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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 6, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed June 6, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 7 – 12 and 20 – 25 are pending. Claims 1 – 6 and 13 – 19 are cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7 – 12 and 20 – 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Specifically, in claim 7, limitation “a distinctive sound with no reverberation time to a user during engagement”, however in the specification on page 5 of 28, it states “sound characteristic provides a clear “click” signal with substantially no reverberation time to a user” and this substantially does not mean completely as the definition is “for the most part” or “to a great extent”. Thus, it appears that the inventor(s), at the time the application was file, did not have possession of the claimed invention. For examination purposes the “reverberation time” will be “for the most part no reverberation”.
Claims 8 – 12 and 20 – 25 depend from claim 7 and are therefore rejected accordingly under 35 USC 112(a).
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(s) 7 – 12 and 20 - 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scherrer et al (EP 3381404 A1) in view of Minoletti (US 6230716 B1), and in further view of Skelton (US 2899966 A) and as evidenced by Yoshida (US 20050020325 A1).
In re Claim 7, Scherrer et al discloses a personal care implement (electric toothbrush, Fig. 1a: 1) comprising:
a head (rotatable brush head, 61) and
a handle (hand part, 10),
the handle comprising a core-connector unit (fixing element Fig. 5c: 121 that contains a second sleeve section, 123),
wherein the core-connector unit (fixing element Fig. 5c: 121 that contains a second sleeve section, 123) comprises,
coupling pin (Fig. 8d: 12) connector for releasably engaging into the head (arranged for connecting hand part to brush attachment, see [0040]).
the head (rotatable brush head, 61) being repeatedly attachable to and detachable from the handle (multiple heads can be attached and detached, see [0002]),
the personal care implement (electric toothbrush, 1) exhibiting a sound when the head gets attached to the handle, thereby providing a signal of secure attachment, (control pin can contain a locking notch, for snapping or snapping a locking element on the brush attachment part merging with handpiece, the engagement of the locking element may also give an acoustic feedback to secure the brush attachment part, see [0045]).
Scherrer et al does not teach, wherein the handle comprises a stainless steel spring-loaded ball-snap element, a ball and spring both made of stainless steel, spring applying an outwardly radial force onto the ball, providing a long-lasting, reliable fixation of the head on the connector as well as a distinctive sound with no reverberation time to a user during engagement; and the sound being characterized by a tonal component of about 4000Hz to about 6000Hz, over a time length of about 0.Is to about 0.3s on a tonality frequency vs. time analysis (Hearing Model of Sottek).
Scherrer et al discloses a coupling pin (Fig. 8d: 12) connector for releasably engaging into the head but does not teach comprises a spring-loaded ball-snap connector. However, Minoletti teaches a quickly removable head from a brush handle, wherein the handle comprises a spring-loaded ball-snap connector (quick disconnect mechanism, Fig. 1: 50) and spring applying an outwardly radial force onto the ball (spring, 54 applies radial force onto ball, see annotated Fig. 1 below), providing a long-lasting, reliable fixation of the head on the connector (In this manner, rotation of the brush head 12 and inadvertent withdrawal of the brush handle 30 are prevented while allowing the brush handle 30 to be quickly withdrawn at a desired time, see Col. 4: Lines 30 – 40) as well as a distinctive sound with for the most part no reverberation time during engagement (provides a different sound as if feels the void, see Col. 4: Lines 30 – 40; and is provided by Scherrer et al: exhibiting a sound when the head gets attached to the handle, detached from the handle, or both (Paragraph [0045]).
PNG
media_image1.png
763
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 – illustrates spring applying outwardly radial force on ball
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify Scherrer et al. with the teachings of handle comprises a spring-loaded ball-snap connector and a spring applying an outwardly radial force on ball as taught by Minoletti because it provides for a quick disconnect of handle from head to help user avoid coordination problems, avoid a fixed handle that may interfere with brushing, quickly and easily removed without significant force, and possibility of utilizing a plurality of brush heads (Minoletti: Col. 3: Lines 9 – 35).
Additionally, Scherrer et al/Minoletti teaches the personal care implement having a spring-loaded ball-snap element comprising a ball and spring but is silent on the material that both are made of stainless steel. However, Skelton teaches hair curlers, having a ball and spring both made of stainless steel (The ball and spring are advantageously of stainless steel, see Col. 2: Lines 14 – 15). Accordingly, the prior art references teach that it is known that having a ball and spring are advantageously made of stainless steel. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have this stainless steel material as it would have resulted in the predictable result of a modification that would amount to one known manner of providing corrosion resistance, durability, strength and a long lifespan.
