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 .
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.
Status of Claims
Below is the Final Action on the Merits for claims 1 – 3 5, 7 – 10, 13 – 18. Claims 19 – 22 are allowed.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Houle (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0255498 A1)
Regarding Independent claim 16, Houle teaches a surface cleaning method comprising simultaneously applying ultrasound emissions and RF frequency electromagnetic emissions to a surface to be cleaned (Paragraph [0031]).
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.
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 nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1 – 3 and 7 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houle (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0255498 A1).
Regarding Independent claim 1, Houle teaches a cleaning unit for a surface cleaning device (Fig. 15), the cleaning unit (applicator, 88) comprising: a body (body, 89); an arrangement of protrusions or cleaning elements on a face of the body (Paragraph [0303] – soft polymer bristles), for making operative contact with a surface-to-be-cleaned during use for enabling a mechanical cleaning action (Paragraph [0303]); an ultrasound transducer arrangement carried by the body (Paragraph [0303]), the transducer arrangement comprising one or more ultrasonic transducers (transducers, 93) adapted to generate ultrasonic emissions responsive to one or more drive signals; an electromagnetic emitter arrangement carried by the body (Paragraph [0156]), the electromagnetic emitter arrangement adapted to generate radio frequency electromagnetic emissions responsive to supply of a radiofrequency drive signal (Paragraph [0156]); wherein the ultrasound transducer arrangement and the emitter arrangement are arranged for generation of ultrasonic emissions and EM emissions which overlap spatially, to permit simultaneous ultrasound and RF stimulation of a surface-to-be-cleaned (Paragraph [0031]).
Although Houle does not explicitly say applying ultrasonic emissions and EM emissions which overlap spatially, the reference inherently teaches the limitation in that it explicitly teaches electromagnetic energy and/or ultrasound energy and/or thermal energy and/or electrical energy and/or an electric field and/or a magnetic field are delivered and/or applied to the treatment site; therefore, electromagnetic energy and ultrasound energy are applied to the site, thus overlapping since they would share a common site.
Regarding claim 2, Houle teaches the cleaning unit wherein the body (89) comprises a first outer surface (Fig. 15) forming a first face (sidewall, 92; Fig. 16) of the body (89), the first face (92) for positioning adjacent to surfaces to be cleaned during use (Fig. 16), and wherein the transducer arrangement and the electromagnetic emitter arrangement are each arranged to generate emissions which propagate in a direction out from at least a portion of the first face (92; Paragraph [0031]).
Regarding claim 3, Houle teaches the cleaning unit wherein the body (89) comprises an acoustic wave directing element arranged to receive the ultrasonic emissions from the ultrasound transducer arrangement and to redirect the emissions along a pre-defined one or more propagation paths out from and/or away from the body (Paragraphs [0155] and [0160]).
Regarding claim 7, Houle teaches the cleaning unit wherein the body (89) comprises a first outer face (92), and wherein the transducer (93) arrangement is arranged for generating ultrasonic emissions which propagate out from at least a portion of the first face (92; Fig. 16), and wherein the first face (92) carries the arrangement of protrusions extending outwardly from the first face (Paragraph [0303]), the protrusions for making operative contact with a surface-to-be-cleaned
Houle does not explicitly teach the protrusions extend to a maximum height from the first face of less than or equal to 5 mm, however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the unit of Houle to further include the protrusions extend to a maximum height from the first face of less than or equal to 5 mm, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). Such a modification would be beneficial in that the specific maximum height allows for effective cleaning of the surface to be cleaned
Regarding claim 8, Houle teaches the cleaning unit having protrusions as discussed in Paragraph [0303].
Houle does not explicitly teach the protrusions are formed of a material having a Shore A Scale hardness of between 5 to 120.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the unit of Houle to further include the protrusions are formed of a material having a Shore A Scale hardness of between 5 to 120, as claimed, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use of the unit (MPEP 2144.04). Such a modification would be beneficial in that it would reduce the risk of damage to gums and other soft tissue.
Regarding claim 8, Houle teaches the cleaning unit having protrusions as discussed in Paragraph [0303].
