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 .
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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:
“Mechanical cleaning elements” in claim 5, because (A) the term “elements” is a generic placeholder, see above; (B) “cleaning” designates a function performed by the elements, and (C) no additional structure is specified, to support the claimed function of “cleaning” – in effect the language is equivalent to a predetermined means for cleaning. Examiner is interpreting “mechanical cleaning elements” to be bristles or an equivalent structure based on at least page 2 lines 19-20 of Applicant's specification.
“Cleaning element” in claims 7 and 13, because (A) the term “element” is a generic placeholder, see above; (B) “cleaning” designates a function performed by the element, and (C) no additional structure is specified, to support the claimed function of “cleaning” – in effect the language is equivalent to a predetermined means for cleaning. Examiner is interpreting “cleaning element” to be bristles or an equivalent structure based on at least page 2 lines 19-20 of Applicant's specification. Examiner notes that “mechanical cleaning elements” and “cleaning element” have been interpreted to be the same element as it appears from Applicant’s specification that these two terms are both the same term, just recited differently.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 9, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van Gool et al. (US20170303673), hereinafter Van Gool.
Regarding claim 1, Van Gool discloses an oral care system comprising: an oral surface cleaning device (Fig. 1 element 10) including: a sensor (Fig. 1 element 26) adapted to generate a sensor signal related to a level of cleanliness of the oral surface (0035, where "sensor data" corresponds to a sensor signal and 0034, where "detect the presence of plaque on the teeth" corresponds to the sensor signal being related to a level of cleanliness of the oral surface); and a processor (Fig. 2 element 42) in communication with the sensor (0033) and arranged to perform an assessment (0036, where "Once received by the controller, the sensor data from the first brushing session can be processed" and "(ii) retrieving stored pre-programmed or user-defined brushing standards from memory 32; (iii) comparing the sensor data to the retrieved standards; (iv) determining if there are any sensor data that differ sufficiently from the retrieved standards; (v) determining whether the differing sensor data triggers an output to the user based on the stored standards" corresponds to the processor being capable of performing an assessment) comprising monitoring a length of time that it takes for the sensor signal to reach a pre-defined first threshold (0037, "Clock 52 may be utilized by controller 42 in order to determine the brushing time, duration, and date, and may be utilized by controller 42 in order to recall the appropriate standards from memory 32" where "duration" corresponds to the processor being capable of monitoring a length of time and "recall the appropriate standards from memory" means that the processor is capable of comparing the monitored length of time against a preset expected length of time and 0047, where "plaque sensed below a certain threshold" corresponds to the sensor signal (i.e. the plaque level sensed) reaching a pre-defined first threshold and therefore, because the processor is capable of monitoring a length of time and comparing that length of time against a preset amount of time and the processor is also capable of determining when the sensor signal has reached a pre-defined first threshold, the processor is also capable of monitoring a length of time that it takes for the sensor signal to reach a pre-defined first threshold), and to generate a feedback signal dependent upon an outcome of the assessment (0036, where "(vi) outputting data to the user regarding the triggering sensor data. In other words, sensor data is compared to pre-programmed standards to determine if feedback to the user is warranted." corresponds to the processor being configured to generate a feedback signal dependent upon an outcome of the assessment).
Regarding claim 2, Van Gool discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the sensor is adapted to generate an electromagnetic, acoustic or fluid emission for performing a contact or non-contact physical interaction with said surfaces in the oral cavity (0034, where “a plaque detection sensor can be used to detect the presence of plaque on the teeth. For example, a pressure sensor can be configured to measure feedback from air applied to a dental surface to characterize the dental surface” corresponds to the sensor being adapted to generate a fluid emission (i.e. air) for performing a contact interaction with said surfaces in the oral cavity of (i.e. a dental surface)), and wherein the sensor signal is dependent upon properties of the interaction of said emission with surfaces in the oral cavity (0034, where the pressure being measured by the pressure sensor corresponds to properties of the interaction of said emission with surfaces in the oral cavity).
Regarding claim 3, Van Gool discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the sensor comprises a plaque-detection sensor (0034, where "a plaque detection sensor" corresponds to the sensor comprises a plaque-detection sensor).
