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 .
Status of Claims
The present Office action is responsive to the Remarks and Amendments filed on 09-12-2025. As directed, claims 21, 29, 40-41, and 53 have been amended, claims 1-20, 24-27, and 31-39 were previously canceled, and no new claims have been added. Thus, claims 21-23, 28-30, and 40-53 are currently pending examination.
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended each of claims 21 and 53 to address minor informalities within these claims. The previously held claim objections are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant has amended the claim dependency of claim 29, which has obviated an antecedent basis issue in claim 30. The previously held rejection under 35 USC 112(b) is hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues, see Remarks as filed page 7, that Yoshida cannot anticipate claim 21 because Yoshida fails to disclose the newly amended features of claim 1.
First, Examiner respectfully disagrees that Yoshida does not contemplate a lateral recess and a lateral protrusion. Yoshida illustrates at Figures 1-2, where 41 protrudes from the end of stem 40 and includes both a lateral and vertical aspect, and 51A is provided as an opening/aperture in the head 51 and has both a lateral and a vertical aspect. Thus, Yoshida’s driving features can be considered a lateral recess and a lateral protrusion, as each includes both a vertical and a lateral dimension.
Applicant further argues that Yoshida does not impart any rotational oscillation to the head because the Yoshida motor drives pure rotation to produce vibration.
New grounds of rejection employing Garrigues will be relied on for the rotational oscillation portions of claim 21 since Garrigues teaches an electric toothbrush (100) (paragraph 33, lines 1-5; Fig. 1A), wherein a shaft (126) of the electric toothbrush (100) is configured to provide rotational oscillation in a back and forth pattern along a semi-circular path and the head (102) is similarly configured to oscillate back and forth along a corresponding semi-circular path, which Garrigues teaches is advantageous because it creates side-to-side motion of the bristles (105) attached to the head (102) to remove debris and plaque from the teeth (paragraph 96, lines 1-5 describe the pivoting motion of the shaft 126 and paragraph 37, lines 1-9 describes the oscillatory motion of the shaft 126 derived from rotational movement of the motor 114; paragraph 95, lines 1-5 and Fig. 1E shows the semi-circular path of the head 102).
Applicant continues on to argue that Yoshida fails to disclose a coupling configured to couple the massage accessory to the shaft of the electric toothbrush.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim requires only coupling of the two components, which is explicitly taught by virtue of the connection between bearing part 44 of the transfer shaft 40and eccentric rod 30 which indirectly couple the massage head 52 to the shaft 30 (paragraph 86, lines 1-6, note that eccentric rod 30 is inserted into bearing part 44 to form a friction fit as shown in Fig. 2, where the friction fit between the bearing part 44 and the eccentric rod 30 is the coupling). The claim makes no mention of rotation imparted by the coupling as argued by Applicant. Thus, the coupling feature is indeed met by Yoshida as claimed.
Applicant continues on to argue that “Yoshida fails to disclose a lost motion mechanism whereby a driving feature of the transfer shaft strikes to impact a surface of a recess to create vibration”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, no “lost motion mechanism” is claimed, only a space. The claimed space will be shown to be contemplated by Woolley (see Fig. 2, and the space between 16 and 8). Further, vibration requires oscillation of parts of a fluid or solid whose equilibrium has been disturbed, and Yoshida indicates that vibration is transferred from the motor components to the head via the transfer shaft from centrifugal force of the weight 33B (see Fig. 2, where the topmost edge of 41 is configured to strike the interior of 51A upon movement of 40; note also paragraph 96, lines 1-5 where vibrations are transmitted to brush 50 due to centrifugal force of 40 generated by weight part 33B, where 41 makes up an end of 40, and by definition, vibration is created due to oscillation of parts of a fluid or solid whose equilibrium has been disturbed). Thus, in order to generate the vibration, it is reasonably expected that the transfer shaft with its region 41 must move/oscillate in order to impact vibration at the head 52, otherwise the vibration due to oscillatory disturbance of equilibrium would not be present. Further, Woolley contemplates a space provided between the analogous driving feature (seen end of 8 within recess 16) of the transfer shaft (8) and the driving feature (16) of the head (14) when the transfer shaft (8) and the head (14) are engaged for transferring movement of the transfer shaft (8) to the head (14) (page 4, line 12-page 5, line 2; see Fig. 2 which shows a spacing between the end of transfer shaft 8 and the head agitation mechanism 16). Thus, it is understood that in the type of mechanism employed by the prior art, striking of the driving feature of the transfer shaft against the driving feature of the head creates the desired vibration.
