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 an amendment filed on 1/15/2026. As directed by the amendment, no claims were canceled, claims 6 and 27-30 were amended, and no new claims were added. Thus, claims 1-30 are pending for this application.
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.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luettgen (US 20150004559) in view of McDonough (US 20120189976).
Regarding claim 1, Luettgen discloses (Fig. 1-4B) a water flosser comprising:
a main housing (comprising upper base body 130 and lower base body 128) including a base (base 128);
a motor (motor 142) secured to the base (see Fig. 3)
a pump housing (chassis 140) located in the main housing (see Fig. 3) and operably connected to the motor (as shown in Fig. 5A);
a reservoir (removable reservoir 104) configured to operably connect to the main housing at a location distal to the base (see Fig. 4A);
a handle (handle 106) having a nozzle (nozzle 114); and
tubing (tubing 118) operably connecting the handle to the main housing (see Fig. 1A).
Luettgen does not disclose the motor secured to the base is a linear motor having a self-supporting coil.
However, McDonough teaches (Fig. 11B) a waterflosser device having a linear motor (motor 4420, described as “linear” in paragraph [0198]) having a self-supporting coil (paragraph [0198]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify motor of Luettgen to be a linear motor having a SSC, as taught by McDonough, for the purpose of reducing the amount of translation/camming/intermediate pieces required to convert the rotation movement of a motor to linear movement of a pump piston. Furthermore, it has been held that simple substitution of one well-known driving motor structure (rotary motor of Luettgen) with another well known driving motor structure (linear SSC motor of McDonough) would provide the expected result of driving actuation of the pump (see rationale for obviousness of a simple substitution of a well-known structure in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). See also MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Regarding claim 2, modified Luettgen discloses wherein the main housing includes a reservoir receiving recess (opening of collar 586 that receives reservoir, see Fig. 4B and paragraph [0158]) that is adapted to receive a portion of the reservoir (Fig. 4B).
Regarding claim 3, modified Luettgen discloses wherein the main housing includes a pocket (valve body 155) that is configured to fit within the reservoir receiving recess (fit within base portion 546 of collar 586) and is adapted to receive a portion of the reservoir (receives shelf 612 of reservoir, see Fig. 4B).
Regarding claim 4, modified Luettgen discloses wherein the reservoir includes a reservoir outlet aperture (aperture of shelf 612 of reservoir, through which valve 158 extends), and the reservoir includes a reservoir outlet tube (legs of shelf 612 extending downward) extending from the reservoir so as to surround the reservoir outlet aperture (see Fig. 4B).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luettgen (US 20150004559) in view of McDonough (US 20120189976) and further in view of Sokol (US 20140259474).
Regarding claim 5, modified Luettgen discloses a reservoir outlet check valve (valve 158) insertably engaging the reservoir outlet aperture (see Fig. 4B), and including a reservoir outlet check valve body (body of valve 158) and an outlet check valve spring (spring 650) surrounding the reservoir outlet check valve body (see Fig. 4B and paragraph [0173]).
Modified Luettgen is silent regarding the material of the check valve, and thus does not disclose the check valve body is elastomeric.
However, Sokol teaches (Fig. 12-16) a check valve body (poppet valve 394, connected to a spring 393) that is made of an elastomer (paragraph [0111]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the valve of modified Luettgen to be elastomeric, as taught by Sokol, for the purpose providing a material capable of maintaining its form while simultaneously providing a fluid-tight seal against the valve seat (paragraph [0111] Sokol).
Claim 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luettgen (US 20150004559) in view of McDonough (US 20120189976) and Sokol (US 20140259474), and further in view of Schrumpff (US 20200088316).
Regarding claim 6, modified Luettgen discloses the elastomeric reservoir outlet check valve body includes a longitudinal axis (see axis in Annotated Fig. 4B of Luettgen below) and a outlet check valve seating surface (surface of valve 158 seated against shelf 612, see Annotated Fig. 4B of Luettgen) that forms a first angle relative to the longitudinal axis (see Annotated Fig. 4B of Luettgen below) and wherein the reservoir outlet check valve further includes a conical outlet valve seating surface (conically shaped surface of shelf 612) formed in the reservoir outlet aperture a distance from the outlet check valve seating surface when the reservoir outlet check valve is open and forming a second angle relative to the longitudinal axis that differs from the first angle (see difference in angles in Annotated Fig. 4B of Luettgen).
