DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
Below is the Final Action on the Merits for claims 1 – 4, 6, 10 – 19 and 21 – 23. Claims 5, 7 – 9 and 20 are 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 – 4, 10 – 19 and 21 – 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jungnickel (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0315368 A1) in view of Kott (U. S. Patent No. 3,196,299) and Jungnickel et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0259818 A1) herein Jungnickel 2.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Jungnickel teaches a connector-housing assembly (100; Fig. 1) for an electrically operated personal-care implement (electrically operated personal-care implement, 10; Fig. 1), the assembly (Fig. 3) comprising: a housing (20) defining an inner cavity (Fig. 3) and a connector (16) for repeatably attaching and detaching a head (Paragraph [0056]) to and from the assembly (Paragraph [0056]), wherein part of the connector (represented as Li) is mounted in the inner cavity of the housing (Paragraph [0021]), wherein the mounted part of the connector (16) and the cavity of the housing accommodates a motor (34) having an eccentric weight for operating the electrically operated personal-care implement (Abstract); wherein the connector (60) has an overall length extension (Lc; (Annotated Fig. 1) extending along a longitudinal connector axis (Xc; (Annotated Fig. 1), the overall length extension (Lc) being composed of a first sub-length (Li; Annotated Fig. 1) extending within the inner cavity (Fig. 1) of the housing (20), and a second sub-length (Lo; Annotated Fig. 1) extending outside of the housing (20).
PNG
media_image1.png
345
522
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jungnickel 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) (MPEP 2144.04).
Jungnickel does not teach the mounted part of the connector comprises a recess accommodating a motor having an eccentric weight for operating the electrically operated personal-care implement; wherein the motor having the eccentric weight is mounted by press-fitting within the recess; wherein the connector is made from a material having an e-modulus that is higher than an e-modulus of a material from which the housing is made, the connector is at least partially molded from a glass-fiber-reinforced plastic material , wherein the glass-fiber-reinforced plastic material provides high stiffness suitable for mounting the motor by press-fitting and allows efficient vibration transmission without significant absorption by the housing.
Kott, however, teaches the connector (29) comprises a recess (30) accommodating a motor (27) with an eccentric weight (28; Col. 2, lines 65 - 70) for operating the electrically operated personal-care implement (Fig. 1); wherein the motor (27) having the eccentric weight (28) is mounted by press-fitting within the recess (Col. 3, lines 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 assembly to explicitly teach the connector comprises a recess accommodating a motor with an eccentric weight for operating the electrically operated personal-care implement, as taught by Kott, to provide a device that is relatively economical to manufacture, composed essentially of few parts and durable use.
Jungnickel 2 further teaches wherein the connector (connector, 14) is made from a material having an e-modulus that is higher than an e-modulus of a material from which the housing (housing, 200; Fig. 13) is made (Paragraphs [0088] – [0094] and [0102]), the connector (14) is at least partially molded from a glass-fiber-reinforced plastic material (Paragraph [0094]), wherein the glass-fiber-reinforced plastic material provides high stiffness (Paragraph [0094]) suitable for mounting the motor (Paragraph [0109]) by press-fitting (regarding the limitation – with regards the statement of functional language or intended use, they do not impose any structural limitations on the claims distinguishable over Jungnickel 2 which is capable of providing the high stiffness as discussed in Paragraph [0094], therefore it would be suitable for mounting the motor by press-fitting) and allows efficient vibration transmission without significant absorption by the housing (Paragraph [0109]).
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 assembly to explicitly teach the connector comprises a recess accommodating a motor with an eccentric weight for operating the electrically operated personal-care implement, as taught by Jungnickel 2, to insure the integrity of the device over time and preventing damage to the device.
Regarding Claim 2, Jungnickel, as modified, teaches the essential elements of the claimed invention and the handle having a length however fails to explicitly teach the connector-housing assembly wherein the overall length extension (Lc) of the connector (100) extending along the longitudinal connector axis (Xc) 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 connector-housing assembly to further include wherein the overall length extension (Lc) of the connector (16) extending along the longitudinal connector axis (Xc) 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) (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 3, Jungnickel, as modified, teaches the essential elements of the claimed invention and the connector housing assembly 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 assembly to further include 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) (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 4, Jungnickel, as modified, teaches the essential elements of the claimed invention and the connector housing assembly 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 assembly to further include 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) (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 9, Jungnickel, as modified, teaches the connector (100) is at least partially molded from a hard plastic material (Paragraph [0060] ).
Regarding Claim 10, Jungnickel, as modified, teaches the connector comprises a spring-loaded snap element (Paragraph [0056]).
Regarding Claim 11, Jungnickel teaches the essential elements of the claimed invention and the housing 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 to further include 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) (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 12, Jungnickel teaches the essential elements of the claimed invention and the housing having a length however fails to explicitly teach an overall length extension (Lh) of the housing (20) extending along a longitudinal housing axis (Xh) is from about 120 mm to about 150 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 housing to further include an overall length extension (Lh) of the housing (20) extending along a longitudinal housing axis (Xh) is from about 120 mm to about 150 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) (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 13, Jungnickel teaches the connector-housing assembly (Fig. 3) wherein the inner cavity (Fig 1) of the housing (20) included an energy source (battery, 38) for operating the personal-care implement (10; Paragraph [0061]).
