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 .
Status of Claims
The office action is in response to arguments and amendments entered on July 17, 2025 for the patent application 17/434,378 originally filled on August 26, 2021. Claims 1, 2, 5-9, 19-23, and 26-29 are pending. Claims 1, 19, and 22 are amended. Claims 3, 4, 24, 10-18, 24, and 25 are canceled. The first office action of April 17, 2025 is fully incorporated by reference into this final action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 2, 5-9, 19-23, and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to “method” (i.e., a process), claim 19 is directed to “a processing device” (i.e., a machine), and claim 22 is directed to “a computer readable storage medium” (i.e., a machine), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Claims 1, 19, and 22 are drawn to an abstract idea of providing tooth brushing guidance information in the form a mental process which requires the following limitations:
Per Claim 1:
“A method for instructing tooth brushing, performed by an electric toothbrush and a processing device, the processing device being communicatively connected to the electric toothbrush, and the method comprising: controlling, by the processing device, the electric toothbrush for tooth brushing based on a target tooth brushing solution; outputting, by the processing device, tooth brushing guidance information, and sending, by the processing device, the tooth brushing guidance information to the electric toothbrush, wherein the tooth brushing guidance information is audio information, the electric toothbrush comprises an audio play component, and the electric toothbrush synchronously plays the tooth brushing guidance information during a tooth brushing process based on the target tooth brushing solution; acquiring, by the processing device, during the tooth brushing process of the electric toothbrush based on the target tooth brushing solution, tooth brushing data collected by the electric toothbrush, wherein the tooth brushing data comprises a tooth brushing duration and a tooth brushing pressure; acquiring, by the processing device, a tooth brushing evaluation result based on the tooth brushing data; outputting, by the processing device, the tooth brushing evaluation result, wherein the tooth brushing evaluation result comprises a tooth brushing duration score; and sending, by the processing device, tooth brushing instruction information based on tooth brushing information, wherein the electric toothbrush plays the tooth brushing instruction information upon completion of tooth brushing, the tooth brushing information comprises at least one of the tooth brushing evaluation result and the tooth brushing data, and the tooth brushing instruction information is configured to instruct a user of the electric toothbrush to brush teeth; wherein acquiring, by the processing device, the tooth brushing evaluation result based on the tooth brushing data comprises: acquiring, based on the tooth brushing duration and the tooth brushing pressure, an effective tooth brushing duration, wherein the effective tooth brushing duration is a length of time where the tooth brushing pressure is greater than a pressure threshold; determining, in response to the effective tooth brushing duration being less than a first duration threshold, the tooth brushing duration score as a first preset score; determining, in response to the effective tooth brushing duration being greater than or equal to a second duration threshold, the tooth brushing duration score as a second preset score, wherein the second duration threshold is determined based on a total tooth brushing duration of the target tooth brushing solution; and determining, in response to the effective tooth brushing duration being less than the second duration threshold and greater than or equal to the first duration threshold, the tooth brushing duration score as a product of the second preset score and a target ratio, wherein the target ratio is a ratio of the effective tooth brushing duration to the second duration threshold.”
