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 .
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, 3-14, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole amount to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In accordance with MPEP 2106.04, each of claims 1, 3-14, and 22 have been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
With respect to step 1: Claims 1, 3-14, and 22 are directed to a system comprising a combination of concrete devices (toothbrush, a programmable processor, a user interface, a memory) which is eligible at step 1.
With respect to step 2A, prong I (per MPEP 2106.04(a)): Claims 1, 3-14, and 22 recite at least one abstract concept, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Claim 1 lines 4-7 are directed to a mental process: “a programmable processor configured to: receive physical property data indicative of the physical property of the toothbrush obtained by reading visible indicia or an identifier associated with the toothbrush.” This limitation is a form of observation since an individual, one capable of processing information, can visually observe physical property data indicative of a physical property of the toothbrush, such as indicia written on the toothbrush or toothbrush packing which indicates whether the bristles on the toothbrush head are soft or hard. Claim 1 line 8 is directed to a mental process: “determine a standard brushing time data based on the physical property data…” This limitation is a form of evaluation or judgement since an individual can mentally determine a brushing time based on observing the physical property characteristics of the toothbrush. Note that it is undefined as to what is considered “standard” and a user may make that determination mentally based on their own brushing habits. Claim 1 line 9 is directed to a mental process: “determine a suggested brushing time” and this limitation is a form of evaluation or judgement as an individual can mentally determine and decide a brushing time based on observing the physical properties of the toothbrush, such as whether or the toothbrush head being used is “soft” or “hard”. Claim 1 line 10 is directed to a mental process: “instruct a user to begin a brushing session”. This limitation is a form of an evaluation or judgement since an individual can mentally decide when to begin a brushing session. Claim 1 lines 13-14 are directed to a mental process: “determine an evaluation of a brushing session”. This limitation is a form of evaluation or judgement since an individual can mentally observe brushing and make their own determination based on observed data from the brushing session. Claim 1 line 15 is directed to a mental process: “suggest a brushing routine to the user based on the evaluation”. This limitation is a form of judgement as an individual who has observed the brushing session can form a suggestion of a brushing routine to the user based on observations of brushing. Claim 1 lines 20-23 are directed to a mental process: “wherein determining the suggested brushing time comprises retrieving the standard brushing time data from the memory, determining an offset brushing time based at least in part upon the physical property data, and increasing or decreasing the standard brushing time with the offset brushing time”. This limitation is a form of evaluation since a user can mentally determine the standard brushing time and adjust the standard brushing time based on the type of toothbrush being used, e.g., when a soft toothbrush head is being used then add time to the standard brushing time and when a hard toothbrush head is being used then subtract time from the standard brushing time. Additionally, this step could also be considered a mathematical concept since time is being either added or subtracted from the standard brushing time based on the type of toothbrush head (soft or hard) being used. Claim 1 lines 24-26 is directed to a mental process: “wherein determining the evaluation comprises providing a visualization of the brushing session data via the user interface.” This limitation is a form of evaluation or opinion as an individual can visually observe during brushing. Claim 3 is directed to a mental process: “the programmable processor is configured to present the suggested brushing time to a user using the user interface.” This limitation is a form of evaluation or opinion as an individual can create a suggestion based on their observations of a brushing process. Claim 4 is directed to a mental process: “presenting to a user, by a user interface, one or more questions…and receiving the physical property data as answers…” This limitation is a form of evaluation of opinion as an individual can communicate with a user by asking questions and receiving answers. Claim 22 lines 2-4 is directed to a mental process and a mathematical concept: “wherein determining the evaluation of the brushing session comprises analyzing the brushing characteristics detected by the one or more sensors to identify brushing patterns or behaviors.” This limitation can be done mentally and mathematically by a user comparing how they may have brushed differently or for a different duration based on the user’s observations of the physical characteristics of the toothbrush.
Dependent claims 5-14 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the claimed system performs.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea as in MPEP 2106.04(a).