PNG
media_image1.png
470
411
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Luettgen does not disclose the outlet check valve seating surface is conical.
However, Schrumpf teaches (Fig. 1 and 10) a check valve (valve 4) having a seating surface that has conical shape (see shape of valve 4 pressed against narrowing 3 in Fig. 10 and paragraph [0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the outlet check valve seating surface of modified Luettgen to be conical, as taught by Schrumpff, for the purpose of improving sealing. Furthermore, it has been held, outside evidence of criticality, that changes in shape are a matter of design choice and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 7, modified Luettgen does not disclose the difference between the first angle and the second angle is within a range of 3-5 degrees. However, outside evidence of criticality, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to try to a difference in angles between 3-5 degrees for the purpose of improving sealing, since discovering the optimum value only involves routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 8, modified Luettgen discloses wherein the outlet check valve spring has a first extended position in which the elastomeric reservoir outlet check valve body engages the conical outlet valve seating surface and prevents a liquid held in the reservoir from passing through the reservoir outlet aperture (para. [0173] Luettgen), and a second compressed position in which the outlet check valve body extends upwardly into the reservoir and permits fluid to pass between the outlet check valve seating surface and the outlet check valve seat, and through the reservoir outlet aperture (para. [0173] Luettgen).
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luettgen (US 20150004559) in view of McDonough (US 20120189976), Sokol (US 20140259474), and Schrumpff (US 20200088316), and further in view of Boyd (US 20070203439), Bartlet (US 10682211) and Baum (US 4989590).
Regarding claim 9, modified Luettgen does not disclose an inlet valve housing intermediate the main housing base and the main housing pocket, an reservoir seal interposed between the main housing pocket and the reservoir outlet tube to create a seal between the reservoir and the inlet float valve housing and prevent fluid leakage when the reservoir outlet check valve is open and the reservoir is nested in the reservoir receiving recess of the main housing.
However, Boyd teaches (Fig. 8a-8b) an inlet valve housing (body 206) intermediate the main housing base and the main housing pocket, and a reservoir seal (tube stand 204) interposed between the main housing pocket and the reservoir outlet tube (see Fig. 8B) to create a seal between the reservoir and the inlet float valve housing and prevent fluid leakage when the reservoir outlet check valve is open and the reservoir is nested in the reservoir receiving recess of the main housing (see Fig. 8b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the water flosser of modified Luettgen to further include an inlet valve housing intermediate the main housing base and the main housing pocket, an reservoir seal interposed between the main housing pocket and the reservoir outlet tube to create a seal between the reservoir and the inlet float valve housing and prevent fluid leakage when the reservoir outlet check valve is open and the reservoir is nested in the reservoir receiving recess of the main housing, as taught by Boyd, for the purpose of providing further fluid regulation so that the pump is not overloaded with water.
Modified Luettgen does not disclose the reservoir seal is elastomeric.
However, Bartlet teaches (Fig. 8a-8b) a reservoir seal (seal 210 of inlet 202 of housing 200 connected to reservoir 300) that is elastomeric (made of silicone, Col. 10 lines 49-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reservoir seal of modified Luettgen to be elastomeric, as taught by Bartlet, for the purpose of improving sealing function by allowing the seal to be resilient so that it can be clamped and preventing from dislodging during operation.
Modified Luettgen does not dislcoes the inlet valve housing is an inlet float valve housing.