Regarding claim 4, Van Gool discloses the limitations of claim 3, as described above, and further discloses the plaque detection sensor is adapted to generate a fluid flow (0034, where “air applied” corresponds to a fluid flow) for being driven onto or over a tooth surface (0034, where “a dental surface” corresponds to a tooth surface), and wherein the sensor signal is based on measurement of a parameter of the generated fluid flow (0034, where the pressure being measured by the pressure sensor corresponds to a measurement of a parameter of the generated fluid flow).
Regarding claim 6, Van Gool discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the assessment of the sensor signal is performed during at least one operation session (0036 and 0052, where the sensor data (i.e. sensor signal) being sent for processing in “real-time” and the feedback can also be given in “real-time” corresponds to the assessment is performed during at least one operation session).
Regarding claim 9, Van Gool discloses the limitations of claim 4, as described above, and further discloses the parameter of the generated fluid flow is pressure (0034, where the pressure sensor measures pressure of the generated flow (i.e. air applied)).
Regarding claim 11, Van Gool discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the assessment of the sensor signal is performed after at least one operation session (0036, where "sensor 26 may send a constant stream of sensor data to controller 42 for storage and/or analysis, or may temporarily store and aggregate or process data prior to sending it to controller" corresponds to the processor being capable of performing the assessment after at least one operation session is complete as the data can be sent at a later time (i.e. after at least one operation session) instead of in real time).
Regarding claim 12, Van Gool discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the assessment of the sensor signal is determined over a plurality of operation sessions (0015).
Regarding claim 13, Van gool discloses an oral surface cleaning device comprising: a cleaning element (Fig. 1 element 16, 0032, where “a brushhead portion” which comprises bristles shown in Fig. 1 corresponds to a cleaning element) adapted to clean a surface in the oral cavity (0032, where “brushhead motion suitable for effective cleaning of teeth” corresponds to the cleaning element being capable of cleaning a surface in the oral cavity (i.e. teeth)); a sensor adapted to sense a level of cleanliness of the oral surface (Fig. 1 element 26, 0034, where "detect the presence of plaque on the teeth" corresponds to a sensor adapted to sense a level of cleanliness of the oral surface) and output a signal indicative of the cleanliness level (0035, where "sensor data" corresponds to a signal indicative of the cleanliness level); and a processor (Fig. 2 element 42) in communication with the sensor (0033) and arranged to perform an assessment of a length of time that it takes for the signal to reach a pre-defined first threshold (0037, "Clock 52 may be utilized by controller 42 in order to determine the brushing time, duration, and date, and may be utilized by controller 42 in order to recall the appropriate standards from memory 32" where "duration" corresponds to the processor being capable of monitoring a length of time and "recall the appropriate standards from memory" means that the processor is capable of comparing the monitored length of time against a preset expected length of time and 0047, where "plaque sensed below a certain threshold" corresponds to the signal (i.e. the plaque level sensed) reaching a pre-defined first threshold and therefore, because the processor is capable of monitoring a length of time and comparing that length of time against a preset amount of time and the processor is also capable of determining when the sensor signal has reached a pre-defined first threshold, the processor is also capable performing an assessment of monitoring a length of time that it takes for the signal to reach a pre-defined first threshold), and to generate a feedback signal dependent upon an outcome of the assessment (0036, where "(vi) outputting data to the user regarding the triggering sensor data. In other words, sensor data is compared to pre-programmed standards to determine if feedback to the user is warranted." corresponds to the processor being configured to generate a feedback signal dependent upon an outcome of the assessment).
Regarding claim 14, Van Gool discloses the limitations of claim 13, as described above, and further discloses the sensor is adapted to generate an emission which physically interacts with the surface (0034, where “a plaque detection sensor can be used to detect the presence of plaque on the teeth. For example, a pressure sensor can be configured to measure feedback from air applied to a dental surface to characterize the dental surface” corresponds to the sensor being adapted to generate an emission (i.e. air) which physically interacts with the surface (i.e. a dental surface)), and wherein the signal is dependent upon properties of the interaction of said emission with the surface (0034, where the pressure being measured by the pressure sensor corresponds to properties of the interaction of said emission with surfaces in the oral cavity).
Regarding claim 15, Van Gool discloses the limitations of claim 13, as described above, and further discloses the sensor comprises a plaque-detection sensor (0034, where "a plaque detection sensor" corresponds to the sensor comprises a plaque-detection sensor).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by a second interpretation of Van Gool et al. (US20170303673), hereinafter Van Gool’.
