Nami Khademhosseini

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 30, 2020

14737511 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/737,511 06/12/2015 Nami Khademhosseini 706-88235-PAT-1-US 1785
23432 7590 03/30/2020
COOPER & DUNHAM, LLP
30 Rockefeller Plaza
20th Floor
NEW YORK, NY 10112
EXAMINER
ORKIN, ALEXANDER J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3771
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2020 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
DUSPTO@cooperdunham.com
patcomm-in-grp@cooperdunham.com
pdocketing@cooperdunham.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte NAMI KHADEMHOSSEINI
____________

Appeal 2018-009070
Application 14/737,511
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.

SHAH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 21–38, which are all of the pending
claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Telebrands Corp. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-009070
Application 14/737,511

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The Appellant’s invention relates to
a method and a device for cleaning the ear canal of cerumen
contaminants, dust, and particulates. That includes a handle and
replaceable tips, a combination of a flared design and solid base
plate attached to the bottom of the tips, limiting the excessive
insertion of the tip into the deep area of ear canal that could
contact eardrum, which can seriously damage the eardrum and
hearing capabilities.
Spec. ¶ 3.
Claims 21 is the only independent claim, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal, and is reproduced below:
21. An ear cleaning apparatus comprising:
a spiral-shaped head;
a locking mechanism coupled to the spiral-shaped head,
the locking mechanism including a center protrusion and a pair
of longitudinally extending locking tabs; and
a handle including a receiving portion configured to
receive the locking mechanism to releasably couple the spiral-
shaped head to the handle.
Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Karell US 5,509,921 Apr. 23, 1996
Huttner et al.
(“Huttner”)
US 6,706,023 B1 Mar. 16, 2004
Vlodaver et al.
(“Vlodaver”)
US 2011/0301572 A1 Dec. 8, 2011
Appeal 2018-009070
Application 14/737,511

3
REJECTIONS2
Claims 21–31 and 34–38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Vlodaver in view of Huttner.
Claims 32 and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Vlodaver, Huttner, and further in view of Karell.

OPINION
The Appellant contends that the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 21 is in error because the prior art does not render obvious the recited
limitations of “a locking mechanism coupled to the spiral-shaped head, the
locking mechanism including a center protrusion and a pair of longitudinally
extending locking tabs, and a handle including a receiving portion
configured to receive the locking mechanism to releasably couple the spiral-
shaped head to the handle.” Appeal Br. 10. Specifically, the Appellant
argues that Huttner’s locking attachment means is radially extending, and
not longitudinally extending, as claimed. Id. at 11.
The Examiner finds, in relevant part, that Vlodaver teaches “a locking
mechanism coupled to the spiral-shaped head (paragraph 73, 104), . . . but is
silent about the locking mechanism including a center protrusion, and a pair
of longitudinal extending locking tabs.” Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 4. To
cure these deficiencies, the Examiner relies on Huttner as teaching “a similar
device having a locking mechanism with center protrusion (13) and a pair of

2 The Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 of claim 26 and rejections
under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103 of the claims using the prior art Di Cecco
(US 2004/0097997 A1, pub. May 20, 2004) have been withdrawn. Advisory
Action (Feb. 28, 2018), Ans. 2.
Appeal 2018-009070
Application 14/737,511

4
longitudinal extending locking tabs (54, figure 2b, they are longitudinal and
are locking tabs, col. 5 ll. 37-50) for the purpose of using alternative known
locking attachment means which conform to international standards.” Final
Act. 5; see also Ans. 4–5. The Examiner further finds that “Huttner teaches
one of these connection mechanism can have a central protrusion (14, figure
2b) and a pair of longitudinally extending locking tabs (54, figure 2b . . .).”
Ans. 4.
Vlodaver discloses an ear medication delivery device comprising an
earplug and delivery bulb. Vlodaver, Abstract, ¶ 68. The earplug may be
made of separate pieces with the outer body “attached by means well
understood in the art, including but not limited to gluing, frictional fit,
mechanical connection or threaded connection, to the outer surface 36 of the
tube 32.” Id. ¶ 73 (emphasis omitted). The earplug may also have “a cap 98
attachable by frictional fit, mechanical connection or threads to the proximal
end 30 of lumen 24,” the cap functioning to close the proximal end once
fluid has been delivered to the ear canal. Id. ¶ 104 (emphasis omitted).
Huttner discloses “an irrigation device for use in an orifice,” such as
an ear canal. Huttner, Abstract, col. 1, l. 65–2, l. 5. As depicted in
Figure 2B, the device has a proximal end of a tubular member that can
comprise “a plurality of spaced apart locking attachment means 54 which
conform to international standards such as ISO 594-2:1991(E).” Id. at
col. 5, ll. 37–41 (emphasis omitted).
Appeal 2018-009070
Application 14/737,511

5
Figure 2B is reproduced below:

Figure 2B showing irrigation device 10 with proximal end 13
comprising locking means 43.
As noted by the Examiner, “the specific longitudinal axis is not
defined [in claim 1] or how the pair of locking tabs extend with respect to
the given longitudinal axis.” Ans. 4. We note that the Specification does
not contain the term “longitudinal,” nor are the locking tabs identified in any
of the drawings. The Specification does state “FIG. 16 shows a view of the
tip, with spiral tip 142, with attaching or engaging end, for one
embodiment.” Spec. ¶ 21. This tip can have a rib shape, tubs, multiple pins,
array of small bars, a brush shape, or a comb shape, “for the tip and/or body,
to lock into each other, with slit or opening on the other side to engage the
other side, to lock in and attach with each other, as one unit.” Id. ¶ 28.
Appeal 2018-009070
Application 14/737,511

6
Figure 16 is reproduced below:

Figure 16 showing spiral tip 142 with an attaching end on the left side.
In light of the Specification, we agree with the Appellant that “one of
ordinary skill in the art would understand longitudinal to mean running
length wise rather than across,” i.e., lengthwise of the entire device. Reply
Br. 6; see also Appeal Br. 11. We also agree that Huttner’s mechanism, i.e.,
tabs, as depicted in Figure 2B above, does not longitudinally extend from the
center protrusion, but rather, the tabs are “radially extending,
circumferentially disposed protrusions.” Appeal Br. 11; Reply Br. 4.
Thus, based on the record before us, we are persuaded by the
Appellant’s argument of Examiner error, and we do not sustain the
obviousness rejection over Vlodaver and Huttner of independent claim 21.
We also do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 22–31 and 34–38
under the same ground of rejection. The rejection of claims 32 and 33 as
obvious over Vlodaver, Huttner, and Karell is also not sustained, as it fails to
include additional findings and/or reasoning that cures the deficiency in the
rejection of independent claim 21, from which they ultimately depend.
Appeal 2018-009070
Application 14/737,511

7
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 21–38 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is not sustained.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
21–31, 34–38 103 Vlodaver, Huttner 21–31, 34–38
32, 33 103 Vlodaver, Huttner,
Karell
32, 33
Overall
Outcome
21–38

REVERSED