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 § 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) 1-2, 5-8, 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo (CN 201676306) in view of Behrendt (CN 108141938).
Luo teaches an electric toothbrush handpiece having at least one interface (20) for coupling to a brush attachment (4), having at least one housing (6), having at least one drive unit (26) for driving the interface, which is received in the housing, and having at least one energy store (28) for supplying energy to the drive unit, characterized by at least one fix frame unit (27) which is arranged in the housing and which is implemented as a single piece and which at least partially receives the drive unit and the energy store, wherein the frame unit forms multiple receptacle regions at least for the drive unit and the energy store, which receptacle regions are positioned in a defined manner relative to one another in particular both in an assembled state and in an unassembled state of the frame unit, wherein the frame unit extends axially over the entire drive unit and the entire energy store.
Luo teaches all the essential elements of the claimed invention however fails to teach the energy store is clamped radially by lateral holding arms of the frame and a longitudinal displacement of the energy store is prevented by means of a chamber construction of the frame unit.
Behrendt teaches a handle with a battery (66) that is clamped within a frame (62) by lateral holding arms (see figure below) of the frame and longitudinal displacement is prevented by means of a chamber construct of the frame unit (top and bottom portions of the frame which surrounds the battery).
PNG
media_image1.png
344
750
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Luo so that the frame comprises a chamber and lateral holding arms as taught by Behrendt to ensure that the battery stays in place for constant connection to supply energy to the drive unit.
With regards to claim 2, there is at least one charging coil (29) for charging the energy store, which at least one charging coil is received in the fix frame unit.
With regards to claim 5, a separate frame unit (29) of the charging coil is installed on the frame unit by a plugging-on process (figure 5 and 6).
With regards to claim 6, there is a circuit board (31) for control of the drive unit, which circuit board is at least partially received in positively locking fashion by the frame unit and extends at least over a large part of an axial extent of the frame unit.
With regards to claim 7, the frame unit has at least two hook-shaped positive-locking elements, which are configured for partially engaging over the circuit board in an installed state (see figure below).
With regards to claim 8, the circuit board particularly has, on an outer edge, recesses which correspond to the positive-locking elements and via which the circuit board can, for installation thereof, be moved past the positive- locking elements into an end position.
PNG
media_image2.png
334
530
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 16, a method for producing the electric toothbrush handpiece as claimed in claim 1 (figure 1 shows the toothbrush assembled).
With regards to claim 17, during a process of assembly of the electric toothbrush handpiece, in a first step, all of the internal parts are installed via the frame unit and are subsequently, in a second step, pressed into the housing (figure 6 shows internal parts installed on the frame and figure 7 shows it installed in the housing).
With regards to claim 18, an electric toothbrush handpiece as claimed in claim 1 and having a brush attachment (4).
Claim(s) 1-8, 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner (CN 2017008038) in view of Behrendt (CN 108141938).
Wagner teaches an electric toothbrush handpiece having at least one interface (116) for coupling to a brush attachment (104), having at least one housing (102), having at least one drive unit (130) for driving the interface, which is received in the housing, and having at least one energy store (136) for supplying energy to the drive unit, characterized by at least one fix frame unit (122) which is arranged in the housing and which is implemented as a single piece and which at least partially receives the drive unit and the energy store, wherein the frame unit forms multiple receptacle regions at least for the drive unit and the energy store, which receptacle regions are positioned in a defined manner relative to one another in particular both in an assembled state and in an unassembled state of the frame unit, wherein the frame unit extends axially over the entire drive unit and the entire energy store.
Wagner teaches all the essential elements of the claimed invention however fails to teach the energy store is clamped radially by lateral holding arms of the frame and a longitudinal displacement of the energy store is prevented by means of a chamber construction of the frame unit.
Behrendt teaches a handle with a battery (66) that is clamped within a frame (62) by lateral holding arms (see figure below) of the frame and longitudinal displacement is prevented by means of a chamber construct of the frame unit (top and bottom portions of the frame which surrounds the battery).
