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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/15/2025 has been entered.
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:
“Timer unit” in claims 51 and 68, because (A) the term “unit” is a generic placeholder, see above; (B) “track time” designates a function performed by the unit, and (C) no additional structure is specified, to support the claimed function of “tracking time” – in effect the language is equivalent to a predetermined means for tracking time. Examiner is interpreting “timer unit” to be “a clock, a timer, a count-up timer, a count-down timer, or a stopwatch” or an equivalent structure based on paragraph 0071 of Applicant’s specification.
“Time indicator unit” in claims 51-52, 61, 63-64, 65, 67, 68-69, and 71-73, because (A) the term “unit” is a generic placeholder, see above; (B) “illuminate” designates a function performed by the unit, and (C) no additional structure is specified, to support the claimed function of “illuminating” – in effect the language is equivalent to a predetermined means for illuminating. Examiner is interpreting “time indicator unit” to be a plurality of light emitters or an equivalent structure based on at least paragraph 0074 of Applicant’s specification.
“Pressure indicator unit” in claims 51, 60-61, 63-65, 68-69, and 71-72, because (A) the term “unit” is a generic placeholder, see above; (B) “illuminate” designates a function performed by the unit, and (C) no additional structure is specified, to support the claimed function of “illuminating” – in effect the language is equivalent to a predetermined means for illuminating. Examiner is interpreting “pressure indicator unit” to be a plurality of light emitters or an equivalent structure based on at least paragraph 0076 of Applicant’s specification.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” or a generic placeholder but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“Time indicator unit” in claims 53, 55, and 66.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claims 51-53, 55-57, 59-61, 63-69, 71-73, and 92 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogunsina et al. (US20230301424), hereinafter Ogunsina, in view of Greer, Jr. et al (US20190038014), hereinafter Greer, Jr., and in further view of Scheller et al. (US4450599), hereinafter Scheller.
Regarding claim 51, Ogunsina discloses an oral care implement comprising: a handle (see annotated Fig. 4 below) comprising a bottom end and a top end (see annotated Fig. 4 below); a head comprising an oral care tool (see annotated Fig. 4 below), the head being coupled to the top end of the handle (see annotated Fig. 4 below); an illumination ring (0076, where light ring corresponds to an illumination ring) disposed at the bottom end of the handle (see annotated Fig. 4 below), the illumination ring having a plurality of light sources (Fig. 4 element 26) distributed along the illumination ring (Fig. 3, 0076); a control circuit (all elements shown in Fig. 6 and Fig. 5 element 36) comprising, in operable cooperation; a power source (Fig. 6 element 16); a timer unit (Fig. 5 element 36) configured to track time during performance of an oral care session using the oral care implement (0084); and a time indicator unit (Fig. 4 element 26) that is configured to illuminate the illumination ring (0076 and 0087); and the control circuit configured to activate the time indicator unit to illuminate the illumination ring in a manner that informs the user, during the oral care session, of intervals of time that have passed during performance of the oral care session (0076), wherein the plurality of light sources includes a first subset of light sources (Fig. 4 elements 26, where the first subset of light sources is a subset of the plurality of light sources which encompasses an entirety of the plurality of light sources) operably associated with the time indicator unit (Fig. 4, 0076 and 0087) and a second subset of light sources (Fig. 4 elements 26, 0078, where the second subset of light sources is a subset of the plurality of light sources which encompasses an entirety of the plurality of light sources, and where 0078 supports that the first and second subsets of light sources can be the same) operably associated with the pressure indicator unit (Fig. 4, 0078).
Ogunsina fails to disclose the illumination ring forming an annulus that encircles a longitudinal axis of the handle and that the first and second light sources are non-overlapping.