Regarding claim 1, Van Gool’ discloses an oral care system comprising: an oral surface cleaning device (Fig. 1 element 10) including: a sensor (Fig. 1 element 26) adapted to generate a sensor signal related to a level of cleanliness of the oral surface (0035, where "sensor data" corresponds to a sensor signal and 0034, where "detect bristle pressure, load, or force applied against the teeth" corresponds to the sensor signal being related to a level of cleanliness of the oral surface as pressure, load, or force will all affect cleaning efficacy and therefore are related to a level of cleanliness of the oral surface); and a processor (Fig. 2 element 42) in communication with the sensor (0033) and arranged to perform an assessment (0036, where "Once received by the controller, the sensor data from the first brushing session can be processed" and "(ii) retrieving stored pre-programmed or user-defined brushing standards from memory 32; (iii) comparing the sensor data to the retrieved standards; (iv) determining if there are any sensor data that differ sufficiently from the retrieved standards; (v) determining whether the differing sensor data triggers an output to the user based on the stored standards" corresponds to the processor being capable of performing an assessment) comprising monitoring a length of time that it takes for the sensor signal to reach a pre-defined first threshold (0037, "Clock 52 may be utilized by controller 42 in order to determine the brushing time, duration, and date, and may be utilized by controller 42 in order to recall the appropriate standards from memory 32" where "duration" corresponds to the processor being capable of monitoring a length of time and "recall the appropriate standards from memory" means that the processor is capable of comparing the monitored length of time against a preset expected length of time and 0037, where " strength levels obtained from the sensor data fall beneath a pre-determined minimum threshold of strength levels" means that there is a pre-determined first threshold for the sensor signal and therefore, because the processor is capable of monitoring a length of time and comparing that length of time against a preset amount of time and the processor is also capable of determining when the sensor signal has reached a pre-defined first threshold, the processor is also capable of monitoring a length of time that it takes for the sensor signal to reach a pre-defined first threshold), and to generate a feedback signal dependent upon an outcome of the assessment (0036, where "(vi) outputting data to the user regarding the triggering sensor data. In other words, sensor data is compared to pre-programmed standards to determine if feedback to the user is warranted." corresponds to the processor being configured to generate a feedback signal dependent upon an outcome of the assessment).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over a second interpretation of Van Gool et al. (US20170303673), hereinafter Van Gool’, in view of Giuliani et al. (US5784742), hereinafter Giuliani.
Regarding claim 5, Van Gool’ discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the oral surface cleaning device comprises mechanical cleaning elements (0034, where "bristle set" corresponds to mechanical cleaning elements) for mechanical engagement with surfaces in the oral cavity (0034, where "bristle pressure, load, or force applied against the teeth" corresponds to the mechanical cleaning elements being capable of mechanical engagement with surfaces in the oral cavity (i.e. teeth)), and a movement generator (Fig. 1 elements 18, 20, and 22; 0032) arranged to drive oscillatory movement of the cleaning elements during an operation session (0032, where "producing a brushhead motion suitable for effective cleaning of teeth" corresponds to the movement generator being arranged to drive oscillatory movement of the cleaning elements during an operation session), the movement generator including a motor (0032, where “drive assembly corresponds” to a motor) powered by a drive circuit (0032, where “drive circuit” corresponds to drive circuit).
Van Gool’ fails to disclose the sensor is coupled to the drive circuit, and wherein the sensor signal is based on at least one electrical characteristic of the drive circuit.