Scherrer et al. teaches the personal care implement (electric toothbrush, 1) exhibiting a sound when the head gets attached to the handle, detached from the handle, or both (Paragraph [0045]), thereby providing a signal of secure attachment or detachment, the sound being characterized by a tonal component (Paragraph [0045] – the locking element is provided with acoustic feedback). Scherrer, in providing the acoustic feedback, teaches the tonal component having a range in Hz over a given time length on a tonality frequency vs. time analysis but fails to explicitly teach the range of about 4000Hz to about 6000Hz, over a time length of about 0.1s to about 0.3s. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the implement of Scherrer to explicitly teach the range of about 4000Hz to about 6000Hz, over a time length of about 0.1s to about 0.3s, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the number of cycles or oscillations of a component. A change in the number of cycles or oscillations is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Further, the use of sound signaling a secure attachment of a head on a handle provides the technical effect of making the user aware that the parts are securely attached to each other. Scherrer teaches this limitation. The claimed pitch and duration of the signal do not provide any further technical benefit in this respect and is evident in Yoshida (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0020325 A1) where the reference also teaches in Paragraph [0125] a feeling of lock at the time of attachment of replacement brush 50 to stem 40 (to inform the user of the completion of attachment by use of sound and sense of a hand) is important to prevent the user from forcibly pushing replacement brush 50 into the stem, and is effective at reducing the damage of stem 40 and replacement brush 50. Therefore, the sound provided it at a pitch and time sufficient to prevent damage to the device while alerting a user of the proper connection.
In re Claim 8, Scherrer et al as modified teaches the personal care implement according to claim 7,
wherein the sound is characterized by a tonal component over a given Hz range and further over a time length, on a tonality frequency vs. time analysis (Hearing Model of Sottek) (Scherrer et al: use of sound over length of time is taught by Scherrer et al as the reference teaches a sequence of a head securely attaching to a handle proving a tonal component, see [0045]).
Scherrer does not explicitly teach the range of 4800Hz to about 5400Hz, or a time length of about 0.12s to about 0.28s.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the a tonality frequency and time of Scherrer to further explicitly teach the range of 4800Hz to about 5400Hz, or a time length of about 0.12s to about 0.28s, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the range/time of a component. A change in range/time is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). This modification would allow a sufficient signal to the user that the handle has been connected properly.
In re Claim 9, Scherrer et al as modified teaches the personal care implement according to claim 7,
wherein the sound has a sound level vs. time (Scherrer et al: use of sound over length of time is taught by Scherrer et al as the reference teaches a sequence of a head securely attaching to a handle proving a tonal component, see [0045]).
Scherrer does not explicitly teach the sound has a sound level vs. time of about 50dB(A) to about 60dB(A), over a time period of about 0.12 to about 0.28s
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify sound of Scherrer to further explicitly teach the sound has a sound level vs. time of about 50dB(A) to about 60dB(A), over a time period of about 0.12 to about 0.28s, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the range/time of a component. A change in range/time is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). This modification would allow a sufficient signal to the user that the handle has been connected properly.
In re Claim 10, Scherrer et al as modified teaches the personal care implement according to claim 7,
wherein the sound has a loudness vs. time (Scherrer et al: use of sound over length of time is taught by Scherrer et al as the reference teaches a sequence of a head securely attaching to a handle proving a tonal component, see [0045]).
Scherrer does not explicitly teach wherein the sound has a loudness vs. time of about Isone GF to about 3sone GF, over a time period of about 0.12 to about 0.28s, as measured according to ISO 532-1
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sound of Scherrer to further explicitly teach wherein the sound has a loudness vs. time of about Isone GF to about 3sone GF, over a time period of about 0.12 to about 0.28s, as measured according to ISO 532-1, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the range/time of a component. A change in range/time is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). This modification would allow a sufficient signal to the user that the handle has been connected properly.
In re Claim 11, Scherrer et al as modified teaches the personal care implement according to claim 7,
wherein the sound has a tonality vs. time (Hearing Model of Sottek; Scherrer et al: use of sound over length of time is taught by Scherrer et al as the reference teaches a sequence of a head securely attaching to a handle proving a tonal component, see [0045]).
Scherrer does not explicitly teach wherein the sound has a tonality vs. time (Hearing Model of Sottek) of about 0.1tuHMS to about 1.2tuHMS
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sound of Scherrer to further explicitly teach the sound has a tonality vs. time (Hearing Model of Sottek) of about 0.1tuHMS to about 1.2tuHMS, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the range/time of a component. A change in range/time is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). This modification would allow a sufficient signal to the user that the handle has been connected properly.
In re Claim 12, Scherrer et al as modified teaches the personal care implement according to claim 7,
wherein the personal care implement is a an electrically operated toothbrush (Scherrer et al: electrical toothbrush, 1).
