DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Schaefer (EP 2550940).
Schaefer teaches a kit comprising: at least one attachment comprising an outer attachment tube (710) having a coupling end (759) that is intended for being coupled with the oral care device handle, a carrier (731) mounted for driven motion at the outer attachment tube, and a motion transmitter (716) disposed inside of the outer attachment tube, the motion transmitter has a first end (716B) coupled with the carrier and a second end (716A) comprising a first side of a separable joint; and an adaptor (712) for being coupled to a drive shaft of an oral care device handle having an essentially cylindrical drive shaft coupling end (figure 12C) and for being coupled to the attachment (figure 12C), the adaptor comprising a first end comprising a second side of the separable joint (hole receiving rod 716A) and a second end (710A) comprising a coupling unit having a top plate (figure 12c) and at least two elastic or deflectable wall elements extending from the top plate (holder element 712 is made by injection molding and comprises protrusions (713), such that it has some flexibility allowing it to be considered as deformable), where each of the deflectable wall elements extends over a portion of a virtual receiver cylinder so that an essentially cylindrical receiver receptacle is defined by the top plate and the at least two elastic or deflectable wall elements (figure 12c).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-8, 10, 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada (EP 3616649).
With regards to claim 1, Wada teaches an oral care device attachment for being coupled to an oral care device handle having an essentially cylindrical drive shaft coupling end, the attachment comprising: an outer attachment tube (31) having a coupling end that is intended for being detachably secured at a housing of the oral care device handle; a carrier (41) being mounted for driven motion at the outer attachment tube; a motion transmitter (51) being disposed inside of the outer attachment tube, the motion transmitter having a first end (figure 7) coupled with the carrier and a second end (55) being arranged for coupling with the essentially cylindrical drive shaft coupling end, the second end comprising a coupling unit (55) having a top plate (figure 7) and at least two elastic or deflectable wall elements (paragraph 0039 states that the lower half of the fitting cylinder portion 55 is divided into semi-cylindrical divided cylinders 55a with a pair of slits 56 extending in the up-down direction; these slits form the wall elements; further, this paragraph further states that the “engagement protrusions 57 are engaged with an engagement groove 16a formed on the output shaft 16 by elasticity of the material of the divided cylinders 55a”; thus the divided cylinders are made from an elastic material) extending from the top plate, where each of the elastic or deflectable wall elements extends over a portion of a virtual receiver cylinder so that an essentially cylindrical receiver receptacle is defined by the top plate and the at least two elastic or deflectable wall elements (figure 7).
Wada teaches all the essential elements of the claimed invention however fails to teach that the elastic material for the wall elements is made from a thermoplastic material. 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 material of the elastic or deflectable walls elements and the top plate so that they are made from a thermoplastic material since it has been held within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Further, thermoplastic material is a well-known material used in the art of toothbrushes since it is readily available, cost efficient, and durable.
With regards to claim 4, Wada teaches that the elastic arms and the top plate are formed as a single piece, integral unit (figure 7) however fails to teach that the top plate is made from a thermoplastic material. 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 material of the top plate so that it is made from a thermoplastic material since it has been held within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Further, thermoplastic material is a well-known material used in the art of toothbrushes since it is readily available, cost efficient, and durable. Lastly, it is clear that the top plate and the elastic arms are an integral unit and thus having they made from the same material would have been obvious to maintain the integrity of the attachment.
With regards to claim 5, Wada teaches all the essential elements of the claimed invention however fail to teach that the at least two elastic or deflectable wall elements are at least partly made from sheet metal, in particular from non-magnetic sheet metal, preferably wherein the sheet metal has a thickness of not more than about 250 micrometer, further preferably of not more than about 150 micrometer. 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 wall elements and top plate so that they are made from or partly from sheet metal since it has been held within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Further, using metal will prevent the arms from breaking apart from the top plate since metal will not crack or break up repeated attachment and detachment of the drive shaft. Lastly, one of skill in the art by routine experimentation would have determined the thickness of the sheet metal any thickness so desired or required, including as claimed to optimize performance of the wall elements.
With regards to claim 6, Wada teaches all the essential elements of the claimed invention however fails to teach that the top plate is made from a thermoplastic material and that the top plate is connected to the wall elements by welding, snapping, riveting, gluing and/or screwing. 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 material of the top plate so that it is made from a thermoplastic material since it has been held within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Further, thermoplastic material is a well-known material used in the art of toothbrushes since it is readily available, cost efficient, and durable.
Additionally, 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 means for connecting the top plate to the wall elements so that it is can be attached via welding, snapping, gluing or screwing. These fastening means were art-recognized equivalents at the time of the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the unitary single piece design for any of the fastening means as claimed since they are both know to secure elements together equally well. Further, the means used to attach the arms to the front plate is considered to be product by process. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.
With regards to claim 7, Wada teaches all the essential elements of the claimed invention however fails to teach that the top plate is made from metal, in particular a non-magnetic metal, and the at least two elastic or deflectable wall elements are connected with the top plate by at least one connection technology from the group of welding, snapping, caulking, gluing, screwing and/or overmolding.
