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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the amendment filed 03/30/22. Claim(s) 1-15 have been amended, no new claims have been added, and no claims have been cancelled. Thus, claims 1-15 are presently pending in this application.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because line 1 contains legal phraseology "comprises" . A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 2-11 and 13-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 2-11, line 1 (in each instance) "Nozzle unit according" should be changed to --The nozzle unit according-- to correct antecedent basis.
In claims 13-14, line 1 (in each instance) "Oral irrigator according" should be changed to --The oral irrigator according-- to correct antecedent basis.
In claim 3, line 3 “one of the nozzle orifices” is suggested to be changed to --one of the at least two nozzle orifices-- to clarify.
In claim 3, lines 3-4 “the other of the nozzle orifices” should be changed to --the other of the at least two nozzle orifices-- to clarify.
In claim 6, line 2 “the flexible portion” should be changed to --the tubular flexible portion-- for consistency.
In claim 10, line 3 “a subject’s respective teeth” should be changed to --the subject’s respective teeth-- to correct antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: sensor arrangement in claims 9 (lines 1-2), 10 (line 2), and 14 (line 5) and projecting element in claim 11 (line 2).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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 11 and 14 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 claim(s) contains 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.
In claim 11, the limitation "at least one projecting element" in line 2 lacks adequate written description in Applicant's specification. Applicant's disclosure merely describes the projecting element as a spacer (pg. 5) which is a generic term that provides no other structure to arrive at the function as claimed to realize a flow orientation. Applicant's specification does not provide enough description of the projecting element to determine the structure or how the structure is capable to realize an orientation of flow. The specification does not adequately describe the limitation and therefore does not have possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 14, lines 4-7 the limitation "a controller which is configured and arranged to receive and process input from the sensor arrangement of the nozzle unit and to control positioning of the at least one nozzle orifice and/or a portion of the nozzle unit accommodating the at least one nozzle orifice on the basis of the input from the sensor arrangement" lacks adequate written description in Applicant's specification. Applicant's disclosure does not adequately describe how the controller controls positioning of the nozzle unit and merely describes the function of the controller on pg. 12 as receiving and processing input from the sensor to control positioning. However, no further description of how the sensor arrangement, assuming the arrangement is the structure as described on pg. 5 of Applicant's description, controls positioning is provided. The description lacks how the controller controls positioning, i.e. manually or through some structure within the device. The specification does not adequately describe the limitation and therefore does not have possession of the claimed invention.
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 1-15 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 1 recites the limitation "the position of interdental interfaces" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the surface of the subject's respective teeth" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 2, lines 1-2 the limitation “comprising at least two nozzle orifices” is confusing if the at least two are part of the at least one nozzle orifice in claim 1 or in addition to the at least one nozzle orifice.
In claim 2, line 2 the limitation “at least two nozzle orifices” is confusing if the at least two are part of the at least two already claimed in claim 2 or additional two orifices.
In claim 3, line 2 “two nozzle orifices” is unclear if those are the same two nozzle orifices in claim 2 or in addition to.
In claim 7, line 2 “at least one nozzle orifice” is unclear if it is the same as the at least one nozzle orifice claim 1 or in addition to.
In claim 7, line 2 the term “optionally” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
In claim 8, line 2 “at least one nozzle orifice” is unclear if it is the same as the at least one nozzle orifice claim 1 or in addition to.
In claim 8, line 3 the term “optionally” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the operational situation" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 11, line 5 the limitation “its shape and dimensions” is unclear what structure the term “its” is referring to.
In claims 12 and 14, line 1 (in each instance) the limitation “a nozzle unit according to claim” is unclear if this is the same nozzle unit of claim 1 (or 11) or an additional nozzle unit.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the sensor arrangement" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 14, lines 4-7 the limitation "a controller which is configured and arranged to receive and process input from the sensor arrangement of the nozzle unit and to control positioning of the at least one nozzle orifice and/or a portion of the nozzle unit accommodating the at least one nozzle orifice on the basis of the input from the sensor arrangement" is unclear how the controller controls the nozzle to position. Is the positioning done manually by the user after receiving feedback or is a structure within the nozzle positioned by the controller?
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the surface of the subject's respective teeth" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
All remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency of a rejected base claim.