Giuliani is also concerned with an oral care system and teaches a movement generator (Fig. 1 element 18, Abstract) arranged to drive oscillatory movement of the cleaning elements during an operation session (Fig. 7, 0010, where Fig. 7 element 1 corresponds to a toothbrush head having mechanical cleaning elements and "reciprocally drives a drive shaft" corresponds to the movement generator being arranged to drive oscillatory movement of the cleaning elements during an operation session), the movement generator including a motor (Fig. 3 element 42, 4:14-15, where the motor is a subset of the movement generator which encompasses the entirety of the movement generator) powered by a drive circuit (Fig. 1 element 32, 3:50-51 and 3:29-40), and wherein the sensor (Fig. 1 element 12, 3:50-51) is coupled to the drive circuit (3:50-51), and wherein the sensor signal is based on at least one electrical characteristic of the drive circuit (4:1-11, where "current drawn by drive assembly" corresponds to an electrical characteristic of the drive circuit, as the drive circuit powers the motor (i.e. drive assembly)). Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Van Gool’ discloses the invention except that the sensor is not coupled to the drive circuit and the sensor signal is not based on at least one electrical characteristic of the drive circuit instead of the sensor being coupled to the drive circuit and the sensor signal being based on at least one electrical characteristic of the drive circuit. Giuliani shows that a sensor being coupled to the drive circuit and a sensor signal being based on at least one electrical characteristic of the drive circuit is an equivalent structure known in the art (i.e. both sensors are used to detect the amount of force applied to a toothbrush head). Therefore, because these two sensor types were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute a sensor which is coupled to the drive circuit and provides a sensor signal which is based on at least one electrical characteristic of the drive circuit for a sensor which is not coupled to the drive circuit and the sensor signal is not based on at least one electrical characteristic of the drive circuit
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Gool et al. (US20170303673), hereinafter Van Gool, in view of Spruit et al. (US20150305670), hereinafter Spruit.
Regarding claim 10, Van Gool discloses the limitations of claim 4, as described above, but fails to disclose the parameter of the generated fluid flow is a flow rate.
Spruit is also concerned with an oral care system and teaches using a sensor (0129, where “a flow sensor” corresponds to the sensor) which is adapted to generate a fluid flow for being driven onto or over a tooth surface (0122, where "Probe fluid medium 14 flows through the probe channel 15 and touches surface 13" and 0123, where "fluid medium 14 is brought in contact with surface 13, e.g. a dental surface" corresponds to a fluid flow (i.e. the flow of fluid medium) for being driven onto or over a tooth surface (i.e. dental surface)), and wherein the sensor signal (0129, where "a signal that is indicative of blockage of flow in the stream probe" corresponds to the sensor signal) is based on measurement of a flow rate of the generated fluid flow (0129, where “differential pressure” corresponds to measurement of a flow rate of the generated fluid flow as a flow sensor uses differential pressure to measure flow rate). Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Van Gool discloses the invention except that the sensor measures pressure instead of flow rate. Spruit shows that a sensor which measures flow rate is an equivalent structure known in the art (i.e. both measuring pressure and flow rate can be used to determine plaque levels on teeth). Therefore, because these two sensor types were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute a sensor which measures flow rate for a sensor which measures pressure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: regarding claim 7, the closest art of record, Van Gool et al. (US20170303673), hereinafter Van Gool, fails to disclose, suggest, or make obvious the claimed combination of features including “performing an assessment comprising monitoring a length of time that it takes for the sensor signal to reach a pre-defined first threshold”. While Van Gool teaches a processor which is capable of performing an assessment (0036, where "Once received by the controller, the sensor data from the first brushing session can be processed" and "(ii) retrieving stored pre-programmed or user-defined brushing standards from memory 32; (iii) comparing the sensor data to the retrieved standards; (iv) determining if there are any sensor data that differ sufficiently from the retrieved standards; (v) determining whether the differing sensor data triggers an output to the user based on the stored standards" corresponds to performing an assessment) comprising monitoring a length of time that it takes for the sensor signal to reach a pre-defined first threshold (0037, "Clock 52 may be utilized by controller 42 in order to determine the brushing time, duration, and date, and may be utilized by controller 42 in order to recall the appropriate standards from memory 32" where "duration" corresponds to the processor being capable of monitoring a length of time and "recall the appropriate standards from memory" means that the processor is capable of comparing the monitored length of time against a preset expected length of time and 0047, where "plaque sensed below a certain threshold" corresponds to the sensor signal (i.e. the plaque level sensed) reaching a pre-defined first threshold and therefore, because the processor is capable of monitoring a length of time and comparing that length of time against a preset amount of time and the processor is also capable of determining when the sensor signal has reached a pre-defined first threshold, the processor is also capable of monitoring a length of time that it takes for the sensor signal to reach a pre-defined first threshold), Van Gool fails to disclose a method which actually performs the assessment as claimed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 and 13 (argument VII), Applicant argues that Van Gool fails to disclose “a processor in communication with the sensor and arranged to perform an assessment comprising monitoring a length of time that it takes for the sensor signal to reach a pre-defined first threshold, and to generate a feedback signal dependent upon an outcome of the assessment” because the processor of Van Gool does not actually perform this specific function. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that claims 1 and 13 are drawn to apparatuses, not methods, and that a processor “arranged to perform an assessment” only requires that the processor is capable of performing an assessment. Examiner finds that the processor of Van Gool takes information related to a level of cleanliness of an oral surface from a sensor, assesses the information, and generates a feedback signal based on the assessment (which includes if a pre-defined first threshold is reached) and that the processor is also capable of tracking time and generating a feedback signal based on an assessment related to time. Therefore, because the processor of Van Gool is capable of monitoring a sensor signal and monitoring a length of time, examiner finds that the processor of Van Gool is also capable of “monitoring a length of time that it takes for the sensor signal to reach a pre-defined first threshold”.