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 wall elements and top plate so that they are made from or partly from sheet metal since it has been held within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Further, using metal will prevent the arms from breaking apart from the top plate since metal will not crack or break up repeated attachment and detachment of the drive shaft.
Additionally, 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 means for connecting the top plate to the wall elements so that it is can be attached via welding, snapping, caulking, gluing, screwing and/or overmolding. These fastening means were art-recognized equivalents at the time of the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the unitary single piece design for any of the fastening means as claimed since they are both know to secure elements together equally well. Further, the means used to attach the arms to the front plate is considered to be product by process. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.
With regards to claim 8, the at least one of the at least two elastic or deflectable wall elements comprises an inwards projecting protrusion (57).
With regards to claim 9, there is a spring (59)
With regards to claim 10, at least one of the at least two elastic or deflectable wall elements is biased against the motion transmitter into a rest or clamping position by a spring (59; figure 7) providing a biasing force and wherein the biased elastic or deflectable wall element is pivotable around a pivot axis when a force acts on the biased elastic or deflectable wall element against the biasing force, preferably wherein the biasing spring is realized together with the biased elastic or deflectable wall element as a single piece element.
With regards to claim 12, the handle having an essentially cylindrical drive shaft coupling end that is coupled with the attachment, wherein the attachment is coupled with the essentially cylindrical drive shaft coupling end such that at least a portion of the essentially cylindrical drive shaft coupling end (16a) is received in the essentially cylindrical receiver receptacle (via 57).
With regards to claim 13, the attachment is coupled with the essentially cylindrical drive shaft coupling end such that the essentially cylindrical drive shaft coupling end (16a) is completely received in the essentially cylindrical receiver receptacle, preferably wherein an inwards projecting protrusion (57) realized at the at least at one of the at least two elastic or deflectable wall elements extending from the top plate is extending underneath the essentially cylindrical drive shaft coupling end (16a is received within 57).
With regards to claim 14, Wada teaches all the essential elements of the claimed invention however fails to teach a portion of a housing of the oral care device handle a circumferential gap of less than about 1mm, preferably of less than about 0.8mm, further preferably of less than about 0.6mm exists.
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 spacing between the drive shaft coupling end and the handle to be less than 1mm. One of skill would by routine experimentation have determined the appropriate amount of spacing necessary to optimize and minimize vibrations within the handle of the toothbrush. Further, one of skill would by routine experimentation determine the appropriate gap size while still maintaining a handle that would ergonomically fit within a user hand.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada (‘649) in view of Schaefer (‘940).
Wada teaches all the essential elements of the claimed invention however fails to teach the coupling unit is or is part of a separable adaptor, preferably wherein at least a part of the motion transmitter and the separable adaptor are coupled by a separable coupling such as a separable ball joint.
Schaefer teaches a separable adaptor (716A). 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 coupling unit of Wada so that it is separable from the motion transmitter as taught by Schaefer to allow the motion transmitter to be removed and replaced as necessary. Making parts separable is a modification that has been considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/30/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Schaefer’s holding element 712 is part of a magnetic coupling system not a mechanical system via deflectable wall elements. Applicant states that the holding element 712 is described as a centering structure for the magnetic coupling. In response, holding element 712 is indeed a centering structure for the magnet. However, it is also a means for supporting the magnet. As shown in figure 12C it is clear that the protrusions 713 support the magnet since the opening between protrusions is smaller than the width of the magnet. In order for the magnet to be inserted into 712, the protrusions must deflect outward somewhat to allow for insertion. Thus, the wall elements 713 can be considered deflectable.
Applicant further argues that Wada teaches a single, integral metal piece that one of skill in the art would have modified to be thermoplastic. In response, Wada does not teach a metal coupling unit. Wada teaches that the coupling unit is made from a material with elasticity. Thus, the rejection was made to modify the coupling unit made from an elastic material to be made from thermoplastic. This is a valid modification since thermoplastic material is known to have elastic characteristics.
With regards to the applicant argument for claim 9, the applicant states that Papazian teaches biasing the shaft away from the handle. In response, the spring, when compressed, bears against the front portion of the end cap (70) thus biasing the axle towards the end cap. This is exactly what the claim is reciting. The end cap is the motion transmitter which is biased toward the end of the outer attachment tube when the spring is compressed.
With regards to claim 11 and the applicant’s argument that it is hindsight to make parts separable. MPEP 2144.04 teaches modifications that are within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Making parts separable is one of these modifications. Thus it is not considered to be hindsight but instead a modification known in the art.
With regards to claim 14, the applicant argues that one of skill would not by routine experimentation determine that the claimed gap is the optimum size to avoid bulkiness. In response, one of skill in the art would, by routine examination, determine the optimum gap allowance in the housing that would still allow for ergonomic gripping while not being overly bulky. Thus the rejection is being maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAY LYNN KARLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1268. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th (6am-5pm).
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.
/SHAY KARLS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights