DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 8 and 10 – 22 are pending. Claim 9 has been cancelled.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 – 8 and 11 – 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwahori et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0047729 A1) in view of Jungnickel (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0259818 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
785
411
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Iwahori teaches a handle (Annotated Fig. 3) for an electrically operated personal-care implement (oral care implement, 1000; Fig. 1), the handle (Annotated Fig. 3) comprising: a housing (cylindrical case, 20) comprising an inner cavity (Annotated Fig. 3), the housing (20) having a proximal end (Annotated Fig. 3) and a distal end (Annotated Fig. 3) opposite the proximal end (Annotated Fig. 3), a connector (vibration body, 30 including cylindrical portion, 31) for repeatably attaching and detaching a head (brush part, 40) to and from the handle (Annotated Fig. 3), the connector (30) being partially accommodated within the inner cavity (Annotated Fig. 3) at the proximal end (Annotated Fig. 3) of the housing (20), a motor (motor, 11) comprising an eccentric weight (weight, 12) for operating the personal-care implement (1000), the motor (11) being accommodated within the inner cavity (Annotated Fig. 3) of the housing (20), wherein the connector (30) comprises a recess (31) accommodating the motor (11) with the eccentric weight (12; Paragraph [0044]).
Iwahori teaches the essential elements of the claimed invention and further, the connector is made from a material, however, Iwahori fails to explicitly teach the connector having a an e-modulus that is higher than an e-modulus of a material forming the housing.
Jungnickel, however, teaches a handle (handle, 12; Fig. 1) for a personal-care implement (Fig. 1) comprising a connector core (connector core, 14; Fig. 2) made from a material (glass-fiber reinforced polyamide; Paragraphs [0088] – [0094]) having a an e-modulus that is higher than an e-modulus of a material forming the housing (housing of handle, 12 ; Paragraph [0104] – Jungnickel teaches the connector made of glass-fiber reinforced polyamide and housing made of hard plastic, thus teaches the connector having a an e-modulus that is higher than an e-modulus of a material forming the housing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the handle of to Iwahori to explicitly include the connector having a an e-modulus that is higher than an e-modulus of a material forming the housing, as taught by Jeltsch, to provide a handle wherein the fiber reinforced material forming the core structure can compensate for the increased brittleness of the polymeric material of the second component and may ensure integrity of the product over lifetime, e.g. when the handle is dropped to the floor. By forming the connector together with the core structure, solid attachment of the head to the handle can be ensured, as well. As not only the core structure, but also the connector is formed from the fiber reinforced material, the fit of the head onto the connector of the handle may less likely wear out over the life time of the personal care implement, thereby providing not only a high quality consumer product, but also a more sustainable, and eco-friendly personal care implement.
Regarding Claim 2, Iwahori, as modified, teaches the handle (Annotated Fig. 3) wherein the connector (30) has an overall length extension (Lc; Annotated Fig. 4) extending along a longitudinal connector axis (Xc; Annotated Fig. 4), the overall length extension (Lc; Annotated Fig. 4) having a first sub-length (Li; Annotated Fig. 4) extending within the inner cavity (Annotated Fig. 4) of the housing (20), and a second sub-length (Lo; ; Annotated Fig. 4) extending outside of the housing (20).
PNG
media_image2.png
843
559
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Iwahori does not explicitly teach a ratio (Rc) of the first sub-length (Li) to the second sub-length (Lo) is from about 1 to about 1.7.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connector to have a ratio (Rc) of the first sub-length (Li) to the second sub-length (Lo) is from about 1 to about 1.7, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the
size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 3, Iwahori, as modified, teaches the essential elements of the claimed invention and the handle having a length however fails to explicitly teach the handle wherein the overall length extension (Lc) of the connector (16) is from about 35 mm to about 45 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the handle wherein the overall length extension (Lc) of the connector (16) is from about 35 mm to about 45 mm, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 4, Iwahori, as modified, teaches the essential elements of the claimed invention and the handle having a length however fails to explicitly teach wherein the first sub-length (Li) is from about 20 mm to about 25 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the handle wherein the first sub-length (Li) is from about 20 mm to about 25 mm, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 5, Iwahori, as modified, teaches the essential elements of the claimed invention and the handle having a length however fails to explicitly teach wherein the second sub-length (Lo) is from about 15 mm to about 20 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the handle , wherein the second sub-length (Lo)is from about 15 mm to about 20 mm, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 6, Iwahori, as modified, teaches the handle (Annotated Fig. 3) wherein the inner cavity (Annotated Fig, 3) of the housing (20) comprises an energy source (battery, 50) for operating the personal-care implement (1000; Paragraph [0043]).
Regarding Claim 7, Iwahori, as modified, teaches the handle of claim 1 as discussed above.
Iwahori does not teach wherein the connector is at least partially molded from a hard plastic material.
Jungnickel, however, teaches the connector (14) is at least partially molded from a hard plastic material (Paragraph [0103]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connector of Iwahori to further include the connector is at least partially molded from a hard plastic material, as taught by Jungnickel, to provide a connector that is more resistant to deformation under stress; greater strength, durability and stability.
Regarding Claim 8, Iwahori, as modified, teaches the handle of claim 1 as discussed above.
Iwahori does not teach wherein the connector is at least partially molded from a fiber-reinforced material.
Jungnickel , however, teaches the connector (66) is at least partially molded from a fiber-reinforced material (Paragraph [0102]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connector of Iwahori to further the connector is at least partially molded from a fiber-reinforced material, as taught by Jungnickel, to provide a connector that is more resistant to deformation under stress; greater strength, durability and stability.
Regarding Claim 11, Iwahori, as modified, teaches the handle (Annotated Fig. 3) wherein the motor (11) comprising the eccentric weight (12) is mounted within the connector (30).
Iwahori does not explicitly teaches the eccentric weight is mounted by press-fitting.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the handle to explicitly teach the eccentric weight is mounted by press-fitting since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a connection method on the basis of its suitability for the intended use of the handle. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416
Regarding Claim 12, Iwahori, as modified, teaches the essential elements of the claimed invention and the handle having a length however fails to explicitly teach a ratio (Rhc) of an overall length extension (Lh) of the housing extending along a longitudinal housing axis (Xh) to an overall length extension (Lc) of the connector extending along a longitudinal connector axis (Xc) is from about 2.5 to about 4.5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing, wherein a ratio (Rhc) of an overall length extension (Lh) of the housing extending along a longitudinal housing axis (Xh) to an overall length extension (Lc) of the connector extending along a longitudinal connector axis (Xc) is from about 2.5 to about 4.5, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 13, Iwahori, as modified, teaches an electrically operated personal-care implement (1000) comprising a handle (Annotated Fig. 3) of claim 1 and a head (40).
Regarding Claim 14, Iwahori, as modified, teaches the electrically operated personal-care implement (1000) wherein the implement (1000) is an electrically operated oral-care implement (Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 15, Iwahori, as modified, teaches the electrically operated personal-care implement (1000) wherein the head (40) is repeatedly attachable to and detachable from the handle (Annotated Fig. 3; Paragraph [0040]).
Regarding Claim 16, Iwahori, as modified, teaches the essential elements of the claimed invention and the handle having a length however fails to explicitly teach wherein the ratio (Rc) of the first sub-length (Li) to the second sub-length (Lo) is from about 1 to about 1.5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the handle, wherein the ratio (Rc) of the first sub-length (Li) to the second sub-length (Lo) is from about 1 to about 1.5, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 17, Iwahori, as modified, teaches the essential elements of the claimed invention and the handle having a length however fails to explicitly teach wherein the overall length extension (Lc) of the connector is from about 39 mm to about 43 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the handle, wherein the overall length extension (Lc) of the connector is from about 39 mm to about 43 mm, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 18, Iwahori, as modified, teaches the essential elements of the claimed invention and the handle having a length however fails to explicitly teach wherein the first sub-length (Li) is from about 22 mm to about 24 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connector, wherein the first sub-length (Li) is from about 22 mm to about 24 mm, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 19, Iwahori, as modified, teaches the essential elements of the claimed invention and the handle having a length however fails to explicitly teach wherein the second sub-length (Lo) is from about 17 mm to about 19 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connector, wherein the second sub-length (Lo) is from about 17 mm to about 19 mm, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 20, Iwahori, as modified, teaches the handle (Annotated Fig. 3) wherein the energy source (50) comprises a battery (Paragraph [0043]).
Regarding Claim 21, Iwahori, as modified, teaches the essential elements of the claimed invention and the handle having a length however fails to explicitly teach wherein the ratio (Rhc) of an overall length extension (Lh) of the housing (20) to an overall length extension (Lc) of the connector is from about 3 to about 3.5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connector, wherein the ratio (Rhc) of an overall length extension (Lh) of the housing (20) to an overall length extension (Lc) of the connector is from about 3 to about 3.5, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 22, Iwahori, as modified, teaches the electrically operated personal-care implement (1000) of wherein the electrically operated oral-care implement comprises a toothbrush (Fig. 1).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwahori et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0047729 A1) in view of Jungnickel (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0259818 A1) and Jungnickel (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0246779 A1) herein referred to as Jungnickel2.
Regarding Claim 10, Iwahori, as modified, teaches the handle of claim 1 as discussed above.
Iwahori does not teach wherein the connector comprises a spring-loaded snap element.
Jungnickel2, however, teaches the connector (14) comprises a spring-loaded snap element (spring loaded ball element, 42; Figs 3 and 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connector of Iwahori to further include the connector the connector comprises a spring-loaded snap element, as taught by Jungnickel2, to provide a strong connection and stability between head and handle in an axial direction, thus preventing the head from being unintentionally dislodged during use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicants Arguments/Remarks dated February 3, 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1 – 8 and 10 – 22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive; therefore the rejection is withdrawn. However, after further consideration a new grounds of rejection is made I view of Jungnickel.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATINA N HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday; 5:30am to 3:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KATINA N. HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