Per Claim 19:
“A processing device, comprising: a processor, and a memory configured to store one or more instructions executable the processor; wherein the processor, when loading and executing the one or more instructions, is caused to perform a method for instructing tooth brushing, the processing device is communicatively connected to the electric toothbrush, and the method comprises: controlling, by the processing device, the electric toothbrush for tooth brushing based on a target tooth brushing solution outputting, by the processing device, tooth brushing guidance information, and sending, by the processing device, the tooth brushing guidance information to the electric toothbrush, wherein the tooth brushing guidance information is audio information, the electric toothbrush comprises an audio play component, and the electric toothbrush synchronously plays the tooth brushing guidance information during a tooth brushing process based on the target tooth brushing solution; acquiring, by the processing device, during the tooth brushing process of the electric toothbrush based on the target tooth brushing solution, tooth brushing data collected by the electric toothbrush, wherein the tooth brushing data comprises a tooth brushing duration and a tooth brushing pressure; acquiring, by the processing device, a tooth brushing evaluation result based on the tooth brushing data; outputting, by the processing device, the tooth brushing evaluation result= wherein the tooth brushing evaluation result comprises a tooth brushing duration score; and sending, by the processing device, tooth brushing instruction information based on tooth brushing information, wherein the electric toothbrush plays the tooth brushing instruction information upon completion of tooth brushing, the tooth brushing information comprises at least one of the tooth brushing evaluation result and the tooth brushing data, and the tooth brushing instruction information is configured to instruct a user of the electric toothbrush to brush teeth; wherein acquiring, by the processing device, the tooth brushing evaluation result based on the tooth brushing data comprises: acquiring, based on the tooth brushing duration and the tooth brushing pressure, an effective tooth brushing duration, wherein the effective tooth brushing duration is a length of time where the tooth brushing pressure is greater than a pressure threshold; determining, in response to the effective tooth brushing duration being less than a first duration threshold, the tooth brushing duration score as a first preset score; determining, in response to the effective tooth brushing duration being greater than or equal to a second duration threshold, the tooth brushing duration score as a second preset score, wherein the second duration threshold is determined based on a total tooth brushing duration of the target tooth brushing solution; and determining, in response to the effective tooth brushing duration being less than the second duration threshold and greater than or equal to the first duration threshold, the tooth brushing duration score as a product of the second preset score and a target ratio, wherein the target ratio is a ratio of the effective tooth brushing duration to the second duration threshold.
Per Claim 22:
“A computer-readable storage medium storing one or more instructions therein, wherein the readable storage medium, when running on a processing device, causes the processing device to perform a method for instructing tooth brushing, the processing device is communicatively connected to the electric toothbrush, and the method comprises: controlling, by the processing device, the electric toothbrush for tooth brushing based on a target tooth brushing solution; outputting, by the processing device, tooth brushing guidance information, and sending, by the processing device, the tooth brushing guidance information to the electric toothbrush, wherein the tooth brushing guidance information is audio information, the electric toothbrush comprises an audio play component, and the electric toothbrush synchronously plays the tooth brushing guidance information during a tooth brushing process based on the target tooth brushing solution; acquiring, by the processing device, during the tooth brushing process of the electric toothbrush based on the target tooth brushing solution, tooth brushing data collected by the electric toothbrush, wherein the tooth brushing data comprises a tooth brushing duration and a tooth brushing pressure; acquiring, by the processing device, a tooth brushing evaluation result based on the tooth brushing data; outputting, by the processing device, the tooth brushing evaluation result wherein the tooth brushing evaluation result comprises a tooth brushing duration score; and sending, by the processing device, tooth brushing instruction information based on tooth brushing information, wherein the electric toothbrush plays the tooth brushing instruction information upon completion of tooth brushing, the tooth brushing information comprises at least one of the tooth brushing evaluation result and the tooth brushing data, and the tooth brushing instruction information is configured to instruct a user of the electric toothbrush to brush teeth; wherein acquiring, by the processing device, the tooth brushing evaluation result based on the tooth brushing data comprises: acquiring, based on the tooth brushing duration and the tooth brushing pressure, an effective tooth brushing duration, wherein the effective tooth brushing duration is a length of time where the tooth brushing pressure is greater than a pressure threshold; determining, in response to the effective tooth brushing duration being less than a first duration threshold, the tooth brushing duration score as a first preset score; determining, in response to the effective tooth brushing duration being greater than or equal to a second duration threshold, the tooth brushing duration score as a second preset score, wherein the second duration threshold is determined based on a total tooth brushing duration of the target tooth brushing solution; and determining, in response to the effective tooth brushing duration being less than the second duration threshold and greater than or equal to the first duration threshold, the tooth brushing duration score as a product of the second preset score and a target ratio, wherein the target ratio is a ratio of the effective tooth brushing duration to the second duration threshold.”