Claim limitations “projecting element” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not disclose any specific projecting element structure that is capable of realizing an orientation of flow as required in claim 11. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 11-12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Adriaensen (WO2015/173699).
PNG
media_image1.png
304
402
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig 6 of Adriaensen.
With respect to claim 1, Adriaensen discloses a nozzle unit (12, fig 1) comprising at least one nozzle orifice (36, fig 1 and iterations of 36x), which nozzle unit is designed to be used as part of an oral irrigator (10, fig 1 and [0033]), for emitting a flow of irrigation fluid (see abstract and [0033]) to be directed towards periodontal pockets in a subject's mouth (see Abstract and although the device of Adriaensen is described as use in the interproximal space between two teeth, the direction and placement of the nozzle would also be directed toward the periodontal pockets), and which nozzle unit has at least one constructional feature (guidance tip; 34, fig 6) configured to contribute to realizing a predetermined orientation of a flow of irrigation fluid with respect to a subject's respective teeth (54/55, fig 6) and periodontal pockets in an operational situation involving functional placement of the nozzle unit with the at least one nozzle orifice in the vicinity of the subject's respective teeth at the position of interdental interfaces (dependent on the user’s positioning and needs; see [0040]), namely an orientation from the at least one nozzle orifice towards the periodontal pockets at a pocket inflow angle (prescribed angle; see [0040]) in a range of 10° to 50° (see fig 6 where the orifices are directed from a central axis within the range 10° to 50°) and from the at least one nozzle orifice towards the surface of the subject's respective teeth at a surface impact angle (impact angle; [0042]) in a range of 0° to 50° (greater than 15°; see [0042]), the pocket inflow angle being defined in a first plane extending parallel to a central vertical axis of the subject's respective teeth and having an interdental orientation (see annotated fig 6 of Adriaensen), and the surface impact angle being defined in a second plane extending both parallel to the central vertical axis of the subject's respective teeth and perpendicular to the first plane (see annotated fig 6 of Adriaensen), wherein the pocket inflow angle is an angle between a direction of the flow of irrigation fluid as projected on the first plane and a direction of the central vertical axis of the subject's respective teeth (see annotated fig 6 of Adriaensen), and wherein the surface impact angle is an angle between a direction of the flow of irrigation fluid as projected on the second plane and the direction of the central vertical axis of the subject's respective teeth (see annotated fig 6 of Adriaensen).
With respect to claim 2, Adriaensen discloses at least two nozzle orifices (361 / 362, fig 6), which at least two nozzle orifices are configured and arranged to emit irrigation fluid in different directions from the nozzle unit (see the direction of flow (62/64) in fig 6 crossing paths in opposite directions).
With respect to claim 11, Adriaensen discloses at least one projecting element (58, fig 6) which is configured and arranged to realize the predetermined orientation of the flow of irrigation fluid through supporting the nozzle unit on at least one of the teeth and the gums in a predetermined way defined by its shape and dimensions (see [0038], nozzle spacer assembly 58 allows for the proper impact angle by specific size and shape).
With respect to claim 12, Adriaensen discloses an oral irrigator (10, fig 1), comprising the nozzle unit according to claim 1 (see fig 1 and claim 1 above) and a fluid supply system (reservoir 22, pump 24, electronics 26; fig 1) which is configured and arranged to supply irrigation fluid to the nozzle unit so as to enable the nozzle unit to emit the irrigation fluid (see [0033 and 51]).
With respect to claim 15, Adriaensen discloses a method of performing an oral cleaning action (see [0053]), wherein a flow of irrigation fluid (62/64, fig 6) is directed towards periodontal pockets in a subject's mouth (see Abstract and although the device of Adriaensen is described as use in the interproximal space between two teeth, the direction and placement of the nozzle would also be directed toward the periodontal pockets), in a predetermined orientation with respect to a subject's respective teeth and periodontal pockets, namely an orientation from the at least one nozzle orifice towards the periodontal pockets at a pocket inflow angle (prescribed angle; see [0040]) in a range of 10° to 50° (see fig 6 where the orifices are directed from a central axis within the range 10° to 50°) and from the at least one nozzle orifice towards the surface of the subject's respective teeth at a surface impact angle (impact angle; [0042]) in a range of 0° to 50° (greater than 15°; see [0042]), the pocket inflow angle being defined in a first plane (see annotated fig 6 of Adriaensen) extending parallel to a central vertical axis of the subject's respective teeth and having an interdental orientation (see annotated fig 6 of Adriaensen), and the surface impact angle being defined in a second plane extending both parallel to the central vertical axis of the subject's respective teeth and perpendicular to the first plane (see annotated fig 6 of Adriaensen), wherein the pocket inflow angle is an angle between a direction of the flow of irrigation fluid as projected on the first plane and a direction of the central vertical axis of the subject's respective teeth (see annotated fig 6 of Adriaensen), and wherein the surface impact angle is an angle between a direction of the flow of irrigation fluid as projected on the second plane and the direction of the central vertical axis of the subject's respective teeth (see annotated fig 6 of Adriaensen).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adriaensen in view of Jager (2017/0086954).
