DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the amendment filed 02/17/25. Claim(s) 1-13 and 15 have been amended, no new claims have been added, and no claims have been cancelled. Thus, claims 1-15 are presently pending in this application.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the displacement of the nozzle" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the occlusal surface" in lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claims 1, 2, 4, 7, and 9 (in multiple instances) the limitation “a tooth” is unclear if the tooth is the same as claimed in claim 1, line 9 or an additional tooth.
In claims 1-2 (in multiple instances) the limitation “an interdental space” is unclear if the interdental space is the same as claimed in claim 1, lines 5-6 or an additional interdental space.
In claims 1, 4, and 9 (in multiple instances) the limitation “an occlusal surface” is unclear if the occlusal surface is the same as claimed in claim 1, lines 8-9 or an additional occlusal surface.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the side of a tooth" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the pressure" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the flow" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the tip" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the force" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the angle" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the occlusal surface" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the displacement of the nozzle" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claims 10-12 (in multiple instances) the limitation “a tooth” is unclear if the tooth is the same as claimed in claim 10, line 2 or an additional tooth.
In claims 10-11 (in multiple instances) the limitation “an interdental space” is unclear if the interdental space is the same as claimed in claim 10, line 4 or an additional interdental space.
In claims 12, lines 4 and 8 the limitation “an occlusal surface” is unclear if the occlusal surface is the same as claimed in claim 10, lines 1-2 or an additional occlusal surface.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the side of a tooth" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the first jetting mode" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the second jetting mode" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the first brushing mode" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the second brushing mode" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 14, line 1 the limitation “A processor” is unclear if the processor is the same as claim 13, line 2 or an additional processor.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the displacement of the nozzle" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the occlusal surface" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 15, line 7 the limitation “a nozzle” is unclear if the nozzle is the same as claimed in claim 15, line 2 or an additional nozzle.
In claim 15, line 10 the limitation “an interdental space” is unclear if the interdental space is the same as claimed in claim 15, line 8 or an additional interdental space.
All remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency of a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 10-11 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rmaile (WO2018/234129).
With respect to claim 10, Rmaile discloses a method for determining whether an oral irrigation system (10, fig 1) is on the occlusal surfaces of a tooth comprising determining the displacement of a nozzle (16, fig 1); determining whether the nozzle is in an interdental space (see [0039]; using sensor 32, fig 2); and determining that the nozzle is moving along the occlusal surface of a tooth (note the device is capable of being moved along teeth and the sensor determines when the device is on a tooth or in the interdental space and therefore has a displacement distance since moved a distance) by determining that the displacement of the nozzle is larger than a critical distance and that the nozzle has not been located at an interdental space during the displacement of the nozzle (see [0039-40 and 43-45]).
With respect to claim 11, Rmaile discloses determining that the nozzle is moving along the side of a tooth based on the displacement of the nozzle being larger than the critical distance (note after the modification by Rmaile the device senses and adjusts based on the determined location i.e., tooth or space between) and the interdental sensor detecting an interdental space during the displacement of the nozzle (see [0039-40 and 43-45] of Rmaile).
With respect to claim 13, Rmaile discloses a computer program comprising computer program code (see [0038]) which, when executed on a processor (28, fig 2), causes the processing system to perform the method (see [0038]) .
With respect to claim 14, Rmaile discloses a processor (28, fig 2) having stored thereon on the computer program (on memory; see [0038]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Follows (WO2016/185168) in view of Rmaile (WO2018243129).
With respect to claim 1, Follows discloses a system for oral irrigation (10, fig 1a) comprising a fluid delivery tube (222, fig 9) with a proximal end (end near element 114 in fig 9) and a distal end (end near element 36 in fig 9), wherein the proximal end is for receiving oral irrigation fluids (from pump 106, fig 9 and pg. 56); a nozzle (36, fig 9) at the distal end of the fluid delivery tube (see location in fig 9); a motion sensor for detecting movement of the nozzle (see pg. 7); and a processor (control circuit includes a processor; 58, fig 9) configured to activate and control (see pgs. 52-54) but lacks an interdental sensor for detecting whether the nozzle is in an interdental space; the motion sensor for measuring the displacement of the nozzle and the processor configured to determine that the nozzle is moving along the occlusal surface of a tooth based on the displacement of the nozzle being larger than a critical distance, wherein the critical distance is indicative of the length of a tooth, and the interdental sensor not detecting an interdental space during the displacement of the nozzle.
However, Rmaile teaches an oral irrigation device (10, fig 1) comprising a nozzle (16, fig 1); an interdental sensor (one or more sensors 32, fig 2) for detecting whether the nozzle is in an interdental space (see [0039]); a motion sensor (one or more sensors see [0039]) for measuring the displacement of the nozzle (see [0039]) and a processor (28, fig 2) configured to determine that the nozzle is moving along the occlusal surface of a tooth based on the displacement of the nozzle being larger than a critical distance (note the device is capable of being moved along teeth and the sensor determines when the device is on a tooth or in the interdental space and therefore has a displacement distance since moved a distance), wherein the critical distance is indicative of the length of a tooth (the device moves along the teeth and would determine the length to get to the interdental space), and the interdental sensor not detecting an interdental space during the displacement of the nozzle (see [0039-40 and 43-45]).
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 device of Follows to include an interdental sensor and process the data to determine interdental space for adjusting actuation as taught by Rmaile so as to improve the cleaning of each interdental space during the oral care routine (see [0007] of Rmaile).
With respect to claim 2, the modified Follows shows the processor is further configured to determine that the nozzle is moving along the side of a tooth based on the displacement of the nozzle being larger than the critical distance (note after the modification by Rmaile the device senses and adjusts based on the determined location i.e., tooth or space between) and the interdental sensor detecting an interdental space during the displacement of the nozzle (see [0039-40 and 43-45] of Rmaile).
With respect to claim 3, the modified Follows shows a pump (106, fig 9 of Follows) configured to pump fluids through the fluid delivery tube (see pg. 53 of Follows) and a controller (control circuit includes a controller; 58, fig 9 of Follows) configured to control the pump (see pg. 53 of Follows).
With respect to claim 4, the modified Follows shows two jetting modes for controlling the pump wherein a first jetting mode is used when the processor determines that the nozzle is moving along an occlusal surface of a tooth and wherein a second jetting mode is used when the processor determines that the nozzle is moving along the side of a tooth (see [0043] of Rmaile where the movement senses different surfaces of the tooth and adjusts the output stream based on the different surfaces).
With respect to claim 6, the modified Follows shows an accelerometer (one or more sensors 32, fig 2 of Rmaile and further in [0039] the sensor can comprise multiple sensors of different types).
With respect to claim 7, the modified Follows shows the processor is configured to determine that the nozzle is moving along an occlusal surface of a tooth based on a machine learning algorithm (see modification by Rmaile where the processor includes memory holding code and automatically adjusting; [0038] of Rmaile), wherein the machine learning algorithm is trained to identify the occlusal surface of a tooth and the side of a tooth based on signals from at least the interdental sensor and the motion sensor (sensor determines location of tooth or space; [0039-40 and 43-45] of Rmaile).
With respect to claim 8, the modified Follows shows the critical distance is at least 0.5 cm (note the device is capable of being moved and therefore moves a distance, i.e. 0.5cm)
With respect to claim 15, Follows discloses a handle (12, fig 1a) of an oral irrigation system (10, fig 1a), wherein the handle comprises an interface (26, fig 1a) for connecting the handle to an oral irrigation head (28, fig 1 and see connection in fig 1a and pg. 38) having a nozzle (36, fig 3); a fluid delivery tube (118, fig 9) for delivering fluid to the oral irrigation head (pg. 41 and 48); a pump (106, fig 9) configured to pump fluids to the fluid delivery tube based on a pump configuration (see pg. 41); and a processor (control circuit; 58, fig 9) which controls the pump (see pg. 53) but lacks the processor determines the displacement of the nozzle of the oral irrigation system; and determines whether the nozzle is in an interdental space; and determines that the nozzle is moving along the occlusal surface of a tooth by determining that the displacement of the nozzle is larger than a critical distance and that the nozzle has not been located at an interdental space during the displacement of the nozzle.
However, Rmaile teaches an oral irrigation device (10, fig 1) comprising a nozzle (16, fig 1); an interdental sensor (one or more sensors 32, fig 2) for detecting whether the nozzle is in an interdental space (see [0039]); a motion sensor (one or more sensors see [0039]) for measuring the displacement of the nozzle (see [0039]) and a processor (28, fig 2) configured to determine that the nozzle is moving along the occlusal surface of a tooth based on the displacement of the nozzle being larger than a critical distance (note the device is capable of being moved along teeth and the sensor determines when the device is on a tooth or in the interdental space and therefore has a displacement distance since moved a distance), wherein the critical distance is indicative of the length of a tooth (the device moves along the teeth and would determine the length to get to the interdental space), and the interdental sensor not detecting an interdental space during the displacement of the nozzle (see [0039-40 and 43-45]).
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 device of Follows to include an interdental sensor and process the data to determine interdental space for adjusting actuation as taught by Rmaile so as to improve the cleaning of each interdental space during the oral care routine (see [0007] of Rmaile).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Follows and Rmaile as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Prins (2015/0313697).
With respect to claim 5, the modified Follows shows all the elements as claimed above but lacks a pressure sensor for measuring the pressure of a fluid in the fluid delivery tube.
However, Prins teaches an oral care device (200, fig 10) comprising a pressure sensor (see [0009 and 0073]) for measuring the pressure of a fluid in a fluid delivery tube (see [0012]).
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 interdental sensor of the modified Follows to include a pressure sensor as taught by Prins so as to detect a possible obstruction or blockage of flow (see [0012] of Prins).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Duineveld (WO2008/001303), Snyder (2010/0239998), Binner (2011/0318713), Bergheim (2014/0099597), and Jeanne (2018/0160796) are cited to show additional oral care devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELSEY E BALLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8153. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 4 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/KELSEY E BALLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/TU A VO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785