These aforementioned limitations of claims 1, 19, and 22 (acquiring toothbrushing data, evaluating said data to derive a tooth brushing score/information, and outputting said information), are drawn to an abstract idea of providing tooth brushing guidance information, which fall under the abstract grouping “certain methods of organizing human activity” in the form a mental process, i.e. thinking that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III). Furthermore, the limitations of claims 1, 19, and 22 describe a process of data gathering (i.e., acquiring toothbrushing data), analysis (i.e., evaluating said data to derive a tooth brushing score/information), and display (i.e., outputting said information), which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e., Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Furthermore, the Applicant’s claimed elements of a “processing device”, “electric toothbrush”, “processor”, ”memory”, and “computer-readable storage medium” are merely claimed to generally link the use of a judicial exception (e.g., pre-solution activity of data gathering and post-solution activity of presenting data) to (1) a particular technological environment or (2) field of use, per MPEP §2106.05(h); and are applying the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, per MPEP §2106.05(f). In other words, the claimed abstract idea, guiding a user through a cooking process, is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Furthermore, the claimed “processing device” (described in para. [0065]), “electric toothbrush” (described in para. [0155]), “processor” (described in para. [0183]), “memory” (described in para. [0184]), and “computer-readable storage medium” (described in para. [0185]) are reasonably interpreted as generic hardware and provide no details of anything beyond its use as ubiquitous standard equipment. Therefore, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Claims 2 and 5-9 are dependent from independent claim 1, and claims 20, 21, 23, and 26-29 are dependent from independent claim 19. The dependent claims 2, 5-9, 20, 21, 23, and 26-29 include all the limitations of their respective independent claims. Therefore, the dependent claims recite the same abstract idea. The limitation of the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For Example:
The limitations of claims 8 clarifies additional types of data input into the system pertaining to user information. As such, these claims merely further recite the type of data included in the method and are therefore insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than a judicial exception. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claims is also applicable on these claims.
The limitations of claims 2, 6, 7, 9, 23, 27, and 28 clarifies the contents of information output to the user. As such, this claim merely displays data related to the performance of the abstract idea and further recite the types of data displayed. The limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than a judicial exception. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claims is also applicable on these claims.
The limitations of claim 5 and 26 clarifies how the tooth brushing evaluation results are calculated. This claim merely provides instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer per MPEP §2106.05(f). The limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than a judicial exception. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claims is also applicable on these claims.
The limitations of claims 20 and 21 further denote the utilization to an electric toothbrush (described in para. [00156]), terminal (described in para. [00065]), and server (described in para. [00065]). These limitations generally link the use of a judicial exception (e.g., pre-solution activity of data gathering and post-solution activity of presenting data) to (1) a particular technological environment or (2) field of use, per MPEP §2106.05(h); and are applying the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, per MPEP §2106.05(f). Furthermore, these claimed elements are reasonably interpreted as generic hardware and provide no details of anything beyond its use as ubiquitous standard equipment. The limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than a judicial exception. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claims is also applicable on these claims.
Independent claims 1, 19, and 22 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, dependent claims 2, 5-9, 20, 21, 23, and 26-29 recite an abstract idea without significantly more and are not drawn to eligible subject matter. Therefore, claims 1, 2, 5-9, 19-23, and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject-matter.
Summary
No claim is allowed
Claims 3, 4, 24, 10-18, 24, and 25 are canceled
Claims 1, 2, 5-9, 19-23, and 26-29 are rejected under 35 USC § 101
Response to Arguments
The Applicants arguments filed on July 17, 2025 related to claims 1, 2, 5-9, 19-23, and 26-29 are fully considered, but are not fully persuasive.
Rejections under 35 USC § 101
Applicant respectfully argues that the “amended claim 1 does not describe abstract concepts or concepts similar to abstract concepts”.