With respect to step 2A, prong II (per MPEP 2106.04(d)): The above-identified abstract idea in independent claim 1 (and respective dependent claims 3-14 and 22) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d) because the additional elements (toothbrush, programmable processor, user interface, memory), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use according to MPEP 2106.05(h). More specifically, the additional elements of: a programmable processor, a user interface and a memory are generically recited computer elements and input element in independent claim 1 (and respective dependent claims 3-14 and 22) which do not improve the functioning of a programmable processor or computer, or any other technology or technical field according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine according to MPEP 2106.05(b), effect a transformation according to MPEP 2106.05(c), provide a particular processing step according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(f). The “programmable processor” is recited with a high level of generality and allows the abstract ideas to be implemented in a generic computing device/computing environment. In regard to the “programmable processor”, the instant specification discloses that the processor is a generic computing device: “Processors described herein may be any central processing unit (CPU), microprocessor, micro-controller, computational, or programmable device or circuit configured for executing computer program instructions (e.g. code).”, see paragraph [0033] of the instant specification. The “user interface” is recited with a high level of generality and allows the abstract ideas to be implemented in a generic computing device/computing environment. In regard to the “user interface”, the instant specification discloses that the user interface is a display and “wired and/or wireless communication interface devices” (see paragraph [0033] of the instant specification) or “a touch sensitive display…”(see paragraph [0046] of the instant specification). The “memory” is recited with a high level of generality and allows the abstract ideas to be implemented in a generic computing device/computing environment. In regard to the “memory”, the instant specification discloses that the memory is “a non-transitory computer-readable medium” and includes “any suitable volatile or non-volatile memory” including random access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), USB flash memory, magnetic or optical data storage devices, “which may be written to and/or read by a processor”, see paragraph [0034] of the instant specification. In regards to the additional element of “the toothbrush” this represents an object from which mere data is gathered that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and is recited at a high level of generality. The recited additional element of “the toothbrush” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent claim 1 and (and respective dependent claims 3-14 and 22) is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d). Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d) because the system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and mathematical process) capable of using rules (e.g., determination, evaluation) executed by a computer (e.g., programmable processor as claimed). Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims according to MPEP 2106.05(a). That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent claim 1 and respective dependent claims 3-14 and 22 is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
With respect to step 2B (per MPEP 2106.05): None of claims 1, 3-14, and 22 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05 for at least the following reasons. The following additional elements fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception: a programmable processor, the programmable processor indicates to the user and collects brushing session data, a user interface to provide a visualization, a memory, a toothbrush comprising a physical property. The programable processor is directed to mere instructions to apply the abstract ideas on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The “programmable processor”, “user interface” and “memory” are recited with a high level of generality and allows the abstract ideas to be implemented in a generic computing device/computing environment. In regard to the “programmable processor”, the instant specification discloses that the processor is a generic computing device: “Processors described herein may be any central processing unit (CPU), microprocessor, micro-controller, computational, or programmable device or circuit configured for executing computer program instructions (e.g. code).”, see paragraph [0033] of the instant specification. In regard to the “user interface”, the instant specification discloses that the user interface is a display and “wired and/or wireless communication interface devices” (see paragraph [0033] of the instant specification) or “a touch sensitive display…”(see paragraph [0046] of the instant specification). The above-identified programmable processor and user interface (operably coupled to the programmable processor) is a generically claimed computer component which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. In regard to the “memory”, the instant specification discloses that the memory is “a non-transitory computer-readable medium” and includes “any suitable volatile or on-volatile memory” including random access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), USB flash memory, magnetic or optical data storage devices, “which may be written to and/or read by a processor”, see paragraph [0034] of the instant specification.
The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) along with Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the programmable processor and user interface are reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element of a “toothbrush comprising a physical property” is an additional element having insignificant extra-solution activity as “a toothbrush” is well understood and conventional (see US 4,598,437 to Ernest et al., describing a toothbrush with at least one physical property including differing types of bristle patterns, profiles, angles, etc., see Figures 3A-4, 6, 7A-7B or Ernest et al. and applicant’s specification paragraph [0037]) MPEP 2106.05 (g) states that insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, when the activity is well-understood or conventional Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). In this case, “the toothbrush” is (1) well-understood, routine, and conventional (see US 4,598,437 cited above), (2) and in combination with the “programmable processor” and “user interface” there is not an effected transformation to the “toothbrush”.