With respect to claim 3, Adriaensen discloses all the elements as claimed above but lacks a valve arrangement at a position between two nozzle orifices.
However, Jager teaches a nozzle unit (12, fig 1) comprising a valve arrangement (74, fig 17) at a position between two nozzle orifices (see [0059] and figs 16A-16B), for realizing a first operational condition (closes 362 and 363 as seen in fig 16A, only one orifice is open to spray 561) in which one of the nozzle orifices is opened (fig 16A, 361 is the only open orifice) and the other of the nozzle orifices is blocked, and a second operational condition (closes 361 and 363 as seen in fig 16B, only one orifice is open to spray 562) in which the one of the nozzle orifices is blocked and the other of the nozzle orifices is opened (fig 16B, 362 is the only open orifice) (figs 16A-16C in combination with [0059] show opening and closing orifices with valve 74).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the nozzle unit of Adriaensen to include a valve arrangement as taught by Jager so as to provide iterative consecutive bursts of fluid at different angles for providing greater microburst spray coverage during treatment (see [0059-60] of Jager).
Claim(s) 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adriaensen in view of Mullin (2017/0367799).
With respect to claim 4, Adriaensen shows all the elements as claimed above but lacks a portion of the nozzle unit accommodating the at least one nozzle orifice has an adjustable positioning in the nozzle unit.
PNG
media_image2.png
286
448
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig 3A of Mullins.
However, Mullins teaches an oral irrigation device (11, fig 3A) with a nozzle unit (5, see annotated fig 3A of Mullins) and a portion of the nozzle unit (see annotated fig 3A of Mullins) accommodating at least one nozzle orifice (1, fig 3A) has an adjustable positioning (via flexible section 9, fig 3A and [0036]) in the nozzle unit.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a portion of the nozzle unit of Adriaensen to include a flexible section as taught by Mullins so as to allow the nozzle to bend to clean hard to reach areas of the mouth and also avoid injuring the user.
With respect to claim 5, the modified Adriaensen shows at least one flexible portion (after modification by Mullins; 9, fig 3A of Mullins in on the nozzle unit of Adriaensen).
With respect to claim 6, the modified Adriaensen shows a tubular flexible portion (after modification by Mullins; 9, fig 3A of Mullins in on the nozzle unit of Adriaensen) and a distal end portion extending from the flexible portion (35, fig 6 of Adriaensen; extends from tube 28 of nozzle unit 12 in fig 1 of Adriaensen), the distal end portion including at least two radial arms (see 361 and 362 orifices extending outward from 35 in fig 6 of Adriaensen; see also extension of 36 off of 34 in fig 1 of Adriaensen) having a nozzle orifice (36, fig 1 and 6) arranged at an end thereof.
With respect to claim 7, the modified Adriaensen shows a rotatably arranged (bendable, flexible) distal end portion (after modification by Mullins; 9, fig 3A of Mullins in on the nozzle unit of Adriaensen) including at least one nozzle orifice (includes the end with the nozzle 36, fig 6 of Adriaensen).
With respect to claim 8, the modified Adriaensen shows a distal end portion(after modification by Mullins; 9, fig 3A of Mullins in on the nozzle unit of Adriaensen) including at least one nozzle orifice (includes the end with the nozzle 36, fig 6 of Adriaensen) which is movably arranged in the distal end portion (flexible, bendable).
Claim(s) 9-10 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adriaensen in view of Richter (10,064,711).