Applicant argues, see Remarks as filed page 9, that Yoshida fails to provide rotational oscillation and a coupling. The same arguments stated above apply here as well, and Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and/or moot given the previous response or new grounds of employed rejection.
Applicant further argues that Cahn does not cure the deficiencies of Yoshida with respect to the lateral oscillation or coupling. However, as noted above, Yoshida is not believed to be deficient concerning the coupling, and Garrigues will be relied on for claim 40 to provide the rotational oscillation now claimed with respect to the base, the head, and the flexible portion.
Applicant further argues that each of Wolk, Garrigues, Chan, and Chan ‘043 fail to remedy any deficiencies with respect to claims 21 and 40.
As outlined above, Examiner respectfully disagrees where the Garrigues reference is concerned, as Garrigues will be relied on to teach the rotational oscillatory motion described in each of claims 21 and 40. As for the remaining references, each will be relied on in turn for their additional teachings as they relate to claims 22, 28-30, and 40-53 respectively.
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.
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:
A “biasing mechanism” in claims 28, 30, and 41 which is interpreted relative to the instant specification at page 8, line 30 through page 9, line 7 to include a flexible region, a spring, including torsion, tension, and compression springs, or an elastomeric component, and functional equivalents thereof.
A “massaging feature” in claim 51, which is interpreted relative to the instant specification at page 9, line 26 through page 10, line 26 to be a protrusion, a plurality of protrusions, rabbit ears, a ribbed texture, a raised portion, an animal head, a human head, a cartoon head, spaced apart beads, a spoon-shaped protrusion, a suction cup, an emoji-shaped protrusion, a tongue, or a tapered protrusion, and functional equivalents thereof.
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 § 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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida (US 2018/0296309) in view of Garrigues (US 2015/0327965) and Woolley (GB 2,375,050).
Regarding claim 21, Yoshida discloses a massage accessory (50) for use with an electric toothbrush (100), the electric toothbrush (100) having a body (10), and a shaft (30) configured to generate an oscillating movement (paragraph 83, lines 1-7; see paragraph 84, lines 1-5 for rotation of the motor 20 and shaft 21 for oscillatory movement, where Fig. 2 shows that eccentric rod 30 indirectly couples to shaft 21 and paragraph 95, lines 1-5 describe relative motion of 30 based on movement of 21; Fig. 1; note paragraph 96, lines 1-5 which describes vibration transmission to brush part 52 of replacement brush 50, given that vibration is transmitted to the brush 50, 50 is regarded as a massage accessory given its vibratory output), the accessory (50) comprising:
a transfer shaft (40) having a driving feature (41) (paragraph 86, lines 1-8; Fig. 1), and a coupling configured to couple the massage accessory (50) to the shaft (30) of the electric toothbrush (100) (paragraph 86, lines 1-6, note that eccentric rod 30 is inserted into bearing part 44 to form a friction fit as shown in Fig. 2, where the friction fit between the bearing part 44 and the eccentric rod 30 is the coupling); and
a head (52) having a driving feature (51A) that is complementary to the driving feature (41) of the transfer shaft (40) (paragraph 87, lines 1-10; Fig. 2);
wherein the driving feature (41) of the transfer shaft (40) is a lateral protrusion and the driving feature (51A) of the head (51) is a lateral recess (see Figs. 1-2, where 41 protrudes from the end of stem 40 and includes both a lateral and vertical aspect, and 51A is provided as an opening/aperture in the head 51 and has both a lateral and a vertical aspect);
wherein the protrusion (41) has at least one edge that is configured to repeatedly strike a surface of the recess (51A) to create vibration when the transfer shaft (40) is driven (see Fig. 2, where the topmost edge of 41 is configured to strike the interior of 51A upon movement of 40; note also paragraph 96, lines 1-5 where vibrations are transmitted to brush 50 due to centrifugal force of 40 generated by weight part 33B, where 41 makes up an end of 40, and by definition, vibration is created due to oscillation of parts of a fluid or solid whose equilibrium has been disturbed).
