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 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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
Below is the Final Action on the Merits of claims 1 – 7 and 9 – 19. Claim 8 is 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.
Claim 1 is 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the motor being directly mounted on a swivel-mounted carrier, in lines 5 and 6. The limitation fails to find support in the specification and the drawings cannot be relied upon as “directly mounted” cannot be verified by a figure. Applicant is advised to provide support in the specification or to cancel the limitation as it constitutes new matter.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the motor and eccentric weight are directly mounted to the distal end of the pivot lever, in lines 15 and 16. The limitation fails to find support in the specification and the drawings cannot be relied upon as “directly mounted” cannot be verified by a figure. Applicant is advised to provide support in the specification or to cancel the limitation as it constitutes new matter.
Claims 2 – 7 and 9 – 19 are rejected as being dependents of rejected claim 1.
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.
Claims 1 – 7, 9 – 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jungnicket et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No 2013/0000059 A1) in view of Wu (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0064516 A1) and Iwahori et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0047729 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
669
406
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Jungnickel teaches a handle (handle, 12) for an electrically operated personal-care implement (toothbrush, 10; Fig. 2), wherein the personal-care implement is an oral-care implement (Fig. 2), the handle (12) comprising a housing (outer shell, 212 with chassis, 35 ) defining an inner cavity (Paragraph [0048]), the inner cavity accommodating at least a power source (batteries, 37) and a motor (drive motor, 36) comprising an eccentric weight (drive part, 47; Paragraph [0052]) for operating the personal-care implement, the motor (36) being mounted on a swivel-mounted carrier (rocker, 39; Paragraph [0052]), and the housing (212/35) having a longitudinal extension (Fig. 2) extending between a proximal end and a distal end of the housing (body portion extending between said ends in Annotated Fig. 2) and a substantially circular cross-sectional area (Fig. 2) extending substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal extension (Fig. 2), wherein the substantially circular cross-sectional area (Fig. 2) has a diameter; wherein the swivel-mounted carrier comprises a pivot lever (Annotated Fig. 2) attached to the housing (212/35, Fig. 2; Paragraph [0048]) via a pivot axis (40), near the proximal end (Annotated Fig. 2) of the housing (Dig. 2), the pivot lever (annotated Fig. 2) extends with a distal end (Annotated Fig. 2) towards the distal end (Annotated Fig. 2) of the housing (Fig. 2).
Jungnickel does not explicitly teach the substantially circular cross-sectional area has a diameter from about 12 mm to about 20 mm, however, the device is hand held device, thus the handle is sized for a hand to be able to accommodate the device, thus, 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 device of Iwahori to further include the substantially circular cross-sectional area has a diameter from about 12 mm to about 20 mm, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Jungnickel does not teach the housing is a metal tube housing or the motor being directly mounted on a swivel-mounted carrier, or the motor and eccentric weight are directly mounted to the distal end of the pivot lever.
Wu, however, teaches a handle for an electrically operated personal care implement, wherein the housing is a metal tube housing (Paragraphs [0017] – [0022]).
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 device of Jungnickel to further include the housing is a metal tube housing, as taught by Wu, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use of the device (MPEP 2144.04). Such a modification would be beneficial in that the material is lightweight bust still durable.
Iwahori further teaches the motor (motor, 11) being directly mounted on a swivel-mounted carrier (vibration body, 30); the motor (11) and eccentric weight (weight, 12) are directly mounted to the distal end of the pivot lever (31).
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 device of Jungnickel to further include the motor being directly mounted on a swivel-mounted carrier, the motor and eccentric weight are directly mounted to the distal end of the pivot lever, as taught by Iwahori, to provide a device that eliminated undesired noise.
Regarding Claim 2, Jungnickel, as modified, teaches the handle of claim 1 as discussed above.
