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 .
Drawings
Although the drawings are sufficiently clear for examination purposes, they are compromised in terms of clarity. That is, due to the submitted format of the drawings, Figs. 1-7 and 8A-B are dithered and in grayscale/halftones, where lines and text intended to be solid, clean, and black appear grayed and washed out. This loss of quality can be seen by comparing the drawings of the U.S. Patent Application Publication (US 20220265408 A1) with the drawings of the submitted European priority document (EP 22156286.1). It is Examiner’s understanding that should this application issue as a patent, the drawings published on the issued patent will look exactly like those in the U.S. Patent Application Publication, unless Applicant resubmits the drawings in a different format.
The drawings are not objected to at this time for clarity. Nevertheless, Examiner suggests submitting clearer drawings for the purpose of proper notice to the general public. Applicant should note the following drawing standards:
Black and white drawings are normally required; India ink, or its equivalent that secures solid black lines, must be used for drawings. 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(a)(1);
Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black, sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined, and the weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(l);
The clarity of the drawings must be sufficient for clear reproduction to two-thirds size. 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(k).
For examples of acceptable drawing clarity and quality, see US 20220362902 A1, US 20220212385 A1, US 20230076152 A1, and US 20100238396 A1. Examiner suggests outputting and resubmitting the drawings as vector graphics instead of raster images (bitmap).
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informality:
“each other wherein” (claim 3, lines 4-5) should be changed to --each other, wherein--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
Examiner is aware of Applicant’s copending application: 18/595,559, titled “MOTION CONVERTER AND DRIVE UNIT COMPRISING A MOTION CONVERTER”, which has pending claims directed to similar subject matter. Currently, the claims in this application and the copending application are sufficiently delineated and are patentably distinct from each other. Accordingly, a statutory double patenting rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 or a nonstatutory double patenting rejection is not appropriate at this time, but may be applied should the claims of the copending application be amended such that they are no longer patentably distinct from the claims in this application. MPEP § 804.
Applicant is advised of its duty of disclosure, candor, and good faith to identify copending applications that disclose similar subject matter as well as prior art and other information from copending applications that is material to the patentability of this application. MPEP §§ 2001.04, 2001.05, 2001.06, 2001.06(a)-(e).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-9, 11, 14, 16, 18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 4367658 A (“Rochelt”).
Regarding claim 1, Rochelt discloses a drive unit for converting a rotational motion into a linear reciprocating motion in operation (Fig. 3, drive unit as shown), comprising:
a motor having a motor shaft arranged for providing a rotational motion of the motor shaft around a longitudinal axis of the motor shaft in operation (Figs. 3-4, motor 20 with shaft 19 that rotates around longitudinal axis 45 of shaft 19; 5:32-35);
a motor shaft extension comprising at least a first eccentric shaft element arranged eccentrically with respect to the longitudinal axis of the motor shaft so that in operation the first eccentric shaft element moves on a circle around the longitudinal axis of the motor shaft, the circle extending in a plane being perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (Figs. 3-4, disc 44 (“motor shaft extension”) with pin 42 (“first eccentric shaft element), pin 42 is eccentric relative to the longitudinal axis 45 and moves in a circle perpendicular to the longitudinal axis 45);
at least one elastically deformable unit (Figs. 3-4, deformable unit as shown, including elements 23, 24, 27, 30, 31) having a coupling element arranged for coupling with a driven element (Fig. 3, element 27; 4:36-40),
wherein the first eccentric shaft element is coupled with the deformable unit to periodically deform the deformable unit so that a longitudinal position of the coupling element of the deformable unit periodically changes in the direction of the longitudinal axis of the motor shaft (Figs. 3-4, pin 42 coupled to the deformable unit at slot 40 of element 35, which results (when the motor shaft 19 rotates) in the longitudinal position of element 27 (up and down along longitudinal axis 45) to periodically change; 5:32-35, “It is readily apparent from FIG. 4 that the rotary motion of the motor shaft 19 is transformed into a reciprocating translatory motion of the oscillating bar 27 in alignment with the axis 45 of the shaft 19.”);
and wherein the deformable unit comprises a first arm section having a first end and a second end and a second arm section having a first end and a second end (see annotated Fig. 3 below, note that the second end of the second arm section includes the body portion between reference 26 to reference 37),
wherein the second end of the first arm section and the first end of the second arm section are fixedly or rigidly connected with each other (see annotated Fig. 3 below, these ends are fixedly connected (i.e., fixed) to each other; Examiner notes that although these portions are rotationally movable relative to each other in one axis of rotation, they are still fixed to each other including being rotationally immovable relative to each other in the other two perpendicular axes of rotation),
wherein the first end of the first arm section is connected with a mounting structure fixed relative to the motor (see annotated Fig. 3 below, Fig. 4, first end of the first arm section is attached to screw 34 (“mounting structure”), which is fixed relative to motor 20),
