang fig. 6).
20. Ernest as modified teaches the toothbrush of claim 19, wherein the at least one longitudinal portion of the handle further comprises a first longitudinal portion approximately parallel with, and offset from a second longitudinal portion, and a connecting portion between the first longitudinal portion and the second longitudinal portion (handle 13 has two parallel longitudinal portions and an offset central portion defined by bends 23 and 25, see Ernest fig. 2),
wherein the first longitudinal portion is coupled with the head (see Ernest fig. 2), and wherein the offset between the first longitudinal portion and the second longitudinal portion prevents the handle from blocking the provider's view of the subject's mouth during brushing (the offset is capable of preventing the handle from blocking a view),
wherein the head allows the user to view the mouth of the subject while brushing the upper teeth and the lower teeth and enables brushing of an entirety of the teeth of the subject without removing the head from the mouth of the subject (the toothbrush of Ernest as modified would be capable of performing the claimed functions).
21. Ernest as modified teaches the toothbrush of claim 20, wherein a depth of the head is less than a width thereof (see Ernest fig. 1) to facilitate insertion of the head into the mouth of the subject, wherein the approximately dumb-bell shaped core has a thinner central section and two wider peripheral sections (central section 8 has a significantly smaller height than ends 3, see Haeusser fig. 1), wherein a line intersecting the thinner central section and the two wider peripheral sections is approximately perpendicular to an extension direction of the at least one longitudinal portion of the handle (toothbrush head is perpendicular to an extension direction of the first longitudinal handle section, see Ernest figs. 1-2).
22. Ernest as modified teaches the toothbrush of claim 20, wherein the at least two distinct grip portions extend from the second longitudinal portion (Kang teaches the grip portions extend from a end of a toothbrush handle distal to the head, see Kang fig. 6), wherein the forward grip portion is closer to the head than the rear grip portion (forward grip portion 34 is closer to a toothbrush head than rear grip portion 33, see Kang fig. 6), and wherein the connecting portion includes at least one bend (offset central portion includes bends 23 and 25, see Ernest fig. 2).
23. Ernest as modified teaches the toothbrush of claim 22, wherein the upper brushing portion and the lower brushing portion are connected by the approximately dumb-bell shaped core (see Haeusser fig. 1) and wherein the approximately dumb-bell shaped core has a convex rounded shape at extremities thereof (tips of 3 are convex and rounded, see Haeusser fig. 1).
24. Ernest as modified teaches the toothbrush of claim 1,wherein the approximately dumb-bell shaped core has a thinner central section and two wider peripheral sections (central section 8 has a significantly smaller height than ends 3, see Haeusser fig. 1), wherein a line intersecting the thinner central section and the two wider peripheral sections is approximately perpendicular to an extension direction of the at least one longitudinal portion of the handle (toothbrush head is perpendicular to an extension direction of the first longitudinal handle section, see Ernest figs. 1-2).
Regarding claims 11-18, it has been held that when a prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Because Ernest as modified teaches the toothbrush of claims 1-10 and 19-24, and the methods of claims 11-18 recite no more than the normal and usual operation of a toothbrush having the structure recited in claims 1-10 and 19-24, the combination of Ernest Haeusser, and Kang inherently teaches the methods of claims 11-18.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10-16, and 18-24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN R ZAWORSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7804. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00, Fridays 9:00-1:00.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at (571)-272-4475. 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.
/J.R.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723