Examiner notes that the above findings by examiner applies to both the first and second interpretations of Van Gool.
Regarding claim 5 (argument VIII), in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the electrical characteristics “stabilize as a clean level increases”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding claim 5 (argument VIII), Applicant seems to suggest that the motor current sensing structure of Giuliani must be “‘equivalent’ to Applicant’s drive-circuit electrical characteristic sensing”. Examiner finds that the equivalency must be between Van Gool’ and Giuliani, not Giuliani and Applicant’s specification, and examiner finds that the sensor of Giuliani is an equivalent structure known in the art (i.e. both sensors are used to detect the amount of force applied to a toothbrush head) to the sensor of Van Gool’. See rejection of claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 5 (argument VIII), Applicant argues that examiner’s “assertion that Giuliani’s drive-current sensor is an ‘equivalent structure’ for the same purpose is conclusory and lacks the articulated reasoning with rational underpinning required by KSR and MPEP § 2143”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that pursuant MPEP 2144.06-II “An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious” and that “The mere fact that phthalocyanine and selenium function as equivalent photoconductors in the claimed environment was not sufficient to establish that one would have been obvious over the other. However, there was evidence that both phthalocyanine and selenium were known photoconductors in the art of electrophotography. ‘This, in our view, presents strong evidence of obviousness in substituting one for the other in an electrophotographic environment as a photoconductor.’ 209 USPQ at 759.” Examiner finds that both sensors were known sensors in the art of toothbrushes and therefore the obviousness standard is met.
Regarding claim 10 (argument IX), Applicant argues that swapping a sensor which measures pressure with a sensor which measures flow rate is not a would not be a simple substitution of equivalent structures because it would require “re-engineering sensor architecture and signal processing” and the prior art fails to provide any motivation for the substitution or any suggestion as to how the structure would be implemented. See the last argument for claim 5 above for why an express suggestion for substitution is not necessary and examiner finds that Spruit shows that a sensor which measures flow rate is an equivalent structure known in the art (i.e. both measuring pressure and flow rate can be used to determine plaque levels on teeth). Regarding the lack of suggestion of how the structure would be implemented, examiner finds that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Examiner finds that the substitution of one known sensor for another known sensor in the art was known at the time of filing and therefore the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that the oral care system as claimed in claim 10 would have been obvious.
Examiner notes that Applicant argues that Applicant’s specification provides criticality for the sensor detecting pressure or flow. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that Applicant’s specification actually supports examiner’s assertion that a sensor which detects pressure and a sensor which detects flow are equivalent structures known in the art (page 4 lines 1-3 of Applicant’s specification, “the clean-level sensor is a plaque detection sensor adapted to generate a fluid flow for being driven onto or over a tooth surface, and wherein the output signal is based on measurement of a pressure or flow of the generated fluid flow).
Regarding the 112(f) interpretation of “mechanical cleaning elements” and “cleaning elements”, Applicant seems to argue that because they provided concrete examples of these elements, they are well known structures in the art. Examiner finds that mechanical cleaning elements and cleaning elements could be multiple different structures other than bristles such as nozzles, applicators, reflectors, radiation output surfaces, etc.. and that one of ordinary skill in the art would not know which of these specific elements is being claimed. Therefore examiner finds the interpretation that “mechanical cleaning elements” and “cleaning elements” can be bristles or an equivalent structure is proper.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CALEB A HOLIZNA whose telephone number is (571)272-5659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-4:30.
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.
/C.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3723 /MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723