and the second end of the second arm section is arranged with a distance to the first end of the first arm section in the direction of the longitudinal axis of the motor shaft (see annotated Fig. 3 below, Fig. 4, second end (at reference 37) of the second arm section is vertically aligned (in the longitudinal axis 45 direction) and spaced from the first end of the first arm section),
and wherein the second end of the second arm section is connected with the coupling element (see annotated Fig. 3 below, second end of the second arm section (at reference 26) is attached to the coupling element 27; alternatively, the second end of the second arm section (at reference 37) is connected with the coupling element 27 via the portion of element 23 that spans from reference 37 to reference 26),
and wherein the first arm section and the second arm section are each at least partially resiliently deformable so that they store energy in a deformation process and release the energy again when a load causing the deformation is released (see annotated Fig. 3 below, Fig. 4, the first arm section and the second arm section are resiliently deformable, which by definition, store and release energy due to the application and removal of a deflection force; 5:32-35; 1:7-12, “resiliently flexible oscillating arm”; 2:24-30, “The drive means according to the invention give rise only to small losses because...the energy required to elastically deform the film hinges is recovered as the film hinges are deflected in the opposite sense so that there are only low hysteresis losses.”; Examiner notes that all solid materials, e.g., metal and plastic, are resiliently deformable and elastically deform to some extent, where if an applied load is removed, the material would return to the unloaded state, releasing the stored energy due to the applied load).
[AltContent: textbox (Fourth arm section)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Third arm section)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Second end of second arm section (from reference 26 to reference 37))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (First end of first arm section)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second end of first arm section and first end of second arm section connect here)][AltContent: textbox (Second arm section)][AltContent: textbox (First arm section)][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
812
499
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Rochelt Fig. 3 (annotated)
Regarding claim 2, Rochelt discloses the drive unit of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses a linear guide and wherein the second end of the second arm section is coupled with the linear guide so that the second end of the second arm section is essentially confined to a reciprocating linear motion in the direction of the longitudinal axis of the motor shaft when the deformable unit is periodically deformed (see annotated Fig. 3 for claim 1 above, Fig. 4, the second end (at reference 26) of the second arm section is coupled to the second arm section and the first arm section (collectively, “linear guide”) and is confined to a reciprocating linear motion in the longitudinal axis 45 direction; 5:32-35; under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the first and second arm sections are a linear guide (Spec. p. 19, lines 26-29, “in Fig. 4, the motion of the coupling element 59C is linearly guided by the further arm sections 53C and 54C”; see claim 20 as originally filed)).
Regarding claim 3, Rochelt discloses the drive unit of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses wherein the deformable unit further comprises a third arm section having a first end and a second end and a fourth arm section having a first end and a second end, wherein the second end of the third arm section and the first end of the fourth arm section are rigidly connected with each other[,] wherein the first end of the third arm section is coupled with the mounting structure (see annotated Fig. 3 for claim 1 above, the recited structure of the third arm section is analogous to that of the first arm section and the recited structure of the fourth arm section is analogous to that of the second arm section (see claim 1 rejection), the coupling area at the second end of the third arm section and the first end of the fourth arm section consists of a portion that includes a hinge as well as a portion that does not have hinge functionality (e.g., above and below the hinge itself); see § 112(a) rejection, in light of the conflict between the term “without a hinge functionality” and the elected embodiment of Fig. 4, this limitation is interpreted to include the meaning that a portion of the coupling area does not have a hinge functionality),
and wherein the second end of the fourth arm section and the second end of the second arm section are coupled with each other (see annotated Fig. 3 for claim 1 above, the second end of the fourth arm section and of the second arm section are coupled at reference 25).
Regarding claim 4, Rochelt discloses the drive unit of claim 2 as applied above and further discloses wherein the deformable unit has a convex quadrilateral-type structure having four edges and four vertices, wherein at least one of a bottom vertex formed at the mounting structure and an opposite top vertex are extended vertices (Fig. 3, the deformable unit has a convex quadrilateral shape with four edges and four vertices, bottom vertex (near reference 31) formed at screw 34 (“mounting structure”) and opposite top vertex (at reference 38) are “extended vertices”; the terms “vertex” and “vertices” are interpreted to include the meaning of a non-geometric vertex or vertices; for example, if the endpoints of two straight segments do not actually touch each other, but would touch if they were extended, and if they were extended, the two straight segments would form an angle, such a region at the endpoints of these two straight segments would be considered a “vertex” (see Spec. Figs. 3, 4; p. 7, lines 24-33; p. 14, lines 2-5; p. 14, lines 15-17; p. 16, lines 26-28; p. 17, lines 21-23)).
