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 .
Request for Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 09/26/2025 has been entered.
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 Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-9, 11, 14-18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites limitation “wherein the second end of the first arm section and the first end of the second arm section are...rigidly connected with each other without a hinge functionality”, and claim 3 similarly recites the limitation “wherein the second end of the third arm section and the first end of the fourth arm section are rigidly connected with each other without a hinge functionality”. These amended limitations are not supported by the specification with respect to the claimed embodiment. Applicant’s claims are directed to the elected species of Fig. 4 (05/14/2024 Reply at 2; 03/15/2024 Restriction Requirement at 2). However, Applicant bases its support for the amendments from the unelected embodiment of Fig. 2 (Reply at 6, citing ¶ 0052 of the published application), and the amendments are not compatible with the separate embodiment of Fig. 4. While the description of Fig. 2 discusses a modification where the vertices are “essentially rigid structures without a hinge functionality”, this modification is never discussed in the context of the Fig. 4 embodiment (see ¶ 0072 of the published application). And though the specification contains boilerplate that states that additional (undisclosed) modifications are possible (¶ 0103 of the published application), this does not appear to be sufficient when the embodiment of Fig. 4 discloses, or at least strongly suggests, a hinge or a “hinging functionality” as shown below.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (These lines appear to indicate the presence of a hinge or a “hinging functionality” here)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
770
495
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Spec. Fig. 4 (annotated)
Although the specification is silent on whether the drive unit of Fig. 4 has “hinges” or not, Examiner notes that the vertices 56C and 57C of Fig. 4 have a similar construction to the vertices 56D and 57D of Fig. 5, which are described as being “living hinges” (¶ 0076 of the published application). In contrast, the construction of the vertices 56B and 57B of Fig. 3, which are described as being “non-hinged” (¶ 0070 of the published application), is quite different from the vertices 56C and 57C of Fig. 4. Examiner notes that while Fig. 2 is a different embodiment from Fig. 4 (for instance, the upper vertex of the drive unit of Fig. 2 (reference 58A) is different from that of Fig. 4 (reference 58C)), it is inconclusive whether the construction of vertices 56A and 57A of Fig. 2 is the same as the vertices 56C and 57C of Fig. 4 due to the resolution and size of Fig. 2.
The issue here is that Applicant attempts to claim a combination that is not described in the specification. This improper combination leads one skilled in the relevant art to conclude that the inventor did not have possession of the claimed invention. MPEP § 2163(I)(A) (“issues of adequate written description may arise...when an aspect of the claimed invention has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing”); see LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Res. Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“enough must be included to convince a person of skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention...however, LizardTech has failed...[a]fter reading the patent, a person of skill in the art would not understand...LizardTech to have invented a method for making a seamless DWT, except by ‘maintaining updating sums of DWT coefficients’”).
Accordingly, claims 1 and 3 fail to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 2-4, 7-9, 11, 14-18, and 20-21 are rejected on the basis they incorporate the limitations of claim 1 and/or claim 3.
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 without a hinge functionality (see annotated Fig. 3 below, these ends are fixedly connected; see § 112(a) rejection, this phrase “without a hinge functionality” is interpreted as modifying the term “rigidly connected”, which is preceded by an “or”),
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),
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_image2.png
812
499
media_image2.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 without a hinge functionality, 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 – The objection to claim 1 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment. Examiner notes that with the amendment to claim 1 (“without a hinge functionality”), withdrawn claim 5 appears to conflict with claim 1 (from which claim 5 depends). Examiner suggests amending or canceling claim 5 accordingly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the reasons stated above in the rejections. Applicant does not present any further arguments concerning the remaining claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
US 4669322 A (“Messinger”) discloses a drive unit for translating a rotary movement into an oscillating movement (Abstr.; Figs. 1-5);
US 4848171 A (“Steijger”) discloses a drive unit for translating a rotary movement into an oscillating movement (Abstr.; Figs. 1-6);
US 20140007718 A1 (“Von Seggern”) discloses a drive unit for translating a rotary movement into a linear movement (Abstr.; Figs. 1-4);
US 20080168910 A1 (“Dexling”) discloses a drive unit for translating a rotary movement into a linear movement (Abstr.; Fig. 1);
CA 2234350 A1 (“Nemeskeri”) discloses a drive unit for translating a rotary movement into an oscillating movement (pp. 1-4).
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