Greer, Jr. is also concerned with an oral care implement and teaches an illumination ring (Figs. 1-3 element 46) forming an annulus (Fig. 3) that encircles a longitudinal axis of a handle (see annotated Fig. 3 below). Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Ogunsina discloses the invention except that the illumination ring does not form an annulus that encircles a longitudinal axis of the handle. Greer, Jr. shows that an illumination ring which forms an annulus that encircles a longitudinal axis of a handle is an equivalent structure known in the art (i.e. both illumination rings perform the function of relaying brushing information to a user). Therefore, because these two illumination ring 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 an illumination ring which forms an annulus that encircles a longitudinal axis of a handle for an illumination ring which does not form an annulus that encircles a longitudinal axis of a handle. Examiner notes that this modification only involves replacing the structure of the light ring and that the function of the light ring of Ogunsina (i.e. displaying information on pressure, time elapsed, etc..) is still the same. Examiner further finds that it 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 to modify the oral care implement of Ogunsina to make the illumination ring form an annulus that encircles a longitudinal axis of the handle, as taught by Greer, Jr., because Greer, Jr. teaches that having an illumination ring which forms an annulus that encircles a longitudinal axis of the handle is located at the distal end of the handle makes the illumination ring “visible to the user when the brush head member 16 is located within the user's mouth” (0034). Examiner notes that Ogunsina considers in paragraphs 0081-0082 that the illumination ring can have a different structure and be moved to a location different than what is shown in Figs. 3-4, specifically a separate structure from the toothbrush handle and a location at a distal end of the handle and protruding beyond the handle. Examiner has provided the reference GB2541416 discussed in paragraph 0081 of Ogunsina as a PDF in office action filed 9/15/2025.
Ogunsina, as modified, fails to disclose that the first and second subsets of light sources are non-overlapping.
Scheller is also concerned with an oral care implement and teaches a first subset of light sources (Fig. 1 element 40, 4:27-32) operably associated with a time indicator unit (Fig. 1 element 40, 4:27-32, where the first subset of light sources is a subset of the time indicator unit which encompasses an entirety of the time indicator unit) and a second non-overlapping subset of light sources (Fig. 1 element 36, 4:7-13) operably associated with a pressure indicator unit (Fig. 1 element 36, 4:7-13, where the second non-overlapping subset of light sources is a subset of the pressure indicator unit which encompasses an entirety of the pressure indicator unit). It has been held that an “obvious to try” rationale when choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is a support for a conclusion of obviousness which is consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham, if the following findings can be established: (1) a finding that at the time of the invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve a problem; (2) a finding that there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem; (3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success; and (4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143(I)(E).
In the instant case, and as per (1), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there is a need in the art to provide lights which indicate both time and pressure (based at least on the teachings of Ogunsina; see at least paragraphs 0076-0078). As per (2), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there is a finite number of identifiable, predictable potential solutions for the relative arrangement of the lights, namely that there can be a single set of lights which indicate both time and pressure (based at least on the teachings of Ogunsina, see at least paragraphs 0076-0078) or there can be two sets of lights where one set of lights indicates time and the other set of lights indicates pressure (based at least on the teachings of Scheller, see at least Fig. 1, 4:7-13, and 4:27-32). As per (3), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the particular arrangement of lights (i.e. which lights correspond with which indicating unit) could have been pursued with a reasonable expectation of success, since said finite number of potential arrangements would have not yielded unpredictable results, nor would have rendered the prior art inoperable for its intended purpose. That is, the arrangement of the lights would have still expectedly have resulted in an oral care implement which is capable of indicating brush time and brush pressure. As per (4), based on the above analysis, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken the teachings of Ogunsina, as modified, and to have modified them by providing separate, non-overlapping light subsets to indicate the brush time and brush pressure, as taught by Scheller, as a matter of trying a set of obvious, finite and predictable solutions, in order to obtain the best structural arrangement of components that best suits a light indicating arrangement, without yielding unpredictable results. Examiner notes that Applicant does not provide criticality for the subsets of lights being non-overlapping as paragraph 00110 of Applicant’s specification states “The one or more light sources 145 of the pressure indicator unit 141 may be distinct from the one or more light sources 241-244 associated with the time indicator unit 139. Alternatively, the one or more light sources 145 may be the same as the one or more light sources 241-244, except configured to illuminate in a different color depending on whether it is activated due to a time threshold or a pressure threshold”.