Jungnickel does not explicitly teach the handle wherein the diameter of the substantially circular cross-sectional area is from about 13 mm to about 17 mm, however, the device is hand held device, thus the handle is sized for a hand to be able to accommodate the device, thus, 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 device of Iwahori to further include the substantially circular cross-sectional area has a diameter from about 13 mm to about 17 mm, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 3, Jungnickel, as modified, teaches the handle of claim 1 as discussed above.
Jungnickel does not explicitly teach the handle wherein the diameter of the substantially circular cross-sectional area is about 15 mm, however, the device is hand held device, thus the handle is sized for a hand to be able to accommodate the device, thus, 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 device of Iwahori to further include the substantially circular cross-sectional area has a diameter from about 15 mm, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 4, Jungnickel, as modified, teaches the handle of claim 1 as discussed above.
Jungnickel does not explicitly teach the handle wherein the metal tube housing is made from stainless steel, aluminum, or a combination thereof.
Wu, however, teaches the handle wherein the metal tube housing is made from stainless steel, aluminum, or a combination thereof (Paragraphs [0017] – [0022]).
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 device of Jungnickel to further include the metal tube housing is made from stainless steel, aluminum, or a combination thereof, as taught by Wu, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use of the device.
Regarding Claim 5, Jungnickel, as modified, teaches the handle of claim 1 as discussed above.
Jungnickel further teaches the housing (20) comprises walls as shown in Fig. 1 and further the walls having a thickness but does not explicitly teach the housing comprises a wall having a thickness from about 0.4 mm to about 1.2 mm; however, 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 device of Iwahori to explicitly teach the thickness of the housing (4) walls and further a wall having a thickness from about 0.4 mm to about 1.2 mm since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 6, Jungnickel as modified, teaches the handle of claim 5 as discussed above.
Jungnickel does not explicitly teach the handle wherein the thickness of the wall is from about 0.5 mm to about 1 mm, however, 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 device of Iwahori to explicitly teach the thickness of the housing (4) walls and further a wall having a thickness from about 0.5 mm to about 1 mm since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 7, Jungnickel as modified, teaches the handle of claim 5 as discussed above.
Jungnickel does not explicitly teach the handle wherein the thickness of the wall is about 0.6 mm; however, 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 device of Iwahori to explicitly teach the thickness of the housing (4) walls and further a wall having a thickness is about 0.6 mm since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 9, Jungnickel as modified, teaches the handle wherein a connector (Annotated Fig. 2) is attached to the pivot lever (Annotated Fig. 2) to form a swivel-mounted connector-pressure-sensor unit (39).
Regarding Claim 10, Jungnickel as modified, teaches the handle wherein the housing has a proximal end (Annoted Fig. 2) closest to a head (10) repeatably attachable to and detachable from the handle (12; Paragraph [0048]), and a distal end (Annotated Fig. 2) opposite to the proximal end (Fig. 2), wherein the connector (Annotated Fig. 2) extends through an opening at the proximal end of the housing, and wherein the pivot lever (Annotated Fig. 2) is accommodated within the inner cavity (Annotated Fig. 2), attached to the housing by the pivot axis (40) at the proximal end of the housing (Annotated Fig. 2), and extends towards the distal end (Annotated Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 11, Jungnickel as modified, teaches the handle wherein the pivot lever (Annotated Fig. 2) of the connector-pressure-sensor unit (39) comprises a distal end closest to the distal end of the housing (Annotated Fig. 2) and the motor is attached to the pivot lever at said distal end (Paragraph [0052]).
Regarding Claim 12, Jungnickel as modified, teaches the handle of claim 9 as discussed above.
Jungnickel, as modified, does not teach the handle wherein the connector-pressure-sensor unit is unitarily molded from a hard plastic material, however, 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 device of Jungnickel to further include the connector-pressure-sensor unit is unitarily molded from a hard plastic material since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use of the device.
Regarding Claim 18, Jungnickel, as modified, teaches an electrically operated personal-care implement (Fig. 2) comprising the handle (12) of claim 1 and a replaceable head (brush, 10) repeatedly attachable to and detachable from the handle (Paragraph [0051]).
