DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in response to claims filed on 17/302,326 filed on 4/26/2024.
The application is in continuation to application # 15/350,285 (patent # 11043141) filed on 11/14/2016.
The Pre-Grant publication # 2021/0256871 is issued on 8/19/2021.
Interview conducted 10/8/2025.
Terminal Disclaimer filed on 5/28/2024 has been disapproved.
Claims 2,4,8, 10, 12,16-20 cancelled.
Claims 1,3,5-7, 9, 11, 13-15,21,22 are pending,
Double Patenting
Claims 1,3,5-7, 9, 11, 13-15,21,22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3,5,11,15,18-20,22,24,27,39-40 and 42 of U.S. Patent No. 11/043,141. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
The parent patent # 11,043,141 (application #15/350,285) receive a selected brushing goal option by individual user from a plurality of brushing goal options;
The child application 17/302,326 on the other hand selects brushing goal options when a data from the brushing session is evaluated from a performance metric, and the user interface displays the performance metric and are indicative of brushing efficacy.
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper time wise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patent ably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g.. In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528,163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (c) or 1.321 (d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP§ 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(l) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-l.isp.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 11/043,141 teaches all the limitations of the instant case except for an interface displays the performance metric and are indicative of brushing efficacy. However, the examiner would like to cite that this is an algorithm variation on the same interface system of computer program product and computer system with a computer implement method as required by the instant claim. Therefore, in view of patent, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the computer program/system described in the patent '141 to instruct a processing unit for performance metric features as required by the claims.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant's arguments/amendments filed on claim amendments October 8, 2025 have been considered.
Applicant amendments and argument remark necessitated a withdrawing of 35USC§101 rejections.
The non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is continued to be held in abeyance since no terminal disclaimer received and/or approved.
35USC101
Applicant asserted on pages 7-10 of remarks 10/8/2025 that if properly viewed as a whole, claim's brushing evaluation is functionally integrated with the system's concrete operations. As described and claimed, the system (i) receives multi-axis sensor data generated during the session, (ii) uses the user's selected goal to configure the suggested brushing routine, and (iii) determines the brushing evaluation based at least in part on both the brushing data and the goal-conditioned routine, including a comparison of the brushing data and the suggested brushing routine. See specification paragraphs [0039] - [0055]. The evaluation yields objective outputs, including performance metrics and a visualization of brushing efficacy.
These are interplay between non-human sensor acquisitions/outputs and a goal-conditioned routine integrating any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The claimed determinations are tied to concrete device-implemented session data and produce objective, device-driven results and not mere presentation of information. Hence brushing evaluation is a functional integration of user selected actions and multitude of sensor inputs.
Hence 35USC101 rejection is withdrawn
35USC103
Previously it has been argued that the amended claim narrowed. Neither prior art combination of Ortins nor Meerbeek disclose or suggest a toothbrush comprising a sensor configured to generate brushing data during a brushing session of a user, where the sensor at one time comprises at least more of an accelerometer, a gyroscope, a magnetometer, and a pressure sensor, and the brushing data is indicative of a motion, a position, a frequency, and a pressure of the toothbrush during the brushing session (specification paragraph 0075). Hence 35USC§103 rejections were previously withdrawn.
Following traversals/Remark are retained here to summarize prior comments so
as to address apriority varied interpretations. This is also answering proactively
some of the new questions that may arise because of current arguments:
Applicant has asserted on page 7-9 of argument/remarks 10/02/2024 that equating the claimed brushing session routine to a brushing session of a predetermined time period is not reasonable to suggest that a user would brush their teeth for a week, a day, hours, a plurality of days, or weeks. Therefore, Ortins does not disclose or suggest the claimed suggested brushing routine, or that the suggested brushing routine is further determined by adjusting a predetermined brushing routine based at least in part on the brushing goal data. Examiner has agreed to a level and addressed the claim element above.
Examiner has outlined how the combination of secondary reference Meerbeek et al. teaches how the awarded response routine to specific goals set as an input.
Terminal Disclaimer disapproved. Obviousness Double Patenting rejection maintained.
