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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/13/26 has been entered.
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 (bent rod section); 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; portion holding magnet 720 is cylindrical) and for being coupled to the attachment (figure 12C), the adaptor comprising a first end comprising a second side of the separable joint (blind hole in element 12 for receiving bent rod section 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 (portion that magnet is received in is considered the 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).
PNG
media_image1.png
293
327
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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) in view of Schaefer (EP 2942032).
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 flexible material selected from the group consisting of thermoplastic elastomer, natural rubber and styrene-butadiene rubber.
Schaefer teaches a motion transmitter (150) that comprises a top plate and at least two elastic or wall elements (figure 4b; top plate and wall elements are the horizontal and vertical portions that surround 120). The entire motion transmitter (150) is made from an elastic material that is capable of elastically deforming such as a thermoplastic elastomer or a natural rubber (paragraph 0018).
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 elastomer or natural rubber as taught by Schaefer to allow for good durability. Further, 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.
With regards to claim 4, the combination of Wada and Schaefer teaches that the top plate is made from a thermoplastic material (Schaefer; paragraph 0018) and the elastic arms and the top plate are formed as a single piece, integral unit (Wada, figure 7)
With regards to claim 5, the combination of Wada and Schaefer 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, the combination of Wada and Schaefer teaches that the top plate is made from a thermoplastic material (Schaefer; paragraph 0018) however the references fail to teach 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 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, the combination of Wada and Schaefer 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, the combination of Wada and Schaefer 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) and Schaefer (‘032) in view of Schaefer (‘940).
Wada and Schaefer (‘032) teach 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 (’940) 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 8/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Schaefer (‘940) fails to teach a first end comprising a second side of a separable joint and that the second end of the coupling unit has a top plate and side walls to define a receptacle.
Firstly, the separable joint of Schaefer is considered to be the first coupling part 716A, that has a bend rod section, and the bore or blind hole in 712 to receive the bend rod section. This allows for 716 and 712 to be separated.
Secondly, element 712 defines a top plate and side walls. Within the plate and side walls is a receptacle. The receptacle receives the magnet. There is nothing in the claims that provides any structure as to what is received within the receptacle. Therefore, a magnet received in the receptacle still reads on the claims.
Regarding applicant’s arguments with respect to Wada, that the newly added claimed material limitations are not found in the prior art is valid. The examiner performed a further search to find a teaching of a coupling means that is made from the claimed materials. Thus, a new rejection was made with respect to Schaefer (‘032).
Applicant further argues claim 11 and that there is no incentive to modify Wada’s complex swing arm and conversion linkage to include a separable joint. In response, the complex swing arm and linkage of Wada is not being fully modified. The only modification that would be made would be to the connection between the motion transmitter and the adaptor. This would be a simple modification of separating parts, similar to what is taught by Schaefer, to allow the elements to be removed from each other.
PNG
media_image2.png
294
450
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
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