Examiner respectively disagrees, the amended claim language recites the abstract idea of providing tooth brushing guidance information in the form a mental process, i.e. thinking that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III). Furthermore, these limitations (acquiring toothbrushing data, evaluating said data to derive a tooth brushing score/information, and outputting said information) are partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e., Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Additionally, Applicant respectfully denotes the following in support of the prior argument: “amended claim 1 defines that the processes of the method are performed by the processing device and electric toothbrush, with the processing device controlling the electric toothbrush to perform tooth brushing” and “the processes of claim 1 are performed in the processing device and electric toothbrush, rather than in the human mind”.
Examiner agrees that amended claim 1 specifically points out that the processes are performed by the processing device and electric toothbrush. However, “a claim that requires a computer may still recite a mental process” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C). This merely specifies that the concept it being performed on a generic computer or in a computer environment. The claimed electric toothbrush (as described in para. [0155] of the specification) and processing device (as described in para. [0065] of the specification) are reasonably interpreted as generic hardware and provide no details of anything beyond its use as ubiquitous standard equipment.
Furthermore, Applicant respectfully argues that “the electric toothbrush not only plays brushing guidance information to guide the user of the electric toothbrush in his/her brushing operation, but also synchronously plays brushing guidance information during the brushing process based on the target tooth brushing solution, and plays the tooth brushing guidance information upon completion of tooth brushing” and “amended claim 1 represents a technical improvement to the processing device and electric toothbrush”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In order to show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method; merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient (MPEP 2106.05(a) II). Applicant denoted that “the electric toothbrush not only plays brushing guidance information to guide the user of the electric toothbrush in his/her brushing operation, but also synchronously plays brushing guidance information during the brushing process based on the target tooth brushing solution, and plays the tooth brushing guidance information upon completion of tooth brushing”, however this is more akin to “Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result” as per MPEP 2106.05(a) II. Hence, this is more akin to an example which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be insufficient to show an improvement to technology.
Lastly, Applicant respectfully argues that “the processing device and electric toothbrush are not merely tools for performing abstract concepts, and the implementation of this technology must be carried out by the processing device and electric toothbrush” and “this provides practical applications for the method for instructing tooth brushing”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and does not find this argument persuasive. The Applicant’s claims are not considered a “Practical Application,” because the claims do not provide any of the following:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field – see MPEP 2106.05(a);
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c); or
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e).
Furthermore, there are also several factors that reasonably explain that the Applicant’s claims are not indicative of integration into a practical application, which include:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f);
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Here, the Applicant’s claims are not providing any technological advancement as described in the first four bulleted factors, and Applicant’s claims are merely claimed to use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claimed electric toothbrush (as described in para. [0155] of the specification) and processing device (as described in para. [0065] of the specification) are reasonably interpreted as generic hardware and provide no details of anything beyond its use as ubiquitous standard equipment. Furthermore, the claimed electric toothbrush and processing device are merely claimed to generally link the use of a judicial exception (e.g., pre-solution activity of data gathering and post-solution activity of presenting data) to (1) a particular technological environment or (2) field of use, per MPEP §2106.05(h); and are applying the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, per MPEP §2106.05(f).
Respectfully, Examiner does not find the arguments above persuasive and maintains the rejection under 35 USC § 101.
Rejections under 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103
Applicant respectfully argues that the amended independent claims (1, 19, and 22), which have been amended to incorporate the limitation from claims 3 and 4, are now patentable over Jeanne, Iwahori, and Lee. Furthermore, Applicant argues that the respective dependent claims (2, 5-9, 20, 21, 23, and 26-29) are allowable by virtue of their dependencies on the allowable independent claims .
Examiner agrees that the independent claims are not anticipated by Jeanne, Iwahori, and Lee; the rejections of the independent claims and their respective dependent claims under 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103 are withdrawn.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY JAMES BULTHUIS whose telephone number is (703)756-1060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:30-5:30.
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, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached on (571)272-8648. 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.
/ANTHONY JAMES BULTHUIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/KANG HU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights