In a jolt to US-based oral care Colgate-Palmolive, the Indian patent office has refused to proceed with the company’s patent application for its popular flexible dome toothbrush.
Rejecting the application, the patent office based in New Delhi said Colgate-Palmolive claims lack novelty and inventive step, in view of the prior-art documents in the public domain.
The company had filed application in 2007 for the invention titled ‘flexible dome toothbrush’ as a divisional application to an original application related to a toothbrush comprising handle and head that are dimensioned for use in the oral cavity, filed in 2005. Colgate-Palmolive has a corresponding product patent for flexible dome toothbrush, registered in the US.
Filing the patent application titled flexible dome toothbrush, the company claimed it was an invention involving a toothbrush comprising a handle and a head portion containing an elastomeric portion and an open area. The elastomeric portion is readily deflectable into the open area upon the application of pressure during the use of toothbrush. The elastomeric portion assumes its original orientation upon reduction of the pressure while the head portion would have cleaning elements.
P Srinivasa Rao, assistant controller of patents & designs, New Delhi, said : “After scrutiny of the claims, it is found that statement of patent agent that the claims of the present application are in conformity with the corresponding United States patent is incorrect. Second inventor of this application, Russell Bruce Michael is not the inventor for the said corresponding United States patent. The agent’s submission of filing revised pending claims under Section 57(6) is also not correct,” he said. The assistant controller said that the claims of the present divisional application are conflicting with the claims of the parent application.
However, according to Colgate, the claims of the parent application are directed to a toothbrush comprising a handle and a head that are dimensioned for use in the oral cavity. They argued that the subject matter of the two applications was not in conflict.
The assistant controller further said that hearing was offered on six pending claims but patent agent for the company voluntarily amended claims beyond the scope of the original claims. Amended claims were not disclosed in complete specification in many instances, he said.