Yoshida fails to explicitly disclose wherein the vibration is specifically created when the transfer shaft oscillates, and further fails to disclose wherein a space is provided between the driving feature of the transfer shaft and the driving feature of the head when the transfer shaft and the head are engaged such that oscillating movement of the transfer shaft causes a rotational oscillation of the head and additionally causes vibration of the head.
However, Garrigues teaches an electric toothbrush (100) (paragraph 33, lines 1-5; Fig. 1A), wherein a shaft (126) of the electric toothbrush (100) is configured to provide rotational oscillation in a back and forth pattern along a semi-circular path and the head (102) is similarly configured to oscillate back and forth along a corresponding semi-circular path, which Garrigues teaches is advantageous because it creates side-to-side motion of the bristles (105) attached to the head (102) to remove debris and plaque from the teeth (paragraph 96, lines 1-5 describe the pivoting motion of the shaft 126 and paragraph 37, lines 1-9 describes the oscillatory motion of the shaft 126 derived from rotational movement of the motor 114; paragraph 95, lines 1-5 and Fig. 1E shows the semi-circular path of the head 102).
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 motor and transmission system, including the shaft of the electric toothbrush, of modified Yoshida to provide an additional rotational oscillatory movement of the shaft to enable movement of the shaft and the head in a semi-circular trajectory during creation of the movement and vibration of the head, as taught by Garrigues, in order to create side-to-side motion of the bristles attached to the head to remove debris and plaque from the teeth.
Presently modified Yoshida fails to explicitly disclose wherein a space is provided between the driving feature of the transfer shaft and the driving feature of the head when the transfer shaft and the head are engaged such that oscillating movement of the transfer shaft causes a rotational oscillation of the head and additionally causes vibration of the head.
However, Woolley teaches a massage accessory (14) for use with an electric toothbrush (abstract, lines 1-4; Fig. 2), wherein a space is provided between the analogous driving feature (seen end of 8 within recess 16) of the transfer shaft (8) and the driving feature (16) of the head (14) when the transfer shaft (8) and the head (14) are engaged for transferring movement of the transfer shaft (8) to the head (14) (page 4, line 12-page 5, line 2; see Fig. 2 which shows a spacing between the end of transfer shaft 8 and the head agitation mechanism 16).
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 head of the modified Yoshida device to provide a space between the driving features of the transfer shaft and the head, as taught by Woolley, as a known method of transferring movement of the transfer shaft to the massage head to enact stimulation.
Thus, as modified, given that Garrigues has been relied on to impart rotational oscillation of the transfer shaft, and by virtue of Woolley, the driving feature of the transfer shaft is spaced apart from the driving feature of the head, the device as modified would reasonably be configured such that rotational oscillating movement of the transfer shaft causes a rotational oscillation of the head and additionally causes vibration of the head, given that the transfer shaft as modified rotationally oscillates within the space of the massage head, thereby imparting rotational oscillation and vibration to the head by virtue of the movement of the modified transfer shaft impacting on the head.
Regarding claim 23, Yoshida in view of Garrigues and Woolley disclose the massage accessory according to claim 21, as discussed above.
Modified Yoshida discloses wherein the shaft (Yoshida 30) of the electric toothbrush is configured to oscillate back and forth along a semi-circular path and the head (Yoshida 52) is configured to oscillate back and forth along a corresponding semi-circular path (per Garrigues, and the modification applied to claim 21 above, paragraph 96, lines 1-5 describe the pivoting motion of the shaft 126 and paragraph 37, lines 1-9 describes the oscillatory motion of the shaft 126 derived from rotational movement of the motor 114; paragraph 95, lines 1-5 and Fig. 1E shows the semi-circular path of the head 102).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida (US 2018/0296309) in view of Garrigues (US 2015/0327965) and Woolley (GB 2,375,050), as applied to claim 21 above, in further view of Wolk (US 5,579,786).
