DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-10 and 12-18 are objected to because of the following informalities: line 1 should be amended to –[[An]] The oral care device as claimed in claim…-. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 3 should be amended to – to control generation of the first electric and/or electromagnetic field in the mouth-. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2 should be amended to – [[an]] the oral care device as claim in claim 1…-. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2 should be amended to – collection locations in [[an]] the oral cavity of the user when the field generator is received…-. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2 should be amended to – cause the processor to perform [[a]] the method in accordance with claim 19…-. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2 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.
Regarding claim 2:
The claim limitation “a field” in line 3 is unclear. The limitation is unclear because of the earlier recitation of the limitation “a first electric and/or electromagnetic field” in line 2 of claim 1 (on which this claim depends) which raises a question of if two fields are required by the claim 2 or only one. For the sake of examination, the office has assumed that only one field is required by the claim.
The claim limitation “particles” in line 3 is unclear. The limitation is unclear because of the earlier recitation of the limitation “particles” in line 5 of claim 1 (on which this claim depends) which raises a question of if two different particles are required by the claim 2 or only one. For the sake of examination, the office has assumed that only one type of particle is required by the claim.
Regarding claim 5:
The limitation “a spatially non-uniform electric or electromagnetic field” in line 3 is unclear. The limitation is unclear for the same reasons “a field” was unclear in claim 2 (since there is another recitation of electromagnetic filed in line 2 of claim 1). The office has assumed that these limitation overlap or refer to the same structure however the applicant should amend the claim to clarify.
The limitation “particles” in two place in line 4 is unclear for the same reasons identified in the claim 2 rejection above. The office has taken the same interpretation.
Regarding claim 6:
The claim limitation “an electrical drive signal” in line 2 is unclear. The limitation is unclear because of the earlier recitation of the limitation “an electrical drive signal” in line 4 of claim 1 (on which this claim depends) which raises a question of if two different electrical drive signals are required by the claim 6 or only one. For the sake of examination, the office has assumed that only one type of particle is required by the claim.
Regarding claim 7:
The claim limitation “an RF alternating field” in line 2 is unclear. The limitation is unclear because of the earlier recitation of the limitation “an RF alternating field” in line 3 of claim 6 (on which this claim depends) which raises a question of if two different RF alternating fields are required by the claim 7 or only one. For the sake of examination, the office has assumed that only one RF alternating field is required by the claim.
Regarding claim 8:
The claim limitations “an electrical drive signal” (line 3), “field” (4), “particles” (line 4) and “electrical drive signal” (line 6) are unclear for the same reasons indicated in the rejections above.
Regarding claim 9:
The limitation “particles” in line 2 is unclear for the same reasons identified in the claim 2 rejection above. The office has taken the same interpretation.
Regarding claim 10:
The limitation “particles” in lines 4 and 6 is unclear for the same reasons identified in the claim 2 rejection above. The office has taken the same interpretation.
Regarding claim 12:
The limitation “particles” in line 3 is unclear for the same reasons identified in the claim 2 rejection above. The office has taken the same interpretation.
Regarding claim 14:
The limitation “particles” in line 4 is unclear for the same reasons identified in the claim 2 rejection above. The office has taken the same interpretation.
Regarding claim 15:
The claim limitation “a static magnetic field” in line 2 is unclear. The limitation is unclear because of the earlier recitation of the limitation “a static magnetic field” in line 2 of claim 11 (on which this claim depends) which raises a question of if two static magnetic field are required by the claim 15 or only one. For the sake of examination, the office has assumed that only one static magnetic field is required by the claim.
Regarding claim 17:
The claim recites the limitation "the support body" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The claim recites the limitation "the mouthpiece" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Note: the office has attempted to address all of the clarity issues and claim objections above. However, due to the number of issues the applicant should review the claims to make sure everything has been addressed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 9, 11 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2016151570 A1 to Ron Edoute.
Ron Edoute discloses:
Regarding claim 1:
An oral care device (figure 3-7) comprising:
a field generator (1110/1120, 1210/1220 or 1220/1110) adapted to generate a first electric and/or electromagnetic field (page 16, lines 5-20) in a mouth (page 21, lines 20-25) of a user, the field generator comprising a plurality of electrodes (1110/1120, 1210/1220 or 1220/1110; page 22, lines 25-30) arranged to generate the field responsive to stimulation with an electrical drive signal (signal sent via 1130 as described on page 22, lines 20-25);
wherein the field is adapted for imparting a force upon particles susceptible to the field, for guiding movement of the particles to a plurality of pre-determined particle collection locations (see page 16, lines 15-22; page 18, lines 20-28) in the mouth, which locations are defined by locations of a subset of the electrodes (inherent since the locations of the electrodes define the direction or location the particles are guided toward).
Regarding claim 2:
An oral care device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the field generator (1110/1120, 1210/1220 or 1220/1110) is carried by or integrated in a support body (1000), the support body for receipt in an oral cavity of a user (page 21, lines 20-25), for generating a field for guiding particles across or over one or more surfaces of the support body (see page 16, lines 15-22; page 18, lines 20-28).
Regarding claim 3:
An oral care device as claimed in claim 1 , wherein the field generator (1110/1120, 1210/1220 or 1220/1110) is arranged to generate a spatially non-uniform field, having a field strength gradient in one or more directions (due to the arrangement (horse shoe shape) of the electrodes/field generator the generator has a field strength in multiple directions since the electrodes are oriented in different directions along the length of the device 1000).
Regarding claim 4:
An oral care device as claimed in claim 1 , wherein the device further comprises a controller (444) adapted to generate the electrical drive signal (452/202/200), to control generation of the electric and/or electromagnetic field in the mouth (page 14, lines 15-20 and page 17, lines 15-20), the field for guiding movement of the particles to a desired one or more locations in the mouth (see page 16, lines 15-22; page 18, lines 20-28).
Regarding claim 5:
An oral care device as claimed in claim 4, wherein the field generator (1110/1120, 1210/1220 or 1220/1110) and/or electrical drive signal (452/202/200) is configured to generate a spatially non-uniform electric or electromagnetic field (page 4, line 20- page 5 line 15), having a field strength gradient in one or more directions (due to the arrangement (horse shoe shape) of the electrodes/field generator the generator has a field strength in multiple directions since the electrodes are oriented in different directions along the length of the device 1000), for guiding polarizable particles along a direction of the gradient and/or charged particles along a direction of field lines (page 4, lines 20-30),
wherein the plurality of electrodes (1110/1120, 1210/1220 or 1220/1110) include at least one pair of electrodes separated by a space, and wherein the electrodes of the pair are different sizes (in figure 4, see the electrode pair 1110 and 1120 which have different arc lengths; in figure 5 the electrodes 1210 and 1220 have different arc lengths; figure 6 shows electrodes 1220 and 1110 which have different lengths since 1220 is in segments and 1110 is one long piece).
Regarding claim 9:
An oral care device as claimed in claim 4 , wherein the device further comprises a particle activator adapted to generate a physical stimulus for stimulating an activation event of the susceptible particles (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the office has interpreted producing motion in the magnetic particles in the tooth paste (page 16, lines 18-22) as activation event since it is a physical stimulation (putting into motion) of the particles), wherein the particle activator is composed of the same (if the particle activator is the same structure as the field generator then the structure is taught by the reference) or different components to the field generator (1110/1120, 1210/1220 or 1220/1110), and
optionally wherein the device further comprises a cleaning stimulus generator, for generating a physical stimulus for stimulating breakdown or removal of a biofilm from a surface within an oral cavity of a user, wherein the cleaning stimulus generator is composed of the same or different components to the field generator (not taught).
Regarding claim 11:
An oral care device (figure 3-7) comprising:
a field generator (1110/1120, 1210/1220 or 1220/1110) adapted to generate a static magnetic field (page 16, lines 5-20) in a space (page 21, lines 20-25);
the field for imparting a force upon particles susceptible to the field, for guiding movement of the particles to a defined one or more locations in the space (see page 16, lines 15-22; page 18, lines 20-28),
wherein the field generator (1110/1120, 1210/1220 or 1220/1110) is for operation in a mouth of a user (page 21, lines 20-25), for guiding movement of the particles to a desired one or more locations in the mouth (see page 16, lines 15-22; page 18, lines 20-28).
Regarding claim 17:
An oral care device as claimed in claim 1 wherein the support body (1000) is in the form of a mouthpiece unit (as shown in figure 3), and the mouthpiece unit arranged to fit into the mouth of a user with surfaces of the mouthpiece overlying or facing surfaces of the mouth and/or teeth (page 20, lines 25-31).