Further, claim 5 recites additional elements having insignificant extra-solution activity including: “a radio frequency identifier (RFID) tag reader operably coupled to the programmable processor, the toothbrush comprising a radio frequency identifier tag…” In this case, the RFID tag reader coupled to the programmable processor and RFID tag are (1) well known (see US 7,207,080 to Hilscher et al. that describes a dental cleaning device having a RFID reading device located in the handle of a toothbrush to communicate with a RFID tag, column 9 lines 15-62, column 15 line 42 to column 16 line 5, column 18 line 62 to column 19 line 29), (2) types of reading or inputting data are found to be insignificant and (3) the limitations amount to necessary data gathering or data transfer.
Further, claims 6-14 and 22 recite additional elements having insignificant extra-solution activity including: “the toothbrush comprising a handle, a head removably coupled to the handle…”, “the toothbrush comprises the indicia or identifier…”, “packaging material for the toothbrush…”, “a coded image”, a data processing unit”, “one or more sensors”, a specific physical property of the toothbrush. In this case, the extra-solution activities are well known (as also demonstrated by Hilscher et al., 7,207,080, see column 1 line 48 to column 3 line 28, column 11 lines 13-41) as it is known for a toothbrush to have a head removably coupled to the handle, a toothbrush having indicia such as a brand name, a coded image such as any language, pattern, or printed design located on the handle, a data processing unit on a toothbrush, sensors, and it is known that a toothbrush has a physical property and the limitations amount to necessary data gathering.
Claims 1, 3-14 and 22 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, taking the claimed elements individually yields no difference from taking them in combination because each element simply performs its respective function as discussed above. In other words, these claims merely apply an abstract idea to a programmable processor or computer and do not improve the performance of the process or computer itself or provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field. They do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, the underlying computing elements remain the same. Instead, the additional features merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic, functional, and conventional components well-known in the art. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, for these reasons claims 1, 3-14 and 22 are not patent-eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 15, 17-19, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole amount to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In accordance with MPEP 2106.04, each of claims 15, 17-19, 21, and 23 have been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
With respect to step 1: Claims 15, 17-19, 21, and 23 are directed to a method which is eligible at step 1.
With respect to step 2A, prong I (per MPEP 2106.04(a)): Claims 15, 17-19, 21, and 23 recite at least one step or instruction for an oral care method, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Claim 15 lines 2-4 are directed to a mental process: “receiving……physical property data indicative of a physical property of a toothbrush obtained by reading visible indicia or an identifier associated with the toothbrush, the physical property being an intrinsic property of the toothbrush”. This limitation is a form of observation since an individual can visually observe physical property data indicative of a physical property of the toothbrush, such as indicia written on the toothbrush or toothbrush packing which indicates whether the bristles on the toothbrush head are soft or hard. Claim 15 line 5 is directed to a mental process: “determining, by the programmable processor, standard brushing time data based on the physical property data”. This limitation is a form of evaluation or judgment as an individual can mentally determine a brushing time based on observing the physical property characteristics of the toothbrush. Note that it is unclear as to what is considered “standard” and a user may make that determination mentally based on their own brushing habits. Claim 15 line 7 is directed to a mental process: “…determining….a suggested brushing time…” This limitation is a form of evaluation or judgement since an individual can mentally determine a brushing time based on whether the toothbrush head being used is “soft” or “hard”. Claim 15 line 8 is directed to a mental process: “instructing a user, by the programmable processor, to begin a brushing session”. This limitation is a form of an evaluation or judgement since an individual can mentally decide when to begin a brushing session. Claim 15 line 15 is directed to a mental process: “wherein determining the suggested brushing time comprises retrieving the standard brushing time data from the memory, determining an offset brushing time based at least in part upon the physical property data, and increasing or decreasing the standard brushing time with the offset brushing time”. This limitation is a form of evaluation or judgement since an individual can mentally determine a standard brushing time and adjust the standard brushing time based on the type of toothbrush head being used, e.g., when a soft toothbrush head is being used then add time to the standard brushing time and when a hard toothbrush head is being used then subtract time from the standard brushing time. Additionally, this step could also be considered a mathematical concept since time is being either added or subtracted from the standard brushing time based on the type of toothbrush head (soft or hard) being used. Claim 18 lines 2-4 are directed to a mental process: “receiving……physical property data indicative of a physical property of a toothbrush obtained by reading visible indicia or an identifier associated with the toothbrush”. This limitation is a form of observation since an individual can visually observe physical property data indicative of a physical property of the toothbrush, such as indicia written on the toothbrush or toothbrush packing which indicates whether the bristles on the toothbrush head are soft or hard. Claim 18 line 7 is directed to a mental process: “…determining….an evaluation of a brushing session…” This limitation is a form of evaluation or judgement since an individual can mentally determine an evaluation of a brushing session, based on observing the brushing session. Claim 18 lines 6-7 is directed to a mental process: “wherein determining the evaluation comprises weighting a base performance metric…to obtain a weighted performance metric”. This limitation is a form of evaluation or judgement since an individual can mentally evaluate a metric using observation. Claim 23 lines 2-4 is directed to a mental process and a mathematical concept: “determining the evaluation of the brushing session further comprises analyzing the detected brushing characteristics to identify brushing patterns or behavior.” This limitation can be done mentally and mathematically by a user comparing how they may have brushed differently or for a different duration based on the user’s observations of the physical characteristics of the toothbrush.
