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.
Examiner’s Note
This Office Action is in response to application filed on 4/11/2023, where claims 1-29 are currently pending.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7, and 25-27 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding claim 6, the primary reason that the instant claim is allowable over the US Patent Application Pub. No. 20170319311 (Luettgen), is because although Luettgen teaches oral-care implement that detects and control overpressure in said implement; however, Luettgen does not teach, suggest, or make obvious the oral-care implement determines whether a difference between the instantaneous current draw and the dynamically adjusted baseline current exceeds the threshold comprises adding the threshold to the dynamically adjusted baseline current as presented in claim 6. The US Patent Application Pub. No. 20220331079 (Ogunsina), the US Patent Application Pub. No. 20160045081 (Kern), and the US Patent No. 5,784,742 (Giuliani) also disclose substantially similar subject matter; however, they, either alone or in combination, also fail to remedy the deficiencies of Luettgen discussed above.
Regarding claim 7, the primary reason that the instant claim is allowable over Luettgen, is because although Luettgen teaches oral-care implement that detects and control overpressure in said implement; however, Luettgen does not teach, suggest, or make obvious the oral-care implement determines whether a differences between the instantaneous current draw and the dynamically adjusted baseline current exceeds the threshold comprises comparing instantaneous current draw to a sum of the dynamically adjusted baseline current and the threshold as presented in claim 7. Ogunsina, Kern, and Giuliani also disclose substantially similar subject matter; however, they either alone or in combination, also fail to remedy the deficiencies of Luettgen discussed above.
Regarding claim 25, the primary reason that the instant claim is allowable over Luettgen, is because although Luettgen teaches oral-care implement that detects and control overpressure in said implement; however, Luettgen does not teach, suggest, or make obvious the oral-care implement detects whether the occurrence of overpressure has been eliminated comprising determines that the difference between the instantaneous current draw and the dynamically adjusted baseline current is less than the low-load threshold as presented in claim 25. Ogunsina, Kern, and Giuliani also disclose substantially similar subject matter; however, they either alone or in combination, also fail to remedy the deficiencies of Luettgen discussed above.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of the co-pending US Patent Application No. 18/133359 (hereinafter the ‘359 Application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application and the ‘359 Application are disclosing method and oral-care implement that setting baseline current, repeatedly measuring instantaneous current draw of a motor, add an increment value or subtracting a decrement value to/from the baseline current to generate a dynamically adjusted baseline current, determining whether difference between instantaneous current draw and the dynamically adjusted baseline current exceeds a threshold, performing a corrective action in response to detect threshold exceeded. Claim 1 of the instant application is broader in scope than the corresponding claim of the ‘359 Application. Therefore, the claims are obvious variation of each other.
Claims 2-29 of the instant application are also rejected under non-statutory obviousness type double patenting over claims 2-24, 27-29, 25, and 26 respectively of the ‘359 Application as the claims of the instant application disclose substantially similar limitations as the corresponding claims of the ‘359 Application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 16, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Luettgen et al., (US 20170319311 A1) (hereinafter Luettgen).
Referring to claim 1, Luettgen teaches a method for controlling overpressure in an electric oral-care implement (¶ [0018], fig. 1, toothbrush 100) having a treatment head (¶ [0018], fig. 1, brush tip 104) with at least one functional element (¶ [0018], fig. 1, bristles 108) driven by a motor (¶ [0018], fig. 1, motor 112), the method comprising the steps:
- detecting a stimulus to energize the motor (¶ [0035], fig. 5, “operation 252 and the motor 112 is activated.”);
- setting a baseline current (¶ [0036], “Operation 254 uses the motor current as the motor 112 is first activated to determine the no-load condition of the motor 112.”); and
- repeatedly execute an overpressure-detection control loop comprising the steps:
measuring an instantaneous current draw of the motor (¶ [0038], fig. 5, “In operation 256, the sensing module 122 continues to monitor the load applied to the motor 112”);
adding an increment value to the baseline current or subtracting a decrement value from the baseline current, thereby generating a dynamically adjusted baseline current (¶ [0017], “the toothbrush may dynamically calculate a threshold level of pressure for a particular brush, using a current/force relationship”);
determining whether a difference between the instantaneous current draw and the dynamically adjusted baseline current exceeds a threshold, thereby detecting an occurrence of overpressure (¶ [0039], fig. 5, “the change in current between the initial value as determined in operation 254 and the value determined in operation 256 may be evaluated”. ¶ [0042], fig. 5, “in operation 258, the pressure exceeds the threshold, the method 252 may proceed to operation 260.”); and
performing a corrective action in response to the detected occurrence of overpressure (¶ [0042], fig. 5, “the control assembly 126 may provide an output to the user.” ¶ [0043], fig. 5, “In operation 262, if the pressure exceeds the predetermined threshold, the motor control 124 may reduce the speed of the motor 112.”)
Referring to claim 2, Luettgen further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the step of setting the baseline current comprises measuring a current draw of the motor and setting the baseline current to the measured current draw (¶ [0036], fig. 5, “Operation 254 uses the motor current as the motor 112 is first activated to determine the no-load condition of the motor 112.” ¶ [0037], fig. 5, “the method 250 may include determining a baseline or expected pressure range during operation 254.”)
Referring to claim 3, Luettgen further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the step of setting the baseline current comprises setting the baseline current to a predetermined value (¶ [0037], fig. 5, “if the initial load is greater than an acceptable no-load condition (which may be a range of values or threshold), a default or historical no-load condition is applied to initialize the readings.”)
Referring to claim 5, Luettgen further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the step of adding an increment value to the baseline current or subtracting a decrement value from the baseline current comprises:
- adding the increment value to the baseline current if the instantaneous current is equal to or higher than the baseline current, or
- subtracting the decrement value from the baseline current if the instantaneous current is lower than the baseline current (¶ [0036], fig. 5, “if the user has positioned the bristles 108 against a surface, the pressure exerted manually by a user is very light. By creating an initial reading during operation 254, the method 250 can create a baseline value and account for variations in the toothbrush 100 over time. For example, normal operation may cause the drive assembly 116 and output shaft 110 to wear-in, reducing the friction on the motor 112 and thus reducing the no-load conditions on the motor 112. As another example, as a user's bristles 108 wear due to use or if the user replaces the brush tip 104 with a different type of brush tip or with stiffer bristles 108, the method 250 can accommodate for those changes.”)
Referring to claim 8, Luettgen further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the method includes a step of detecting whether the occurrence of overpressure has been eliminated (¶ [0038], [0044], fig. 5, “if the motor 112 is not to be deactivated, the method 252 may return to operation 256 and continue to monitor the pressure.”)
Referring to claim 16, Luettgen further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the method includes a stabilization step in response to the detection of the stimulus to energize the motor, wherein during the stabilization step the measuring of the current draw to set the baseline current is delayed (¶ [0035], fig. 5, “As the motor 112 is activated, the method 250 proceeds to operation 254 and the control assembly 126 determines the current draw by the motor 112 shortly after start up…Operation 254 may be done just after start-up, since the initial current to start the motor may be higher than the no-load current.” ¶ [0036], fig. 5, “Operation 254 uses the motor current as the motor 112 is first activated to determine the no-load condition of the motor 112.”)
Referring to claim 22, Luettgen further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein in the step of performing a corrective action, the corrective action is selected from the group consisting of slowing a speed of the motor, generating a light signal, generating a haptic signal, generating a sound signal, and any combination thereof (¶ [0042], fig. 5, “In operation 260, the control assembly 126 may provide an output to the user. For example, the output element 128 may be activated to vibrate the brush handle 102”).
Referring to claim 23, Luettgen further teaches the method of claim 22, wherein the speed of the motor is increased back to its original speed in response to detecting that the occurrence of overpressure has been eliminated (¶ [0043], fig. 5, “In operation 262, if the pressure exceeds the predetermined threshold, the motor control 124 may reduce the speed of the motor 112. For example, the motor control 124 may reduce the current or voltage applied to the motor 124, which in turn will reduce the rotational speed of the drive shaft 114”. ¶ [0044], fig. 5, “if the motor 112 is not to be deactivated, the method 252 may return to operation 256 and continue to monitor the pressure.”)
Referring to claim 24, Luettgen further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein in the step of determining whether a difference between the instantaneous current draw and the dynamically adjusted baseline current exceeds a threshold, the threshold comprises a high-load threshold indicative of a high-load state of the motor, and a low-load threshold indicative of a low-load state of the motor (¶ [0017], “the sensing module tracks the current in real-time to adaptively track the motor load”. Examiner notes, all loads, e.g., high and low loads, are tracked.)
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 of this title, 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 4, 9-15, 17-21, 28, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luettgen et al., (US 20170319311 A1) (hereinafter Luettgen).
Referring to claim 4, Luettgen teaches the method of claim 3. However, Luettgen does not explicitly teach the predetermined value is from about 100 mA to about 600 mA.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having Luettgen before them to modify the teachings of Luettgen to further include the predetermined value that is from about 100 mA to about 600 mA. The modification would have involved a mere change in the size/value of a component. A change in size/value is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.04).
Referring to claim 9, Luettgen teaches the method of claim 1. However, Luettgen does not explicitly teach the decrement value is greater than the increment value.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having Luettgen before them to modify the teachings of Luettgen to further include the decrement value that is greater than the increment value. The modification would have involved a mere change in the size/value of a component. A change in size/value is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.04).