However, Buam teaches (Fig. 1-3 and 8) a water flosser comprising an inlet valve housing (governor 184, which receives water from valve 58) in the form of a float valve housing (housing 184 contains float valve 198 that floats and seats against surface 196, see Fig. 8 and Col. 6 lines 12-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the inlet valve housing of modified Luettgen to be an inlet float valve housing, as taught by Baum, for the purpose of providing additional flow control by allowing for only the desired amount of fluid to flow before the flow is caught off by the buoyant valve. Furthermore, it has been held that simple substitution of one well-known check valve structure (prong-type check valve of Boyd) with another well-known check valve structure (float type check valve of Baum) would provide the expected result of preventing unwanted fluid flow as well as providing for control of the volume of the fluid flowing to the pump (see rationale for obviousness of a simple substitution of a well-known structure in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). See also MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Regarding claim 10, modified Luettgen disclsoes wherein the elastomeric reservoir seal includes a compressible lip (tube stand shaft 232 of Boyd) and is configured to be inserted into the main housing pocket and over the inlet float valve housing (see Fig. 8B Luettgen), such that the compressible lip is expandable to engage with the main housing pocket bottom (elastomeric and those expandible), which holds the elastomeric reservoir seal in place as the reservoir is removed from the main housing reservoir receiving recess (paragraph [0083] Boyd).
Regarding claim 11, modified Luettgen discloses a central support flange (seal 162 of Luettgen) formed at a distal end of the check valve body (see Fig. 4B) and outlet check valve- engaging fingers (fingers of body 155 of Luettgen) positioned proximate the central support flange (see Fig. 4B), wherein the outlet check valve-engaging fingers are configured to press against the central check valve support flange when the reservoir outlet tube is inserted into the elastomeric reservoir seal (see Fig. 4B), and compress the outlet check valve spring (indirectly compresses due to connection to prong 654) to cause the outlet check valve body seating surface to move away from the outlet check valve seat, whereby a liquid in the reservoir is allowed to flow through the reservoir outlet aperture and into the inlet float valve housing (paragraph [0077] Luettgen).
Regarding claim 12, modified Luettgen discloses the pump housing includes a buoyant inlet float valve (float valve 198 of Baum) that is operably connected to the inlet float valve housing (Fig. 8 Baum), such that the inlet float valve rises when the inlet float valve housing is filled with liquid, and the inlet float valve sinks when the inlet float valve housing is devoid of liquid (Col. 6 lines 12-25 Baum).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luettgen (US 20150004559) in view of McDonough (US 20120189976), Sokol (US 20140259474), Schrumpff (US 20200088316), Boyd (US 20070203439), Bartlet (US 10682211) and Baum (US 4989590) and further in view of Sugiyama (US 20190168608).
Regarding claim 13, modified Luettgen discloses the inlet float valve includes an inlet float valve body having an inlet float valve seating surface, but does not disclose the float valve includes a conical inlet float valve seating surface and an inlet float valve base that sealingly engages with the inlet float valve body such that air is captured in the assembled inlet float valve to make the inlet float valve buoyant.
However, Schrumpff teaches (Fig. 5-7 and 10) an inlet float valve (float valve 4) includes a conical inlet float valve seating surface (conical surface shown in Fig. 10 and described in paragraph [0020]) and an inlet float valve base (upper shell 4a) that sealingly engages with the inlet float valve body (paragraph [0030] and Fig. 5-7) such that air is captured in the assembled inlet float valve to make the inlet float valve buoyant (see Fig. 5-7 and paragraph [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the inlet float valve of modified Luettgen to include a conical inlet float valve seating surface and an inlet float valve base that sealingly engages with the inlet float valve body such that air is captured in the assembled inlet float valve to make the inlet float valve buoyant, as further taught by Schrumpff, for the purpose of improving sealing function and allow for the valve to have a low center of gravity so that it always rights itself (Abstract Schrumpff).
Modified Luettgen does not disclose the float valve body is elastomeric.
However, Sugiyama teaches (Fig. 1-2) a float valve body (float 51) that is elastomeric (Sugiyama discloses the float valve body can be made of a metal, resin, or rubber, which is an elastomer, paragraph [0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material of the float valve body of modified Luettgen to be elastomeric, as taught by Sugiyama, for the purpose of providing a suitable material capable of maintaining its form while simultaneously providing a fluid-tight seal against the valve seat.
Regarding claim 14, modified Luettgen discloses an inlet float valve chamber (channel 194 of Baum) that contains the inlet float valve (see Fig. 8 Baum), the inlet float valve chamber including a conically tapered inlet float valve seat (see conical shape of upper end 196 in Fig. 8 Baum) at a proximal end thereof such that when the inlet float valve chamber is filled with a liquid, the inlet float valve is lifted within the inlet float valve chamber and the inlet float valve seating surface sealingly engages the inlet float valve seat (Col. 6 lines 12-25 Baum).
