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 .
Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
1. 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, 2, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication (2020/0260859) to Deane et al.
Regarding independent claim 1, Deane et al. discloses means (104) for performing an oral cleaning; a sensor unit (106) adapted to generate a sensor signal related to a cleanliness level when the means (104) for performing an oral cleaning are inside an oral cavity of a user (See paragraphs [0032]-[0035]);
and characterized by a processor (110) arranged to perform a wear-out assessment comprising monitoring the sensor signal (106) generated when the means for performing oral cleaning (104) are outside the oral cavity (note that when the user is notified it is time to replace the device (100) the oral care means is outside the mouth), to generate a wear-out feedback signal (308) dependent upon an outcome of the wear-out assessment (See paragraph [0051]).
Regarding claim 2, Deane et al. discloses retrieving from a memory one or more baseline measures (burn measure) of the one or more pre-defined characteristics of the sensor signal (106) when the oral cleaning means (104) are outside the oral cavity (note that when the user is notified it is time to replace the device (100) the oral care means is outside the mouth) (See paragraph [0022] and [0035]);
detecting deviation of the determined characteristics of the sensor signal (106) from the baseline measures of the characteristics of the sensor signal (106) (See paragraph [0051]).
Regarding independent claim 6, Deane et al. discloses receiving a sensor signal (106) from a sensor unit (108), the sensor signal (106) relating to a cleanliness level when the sensor signal (106) is generated when oral cleaning means (104) of the oral care system (100) are inside an oral cavity of a user (See paragraphs [0032]-[0035]);
the method being characterized by performing a wear-out assessment comprising monitoring the sensor signal (106) generated when the oral cleaning means (104) are outside the oral cavity (note that when the user is notified it is time to replace the device (100) the oral care means is outside the mouth), and generating a wear-out feedback (310) dependent upon an outcome of the wear-out assessment (See paragraph [0051]).
Regarding claim 7, Deane et al. discloses a computer program product comprising computer program code (See paragraph [0022]), the computer program code (See paragraph [0022]) being executable on a processor (12), and the code configured to cause the processor (12) to perform a method in accordance with claim 6.
Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 103
2. 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.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication (2020/0260859) to Deane et al. in view of U.S. Patent (9,668,842) to Spruit et al.
Regarding claim 4, Deane et al. is silent regarding that the sensor unit includes a plaque-detection sensor. However, Spruit et al. teaches a plaque-detection sensor (See Col. 8 lines 35-50 of Spruit et al. and FIG. 10) (See Col. 1 lines 15-25 of Spruit et al.). Spruit et al. teaches that removal of plaque is essential to healthy teeth and gum. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date to modify Deane et al. with Spruit et al. in order to have a plaque-detection sensor in order to improve cleaning.
Regarding claim 5, Deane et al. as modified with Spruit et al. teaches claim 5. In particular, Spruit et al. teaches that the plaque detection sensor (parameter sensor) is adapted to generate a fluid flow (130) for being driven onto or over a tooth surface, and wherein the sensor signal (parameter sensor) is based on measurement of a pressure or flow of the generated fluid flow (See Col. 10 lines 5-18 of Spruit et al.). As mentioned above, It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date to modify Deane et al. with Spruit et al. in order to have a plaque-detection sensor in order to improve cleaning.
Allowable Subject Matter
3. Claim 3 is 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.
Claims 8-13 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed January 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. U.S. Patent Publication (2020/0260859) to Deane et al. does not discloses a cleanliness-related sensor signal. The Applicant argues that Deane et al. has sensors that measure a load or drive train effect to derive a “burn metric” and model lifetime, which are not adapted to generate a signal related to cleanliness level (e.g., plaque level or surface cleanliness. Deane et al. discloses that “burn refers to measurable wear of dental device, such as the splay displacement of a brush head in a toothbrush (See Remarks at page 1). However, the independent claim 1 and 6 require a sensor unit (106) adapted to generate a sensor signal related to a cleanliness level but does not mention plaque level or surface cleanliness. Importantly, Deane et al. employs the sensor unit (106) to determine burn rate based on the stiffness of bristles in combination with internal dynamics of the dental cleaning device (102) (stiffness, damping and mass) define the mode shapes and natural frequencies of dental cleaning device (102). Moreover, a change in the original configuration can be as a detection mechanism for brush head displacement. This change in mode can be used to ascertain a level of cleanliness since in order to clean the teeth adequately the stiffness and dampening of the bristles would change from prior to cleaning the teeth to after the teeth were cleaned (See paragraph [0036] of Deane et al.).
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.
Conclusion
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL D. JENNINGS whose telephone number is (571)270-1536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30pm. EST.
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 S. 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.
/MICHAEL D JENNINGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723