PNG
media_image1.png
758
351
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
324
350
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 52, Ogunsina, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 51, as described above, and further discloses the control circuit is configured to activate the time indicator unit in a manner that sequentially illuminates segments of the illumination ring (Ogunsina, 0076).
Regarding claim 53, Ogunsina, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 51, as described above, and further discloses the time indicator unit comprises one or more light sources (Ogunsina, Fig. 4 element 26), the control circuit being configured to: activate the one or more light sources in a manner that illuminates a first quadrant segment of the illumination ring during a first time period; activate the one or more light sources in a manner that illuminates the first quadrant segment and a second quadrant segment of the illumination ring during a second time period (Ogunsina, Fig. 3, 0076); activate the one or more light sources in a manner that illuminates the first quadrant segment, the second quadrant segment, and a third quadrant segment of the illumination ring during a third time period; and activate the one or more light sources in a manner that illuminates the first quadrant segment, the second quadrant segment, the third quadrant segment, and a fourth quadrant segment of the illumination ring during a fourth time period (Ogunsina, Fig. 3, 0076).
Regarding claim 55, Ogunsina, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 51, as described above, and further discloses the illumination ring is formed from a transparent material (Ogunsina, 0076, where providing a visual feedback indicates that the illumination ring is formed from a material which is at least somewhat transparent) and the time indicator unit comprises one or more of the light sources (Ogunsina, Fig. 4 element 26) that are configured to illuminate the illumination ring (Ogunsina, 0076).
Regarding claim 56, Ogunsina, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 51, as described above, and further discloses the illumination ring comprises an outer surface (Greer, Jr., see annotated Fig. 4 below) that is flush with an outer surface of a gripping portion of the handle (Greer, Jr., see annotated Fig. 4 below, where the gripping portion is a subset of the handle which encompasses the entirety of the handle) and an inner surface (Greer, Jr., see annotated Fig. 2 below) that defines a through-hole (Greer, Jr., see annotated Fig. 2 below, where the internal space defined by the inner surface of the illumination ring corresponds to a through-hole).
PNG
media_image3.png
594
480
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
586
728
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 57, Ogunsina, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 51, as described above, and further discloses the handle comprises a bottom surface (Greer, Jr., see annotated Fig. 4’ below), and wherein at least a portion of the illumination ring protrudes beyond the bottom surface of the handle (Greer, Jr., see annotated Fig. 4’ below).
PNG
media_image5.png
594
446
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 59, Ogunsina, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 51, as described above, and further discloses the control circuit is configured to illuminate the illumination ring in a first color during the oral care session to inform the user of the intervals of time that have passed during performance of the oral care session (Ogunsina, 0077).
Regarding claim 60, Ogunsina, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 51, as described above, and further discloses a pressure sensor (Ogunsina, Fig. 6 element 48) configured to determine an amount of pressure being applied during the performance of the oral care session (Ogunsina, 0085, 0046, and 0078); wherein the pressure indicator unit is configured to illuminate the illumination ring (Ogunsina, 0076 and 0078); and wherein the control circuit is configured to activate the pressure indicator unit to illuminate the illumination ring (Ogunsina, 0085, 0046, and 0078) in a manner that informs the user, during the oral care session, that the amount of pressure being applied exceeds the pressure threshold. (Scheller, 4:7-17).
Regarding claim 61, Ogunsina, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 60, as described above, and further discloses the control circuit is configured to activate the time indicator unit to illuminate the illumination ring in a first color to inform the user of the intervals of time that have passed during performance of the oral care session, and wherein the control circuit is configured to activate the pressure indicator unit to illuminate the illumination ring in a second color during the oral care session to inform the user that the amount of pressure being applied exceeds the pressure threshold (Ogunsina, 0077-0078, where using different colors for both the timing and different colors for the pressures means that there would be multiple combinations where the color indicating timing and the color indicating pressure would be different colors).
Regarding claim 63, Ogunsina, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 60, as described above, and further discloses the control circuit is configured to activate only one of the time indicator unit and the pressure indicator unit at a time, and wherein the activation of the pressure indicator unit takes precedence over the activation of the time indicator unit (Scheller, 1:57-2:2 and 2:46-50).
Regarding claim 64, Ogunsina, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 60, as described above, and further discloses the control circuit is configured to alter from activating the time indicator unit to inform the user of intervals of time that have passed during performance of the oral care session to activating the pressure indicator unit to inform the user that the amount of pressure being applied exceeds the pressure threshold in all instances during the oral care session when the amount of pressure being applied exceeds the pressure threshold (Scheller, 1:57-2:2 and 2:46-50).
Regarding claim 65, Ogunsina, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 64, as described above, and further discloses upon the amount of pressure being applied being reduced to no longer exceed the pressure threshold, the control circuit is configured to alter from activating the pressure indicator unit to activating the time indicator unit (Scheller, 1:57-2:2).
Regarding claim 66, Ogunsina, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 51, as described above, and further discloses the time indicator unit comprises one or more of the light sources (Ogunsina, Fig. 4 element 26) and the control circuit is configured to sequentially illuminate one or more of the light sources to inform the user of the intervals of time that have passed during the performance of the oral care session (Ogunsina, 0076).
Regarding claim 67, Ogunsina, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 51, as described above, and further discloses the control circuit is configured to activate the time indicator unit to illuminate the illumination ring in a flashing sequence to inform the user that a predetermined brushing time for the oral care session has been reached (Ogunsina, 0076, where the sequential lighting of each quadrant corresponds to a flashing sequence and once the final quadrant has been lit, this indicates that a predetermined brushing time for the oral care session has been reached).
Regarding claim 68, Ogunsina discloses an oral care implement comprising: a handle (see annotated Fig. 4 above) comprising an illumination ring (0076, where light ring corresponds to an illumination ring); a head comprising an oral care tool (see annotated Fig. 4 above), the head being coupled to the handle (see annotated Fig. 4 above); a control circuit (all elements shown in Fig. 6 and Fig. 5 element 36) comprising, in operable operation; a power source; a timer unit configured to track time during performance of an oral care session using the oral care implement; a time indicator unit that is configured to illuminate the illumination ring; a pressure sensor configured to determine an amount of pressure being applied during the performance of the oral care session (0085, 0046, and 0078); a pressure indicator unit (Fig. 4 element 26, 0078, where “in addition, the LEDs could be used to display different colours in order to represent different pressures” means that element 26 corresponds to both a pressure indicator unit and a time indicator unit) that is configured to illuminate the illumination ring (0076 and 0078); wherein the control circuit is configured to activate the time indicator unit to illuminate the illumination ring in a manner that informs the user, during the oral care session, of intervals of time that have passed during performance of the oral care session (0076); and wherein the control circuit is configured to activate the pressure indicator unit to illuminate the illumination ring (0085, 0046, and 0078), wherein the illumination ring is located at a bottom end of the handle (see annotated Fig. 4 above), wherein a plurality of light sources (Fig. 4 element 26) is distributed along the illumination ring (Fig. 3, 0076), the plurality of light sources including a first subset of light sources (Fig. 4 elements 26, where the first subset of light sources is a subset of the plurality of light sources which encompasses an entirety of the plurality of light sources) operably associated with the time indicator unit (Fig. 4, 0076 and 0087) and a second subset of light sources (Fig. 4 elements 26, 0078, where the second subset of light sources is a subset of the plurality of light sources which encompasses an entirety of the plurality of light sources, and where 0078 supports that the first and second subsets of light sources can be the same) operably associated with the pressure indicator unit (Fig. 4, 0078).
Ogunsina fails to disclose the illumination ring forming a continuous annulus that fully encircles a longitudinal axis of the handle, the pressure sensor determines whether an amount of pressure being applied during the performance of the oral care session exceeds a pressure threshold; the control circuit is configured to activate the pressure indicator unit to illuminate the illumination ring in a manner that informs the user, during the oral care session, that the amount of pressure being applied exceeds the pressure threshold; and the first and second subsets of light sources are non-overlapping.
Greer, Jr. is also concerned with an oral care implement and teaches an illumination ring (Figs. 1-3 element 46) forming an annulus (Fig. 3) that encircles a longitudinal axis of a handle (see annotated Fig. 3 above). Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Ogunsina discloses the invention except that the illumination ring does not form an annulus that encircles a longitudinal axis of the handle. Greer, Jr. shows that an illumination ring which forms an annulus that encircles a longitudinal axis of a handle is an equivalent structure known in the art (i.e. both illumination rings perform the function of relaying brushing information to a user). Therefore, because these two illumination ring 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 an illumination ring which forms an annulus that encircles a longitudinal axis of a handle for an illumination ring which does not form an annulus that encircles a longitudinal axis of a handle. Examiner notes that this modification only involves replacing the structure of the light ring and that the function of the light ring of Ogunsina (i.e. displaying information on pressure, time elapsed, etc..) is still the same. Examiner further finds that it 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 to modify the oral care implement of Ogunsina to make the illumination ring form an annulus that encircles a longitudinal axis of the handle, as taught by Greer, Jr., because Greer, Jr. teaches that having an illumination ring which forms an annulus that encircles a longitudinal axis of the handle is located at the distal end of the handle makes the illumination ring “visible to the user when the brush head member 16 is located within the user's mouth” (0034). Examiner notes that Ogunsina considers in paragraphs 0081-0082 that the illumination ring can have a different structure and be moved to a location different than what is shown in Figs. 3-4, specifically a separate structure from the toothbrush handle and a location at a distal end of the handle and protruding beyond the handle. Examiner has provided the reference GB2541416 discussed in paragraph 0081 of Ogunsina as a PDF.
Ogunsina, as modified, fails to disclose the pressure sensor determines whether an amount of pressure being applied during the performance of the oral care session exceeds a pressure threshold; and wherein the control circuit is configured to activate the pressure indicator unit to illuminate the illumination ring in a manner that informs the user, during the oral care session, that the amount of pressure being applied exceeds the pressure threshold.
Scheller is also concerned with an oral care implement and teaches a pressure sensor (Fig. 1 elements 22, 23, and 24) determines whether an amount of pressure being applied during the performance of the oral care session exceeds a pressure threshold (4:7-17, where “the pressure on the bristles is too high” corresponds to exceeds the pressure threshold); and wherein the control circuit (Fig. 1 element 32) is configured to activate a pressure indicator unit (Fig. 1 element 36) to illuminate in a manner that informs the user, during the oral care session, that the amount of pressure being applied exceeds the pressure threshold. (4:7-17). It 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 to modify the oral care implement of Ogunsina, as modified, to have the pressure sensor sense when a pressure exceeds a pressure threshold and have the control circuit illuminate the pressure indicator unit when the pressure exceeds the pressure threshold, as taught by Scheller, because Scheller teaches that this ensures that the user knows the toothbrush was used for an adequate length of time and sufficiently intensively (1:57-2:2).
Scheller further teaches a first subset of light sources (Fig. 1 element 40, 4:27-32) operably associated with a time indicator unit (Fig. 1 element 40, 4:27-32, where the first subset of light sources is a subset of the time indicator unit which encompasses an entirety of the time indicator unit) and a second non-overlapping subset of light sources (Fig. 1 element 36, 4:7-13) operably associated with a pressure indicator unit (Fig. 1 element 36, 4:7-13, where the second non-overlapping subset of light sources is a subset of the pressure indicator unit which encompasses an entirety of the pressure indicator unit). It has been held that an “obvious to try” rationale when choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is a support for a conclusion of obviousness which is consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham, if the following findings can be established: (1) a finding that at the time of the invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve a problem; (2) a finding that there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem; (3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success; and (4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143(I)(E).
In the instant case, and as per (1), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there is a need in the art to provide lights which indicate both time and pressure (based at least on the teachings of Ogunsina; see at least paragraphs 0076-0078). As per (2), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there is a finite number of identifiable, predictable potential solutions for the relative arrangement of the lights, namely that there can be a single set of lights which indicate both time and pressure (based at least on the teachings of Ogunsina, see at least paragraphs 0076-0078) or there can be two sets of lights where one set of lights indicates time and the other set of lights indicates pressure (based at least on the teachings of Scheller, see at least Fig. 1, 4:7-13, and 4:27-32). As per (3), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the particular arrangement of lights (i.e. which lights correspond with which indicating unit) could have been pursued with a reasonable expectation of success, since said finite number of potential arrangements would have not yielded unpredictable results, nor would have rendered the prior art inoperable for its intended purpose. That is, the arrangement of the lights would have still expectedly have resulted in an oral care implement which is capable of indicating brush time and brush pressure. As per (4), based on the above analysis, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken the teachings of Ogunsina, as modified, and to have modified them by providing separate, non-overlapping light subsets to indicate the brush time and brush pressure, as taught by Scheller, as a matter of trying a set of obvious, finite and predictable solutions, in order to obtain the best structural arrangement of components that best suits a light indicating arrangement, without yielding unpredictable results. Examiner notes that Applicant does not provide criticality for the subsets of lights being non-overlapping as paragraph 00110 of Applicant’s specification states “The one or more light sources 145 of the pressure indicator unit 141 may be distinct from the one or more light sources 241-244 associated with the time indicator unit 139. Alternatively, the one or more light sources 145 may be the same as the one or more light sources 241-244, except configured to illuminate in a different color depending on whether it is activated due to a time threshold or a pressure threshold”. Examiner further notes that both modifications taught by Scheller are being applied at the same time, but examiner has split up the modifications as described above for clarity.
Regarding claim 69, Ogunsina, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 68, as described above, and further discloses the control circuit is configured to activate only one of the time indicator unit and the pressure indicator unit at a time, and wherein the activation of the pressure indicator unit takes precedence over the activation of the time indicator unit (Scheller, 1:57-2:2 and 2:46-50).
Regarding claim 71, Ogunsina, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 68, as described above, and further discloses activation of the time indicator unit illuminates the illumination ring in a first color and activation of the pressure indicator unit illuminates the illumination ring in a second color that is different than the first color (Ogunsina, 0077-0078, where using different colors for both the timing and different colors for the pressures means that there would be multiple combinations where the color indicating timing and the color indicating pressure would be different colors).
Regarding claim 72, Ogunsina, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 68, as described above, and further discloses the control circuit is configured to activate the time indicator unit in a manner that sequentially illuminates segments of the illumination ring (Ogunsina, 0076), and wherein the control circuit is configured to activate the pressure indicator unit in a manner that illuminates all of the segments of the illumination ring simultaneously (Ogunsina, 0029, where the control circuit is capable of causing illumination of all the segments of the illumination ring simultaneously).
Regarding claim 73, Ogunsina, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 68, as described above, and further discloses the activation of the pressure indicator unit overrides the activation of the time indicator unit when, during the oral care session, the amount of pressure being applied exceeds the pressure threshold (Scheller, 2:46-50 and claim 2).