Regarding Claim 14, Jungnickel teaches an electrically operated personal-care implement (10) comprising the connector housing (Fig. 3) of claim 1 and a head (Paragraph [0009]).
Regarding Claim 15, Jungnickel teaches the electrically operated personal-care implement (10), wherein the implement (10) is an electric toothbrush (Paragraph [0009]), wherein the head) is attachable to and detachable from the connector-housing assembly (Paragraph [0009]).
Regarding Claim 16, Jungnickel teaches the essential elements of the claimed invention 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 connector assembly to further include 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) (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 17, Jungnickel teaches the essential elements of the claimed invention 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 assembly to further include 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) (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 18, Jungnickel teaches the essential elements of the claimed invention 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 assembly to further include 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) (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 19, Jungnickel teaches the essential elements of the claimed invention 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 assembly to further include 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) (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 21, Jungnickel teaches the essential elements of the claimed invention however fails to explicitly teach wherein the ratio (Rhc) of the overall length extension (Lh) of the housing (20) to the overall length extension (Lc) of the connector (16) is from about 3.0 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 assembly to further include 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) (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 22, Jungnickel teaches the essential elements of the claimed invention however fails to explicitly teach wherein the overall length extension (Lh) of the housing (20) is from about 125 mm to about 145 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 assembly to further include the overall length extension (Lh) of the housing (20) is from about 125 mm to about 145 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) (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 23, Jungnickel teaches the essential elements of the claimed invention however fails to explicitly teach wherein the overall length extension (1,h) of the housing (20) is from about 130 mm to about 140 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 assembly to further include wherein the overall length extension (1,h) of the housing (20) is from about 130 mm to about 140 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) (MPEP 2144.04).
Claim 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jungnickel (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0315368 A1) in view Jungnickel et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0259818 A1) herein Jungnickel 2 and of Iwahori (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0047729 A1).
PNG
media_image2.png
843
559
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6, Jungnickel, as modified, teaches the connector-housing assembly of claim 5 as discussed above.
Jungnickel does not teach wherein the recess is disposed within the first sub-length.
Iwahori, however, teaches wherein the recess (31) is disposed within the first sub-length (Li; Annotated Fig. 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 assembly to explicitly teach the recess is disposed within the first sub-length, as taught by Jungnickel, to provide a compact configuration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicants Arguments/Remarks dated February 6. 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1 – 4, 6, 10 – 19 and 21 – 23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been maintained.
Applicant erroneously states that the rejections primarily rely upon MPEP 2144.04. The rejection lies upon factual evidence presented. Jungnickel clearly teaches teach a ratio (Rc) of the first sub-length (Li) to the second sub-length (Lo) as shown in Figure 1. Jungnickel is simply silent as to what exactly the ratio is.
Applicant further argues “Kott (US 3,196,299) teaches a vibratory toothbrush with a motor mounted by press-fitting but is entirely silent on the specific material compositions of the connector and housing, let alone a differential e-modulus or the use of glass-fiber-reinforced plastic for enhanced stiffness and vibration transmission. Jungnickel 2 (US 2021/0259818 A1) discusses a sound feature related to attachment/detachment, but this feature is independent of the material properties of the connector and housing as defined in Claim 1. Iwahori (US 2011/0047729 A1) discloses a vibration body for an electric toothbrush but does not teach or suggest the specific material properties and their relationship to the housing's material as claimed.
There is no motivation to combine these references to arrive at the specific material characteristics and their functional benefits recited in Claim 1. None of the cited references teach or suggest that a connector material with a higher e-modulus than the housing material, composed of glass-fiber-reinforced plastic, is necessary or desirable for "high stiffness suitable for mounting the motor by press-fitting and allowing efficient vibration transmission without significant absorption by the housing." This is a specific engineering solution to a problem of efficiently transmitting vibrations while minimizing absorption, which is not obvious from the general teachings of the prior art.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although Jungnickel 2 (US 2021/0259818 A1) discusses a sound feature related to attachment/detachment, the reference also explicitly teaches material properties of the connector and housing as defined in Claim 1.
Jungnickel 2 (US 2021/0259818 A1) explicitly teaches the connector (connector, 14) is made from a material (Paragraph [0088] - [0088] The core-connector unit may be made from a fiber reinforced material. The fiber reinforced material may be a composite material made of a polymer matrix reinforced with fibers. The polymer base material may be selected from the group of: polyamide (PA, e.g. PA6, PA66), styrene acrylonitrile resin (SAN), polybutylene terephthalate (PBT), polyethylene terephthalate (PET). recycled plastic materials, or mixtures thereof. The polymer base material may at least partially contain recycled plastic material.) having an e-modulus that is higher than an e-modulus of a material from which the housing (housing, 200; Paragraph [0104] - The housing may be made from a hard plastic material, or from a metal material, for example stainless steel or aluminum. Such materials are highly durable and allow for slim product designs). Jungnickel 2 teaches the core connector made from fiber reinforced material with glass fibers as the instant applicant. Further, Jungnickel 2 teaches the housing may be made from a hard plastic material as the instant application; thus Jungnickel 2 teaches the specific material properties and their relationship to the housing's material as claimed.
Regarding to claim 6, Iwahori teaches the limitations as claimed. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art can look at Iwahori and the motor configuration as see that it teaches a compact configuration.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATINA N HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday; 5:30am to 3:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KATINA N. HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