Claims 13 – 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jungnicket et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No 2013/0000059 A1) in view of Wu (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0064516 A1), Iwahori et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0047729 A1) and Greve (EP2229917 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Jungnickel, as modified, teaches the handle of claim 1 as discussed above.
Jungnickel further teaches the handle (12) of wherein the housing comprises a ring structure (30) connected to the housing at the proximal end, thereby leaving a circular gap between the ring structure and the housing (Fig. 2).
Jungnickel does not teach the ring connected to the housing at the proximal end by two flexible hinges
Greve, however, teaches wherein the housing (1) comprises a ring structure (25) connected to the housing (1) at the proximal end by two flexible hinges (right and left side of 25 as shown in Fig. 4), thereby leaving a circular gap between the ring structure (25) and the housing (1; Paragraph [0021]).
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 device of Jungnickel to explicitly teach a ring structure connected to the housing at the proximal end by two flexible hinges, thereby leaving a circular gap between the ring structure and the housing, as taught by Greve, to provide a device that informs the user about a specific operating status of the toothbrush, thus allowing for a more efficient brushing experience.
Regarding Claim 14, Jungnickel, as modified, teaches the handle of claim 13 as discussed above.
Jungnickel further teaches the handle (12) wherein the ring structure (30) is unitarily formed with the housing or provided as a separate chassis component that is inserted into the housing at the proximal end (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 15, Jungnickel, as modified, teaches the handle of claim 13 as discussed above.
Jungnickel does not teach the handle wherein the circular gap between the ring structure and the housing is filled with a soft elastomeric material.
Greve, however, teaches the handle wherein the circular gap (Paragraph [0021]) between the ring structure (25) and the housing (1) is filled with a soft elastomeric material (Paragraph [0021]).
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 device of Jungnickel to further include the circular gap between the ring structure and the housing is filled with a soft elastomeric material since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use of the device.
Regarding Claim 16, Jungnickel, as modified, teaches the handle of claim 13 as discussed above.
Jungnickel further teaches the handle wherein the ring structure is unitarily formed with a transparent, translucent, or a combination thereof, to communicate light signals (Paragraphs [0049] and [0050]).
Regarding Claim 17, Jungnickel, as modified, teaches the handle of claim 15 as discussed above.
Jungnickel further teaches the handle wherein the soft elastomeric material is transparent, translucent, or a combination thereof, to communicate light signals (Paragraphs [0049] and [0050]).
Regarding Claim 19, Jungnickel, as modified, teaches an electrically operated personal-care
wherein the personal-care implement is an electrically operated toothbrush (Fig. 2).
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks filed November 26, 2025, with respect to rejected claims 1 – 7 and 9 – 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive, therefore the rejection has been maintained.
Applicant argues that support is found in Figure 1 for a direct connection between the motor/eccentric weight and the pivot lever.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. One of ordinary skill in the art, and especially one considered as an expert in that they are the legal representative of the application would understand that the figures in an application merely depicts the spatial relationship of the components. Applicant’s reliance on the cited figure to assert that the motor with eccentric weight is directly connected to the pivot lever is misplaced. As stated above, the drawing merely depicts the components in relative proximity and does not disclose any structural features indicating a direct mechanical interface. The figure lacks fastening elements, mating geometry, or other attachment structures that would establish such a connection. Accordingly, the drawing illustrates only the positional relationship of the components and cannot reasonably be relied upon to teach or suggest a direct mechanical connection. Inferring such a connection would require impermissible speculation and would improperly read structural limitations into the instant application that are not actually disclosed.
Applicant further argues “the vibrations generated by the motor can be directly guided to the brush head”. Examiner is unsure what this has to do with a direct connection of a motor and a pivot lever. Clearly, if applicant can disclose vibration directly guided to the head, Applicant would have disclosed the direct connection in the specification without relying on a drawing to do so.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATINA N HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday; 5:30am to 3:30pm.
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.
/KATINA N. HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723