Regarding claim 92, Ogunsina, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 51, as described above, and further discloses the illumination ring is partitioned into circumferential segments by opaque divider walls (Ogunsina, see Ogunsina Annotated Fig. 3 below) that prevent light from passing between the adjacent segments (Ogunsina, see Ogunsina Annotated Fig. 3 below, where the left and right circumferential segments are illuminated while the top and bottom circumferential segments are not; and 0076, where “Each quadrant is illuminated when the corresponding brush region has been brushed for a specified amount of time” means that the opaque divider walls prevent light from passing between the adjacent segments as each segment is not illuminated until a specific time has passed), and each segment is independently illuminable by at least one of the plurality of light sources (Ogunsina, 0076, where “Each quadrant is illuminated when the corresponding brush region has been brushed for a specified amount of time” corresponds to each segment is independently illuminable by at least one of the plurality of light sources).
PNG
media_image6.png
405
252
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim 67 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogunsina et al. (US20230301424), hereinafter Ogunsina, in view of Greer, Jr. et al (US20190038014), hereinafter Greer, Jr., in further view of Scheller et al. (US4450599), hereinafter Scheller, and in further view of Bloch et al. (WO2014098949), attached as a PDF and hereinafter referred to as Bloch.
Regarding claim 67, Ogunsina, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 51, as described above, but fails to disclose the control circuit is configured to activate the time indicator unit to illuminate the illumination ring in a flashing sequence to inform the user that a predetermined brushing time for the oral care session has been reached.
Bloch is also concerned with an oral care implement and teaches the control circuit (Fig. 2 element 300 and "power source" described in 0069) is configured to activate the time indicator unit (0064, where a user-notification device corresponds to a time indicator, where an LED (306) is a part of the user-notification device) to illuminate the illumination ring (Fig. 1 element 124) in a flashing sequence to inform the user that a predetermined brushing time for the oral care session has been reached (0071). Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Ogunsina, as modified, discloses the invention except that the time indicator unit solidly lights the illumination ring to indicate that a predetermined brushing time for the oral care session has been reached instead of the time indicator unit flashes lights to illuminate the illumination ring to indicate a predetermined brushing time for the oral care session has been reached. Bloch shows that the time indicator unit flashing lights to illuminate the illumination ring to indicate a predetermined brushing time for the oral care session is an equivalent process known in the art (i.e. both indicate an elapsed time to a user). Therefore, because these two illumination 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 flashing illumination for a solid illumination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/15/2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 51-53, 55-57, 59-61, and 63-73 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ogunsina et al. (US20230301424), in view of Greer, Jr. et al (US20190038014), and in further view of Scheller et al. (US4450599)
Examiner notes that the only applicable argument presented by Applicant in regards to this new ground(s) of rejection the argument surrounding Scheller on pages 11 and 12 of the Arguments/Remarks. Applicant argues that while Scheller does teach using two separate lights for indicating time and pressure, Scheller does not teach “integrating them into a single ring and subdivide that ring’s LEDs by function”. Examiner finds that this argument is unpersuasive because examiner is only relying upon the teachings of Scheller to teach that it would be obvious to try replacing a single light which performs two functions with two lights, where each light performs only one of the functions (see rejection of claims 51 and 68 above).
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 regarding new claim 92 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Ogunsina’s ring is used for region-based indications and does not disclose opaque, light-blocking partitions while the ring structure remains unified”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that the light ring is a single structure which is “segmented into four quadrants” (0076) and examiner further finds that Ogunsina annotated Fig. 3 above shows opaque, light blocking partitions which are shown to be connecting the four segments while preventing light from passing between adjacent segments and that 0076 of Ogunsina discloses that “Each quadrant is illuminated when the corresponding brush region has been brushed for a specified amount of time” which means that the partitions prevent light from passing between the adjacent segments as each segment is not illuminated until a specific time has passed. See rejection of claim 92 above.
Conclusion
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 on 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