Regarding claim 18:
An oral cleaning system (figure 3-7), comprising:
an oral care device (as shown in figure 3; page 15, lines 20-25) as claimed in claim 1 (as shown in the claim 1 rejection above), and
a substance or agent (toothpaste; page 16, lines 18; lines 23-26) for delivery in the mouth, the substance or agent comprising particles susceptible to the field (toothpaste with magnetic particles; page 16, lines 15-20).
Regarding claim 19:
A method for delivering particles for a treatment function within an oral cavity of a user (page 21, lines 20-25), the method comprising:
delivering a control signal to a field generator (1110/1120, 1210/1220 or 1220/1110), to control generation by the field generator (1110/1120, 1210/1220 or 1220/1110) of an electric, electromagnetic, and/or magnetic field (page 16, lines 5-20), the field for imparting a force upon particles susceptible to the field, for guiding movement of the particles to a desired plurality of particle collection locations (see page 16, lines 15-22; page 18, lines 20-28) in an oral cavity of the user (page 21, lines 20-25) when the field generator (1110/1120, 1210/1220 or 1220/1110) is received in said oral cavity (see figure 3 which shows the applicator/dental tray 1000 that is received in the mouth).
Regarding claim 20:
A computer program product comprising computer program code, the computer program code being executable on a processor or computer (see figure 1),
wherein, when the processor or computer (444; page 16. Lines 25-30) is operatively coupled (coupled via 452/22/202) with a field generator (1110/1120, 1210/1220 or 1220/1110), the code is configured to cause the processor to perform a method in accordance with claim 19 (code such as 448/452/454/453/24; page 16. Lines 25-30 indicates 444 is hardware and software (code) for operating 1000 in the manner described above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2016151570 A1 to Ron Edoute as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of WO 2018127921 A1 to Nahshon et al. (Nahshon).
Regarding claim 6:
Ron Edoute fails to disclose:
An oral care device as claimed in claim 4 , wherein the controller is adapted, in at least one mode, to generate an electrical drive signal configured to cause the field generator to generate an RF alternating field, for performing an oral cleaning function when the field generator is received in an oral cavity of a user.
Nahshon teaches:
An oral car device (see figure 2a-2c) that includes electrodes (120a/120b/120c) that generates an RF alternating field for an oral cleaning function (page 9, lines 10-15). The RF field is generated based on electrical drive signals from the control unit (page 9, lines 1-5; page 13, lines 29-33).
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 Ron Edoute to generate an RF alternating field based on an electrical drive signal from the controller as taught by Nahshon for the purpose of treating wrinkles, skin laxity, hyperpigmentation and scars (Nahshon, page 1, lines 10-15).
Regarding claim 7:
All limitations of the claim are taught by the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 6 by Ron Edoute and Nahshon:
An oral care device as claimed in claim 6, wherein said first electric and/or electromagnetic field is an RF alternating field (see the alternating (column 3, lines 29-30) RF field (page 9, lines 5-20) of Nahshon incorporated into Ron Edoute).
Claim(s) 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2016151570 A1 to Ron Edoute as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of US 10201701 B2 to Levi.
Regarding claim 8:
Ron Edoute discloses:
An oral care device as claimed in claim 4 , wherein the controller is selectively operable in at least two different modes:
a particle delivery mode (see page 16, lines 15-22; page 18, lines 20-28) in which the controller (444) supplies an electrical drive signal (452/202/200) to the field generator for generating a field for guiding particles (page 14, lines 15-20 and page 17, lines 15-20) susceptible to the field to the defined particle collection locations in the mouth (page 4, lines 20-30).
Ron Edoute fails to disclose:
a cleaning mode in which the controller supplies an electrical drive signal to the field generator for generating an RF alternating field in the space for performing an oral cleaning function.
Levi teaches:
A toothbrush (figures 1 and 3) with a cleaning mode that includes electrodes (13 and 14) sending RF fields (column 3, lines 10-45) to activate particles and perform a cleaning function (column 3, lines 50-62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ron Edoute to further include a cleaning mode where the electrodes in Ron Edoute emit RF fields to a toothpaste in order to activate particles Levi which would activate the particles and begin an cleaning mode/function to further clean the user’s teeth (Ron Edoute, column 3, lines 50-62).
Regarding claim 10:
Ron Edoute discloses:
An oral care device as claimed in claim 9, wherein the controller is adapted to execute a particle delivery control scheme, the control scheme comprising:
at least a first step of supplying the electrical drive signal (452/202/200) to the field generator to guide the particles to the desired location (see page 16, lines 15-22; page 18, lines 20-28), and
Ron Edoute fails to disclose:
at least a second subsequent step of supplying a control signal to the particle activator to create a stimulus for activating the particles; and
optionally further comprising at least a third step of supplying a further control signal to a cleaning stimulus generator to generate a cleaning stimulus for stimulating breakdown or removal a biofilm residue on an oral surface.
Levi teaches:
A toothbrush (figures 1 and 3) with a cleaning mode that includes electrodes (13 and 14) sending RF fields (column 3, lines 10-45) to activate particles and perform a cleaning function (column 3, lines 50-62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ron Edoute to further include a cleaning mode where the electrodes in Ron Edoute emit RF fields to a toothpaste in order to activate particles Levi which would activate the particles and begin an cleaning mode/function to further clean the user’s teeth (Ron Edoute, column 3, lines 50-62).
Note: the final step (“optionally further comprising at least a third step…”) is optional and the above rejection does not teach it since it was not required by the claim.
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2016151570 A1 to Ron Edoute as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of US 20150044628 A1 to Flyash et al. (Flyash).
Regarding claim 12:
Ron Edoute fails to disclose:
An oral care device as claimed in claim 11, wherein the field generator comprises a permanent magnet arrangement for use in generating the static magnetic field in said space, the static magnetic field for guiding magnetic particles along a direction of field lines of the field.
Flyash teaches:
An oral care device (figure 4) that includes permanent magnets (402/404; ¶0063) for applying a magnetic field (¶0063).
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 Ron Edoute to replace the field generator in Ron Edoute with the field generator/permeant magnets as taught by Flyash. This is a simple substitution of one known element (electrodes in Ron Edoute) for another (permeant magnets as taught by Flyash) to obtain predictable results (in order to create a magnetic field to move the magnetic particles in Ron Edoute).
Regarding claim 13:
All limitations of the claim are taught by the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 12 by Ron Edoute and Flyash:
An oral care device as claimed in claim 12, wherein the field generator further comprises a set of passive field shaping elements located in the field generated by the permanent magnet arrangement, each field shaping element comprising a body comprising a magnetic material (see the permanent magnet of Flyash incorporated into Ron Edoute).
Regarding claim 14:
All limitations of the claim are taught by the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 12 by Ron Edoute and Flyash:
An oral care device as claimed in claim 13, wherein a geometry of each field shaping element is adapted to shape magnetic field lines of the magnetic field generated by the permanent magnet arrangement (see the permanent magnet of Flyash incorporated into Ron Edoute) to define a respective magnetic field guidance path for guiding magnetic particles along a defined trajectory or path when brought into the field (see the page 16, lines 15-22 of Ron Edoute).
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2016151570 A1 to Ron Edoute as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of WO 7901082 A1 to Nachman.
Regarding claim 15:
Ron Edoute fails to disclose:
An oral care device as claimed in claim 11, wherein the field generator comprises a coil adapted to generate a static magnetic field responsive to being driven with a DC current.
Nachman teaches:
An oral care device (see figures 1 and 2) that includes a dental device (28) that includes a coil (32) for generating a magnetic field (page 13) driven by DC current (page 9). The coil is controlled by a controller (15)
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 Ron Edoute to replace the field generator in Ron Edoute with a field generator including a coil driven by DC current as taught by Nachman. This is a simple substitution of one known element (field generator of Ron Edoute) for another (field generator including a coil of Nachman) to obtain predictable results (for generating an magnetic field). The coil would further include the controller (15) to supply DC current to it.
Regarding claim 16:
All limitations of the claim are taught by the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 15 by Ron Edoute and Nachman:
An oral care device as claimed in claim 15, wherein the device further comprises a controller (see the controller 15 connected to the coil 32 of Nachman incorporated into Ron Edoute) arranged to supply a DC drive signal to the coil (see the coil 32 of Nachman incorporated into Ron Edoute) to stimulate generation of the magnetic field in the space.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following is pertinent prior art:
US-20140162206-A1
Ivanoff
See the field generator 204
US-20060234189-A1
Duret
See the magnetic field (¶0053)
US-8660669-B2
Nemeh
See the electrode 320
WO-2018127921-A1
NAHSHON
See the electrode 120a
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WESLEY HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-3665. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am-5pm.
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, Michael Tsai can be reached on (571) 270-5246. 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.
/WESLEY G HARRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3783