Houle does not explicitly teach the protrusions are formed of a material having a Shore A Scale hardness of between 5 to 120.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the unit of Houle to further include the protrusions are formed of a material having a Shore A Scale hardness of between 5 to 120, as claimed, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use of the unit (MPEP 2144.04). Such a modification would be beneficial in that it would reduce the risk of damage to gums and other soft tissue.
Regarding claim 9, Houle teaches the cleaning unit wherein the body (89) comprises at least a first (92) and second (92) section (Fig. 16), wherein the first face (92) is comprised by the first section (92).
Houle does not teach the first section is detachable from the second section and wherein the second section comprises the transducer arrangement and the electromagnetic emitter arrangement.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the unit of Houle to further include the first section is detachable from the second section, as claimed, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. (MPEP 2144.04). Such a modification would be beneficial in that it would allow for ease in replacing a component, thus saving cost in replacing a whole unit.
It would have been further obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the unit of Houle to further include the second section comprises the transducer arrangement and the electromagnetic emitter arrangement, as claimed, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. (MPEP 2144.04). Such a modification would be beneficial in that it would allow for ease in replacing a component, thus saving cost in replacing a whole unit.
Regarding claim 10, Houle teaches the cleaning unit (Fig. 15) wherein the cleaning unit (88) is for an oral cleaning device (Fig. 15), and wherein the body is for being received in a mouth of a user (Abstract).
Regarding claim 17, Houle teaches the cleaning unit having protrusions as discussed in Paragraph [0303].
Houle does not explicitly teach the protrusions are formed of a material having a Shore A Scale hardness of between 10 to 100.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the unit of Houle to further include the protrusions are formed of a material having a Shore A Scale hardness of between 10 to 100, as claimed, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use of the unit (MPEP 2144.04). Such a modification would be beneficial in that it would reduce the risk of damage to gums and other soft tissue.
Regarding claim 18, Houle teaches the cleaning unit having protrusions as discussed in Paragraph [0303].
Houle does not explicitly teach the protrusions are formed of a material having a Shore A Scale hardness of between 20 to 70.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the unit of Houle to further include the protrusions are formed of a material having a Shore A Scale hardness of between 20 to 70, as claimed, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use of the unit (MPEP 2144.04). Such a modification would be beneficial in that it would reduce the risk of damage to gums and other soft tissue.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicants Arguments/Remarks dated December 2, 2025 with respect to the objection oof claims 2 – 11 and 13 – 14 have been fully considered and are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicants Arguments/Remarks dated December 2, 2025 with respect to claim interpretation of claims 12 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been fully considered and are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicants Arguments/Remarks dated December 2, 2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1 – 16 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been maintained.
35 U.S.C. K 102 Rejection
Applicant argues “Houle does not present a single, enabling embodiment that simultaneously applies both ultrasound and RF to a surface to be cleaned, the reference cannot anticipate claim 16”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees as the energy types are listed are explicitly taught as combinations (and optionally alternatives) The term and/or is INCLUSIVE first and alternative second. Further, Houle teaches electromagnetic energy and ultrasound energy and further teaches a surface cleaning method as cited in Paragraph [0031]. One having ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that RF emissions include the radio frequency spectrum, thus Houle explicitly teaches the limitations of claim 16, as claimed.
35 U.S.C. K 103 Rejection
Applicant argues “Houle lacks any teaching of simultaneous, co-spatial RF and ultrasound application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees as the energy types are listed are explicitly taught as combinations (and optionally alternatives) The term and/or is INCLUSIVE first and alternative second. Further, Houle teaches the transducer, 93 and the surface of the body 89 has soft polymer bristles similar to those found on a toothbrush, and/or closed or open loop material, and/or polymer foam (e.g., open cell, closed cell), and/or a non-soluble gel, or combinations thereof. The surface features and/or materials are optionally transparent and/or transmissive and/or conductive to the energy emissions of the transducers, for example, the surface has polymer bristles that can transmit light energy and mechanical energy.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATINA N HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday; 5:30am to 3:30pm.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
/KATINA N. HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723