In re Claim 20, Scherrer et al as modified teaches the personal care implement according to claim 10,
wherein the sound has a specific loudness (Scherrer et al: use of sound over length of time is taught by Scherrer et al as the reference teaches a sequence of a head securely attaching to a handle proving a tonal component, see [0045]).
Scherrer does not explicitly teach a specific loudness of about 5sone GF to about 9sone GF, over a time period of about 0.12 to about 0.28s, as measured according to ISO 532-
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the loudness of Scherrer to further explicitly teach a specific loudness of about 5sone GF to about 9sone GF, over a time period of about 0.12 to about 0.28s, as measured according to ISO 532-, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the range/time of a component. A change in range/time is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). This modification would allow a sufficient signal to the user that the handle has been connected properly.
In re claim 21. Scherrer et al as modified teaches the personal care implement (10, 100, 2000) according to claim 7,
wherein the core-connector unit (Scherrer et al: fixing element Fig. 5c: 121 that contains a second sleeve section, 123) is formed as one piece that cannot be separated without destroying the unit (Scherrer et al: formed as one piece, see Fig. 5c).
In re claim 22. Scherrer et al as modified teaches the personal care implement (10, 100, 2000) according to claim 7,
wherein the core- connector unit (Scherrer et al: fixing element Fig. 5c: 121 that contains a second sleeve section, 123) is at least partially embedded in another handle material (Scherrer et al: first receiving sections, 23).
In re claim 23. Scherrer et al as modified teaches the personal care implement (10, 100, 2000) according to claim 7,
wherein the handle (Scherrer et al: handle, 91) further comprises a second component at least partially covers the core-connector unit (Scherrer et al: second receiving sections, 24).
In re claim 24. Scherrer et al as modified teaches the personal care implement (10, 100, 2000) according to claim 23,
wherein the core- connector unit together with the second component defines an overall length extension of the handle (Scherrer et al: fixing element Fig. 5c: 121 that contains a second sleeve section, 123 and second receiving sections, 24; defines the length extension of handle, 91 to the hand part, 10, see Fig. 8d).
In re claim 25. Scherrer et al as modified teaches the personal care implement (10, 100, 2000) according to claim 23,
wherein the core- connector unit is overmolded with the second component (Scherrer et al: fixing element Fig. 5c: 121 that contains a second sleeve section, 123; states that several hard components such as the handle housing or the carrier body can use a multi component injection molding process which can include complete overmolding, see [0411 – 0413]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 6, 2025 have been fully considered. On pages 5 – 8, Claims 7-12 and 20 - 25 rejected under 35 U.S.C 103, have been traversed and applicant states the following:
Applicant argues, that the amended claim 1, that recites “wherein the core-connector unit comprises a stainless steel spring-loaded ball-snap element”….and “reliable fixation of the head on the connector as well as a distinctive sound with no reverberation time to a user during engagement”, are not taught or suggested by the references presented by the office. Applicant states the sound in amended claim 7 is only generated if the snap ball and the surrounding housing/ball cage is made out of steel.
However, the office asserts that the claimed structure that is made out of stainless steel is the spring-loaded ball-snap element which comprises a ball and a spring both made of stainless steel, not the “surrounding housing/ball cage” as applicant is stating in the arguments. In addition, in the specification on pages 8 and 24 of 28, it states “a spring-loaded ball element made from stainless steel”; on page 20 of 28 it states “housing may be made from a hard plastic material, or from a metal material, for example stainless steel or aluminum, but no association with the sound due to this housing”; in addition the “spring loaded snap element” is identified in Fig. 1: 42 and Fig. 24: 2226 that does not include the housing or cage. Therefore, the rejection has been maintained: In regards to amended claim 7; see rejection of the same above.
In regards to the limitation “ “reliable fixation of the head on the connector as well as a distinctive sound with no reverberation (no effect or impact that resembles an echo) time to a user during engagement”. The specification states on page, 5 of 28, that it is with “substantially no reverberation” which implies there can be reverberation and is not completely free of reveberation. Therefore, the rejection has been maintained, see rejection of the same above. In addition, it is known that that metal on metal does the inverse of providing “no reverberation time” as Metal-on-metal surfaces do not inherently provide no reverberation time. In fact, metal is known for its ability to transmit vibrations easily, which can lead to increased reverberation compared to softer materials like plastic. This is because metal's elastic properties allow it to resonate more effectively, resulting in a longer reverberation time in sound transmission.
Therefore, claim 7 as set forth is rejected and therefore regarding the dependent claims 8 – 12 and 20 – 25 are not allowable over the art of record.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARONDA TIYILLE FELTON whose telephone number is (571)270-0379. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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 on (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.
/SHARONDA T FELTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/KATINA N. HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723