Referring to claim 10, Luettgen teaches the method of claim 9. However, Luettgen does not explicitly teach the decrement value is at least ten times greater than the increment value.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having Luettgen before them to modify the teachings of Luettgen to further include the decrement value that is at least ten times greater than the increment value. The modification would have involved a mere change in the size/value of a component. A change in size/value is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.04).
Referring to claim 11, Luettgen teaches the method of claim 10. However, Luettgen does not explicitly teach the decrement value is at least twenty times greater than the increment value.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having Luettgen before them to modify the teachings of Luettgen to further include the decrement value that is at least twenty times greater than the increment value. The modification would have involved a mere change in the size/value of a component. A change in size/value is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.04).
Referring to claim 12, Luettgen teaches the method of claim 1. However, Luettgen does not explicitly teach the decrement value is from about 0.66 mA to about 6 mA.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having Luettgen before them to modify the teachings of Luettgen to further include the decrement value that is from about 0.66 mA to about 6 mA. The modification would have involved a mere change in the size/value of a component. A change in size/value is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.04).
Referring to claim 13, Luettgen teaches the method of claim 12. However, Luettgen does not explicitly teach the decrement value is about 2 mA.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having Luettgen before them to modify the teachings of Luettgen to further include the decrement value that is about 2 mA. The modification would have involved a mere change in the size/value of a component. A change in size/value is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.04).
Referring to claim 14, Luettgen teaches the method of claim 1. However, Luettgen does not explicitly teach the increment value is from about 0.03 mA to about 0.6 mA.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having Luettgen before them to modify the teachings of Luettgen to further include the increment value that is from about 0.03 mA to about 0.6 mA. The modification would have involved a mere change in the size/value of a component. A change in size/value is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.04).
Referring to claim 15, Luettgen teaches the method of claim 14. However, Luettgen does not explicitly teach the increment value is about 0.1 mA.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having Luettgen before them to modify the teachings of Luettgen to further include the increment value is about 0.1 mA. The modification would have involved a mere change in the size/value of a component. A change in size/value is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.04).
Referring to claim 17, Luettgen teaches the method of claim 16. However, Luettgen does not explicitly teach the stabilization step lasts from about 500 milliseconds to about 5000 milliseconds.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having Luettgen before them to modify the teachings of Luettgen to further include the stabilization step that lasts from about 500 milliseconds to about 5000 milliseconds. The modification would have involved a mere change in the size/value of a component. A change in size/value is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.04).
Referring to claim 18, Luettgen teaches the method of claim 17. However, Luettgen does not explicitly teach the stabilization step lasts about 2000 milliseconds.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having Luettgen before them to modify the teachings of Luettgen to further include the stabilization step that lasts about 2000 milliseconds. The modification would have involved a mere change in the size/value of a component. A change in size/value is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.04).
Referring to claim 19, Luettgen teaches the method of claim 1. However, Luettgen does not explicitly teach the overpressure-detection control loop is repeatedly executed once every 1-500 milliseconds.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having Luettgen before them to modify the teachings of Luettgen to further include repeat the process every 1-500 milliseconds. The modification would have involved a mere change in the size/value of a component. A change in size/value is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.04).
Referring to claim 20, Luettgen teaches the method of claim 19. However, Luettgen does not explicitly teach the overpressure-detection control loop is repeatedly executed once every 5-20 milliseconds.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having Luettgen before them to modify the teachings of Luettgen to further include repeat the process very 5-20 milliseconds. The modification would have involved a mere change in the size/value of a component. A change in size/value is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.04).
Referring to claim 21, Luettgen teaches the method of claim 20. However, Luettgen does not explicitly teach the overpressure-detection control loop is repeatedly executed once every 10 milliseconds.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having Luettgen before them to modify the teachings of Luettgen to further include repeat the process every 10 milliseconds. The modification would have involved a mere change in the size/value of a component. A change in size/value is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.04).
Referring to claim 28, Luettgen teaches the method of claim 24. However, Luettgen does not explicitly teach the high-load threshold is from about 100 mA to about 500 mA.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having Luettgen before them to modify the teachings of Luettgen to further include the high-load threshold that is from about 100 mA to about 500 mA. The modification would have involved a mere change in the size/value of a component. A change in size/value is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.04).
Referring to claim 29, Luettgen teaches the method of claim 24. However, Luettgen does not explicitly teach the low-load threshold is from about 20% to about 90% of the high-load threshold.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having Luettgen before them to modify the teachings of Luettgen to further include the low-load threshold that is from about 20% to about 90% of the high-load threshold. The modification would have involved a mere change in the size/value of a component. A change in size/value is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.04).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 20210112965 (Jeanne) – discloses systems for providing oral-care feedback to a user.
US 20190090999 (Vetter) – discloses personal-hygiene system.
US 20130091642 (Dykes) – discloses oral health care implement.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONG-SHUNE CHUNG whose telephone number is (571) 270-5817. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (9-5) EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3644. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MONG-SHUNE CHUNG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118