With respect to claim 9, Adriaensen discloses all the elements as claimed above but lacks a sensor arrangement which is configured and arranged to sense oral configuration features, and which is configured and arranged to generate input suitable to be received and processed by a controller which is configured and arranged to control positioning of the at least one nozzle orifice on the basis of the input from the sensor arrangement.
However, Richter teaches a smart tooth cleaning device (110, fig 2) with a sensor arrangement (135, 137, 139, 145; fig 4) which is configured and arranged to sense oral configuration features (see step 104, fig 1 and col. 4, lines 41-52), and which is configured and arranged to generate input suitable to be received and processed (see col. 5, lines 56-67 and col. 6) by a controller (local or remote computer system; col. 5, lines 4-14) which is configured and arranged to control positioning of the at least one nozzle orifice on the basis of the input from the sensor arrangement (user can analyze and improve their oral health routine; see col. 8, lines 41-44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the nozzle unit of the Adriaensen to include a sensor unit as taught by Richter so as to provide the user with personalized feedback to ensure proper cleaning and improvement to oral irrigation.
With respect to claim 10, Adriaensen discloses all the elements as claimed above but lacks a sensor arrangement which is configured and arranged to sense the orientation of the flow of irrigation fluid with respect to a subject's respective teeth and periodontal pockets in the operational situation, and to generate input suitable to be received and processed by a controller which is configured and arranged to control a user interface configured to convey information to a user.
However, Richter teaches a smart tooth cleaning device (110, fig 2) with a sensor arrangement (135, 137, 139, 145; fig 4) which is configured and arranged to sense orientation with respect to a subject’s respective teeth (see step 104, fig 1 and col. 4, lines 41-52), and which is configured and arranged to generate input suitable to be received and processed (see col. 5, lines 56-67 and col. 6) by a controller (local or remote computer system; col. 5, lines 4-14) which is configured and arranged to control a user interface configured to convey information to a user (see col. 8, lines 9-16 and 41-44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the nozzle unit of the Adriaensen to include a sensor unit as taught by Richter so as to provide the user with personalized feedback to ensure proper cleaning and improvement to oral irrigation.
With respect to claim 14, Adriaensen discloses an oral irrigator (10, fig 1 of Adriaensen), comprising the nozzle unit according to claim 11 (see claim 11 rejection above), a fluid supply system (reservoir and pump; 22/24, fig 1 of Adriaensen) which is configured and arranged to supply irrigation fluid to the nozzle unit (see [0033] of Adriaensen) so as to enable the nozzle unit to emit the irrigation fluid (see [0033] of Adriaensen), and a control electronics (26, fig 1 of Adriaensen) but lacks a controller which is configured and arranged to receive and process input from the sensor arrangement of the nozzle unit , and to control positioning of the at least one nozzle orifice.
However, Richter teaches a smart tooth cleaning device (110, fig 2) with a processor (143, fig 4) which is configured and arranged to receive and process input from a sensor arrangement (135, 137, 139, 145; fig 4) and to control positioning of the cleaning device on the basis on the input from the sensor arrangement (“For example, the system can emit a signal indicating that more brushing or flossing is needed, the system can emit a first audio signal such as a first tone indicating that the brush is not at the proper location. As the user moves the brush close to the proper location, the audio signal can change indicate that the user is getting closer to the missed area of the teeth" see col. 12, lines 47-62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the nozzle device of Adriaensen to include a sensor arrangement and controller for positioning as taught by Richter so as to guide the user to properly clean his/her teeth.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adriaensen in view of Hilscher (2014/0127641).
With respect to claim 13, Adriaensen discloses the fluid supply system is configured and arranged to supply irrigation fluid to the nozzle unit in microburst (see [0032-33] of Adriaensen) but lacks a pulsed flow.
However, Hilscher teaches an oral irrigator (100, fig 1) configured to supply irrigation fluid (from fluid reservoir by pump (see [0039])) to a nozzle (110/111, fig 1) as a pulsed flow (see [0039-40]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the flow of Adriaensen to be a pulsed flow as taught by Hilscher so as to provide pulses of fluid one after another to effectively treat the periodontal pockets and remove debris.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELSEY E BALLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8153. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 4 PM.
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, Justine Yu can be reached on 571-272-4835. 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.
/KELSEY E BALLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/TU A VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785