Further, dependent Claims 17, 19, 21, and 23 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the claimed functions/steps are performed.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea as in MPEP 2106.04(a).
With respect to step 2A, prong II (per MPEP 2106.04(d)): the above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 15 and 18 (and their respective dependent Claims 17, 19, 21, and 23) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d) because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 15 and 18), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use according to MPEP 2106.05(h). More specifically, the additional elements of: a programmable processor is a generically recited computer element in independent claims 15 and 18 (and their respective dependent claims 17, 19, 21, and 23) which do not improve the functioning of a programmable processor or computer, or any other technology or technical field according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine according to MPEP 2106.05(b), effect a transformation according to MPEP 2106.05(c), provide a particular oral care method according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(f). The “programmable processor” is recited with a high level of generality and allows the abstract ideas to be implemented in a generic computing device/computing environment. In regard to the “programmable processor”, the instant specification discloses that the processor is a generic computing device: “Processors described herein may be any central processing unit (CPU), microprocessor, micro-controller, computational, or programmable device or circuit configured for executing computer program instructions (e.g. code).”, see paragraph [0033] of the instant specification. The “memory” is recited with a high level of generality and allows the abstract ideas to be implemented in a generic computing device/computing environment. In regard to the “memory”, the instant specification discloses that the memory is “a non-transitory computer-readable medium” and includes “any suitable volatile or on-volatile memory” including random access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), USB flash memory, magnetic or optical data storage devices, “which may be written to and/or read by a processor”, see paragraph [0034] of the instant specification.
For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent claims 15 and 18 (and their respective dependent claims 17, 19, 21, and 23) is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d). Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d) because the claimed method merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and mathematical process) using rules (e.g., determination, evaluation) executed by a computer (e.g., programmable processor as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer according to MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims according to MPEP 2106.05(a). That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 15 and 18 (and their respective dependent Claims 17, 19, 21, and 23) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
With respect to step 2B (per MPEP 2106.05): None of Claims 15, 17-19, 21, and 23 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05 for at least the following reasons. The following additional element fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception: a programmable processor, the programmable processor capable of indicating information to a user and also collecting data. The programable processor is directed to mere instructions to apply the abstract ideas on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The “programmable processor” is recited with a high level of generality and allows the abstract ideas to be implemented in a generic computing device/computing environment. In regard to the “programmable processor”, the instant specification discloses that the processor is a generic computing device: “Processors described herein may be any central processing unit (CPU), microprocessor, micro-controller, computational, or programmable device or circuit configured for executing computer program instructions (e.g. code).”, see paragraph [0033] of the instant specification. The above-identified programmable processor is a generically claimed computer component which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) along with Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the programmable processor is reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, claims 17-19 21, and 23 recite additional elements having insignificant extra-solution activity including: “a radio frequency identifier (RFID) tag reader operably coupled to the programmable processor, the toothbrush comprising a radio frequency identifier tag…” and “sensors” MPEP 2106.05 (g) states that insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, when the activity is well-understood or conventional Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). In this case, the RFID tag reader coupled to the programmable processor and RFID tag are (1) well known (see US 7,207,080 to Hilscher et al. that describes a dental cleaning device having a RFID reading device located in the handle of a toothbrush to communicate with a RFID tag, column 9 lines 15-62, column 15 line 42 to column 16 line 5, column 18 line 62 to column 19 line 29), (2) types of reading or inputting data are found to be insignificant and (3) the limitations amount to necessary data gathering or data transfer.
