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.
Status of Claims
Below is the Final Action on the merits for claims 21 – 23, 26 – 27 and 30 – 32. Claims 1 – 7, 16 – 20 and 32 – 33 are allowed. Claims 8 – 15, 25 and 28 are cancelled.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 21 and 24 – 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zachar et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0258217 A1) in view of Yamamoto et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0147804 A1) and Adams et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0237760 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 21, Zachar teaches a toothbrush (Fig. 1A) comprising: a head (head main body, 160) removably attached to a handle at a proximal end (via stabilizing attachment, 139) and including a plurality of bristles (brush, 165) at a distal end; a motor assembly (electric motor, 116) disposed in an interior of the handle (Fig. 1A) and coupled to the plurality of bristles (165) via a shaft (shaft, 166) extending into the head (160); and a suction passage (suction lumen, 170) extending between a suction inlet (suction orifice, 172) and a suction outlet (outlet of 171), the suction outlet being configured to couple to a vacuum source (suction source, 200; Paragraph [0128]); wherein the suction passage (170) is coupled to the handle (110) and the suction passage (170) is isolated from fluid communication with the interior of the handle (110).
PNG
media_image1.png
474
683
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Zachar does not teach the suction assembly is coupled to the handle such that the suction assembly is configured to slide relative to the handle to adjust a position of the suction tip.
Adams further teaches the assembly (28; Fig. 2) is coupled to the handle (Paragraph [0041]) externally (Fig. 2) such that the assembly (28) is configured to slide relative to the handle (Fig. 2) and externally to the head (tip of endoscope, 30), to adjust a position of the inlet (inlet of lumen 32 and 34; Fig. 2) relative to the distal end of the head (Fig. 2), and the passage (passage of lumen 32 and 34) is isolated from fluid communication with the interior of the handle (Fig. 2).
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 toothbrush of Zachar to further include the suction assembly is coupled to the handle such that a position of the suction tip is configured to be adjusted relative to the tip of the head, as taught by Adams, to provide a separate and simple controls for providing adjustability at a given work site cavity.
Regarding claim 24, Zachar, as modified, teaches the toothbrush (Fig. 1A) wherein the suction outlet (outlet of 171) is configured to be coupled to a tube of the vacuum source (suction source, 200; Paragraph [0128]).
Regarding claim 26, Zachar, as modified, wherein the suction passage (170) is disposed entirely outside the interior of the handle (110; Fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 27, Zachar, as modified, wherein the suction inlet (suction orifice, 172) is spaced from the plurality of bristles (165; Fig. 1A).
Claims 22 – 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zachar et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0258217 A1) in view of Yamamoto et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0147804 A1), Adams et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0237760 A1) and Prendergast et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0047134 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Zachar, as modified, teaches the toothbrush of claim 21 as discussed above.
Zachar does not teach wherein the suction passage has a ventilation port between the suction inlet and the suction outlet, such that sealing the ventilation port facilitates suction into the suction passage at the suction inlet.
Prendergast, however, teaches the suction passage (internal tubing; Paragraph [0021]) has a ventilation port (24) between the suction inlet and the suction outlet of the suction coupler (Paragraph [0021] ) such that sealing the ventilation port facilitates suction into the suction passage at the suction inlet (Fig. 3).
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 toothbrush of Zachar to further include the suction coupler includes an externally accessible ventilation port in fluid communication with the inlet of the suction tip and the outlet of the suction coupler, as taught by Prendergast, to provide a separate and simple controls for providing suction and irrigation.
Regarding claim 23, Zachar, as modified, teaches the toothbrush of claim 22 as discussed above.
Zachar does not teach the ventilation port is disposed on an exterior surface of the toothbrush opposite a user interaction device of the motor assembly, such that a user can seal the ventilation port and operate the user interaction device with a respective thumb and finger of a same hand.
Prendergast, however, teaches a suction ventilation port (ventilation port, 24) is disposed on an exterior surface of the toothbrush opposite a user interaction (26) device of the motor assembly (Fig. 3), such that a user can seal the ventilation port and operate the user interaction device with a respective thumb and finger of a same hand (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 toothbrush of Zachar to further include the ventilation port is disposed on an exterior surface of the toothbrush opposite a user interaction device of the motor assembly, such that a user can seal the ventilation port and operate the user interaction device with a respective thumb and finger of a same hand, as taught by Prendergast, to provide a separate and simple controls for providing suction and irrigation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 30 and 31 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Although Zachar, as amended, teaches a toothbrush, the reference fails to teach, suggest or make obvious the head includes a body extending between the proximal end and the distal end, and wherein the suction passage is coupled to the handle externally, such that a majority of the body, the suction passage, and the handle are exposed to an external environment; as required by claim 30 and the suction passage is configured to slide between a non-use position in which the suction inlet is positioned between the handle and the distal end, and a suction use position in which the suction inlet is positioned beyond the distal end relative to the handle, wherein the suction inlet is exposed to an external environment in both the suction use position and the non-use position, as required by claim 31.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 10, 2025 with respect to rejection of independent claims 1 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and they are persuasive, therefore the rejection has been withdrawn. However, after further consideration, independent claims 1 and 16 are allowed as Zachar in view of Prendergast and Adams fail to teach the limitations of the amended claims
Claims 2 – 7, 17 – 20 and 32 – 33 are allowed as dependents of allowed claims 1 and 16.
Applicant's arguments filed October 10, 2025 with respect to rejection of independent claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and they are not persuasive, therefore the rejection has been maintained.
Applicant argues “Adams is non-analogous art”. Examiner respectfully disagrees as Adams is directed toward an assembly configured to slide on a handle”.
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