PNG
media_image1.png
344
750
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wagner so that the frame comprises a chamber and lateral holding arms as taught by Behrendt to ensure that the energy store stays in place for constant connection to supply energy to the drive unit.
With regards to claim 2, there is at least one charging coil (153) for charging the energy store, which at least one charging coil is received in the fix frame unit.
With regards to claim 3, there is a compressible length compensation element (152, 154) for the length compensation for the compensation of tolerances, which is fitted between charging coil and frame unit.
With regards to claim 4, there is a separate frame unit (150) of the charging coil, which is installed on the frame unit, wherein the frame unit of the charging coil carries within it the charging coil and also a compensation element (152, 154), which is pressed by the charging coil against the energy store.
With regards to claim 5, a separate frame unit (150) of the charging coil is installed on the frame unit by a plugging-on process (figure 4a, 4b; 183a, b and 180a, b).
With regards to claim 6, there is a circuit board (134) for control of the drive unit, which circuit board is at least partially received in positively locking fashion by the frame unit and extends at least over a large part of an axial extent of the frame unit.
With regards to claim 7, the frame unit has at least two hook-shaped positive-locking elements, which are configured for partially engaging over the circuit board in an installed state (see figure below).
With regards to claim 8, the circuit board particularly has, on an outer edge, recesses which correspond to the positive-locking elements and via which the circuit board can, for installation thereof, be moved past the positive- locking elements into an end position.
PNG
media_image3.png
351
517
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
595
388
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 16, a method for producing the electric toothbrush handpiece as claimed in claim 1 (figure 2a-2c shows the toothbrush assembled).
With regards to claim 17, during a process of assembly of the electric toothbrush handpiece, in a first step, all of the internal parts are installed via the frame unit and are subsequently, in a second step, pressed into the housing (figure 3a shows internal parts installed on the frame and figure 2a shows it installed in the housing).
With regards to claim 18, an electric toothbrush handpiece as claimed in claim 1 and having a brush attachment (104).
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) 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo (‘306) or Wagner (‘038) both in view of Behrendt (CN 108141938) further in view of Li (CN 201966781).
Luo or Wagner both in view of Behrendt teach all the essential elements of the claimed invention including a rotor (24 and 130 respectively). The references however fail to teach that the rotor has a rotor cover or a covering cap. Li teaches a toothbrush with a rotor (figure 1) that has a rotor cover (7) (claim 10). The rotor cover is not shown secured in a toothbrush handle however it is clear that the rotor would be secured within a toothbrush handle (paragraph 0003) via any securing means (claim 11). There is a covering cap (4) which is configured for being pushed over a spindle-side end of the rotor cover and of the frame unit, wherein, in an assembled state, the covering cap engages around in each case the spindle-side end of the rotor cover and of the frame unit (claim 13). The covering cap serves for sealing off a housing interior (claim 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Luo and Wagner so that their rotors comprise a rotor cover and covering cap as taught by Li, wherein the rotor would be mounted between the frame unit and the rotor cover (claim 12) to allow for the rotor to fit more securely within the frame. When combining the references the interfaces of Luo and Wagner with Li the spindles of the rotors would be guided through the covering cap to act as a seal for the housing interior (claim 14 and 15).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 has been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The applicant amended claim 1 to include the limitation of claim 9 and further that longitudinal displacement of the energy store is prevented by means of a chamber construction of the frame unit. The applicant argues that Wagner’s batteries are not clamped by the lateral holding arms. The applicant also argues that longitudinal displacement is not prevented in Wagner. In response, the examiner found new prior art to Behrendt which teaches lateral holding arms for clamping the battery as well as a chamber on the frame to prevent the battery from longitudinal displacement. The newly found reference was used in combination with Wagner and Luo to teach the limitations in claim 1.
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