Regarding claim 7, Rochelt discloses the drive unit of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses wherein the coupling element is arranged at a distal end of the deformable unit and the deformable unit is deformed in operation such that a length extension of the deformable unit periodically changes in a direction that coincides with or is parallel to the longitudinal axis of the motor shaft (Figs. 3-4, coupling element 27 is at a distal end of the deformable unit, and when the deformable unit is deformed as disclosed, its length extends (periodically) in the direction parallel to the longitudinal axis 45).
Regarding claim 8, Rochelt discloses the drive unit of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses a first crossbeam extending along a first crossbeam axis that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, the first crossbeam having a first end coupled with the first eccentric shaft element so that only a motion of the first eccentric shaft element along the first crossbeam axis is transferred from the first eccentric element to the first crossbeam, and the first crossbeam has a second end affixed to the deformable unit such that a motion of the first crossbeam along the first crossbeam axis leads to a deformation of the deformable unit (Figs. 3-4, first crossbeam 35 (with axis in the horizontal direction as shown) is coupled to eccentric pin 42 at slot 40 and to deformable unit at hinge 37, where only the horizontal movement component (due to grooves 39) from the rotational movement by motor 20 is transmitted to the first crossbeam 35; 5:6-35),
wherein the first end of the first crossbeam is coupled with the first eccentric shaft element by means of an elongated hole provided in the first end of the first crossbeam and extending in a direction that is perpendicular to the first crossbeam axis and that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, the first eccentric shaft element extending through the elongated hole (Figs. 3-4, first crossbeam 35 coupled to pin 42 via slot 40 (see Fig. 5 for cleaner image of slot 40 (no reference number shown)) and extends through the slot 40, the slot extends perpendicularly to the first crossbeam axis and the longitudinal axis 45; 5:14-20).
Regarding claim 9, Rochelt discloses the drive unit of claim 8 as applied above and further discloses wherein the motor shaft extension further comprises at least a second eccentric shaft element arranged eccentrically with respect to the longitudinal axis of the motor shaft so that in operation the second eccentric shaft element moves on a circle around the longitudinal axis of the motor shaft, the circle extending in a plane being perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (Figs. 3-4, disc 43 (“motor shaft extension”) with pin 41 (“second eccentric shaft element), pin 41 is eccentric relative to the longitudinal axis 45 and moves in a circle perpendicular to the longitudinal axis 45),
and wherein the second eccentric shaft element has a circumferential position around the longitudinal axis that is offset 180 degrees relative to the circumferential position of the first eccentric shaft element (Figs. 3-4, pin 41 is offset 180 degrees circumferentially from pin 42; 5:14-20).
Regarding claim 11, Rochelt discloses the drive unit of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses wherein the deformable unit is at least partly made from plastic (2:19-22, “The drive means according to the invention can be made in a simple manner and at low cost from plastics and consists preferably of a single injection-molded member of plastic material.”).
Regarding claim 14, Rochelt discloses the drive unit of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses a personal-care device comprising the drive unit (2:35-47, “The drive means according to the invention can be used within a very wide field, which will be illustrated only by a few examples:...toothbrushes”).
Regarding claim 16, Rochelt discloses the personal-care device of claim 14, wherein the personal-care device is an electric toothbrush (2:35-47, “The drive means according to the invention can be used within a very wide field, which will be illustrated only by a few examples:...toothbrushes”).
Regarding claim 18, Rochelt discloses the drive unit of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses wherein the deformable unit is an integral single unit (Fig. 3, the deformable unit is an integral single unit as shown; 2:19-22, “The drive means according to the invention can be made in a simple manner and at low cost from plastics and consists preferably of a single injection-molded member of plastic material.”; claim 8).
Regarding claim 20, Rochelt discloses the drive unit of claim 3 as applied above and further discloses wherein the third arm section and the fourth arm section comprise a linear guide for the second end of the second arm section (see annotated Fig. 3 for claim 1 above, Fig. 4, the second end (at reference 26) of the second arm section is coupled to the third arm section and the fourth arm section (collectively, “linear guide”) and is confined to a reciprocating linear motion in the longitudinal axis 45 direction; 5:32-35; under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the third and fourth arm sections are a linear guide (Spec. p. 19, lines 26-29, “in Fig. 4, the motion of the coupling element 59C is linearly guided by the further arm sections 53C and 54C”)).
Regarding claim 21, Rochelt discloses the drive unit of claim 9 as applied above and further discloses wherein the drive unit further comprises a second crossbeam extending along a second crossbeam axis that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, the second crossbeam having a first end coupled with the second eccentric shaft element so that only a motion of the second eccentric shaft element along the first crossbeam axis is transferred from the second eccentric element to the second crossbeam, and the second crossbeam has a second end affixed to the deformable unit such that a motion of the second crossbeam along the first crossbeam axis leads to a deformation of the deformable unit in alignment with the deformation caused by the first crossbeam (Figs. 3-4, second crossbeam 36 (with axis in the horizontal direction as shown) is coupled to eccentric pin 41 at slot 40 and to deformable unit at hinge 38, where only the horizontal movement component (due to grooves 39) from the rotational movement by motor 20 is transmitted to the second crossbeam 36 to deform the deformable unit, where this deformation is in alignment with the deformation caused by the first crossbeam 35; 5:6-35; Examiner notes that the first crossbeam axis is the same as the second crossbeam axis (Fig. 4)),
wherein the first end of the second crossbeam is coupled with the second eccentric shaft element by means of an elongated hole provided in the first end of the second crossbeam and extending in a direction that is perpendicular to the second crossbeam axis and that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, the second eccentric shaft element extending through the elongated hole (Figs. 3-4, second crossbeam 36 coupled to pin 41 via slot 40 (see Fig. 5 for cleaner image of slot 40 (no reference number shown)) and extends through the slot 40, the slot extends perpendicularly to the second crossbeam axis and the longitudinal axis 45; 5:14-20),
and wherein a mass of the first crossbeam is about the same as a mass of the second crossbeam (Fig. 3, this limitation is at least inherently disclosed as the first crossbeam 35 and the second crossbeam 36 are disclosed as being made of the same material and are mirror copies of the same shape; 2:19-22).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Rochelt in view of Schaefer
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 4367658 A (“Rochelt”) in view of US 20150007398 A1 (“Schaefer”).
Rochelt pertains to an oscillating drive unit, which could be adapted for various devices including electric toothbrushes (Abstr.; Fig. 3; 2:35-47). Schaefer pertains to an electric toothbrush with an oscillating drive unit (Abstr.; Figs. 1-4). These references are in the same field of endeavor and/or are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor because they concern oscillating drive units in the context of an automatic toothbrush.
Regarding claim 14, Rochelt discloses the drive unit of claim 1 as applied above. To the extent Rochelt does not disclose a personal-care device comprising the drive unit, the Rochelt/Schaefer combination makes obvious this claim.
Schaefer discloses a personal-care device comprising a drive unit (Figs. 1-4; ¶ 0037, electric toothbrush 1 with toothbrush head 100 and “linear drive 260”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Schaefer with Rochelt because this is simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Schaefer discloses an electric toothbrush 1 with toothbrush head 100 and “linear drive 260”, which is coupled to and causes drive shaft 210 to move shaft 310 up and down reciprocally, which causes brush head 130 to oscillate (Schaefer Figs. 1-4; ¶ 0037). Schaefer teaches that “Obviously, the linear drive is just an example and any other motor (and gear arrangement) providing a linear oscillatory motion may be provided.” (Schaefer ¶ 0037). Rochelt teaches that the disclosed linear drive unit may be used with toothbrushes (Rochelt 2:35-47). Therefore, the substitution of the Rochelt linear drive unit for the Schaefer linear drive unit 260 (along with modifying and coupling drive shaft 210 to the Rochelt linear drive unit (at element 27)) yields predictable results (i.e., providing reciprocating linear motion) to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 15, the Rochelt/Schaefer combination makes obvious the personal-care device of claim 14 as applied above. Schaefer further discloses wherein the personal-care device comprises a personal-care head wherein the driven element is coupled with the deformable unit so that a deformation of the deformable unit causes a motion of the driven element (Figs. 1-4; ¶ 0037, electric toothbrush 1 with toothbrush head 100 and “linear drive 260”, which is coupled to and causes drive shaft 210 to move linearly).
The obviousness rationale for claim 15 is the same as for claim 14, where the Rochelt/Schaefer combination, as modified, is an electric toothbrush with the Rochelt drive unit (inside) coupled to drive shaft 210 of Schaefer.
Regarding claim 16, the Rochelt/Schaefer combination makes obvious the personal-care device of claim 14 as applied above. Schaefer further discloses wherein the personal-care device is an electric toothbrush (Figs. 1-4; ¶ 0037, electric toothbrush 1 with toothbrush head 100 and “linear drive 260”).