Applicant has asserted on page 3-5 of argument/remarks 5/13/2024 that prior art Ortins reward, response routine do not expressly correspond to any specific user goals (especially those as recited in amended claim language) when specific type of brushing sessions are selected. Examiner has agreed to the level that specific brushing goal responses in primary art Ortins et al. as recited in amended claim language has not been highlighted. However, in the new ground of rejection above, examiner has outlined how the combination of secondary reference Meerbeek et al. teaches how the awarded response routine to specific goals set as an input.
The secondary art Meerbeek et al. combines the brushing goal selection option to brief refreshing of an oral cavity and to an alternative regular or deep cleaning of the oral cavity. This is as dictated by a processor input screens by controller when needed (para 0037) by applying specific frequency, pattern, amplitude changes to include brushing functions requests as predefined in the input stage so that the goals and brief refreshing of an oral cavity, or a regular or deep cleaning can easily be achieved.
Applicant assertion on page 2 of previous argument/remarks 11/3/2023 that prior art Ortins teaches a system that includes a toothbrush and an interactive display. The display 20 may be used to display a wide variety of information and may be configured to communicate with the toothbrush 35 to choose the appropriate function for the oral care device. Ortins, there is nothing in Ortins that teaches or suggests the evaluation of a plurality of performance metrics so that the metrics can be displayed as a single number. At best, Ortins describes a display which displays each evaluated metric as a separate number. Similarly, as applicant contended that Meerbeek lacks this feature and thus, fails to overcome the deficiencies of Ortins.
Examiner, however, had traversed and added that determination of a plurality of performance metrics, and the user interface displaying of the plurality of performance metrics, expressed as a single number and wherein the plurality of performance metrics is indicative of brushing efficacy since the terms in prior art Ortins, by default means single entity as indicated in paragraph 0046.
Applicant even earlier assertion on argument/remarks indicating prior art failing “performance metric indicative of brushing efficacy” has been respectfully traversed. The issue has been addressed in the corresponding appropriate rejection statement above.
The prior art Ortins has been found to disclose in paragraph 0180 a personal brushing log screen tracking and displaying to be common every time user brushing is evaluating results. The determination of the brushing evaluation comprises a determination of a performance metric (Para 0176 brush log screen displays variety of performance related information. Figure 23 element 440 display an embodiment of performance metric interface.
The prior art figure 2A element 30 illustrates electronic user interface is configured to receive a brushing goal from a user. Paragraph 0236 include configuration for user to adhere to a particular goal of personal hygiene routine and/or particular personal hygiene products or to simply use a particular type of toothbrush or to adopt various mode of tooth brushing) ; and
a programmable processor operably coupled to the user interface. Paragraph 0236 data indicative or embodied in a character to achieve certain brushing goal such as time based brushing goals); and determine, based at least in part on the brushing goal data. Paragraph 0237 resulting gain points suggest on brushing goal data. Paragraph 0236 suggesting brushing teeth evaluation e.g. for at least three times a day for two minutes at a time session with the achievement of a goal; Para 0178 provide evaluation back to the user as to whether the appropriate toothbrush routine was selected for the selected function).
The secondary prior art Meerbeek etc., however, teaches the brushing goal selection option for both brief refreshing of an oral cavity and for an alternative for a regular cleaning of the oral cavity as dictated by a processor screens. Fig.12 element 1207,1212 tooth brush function selection in an electronic toothbrush system having a touch-sensitive body for selection of one or more functions.
The primary prior art Ortins has further disclosed the system wherein the brushing goal options are displayed on the user interface, the displayed brushing goal options comprise at least one of a brushing on a particular region of the oral cavity for brushing focus (Fig.8 element 130 display of timer; Para 0050 displaying visual information; Para 0108 region of the mouth that the user is brushing; Para 0186 suggesting brushing session of a predetermined time period e.g. for a week and the suggested brushing routine is determined by adjusting a predetermined brushing routine based at least in part on the brushing goal data (Para 0111 The functional characteristics of the electric toothbrush 35 or information concerning the oral care regimen might be automatically changed or adjusted depending on the answers to the one or more questions).
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 SADARUZ ZAMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3137. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm CST.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached on (571) 272-7147. 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.
/S.Z/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
June 28, 2025
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715