Regarding claim 15, modified Luettgen discloses wherein an angle of the conical inlet float valve seat to a longitudinal axis of the inlet float valve (see angle between seat 196 of Buam and central longitudinal axis of valve 196 in Fig. 8 Baum) differs from an angle of the conical inlet float valve seating surface relative to the longitudinal axis of the inlet float valve (see angle of conical seating surface of valve 4 in Fig. 10 of Schrumpff, which differs from the angle of conical surface of seating surface of container 3 of Fig. 10 Schrumpff), but does not disclose this different is by 3-5 degrees to promote improved sealing. However, outside evidence of criticality, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to try to a difference in angles between 3-5 degrees for the purpose of improving sealing, since discovering the optimum value only involves routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luettgen (US 20150004559) in view of McDonough (US 20120189976), Sokol (US 20140259474), Schrumpff (US 20200088316), Boyd (US 20070203439), Bartlet (US 10682211) Baum (US 4989590) and Sugiyama (US 20190168608), and further in view of Ganzel (US 10,814,855).
Regarding claim 16, modified Luettgen discloses an inlet float valve housing, but does not disclose the water flosser further comprising an inlet float valve sensor positioned on an exterior of the inlet float valve housing adjacent the proximal end of the inlet float valve seat.
However, Ganzel teaches Fig. 4) an inlet float valve housing (housing 400) and an inlet float valve sensor (sensor assembly 454) positioned on an exterior of the inlet float valve housing adjacent the proximal end of the inlet float valve seat (see Fig. 4 and Col. 17 lines 8-42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the water flosser of modified Luettgen to further include a float valve sensor, as taught by Ganzel, for the purpose of providing feedback to the pump regarding position of the float valve, which corresponds to volume within the chamber, so that the operation of the pump can be modified accordingly.
Regarding claim 17, modified Luettgen discloses a piston cylinder (pump housing 146 of Luettgen), and wherein the pump housing includes a pump housing attachment flange (flange positioned on top of pump 146 in Fig. 5A) having a piston cylinder chamber (interior chamber formed on bottom surface of flange, see Fig. 5A) that is configured to receive at least a portion of the piston cylinder therein (paragraph [0079]).
Regarding claim 18, modified Luettgen discloses wherein the linear motor includes a pump piston (McDonough discloses motor 4420 includes a piston 4064. In Luettgen this is equivalent to piston 145) having a first end that is configured to slidingly engage the piston cylinder (paragraph [0079] Luettgen) and second end opposite the first end, and a piston push rod (connecting rod 151 of Luettgen) that is operably connected to the second end of the pump piston (see paragraph [0079] and Fig. 5C Luettgen).
Claims 19-23 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luettgen (US 20150004559) in view of McDonough (US 20120189976), Sokol (US 20140259474), Schrumpff (US 20200088316), Boyd (US 20070203439), Bartlet (US 10682211) Baum (US 4989590), Sugiyama (US 20190168608), and Ganzel (US 10,814,855), and further in view of Vincent (US 20230078152).
Regarding claim 19, modified Luettgen discloses a processor (processing element 170, paragraph [0083]), but does not disclose at least one sensor of at least one component of the water flosser, the at least one sensor being in electronic communication with the processor.
However, Vincent teaches (Fig. 1-3) a water flosser (Abstract) comprising a processor (control circuit 56) and at least one sensor (sensor 152) the at least one sensor being in electronic communication with the processor (paragraph [0060]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the water flosser of modified Luettgen to include at least one sensor of at least one component of the water flosser, the at least one sensor being in electronic communication with the processor, as taught by Vincent, for the purpose of allowing for the volume of the liquid conveyed by the pump can be better controlled (paragraph [0060] and [0064] Vincent).
Regarding claim 20, modified Luettgen discloses the least one sensor includes a pump position sensor (sensor 152 of Vincent is associated with pump, paragraph [0060] Vincent) in communication with the pump piston and adapted to detect a change in position of the pump piston (paragraph [0060]), to enable a user to control pulse frequency, pulse duration and pressure of the water flosser (“enable a user” interpreted as capability of. This limitation of control of pulse frequency, pulse duration and pressure is comprehended by paragraph [0064] of Vincent, which states that the output of sensor allows for control of operation of the pump motor and user actuation of button 18, meaning the operation of pump, and thus these parameters, is controllable).
Regarding claim 21, modified Luettgen discloses wherein the processor is in electronic communication with the self-supporting coil (paragraph [0164] McDonough), wherein the processor supplies current to the self-supporting coil, which causes movement of the pump piston (paragraph [0164] and [0201] McDonough).
Regarding claim 22, modified Luettgen discloses wherein the amount of current applied to the self-supporting coil determines the pressure of the water flosser (no current applied results in no water pressure, a pressure value greater than zero provides for a different water pressure, and thus this limitation is comprehended by McDonough).
Regarding claim 23, modified Luettgen discloses wherein the presence or absence of current determines the pulse duration of the water flosser (see rejection of claim 22 above), and the pulse frequency is determined by how many pulses are created in a given period (this is an inherent property of pulse frequency, and thus comprehended).
Regarding claim 25, modified Luettgen discloses wherein the processor is in electronic communication with the inlet float valve sensor to determine whether the inlet float valve chamber is filled with liquid (Col. 17 lines 8-42 Ganzel).
Regarding claim 26, modified Luettgen discloses wherein the handle includes at least one button (actuator 124 Luettgen) that is operatively connected to the pump position sensor and pump piston (paragraph [0068] Luettgen), such that depressing the at least one button enables a user to control pulse frequency, pulse duration and pressure of the water flosser (allows for control of mode, pressure, rate, on/off, etc., paragraph [0068] Luettgen).
Claims 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luettgen (US 20150004559) in view of McDonough (US 20120189976), Sokol (US 20140259474), Schrumpff (US 20200088316), Boyd (US 20070203439), Bartlet (US 10682211) Baum (US 4989590), Sugiyama (US 20190168608), Ganzel (US 10,814,855), and Vincent (US 20230078152), and further in view of Behringer (US 4,514,172).
Regarding claim 24, modified Luettgen discloses main housing includes a cradle (clamp 134 of Luettgen, see Fig. 1A) configured to receive the handle therein (paragraph [0137] Luettgen), but does not disclose the at least one sensor includes a cradle sensor that is adapted to detect the presence of the handle in the cradle.
However, Behringer teaches (Fig. 1-2) a cradle (support 2) and at least one sensor including a cradle sensor (light barrier 7) adapted to detect the presence of the handle (handpiece 3) in the cradle (Col. 5 lines 9-40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the at least one sensor of modified Luettgen to include a cradle sensor that is adapted to detect the presence of the handle in the cradle, as taught by Behringer, for the purpose of allowing for control of the control system to be adjusted based on whether the handle is attached (and thus not in use) or detached from the cradle (Col. 5 lines 9-40 Behringer).
Claim 27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luettgen (US 20150004559) in view of McDonough (US 20120189976), Sokol (US 20140259474), Schrumpff (US 20200088316), Boyd (US 20070203439), Bartlet (US 10682211) Baum (US 4989590), Sugiyama (US 20190168608), Ganzel (US 10,814,855), and Vincent (US 20230078152), and further in view of Kumar (US 2015/0201918).
Regarding claim 27, modified Luettgen discloses a processor, but does not disclose wherein the processor is in electronic communication with a visual fault indicator to alert a user of a fault condition sensed by the at least one sensor.
However, Kumar teaches (Fig. 1 and 38a-38b) a handpiece comprising a processor (“microprocessor”, paragraph [0219]) in electronic communication with a visual fault indicator (series of LEDs of an alert-system, paragraph [0259]) to alert a user of a fault condition sensed by the at least one sensor (paragraph [0259]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the water flosser of modified Luettgen such that the processor is in electronic communication with a visual fault indicator to alert a user of a fault condition sensed by the at least one sensor, as taught by Kumar, for the purpose of notifying user that the equipment is not operating properly and should be replaced/fixed (paragraph [0259] Kumar).
29. Regarding claim 29, modified Luettgen discloses the fault indicator means is a visual signal (LEDs, paragraph [0259] Kumar).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luettgen (US 20150004559) in view of McDonough (US 20120189976), Sokol (US 20140259474), Schrumpff (US 20200088316), Boyd (US 20070203439), Bartlet (US 10682211) Baum (US 4989590), Sugiyama (US 20190168608), Ganzel (US 10,814,855), Vincent (US 20230078152), and in view of Kumar (US 2015/0201918), and further in view of Davidson (US 6,470,222)
Regarding claim 28, modified Luettgen discloses a fault indicator in the form of a visual signal, but does not disclose the processor is in electronic communication with an audible fault indicator to alert a user of a fault condition sensed by the at least one sensor.
However, Davidson teaches (Fig. 1 and 16) a dental delivery system having a processor (“microprocessor”, Col. 3 lines 47-51) that is in electronic communication with an audible fault indicator (fault condition that results in an alarm, Col. 17 lines 60-68) to alert a user of a fault condition sensed by the at least one sensor (speaker X2 is turned on that provides audible indication to a user of the fault, Col. 18 lines 1-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of modified Luettgen such that the processor is in electronic communication with an audible fault indicator to alert a user of a fault condition sensed by the at least one sensor, as taught by Davidson, for the purpose of allowing a user to additionally hear that a fault has occurred in case the LED is difficult to see or a user does not have great vision.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luettgen (US 20150004559) in view of McDonough (US 20120189976), and further in view of Thomassen (US 2017/0049278).
Regarding claim 30, modified Luettgen does not disclose the water flosser is adapted to select operation parameters of the water flosser using a mobile device.
However, Thomassen teaches (Fig. 1-3) a massage device adapted to select operation parameters of the massager using a mobile device (discloses a mobile device 23 that allows user to adjust operating parameters of the motor/massage device, paragraph [0018]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of modified Luettgen such that the water flosser is adapted to select operation parameters of the water flosser using a mobile device, as taught by Thomassen, for the purpose of allowing for easy adjustment of the parameters using a user-friendly interface (paragraph [0018] Thomassen).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/15/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103, applicant argued (page 9 paragraphs 3-4 and page 10 paragraph 1 Remarks) McDonough does not teach a self-supporting coil and moreover teaches away from a self-supporting coil. McDonough paragraph [0198] discloses a linear motor that is either a moving coil/stationary magnet or stationary magnet/moving coil. However, nothing in McDonough suggests the coil is self-supporting, and teaches away from self-supporting coil because the outer walls of the motor are encompassed by the stationary coils, meaning the coil is supported by outer wall of a linear motor and thus not self-supported.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to Applicant' s argument that “teaches away from self-supporting coil because the outer walls of the motor are encompassed by the stationary coils, meaning the coil is supported by outer wall of a linear motor and thus not self-supported”, it is noted that a teaching away requires a reference to actually criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into the claimed solution. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). It has been further instructed that the Examiner will not read into a reference a teaching away from a process where no such language exists. See DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Additionally, examiner notes that applicant recites the embodiment shown in Fig. 12a-12c of McDonough as evidence, however this embodiment is a different embodiment that is not used by examiner (examiner uses embodiment in Fig. 11a-11c), therefore applicant’s argument regarding this is moot.
Examiner notes that applicant has not provided a special definition for the term “self-supporting” in the specification. In conventional terms, “self-supporting” is interpreted to be defined as “supporting itself or its own weight” (see Merriam-Webster definition 1b, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/self-supporting). In this case, the coil of McDonough “supports itself or its own weight” due to being around the outer piston chamber walls, as stated in paragraph [0163], meaning that because it is positioned around the outer piston chamber walls without a supporting structure to support it, the coil is interpreted to be “self-supporting”.
Applicant further argued (page 11 paragraph 2 Remarks) that McDonough teaches a low pressure pump system, and is thus not concerned with higher pressure unlike applicant’s invention.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., McDonough teaches a low pressure pump system, and is thus not concerned with higher pressure unlike applicant’s invention) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R MOON whose telephone number is (571)272-2554. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Timothy Stanis can be reached at 571-272-5139. 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.
/MATTHEW R MOON/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/TIMOTHY A STANIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785