Regarding claim 22, Yoshida in view of Garrigues and Woolley disclose the massage accessory according to claim 21, as discussed above.
Modified Yoshida fails to disclose wherein the transfer shaft has a substantially quadrilateral cross-section.
However, Wolk teaches an electric flossing apparatus (10) (Col. 4, lines 15-18; Fig. 1) which includes an analogous transfer shaft (62) which has a substantially quadrilateral cross-section (Col. 5, lines 21-24, where 62 is square, and connects the body of the device to the head).
Given that Yoshida and Wolk are drawn to the same field of endeavor, that of electric dental appliances, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the cross-sectional shape of the transfer shaft of Yoshida to be quadrilateral, as taught by Wolk, as a matter of design choice that predictably allows for the friction/press fit of the head and the body of the toothbrush together.
Claims 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida (US 2018/0296309) in view of Garrigues (US 2015/0327965) and Woolley (GB 2,375,050), as applied to claim 21 above, in further view of Chan (US 6,948,209).
Regarding claim 28, Yoshida in view of Garrigues and Woolley disclose the massage accessory according to claim 21, as discussed above.
Modified Yoshida fails to disclose wherein the massage accessory comprises a biasing mechanism configured to bias the head towards a neutral position.
However, Chan teaches a toothbrush (10) which comprises a biasing mechanism (40) configured to bias the head towards a neutral position (Col. 4, lines 8-24, note that flexible neck allows for displacement of the head 20 with respect to the body 80, but the flexibility is “reversible”, and it requires force to achieve the lateral displacement; Col. 2, lines 57-59 notes that the arrangement can be applied to an electric toothbrush; note the 112f interpretation above, where the biasing mechanism can take the form of a flexible region of the toothbrush) for the purpose of allowing the head of the toothbrush to bend during use according to the shape of the dentition where the brush is applied (Col. 2, lines 48-54).
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 massage accessory of modified Yoshida to include a biasing mechanism in the form of a flexible region configured to bias the head towards a neutral position, as taught by Chan, in order to allow the head of the toothbrush to bend during use according to the shape of the dentition where the brush is applied.
Regarding claim 29, Yoshida in view of Garrigues, Woolley, and Chan disclose the massage accessory according to claim 28, as discussed above.
Presently modified Yoshida discloses the massage accessory (Yoshida: 50) comprising a body having a base at a proximal end of the body, the head (51) at or near the distal end of the body (see annotated Fig. 2 of Yoshida below), and a flexible region (40 of Chan disposed between the base and distalmost portion of the head 51 delineated in Fig. 2 of Yoshida) between the base and the head (51) (Chan: Col. 4, lines 8-17, where neck 40 is intermediately oriented between the distalmost end of 20 and the topmost portion of 80 connected to flexible neck 40, further note that claim 30 equates the flexible region to the biasing mechanism).
PNG
media_image1.png
387
788
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 30, Yoshida in view of Garrigues, Woolley, and Chan disclose the massage accessory according to claim 29, as discussed above.
Modified Yoshida further discloses wherein the flexible region (40 of Chan disposed between the base and distalmost portion of the head 51 delineated in Fig. 2 of Yoshida) is the biasing mechanism (see rejection of claim 28 above, and the 112f interpretation for biasing mechanism above, and note Col. 4, lines 8-24 of Chan).
Claims 40-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida (US 2018/0296309) in view of Chan (US 6,948,209) and Garrigues (US 2015/0327965).
Regarding claim 40, Yoshida discloses a massage accessory (50) for use with an electric toothbrush (100), the electric toothbrush (100) having a body (10), and a shaft (30) configured to generate a rotational oscillating movement (paragraph 83, lines 1-7; see paragraph 84, lines 1-5 for rotation of the motor 20 and shaft 21 for rotating oscillatory movement, where Fig. 2 shows that eccentric rod 30 indirectly couples to shaft 21 and paragraph 95, lines 1-5 describe relative motion of 30 based on movement of 21; Fig. 1; note paragraph 96, lines 1-5 which describes vibration transmission to brush part 52 of replacement brush 50, given that vibration is transmitted to the brush 50, 50 is regarded as a massage accessory given its vibratory output), the accessory (50) comprising:
a body having a base at a proximal end of the body, a head (51) at or near the distal end of the body (see annotated Fig. 2 of Yoshida below, note that head 51 coincides with the distalmost portion of the opening formed in 50 and extends to the bristles at 52);
a coupling configured to couple the massage accessory (50) to the shaft (30) of the electric toothbrush (100) (paragraph 86, lines 1-6, note that eccentric rod 30 is inserted into bearing part 44 to form a friction fit as shown in Fig. 2, where the friction fit between the bearing part 44 and the eccentric rod 30 is the coupling mechanism);
wherein the base and the head (51) are arranged such that the head (51) of the accessory (50) is configured to move in response to the oscillating movement of the shaft (30) of the electric toothbrush (100) (paragraph 83, lines 1-7; see paragraph 84, lines 1-5 for rotation of the motor 20 and shaft 21 for oscillatory movement, where Fig. 2 shows that eccentric rod 30 indirectly couples to shaft 21 and paragraph 95, lines 1-5 describe relative motion of 30 based on movement of 21; paragraph 96, lines 1-5).
PNG
media_image1.png
387
788
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yoshida fails to disclose a flexible region between the base and the head;
wherein the movement of the base, the head, and the flexible region is a rotation about a longitudinal axis between the base and the head; and
wherein the flexible region moves in response to the oscillating movement of the shaft and is biased towards a neutral position and the base of the accessory remains relatively stationary compared to the body of the electric toothbrush.
However, Chan teaches a toothbrush (10) which comprises a flexible region as a biasing mechanism (40) configured to bias the head towards a neutral position (Col. 4, lines 8-24, note that flexible neck allows for displacement of the head 20 with respect to the body 80, but the flexibility is “reversible”, and it requires force to achieve the lateral displacement; Col. 2, lines 57-59 notes that the arrangement can be applied to an electric toothbrush; note the 112f interpretation above, where the biasing mechanism can take the form of a flexible region of the toothbrush, and note claim 41 which explicitly defines that the flexible region can be the biasing mechanism) for the purpose of allowing the head of the toothbrush to bend during use according to the shape of the dentition where the brush is applied (Col. 2, lines 48-54), where the biasing mechanism (40) is configured to be more flexible than regions of the toothbrush (10) surrounding it (Col. 2, lines 53-54, see “over the entire neck or only a portion thereof”).
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 massage accessory of Yoshida to include a biasing mechanism in the form of a flexible region configured to bias the head towards a neutral position between the head and base, as taught by Chan, in order to allow the toothbrush to bend during use according to the shape of the dentition where the brush is applied.
Now modified Yoshida discloses the flexible region (40 of Chan disposed between the base and distalmost portion of the head 51 delineated in Fig. 2 of Yoshida) between the base and the head (51) (Chan: Col. 4, lines 8-17, where neck 40 is intermediately oriented between the distalmost end of 20 and the topmost portion of 80 connected to flexible neck 40), wherein the flexible region (Chan: 40) moves in response to the oscillating movement of the shaft (Yoshida: 16) (Yoshida: paragraph 96, lines 1-5) and is biased towards a neutral position (Chan: Col. 4, lines 8-24) and the base (see annotated Fig. 2 of Yoshida above) of the accessory (Yoshida: 50) remains relatively stationary compared to the body (see annotated Fig. 2 of Yoshida above) of the electric toothbrush (Yoshida: 100) (Chan: Col. 2, lines 53-54 and Col. 4, lines 8-24, where only the flexible neck 40 or portions thereof are thin enough and structurally capable of deforming, such that the modified body of Yoshida which includes the flexible region is configured, by virtue of its flexible, modified structure derived from Chan’s teachings, moves relative to the body of the toothbrush when the motor is powered on).
Modified Yoshida still fails to disclose wherein the movement of the base, the head, and the flexible region is a rotation about a longitudinal axis between the base and the head.
However, Garrigues teaches an electric toothbrush (100) (paragraph 33, lines 1-5; Fig. 1A), wherein a shaft (126) of the electric toothbrush (100) is configured to provide rotational oscillation in a back and forth pattern along a semi-circular path and the head (102) is similarly configured to oscillate back and forth along a corresponding semi-circular path, which Garrigues teaches is advantageous because it creates side-to-side motion of the bristles (105) attached to the head (102) to remove debris and plaque from the teeth (paragraph 96, lines 1-5 describe the pivoting motion of the shaft 126 and paragraph 37, lines 1-9 describes the oscillatory motion of the shaft 126 derived from rotational movement of the motor 114; paragraph 95, lines 1-5 and Fig. 1E shows the semi-circular path of the head 102 about a longitudinal axis of the head).
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 motor and transmission system, including the shaft of the electric toothbrush, of modified Yoshida to provide an additional rotational oscillatory movement of the shaft to enable movement of the shaft and the head in a semi-circular trajectory during creation of the movement and vibration of the head, as taught by Garrigues, in order to create side-to-side motion of the bristles attached to the head to remove debris and plaque from the teeth.
Regarding claim 41, Yoshida in view of Chan and Garrigues disclose the massage accessory according to claim 40, as discussed above.
Modified Yoshida further discloses wherein the flexible region (Chan: 40 disposed on the body of Yoshida) is a biasing mechanism (see rejection of claim 40 above, where the flexible region and biasing mechanism were interpreted as the same element; note Chan: Col. 4, lines 8-24 for flexible neck 40).
Regarding claim 42, Yoshida in view of Chan and Garrigues disclose the massage accessory according to claim 41, as discussed above.
Modified Yoshida further discloses wherein the flexible region (Chan: 40 disposed on the body of Yoshida) is configured to flex as the head (Yoshida: 51) moves (see rejection of claim 40 above, where the flexible region is interpreted as being structurally capable of moving during motor movement by virtue of its modified, flexible structure; note Chan: Col. 4, lines 8-24 for flexible neck 40 and Yoshida: paragraph 96, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 43, Yoshida in view of Chan and Garrigues disclose the massage accessory according to claim 40, as discussed above.
Modified Yoshida further discloses wherein the base (see annotated Fig. 2 of Yoshida above) is rigid compared to the flexible region (Chan: 40 disposed on the body of Yoshida) (Chan: Col. 4, lines 8-24 for flexible neck 40 as compared to head 20 or handle 80, see also Col. 2, lines 59-62 where the neck is modified to be flexible relative to the other portions of the toothbrush, and see modification of Yoshida in the rejection of claim 40 above, where the flexible region is intermediate between the base and the head).
Regarding claim 44, Yoshida in view of Chan and Garrigues disclose the massage accessory according to claim 40, as discussed above.
Modified Yoshida further discloses wherein the head (Yoshida: 51) is rigid compared to the flexible region (Chan: 40 disposed on the body of Yoshida) is (Chan: Col. 4, lines 8-24 for flexible neck 40 as compared to head 20 or handle 80, and see modification of Yoshida in the rejection of claim 40 above, where the flexible region is intermediate between the base and the head).
Regarding claim 45, Yoshida in view of Chan and Garrigues disclose the massage accessory according to claim 41, as discussed above.
Yoshida further discloses wherein the head (51) is configured to oscillate in response to the oscillating movement of the shaft (30) (paragraph 96, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 46, Yoshida in view of Chan and Garrigues disclose the massage accessory according to claim 45, as discussed above.
Modified Yoshida discloses wherein the shaft (Yoshida 30) of the electric toothbrush is configured to oscillate back and forth along a semi-circular path and the head (Yoshida 52) is configured to oscillate back and forth along a corresponding semi-circular path (per Garrigues, and the modification applied to claim 21 above, paragraph 96, lines 1-5 describe the pivoting motion of the shaft 126 and paragraph 37, lines 1-9 describes the oscillatory motion of the shaft 126 derived from rotational movement of the motor 114; paragraph 95, lines 1-5 and Fig. 1E shows the semi-circular path of the head 102).
Regarding claim 47, Yoshida in view of Chan and Garrigues disclose the massage accessory according to claim 40, as discussed above.
Yoshida further discloses wherein the head (51) is configured to vibrate in response to the oscillating movement of the shaft (30) (paragraph 96, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 48, Yoshida in view of Chan and Garrigues disclose the massage accessory according to claim 40, as discussed above.
Presently modified Yoshida fails to disclose wherein the flexible region is overmoulded or co-moulded with the head.
However, Chan further teaches that the toothbrush (10) is made in a one-piece mixture (Col. 10, lines 48-51), and that a mixture of polymers are used for the flexible region (40) to create the flexibility thereof (Col. 2, lines 59-65).
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 co-molded the head and flexible region of modified Yoshida given that Chan teaches that the head and flexible region can be constructed of a one-piece mixture, because in Yoshida’s device, the massage accessory which includes the head and the flexible region as modified, is given as a one-piece component (see Yoshida’s Fig. 1; note also that the molding of the device can be regarded as a product-by-process type limitation, where so long as the claimed features of the device is met by the prior art, then the claimed limitations are met, see MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 49, Yoshida in view of Chan and Garrigues disclose the massage accessory according to claim 40, as discussed above.
Yoshida further discloses wherein the body (see annotated Fig. 2 below) further comprises a sleeve extending from the proximal end of the body and spaced apart from the head (51) (see annotated Fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
492
788
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 50, Yoshida in view of Chan and Garrigues disclose the massage accessory according to claim 49, as discussed above.
Presently modified Yoshida fails to disclose wherein the flexible region is overmoulded or co-moulded with the sleeve.
However, Chan further teaches that the toothbrush (10) is made in a one-piece mixture (Col. 10, lines 48-51), and that a mixture of polymers are used for the flexible region (40) to create the flexibility thereof (Col. 2, lines 59-65).
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 co-molded the sleeve and flexible region of modified Yoshida given that Chan teaches that the head region and the flexible region can be constructed of a one-piece mixture in its design, because in Yoshida’s device, the massage accessory which includes the sleeve and the flexible region as modified, is given as a one-piece component (see Yoshida’s Fig. 1; note also that the molding of the device can be regarded as a product-by-process type limitation, where so long as the claimed features of the device is met by the prior art, then the claimed limitations are met, see MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 51, Yoshida in view of Chan and Garrigues disclose the massage accessory according to claim 40, as discussed above.
Yoshida further discloses wherein the head (51) has a massaging feature (52) (paragraph 96, lines 1-5, where vibration is transmitted to the bristles 52 and thus massage is transmitted, and the bristles 52 are the protruded massaging feature; Fig. 2; alternatively note paragraph 88, lines 1-3 and see “lump”).
Regarding claim 52, Yoshida in view of Chan and Garrigues disclose the massage accessory according to claim 51, as discussed above.
Yoshida further discloses wherein the massaging feature (52) is a protrusion (paragraph 96, lines 1-5, where vibration is transmitted to the bristles 52 and thus massage is transmitted, and the bristles 52 are each a protrusion; Fig. 2; alternatively note paragraph 88, lines 1-3 and see “lump”).
Claim 53 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida (US 2018/0296309) in view of Chan (US 6,948,209) and Garrigues (US 2015/0327965), as applied to claim 40 above, in further view of Chan (US 2005/0000043), hereinafter referred to as Chan ‘043.
Regarding claim 53, Yoshida in view of Chan and Garrigues disclose the massage accessory according to claim 40, as discussed above.
Modified Yoshida fails to disclose wherein at least a portion of the exterior of the head comprises a soft material.
However, Chan ‘043 teaches a head (450) of a toothbrush (400) wherein at least a portion (480) of the exterior of the head (450) comprises a soft material, and the portion (480) provides additional massaging capabilities to the user’s mouth (paragraph 36, lines 1-12).
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 head of the modified Yoshida toothbrush to provide a soft material, as taught by Chan ‘043, in order to provide an additional structure capable of massaging the user’s mouth.
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 PAIGE K. BUGG whose telephone number is (571)272-8053. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Kendra Carter can be reached at (571) 272-9034. 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.
/PAIGE KATHLEEN BUGG/Examiner, Art Unit 3785