Further, claim 23 recites additional elements having insignificant extra-solution activity including: “one or more sensors”, a specific physical property of the toothbrush. In this case, the extra-solution activities are well known (as also demonstrated by Hilscher et al., 7,207,080, see column 1 line 48 to column 3 line 28, column 11 lines 13-41) as it is known for a toothbrush to have sensors and it is known that a toothbrush has a physical property and the limitations amount to necessary data gathering.
Claims 15, 17-19, 21, and 23 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, taking the claimed elements individually yields no difference from taking them in combination because each element simply performs its respective function as discussed above. In other words, these claims merely apply an abstract idea to a programmable processor or computer and do not improve the performance of the process or computer itself or provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field. They do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, the underlying computing elements remain the same. Instead, the additional features merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic, functional, and conventional components well-known in the art. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, for these reasons claims 15, 17-19, 21, and 23 are not patent-eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15, 17, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the memory" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that “claim 1 as a whole is not directed to such an idea in the abstract”. The applicant alleges that it is directed to a specific system for personalizing oral care routines based on the characteristics of a toothbrush and data collected over brushing sessions. The applicant alleges that the device is used in a specific technological context. The applicant argues that additional elements are applying the concept in a meaningful and concrete way, tied to a specific field of use. The applicant additionally argues that the claims recite an inventive concept of enabling personalized oral care experiences that adapt over time to a user’s pattern and toothbrush characteristics. The applicant makes similar arguments to the invention of independent claims 15, 18.
The examiner maintains the rejections under 35 USC 101 as the amendments have not changed the examiner’s analysis. With regards to step 2A, prong I (see MPEP 2106.04), the claims recite an abstract concept or recite at least one step or instruction for an oral care method, which is grouped as a mental process. As pointed out previously, Claims 1, 15, and 18 present abstract ideas including numerous mental processes and mathematical concepts. With regards to step 2A, prong II (see MPEP 2106.04(d)), the abstract idea from step 2A, prong 1 is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d) because the additional elements (toothbrush, programmable processor, user interface, memory, sensors), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use according to MPEP 2106.05(h). More specifically, the additional elements of: a programmable processor, a user interface and a memory are generically recited computer elements and input element in independent claim 1 (and respective dependent claims 3-14 and 22) which do not improve the functioning of a programmable processor or computer, or any other technology or technical field according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine according to MPEP 2106.05(b), effect a transformation according to MPEP 2106.05(c), provide a particular processing step according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). MPEP 2106.05(h) also states that “limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” With respect to step 2B (per MPEP 2106.05): none of the claims include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05 for at least the following reasons. The following additional elements fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception: a programmable processor, the programmable processor indicates to the user and collects brushing session data, a user interface to provide a visualization, a memory, a toothbrush comprising a physical property. The programable processor is directed to mere instructions to apply the abstract ideas on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The “programmable processor”, “user interface” and “memory” are recited with a high level of generality and allows the abstract ideas to be implemented in a generic computing device/computing environment. The additional elements in combination do not contribute to an inventive concept and are considered well-understood, routine, and conventional.
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 Laura C Guidotti whose telephone number is (571)272-1272. The examiner can normally be reached typically M-F, 6am-9am, 10am-4:30pm.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/LAURA C GUIDOTTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
lcg