The obviousness rationale for claim 16 is the same as for claim 14.
Regarding claim 17, Rochelt discloses the drive unit of claim 1 as applied above. Rochelt does not explicitly disclose wherein the coupling element is coupled with a drive shaft. However, the Rochelt/Schaefer combination makes obvious this claim.
Schaefer discloses wherein the coupling element is coupled with a drive shaft (Figs. 1-4; ¶ 0037, electric toothbrush 1 with toothbrush head 100 and “linear drive 260”, which is coupled to and causes drive shaft 210 to move shaft 310 up and down reciprocally, which causes brush head 130 to oscillate electric toothbrush 1 with toothbrush head 100 and “linear drive 260”).
The obviousness rationale for claim 17 is the same as for claim 14, where the Rochelt/Schaefer combination, as modified, is an electric toothbrush with the Rochelt drive unit (inside) coupled to drive shaft 210 of Schaefer.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment and remarks have been considered. Claims 6, 13, and 19 have been canceled. Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-18, and 20-21 are pending. Claims 5, 10, and 12 have been withdrawn from further consideration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-9, 11, 14-18, and 20-21 are rejected.
Claims – In light of Applicant’s claim amendments, the § 112(a) rejections are hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s § 102 arguments (Reply at 8-9), Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s characterization of Rochelt. Applicant emphasize particular passages in Rochelt that use the words “film hinge” or “substantially stiff”, suggesting that the disclosed “first arm section” and “second arm section” are not resiliently deformable to store or release energy. Even assuming Applicant’s characterization is accurate, this does not detract from the fact that the structure disclosed in Rochelt is not absolutely stiff—that is, when under any amount of load, all solid materials have to some extent the ability to be “at least partially resiliently deformable so that they store energy in a deformation process and release the energy again when a load causing the deformation is released.” And even if the “film hinge” of Rochelt is absorbing most of the forces and bending accordingly, this does not mean that the other portions of the Rochelt device (e.g., the entire first arm section and second arm section) are not subjected to any of the forces and being deformed to some extent. Additionally, Applicant fails to recognize that the “film hinges” described in Rochelt are part of the first arm section and second arm section (e.g., the film hinge portion of the first arm section is connected to the film hinge portion of the second arm section (see annotated Fig. 3), which Applicant admits are resiliently deformable as claimed (Reply at 8).
Regarding Applicant’s “fixedly or rigidly connected”, this argument is not persuasive for the reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding Applicant’s obviousness arguments (Reply at 9-10), these are not persuasive because Applicant improperly relies on an incorrect understanding of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the explicit content of the cited references. The proposed modification the question is not whether a combination was obvious to the inventor or Applicant but whether the combination was obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application. Applicant’s argument fails because Applicant confounds the question of obviousness and neglects the KSR standard for a person of ordinary skill, which is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at that time and addressed by the application can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed. KSR, 550 U.S. at 420-21; MPEP § 2145(X)(C). In this case, the proposed modification of the Schaefer drive unit with the Rochelt drive unit (which is disclosed for use with toothbrushes, Rochelt 2:35-47) would have been obvious as stated in the rejection of claims 14 and 17 above. This obviousness combination does not prohibit the modification of related structure in order to make the swap; Applicant’s argument that the swap is not possible relies on a strict one-for-one substitution (i.e., plug and play) without any necessary structural modifications that would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art when making such a drive unit swap. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of another reference; rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); MPEP § 2145(III).
Finally, Applicant’s arguments for the alleged unexpected results of the claimed invention are not persuasive. Examiner is not persuaded that lines 1005 and 1015 (Spec. Figs. 8A-B) represent a drive unit that is identical to that of Rochelt (Spec. p. 20, lines 20-22, identifying this device as the “Oral-B PRO 1 200”). Further, the parameters of the experiments performed in obtaining the data of Spec. Figs. 8A-B are not fully documented, and other factors related to the various toothbrushes’ mechanical or electrical design may contribute to the differences in power consumption shown in Spec. Figs. 8A-B. Additional evidence of unexpected results would be required for further consideration. MPEP § 2145; see MPEP §§ 716.01-06. It should be noted that attorney argument cannot take the place of actual evidence. MPEP §§ 716.01(c)(I)-(II).
Applicant does not present any further arguments concerning the remaining claims.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 C.F.R. § 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 KENT N SHUM whose telephone number is (703)756-1435. The examiner can normally be reached 1230-2230 EASTERN TIME M-TH.
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 S 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.
/KENT N SHUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights