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 .
This office action is in response to the preliminary amendment filed 5/8/23. As directed by the amendment: claims 9-10, 26, and 32 have been amended, claims 7-8, 11, 16-20, 27-30, and 34-63 have been cancelled, and no claims have been added. As such, claims 1-6, 9-10, 12-15, 21-26, and 31-32 are pending in the instant application.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the language “a sidewall of the piston” (line 3) is objected to as the sidewall of the piston has already been set forth in claim 1 line 4; Examiner suggests amending to read –the sidewall of the piston--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “drive assembly” in claim 21 and “drive element” in claim 21.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-6, 9, 14-15, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the insertion aperture" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the first end" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the piston end" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the first end" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 24, the language “support is fully formed by the wall of the gear housing” is unclear as the examiner cannot ascertain the meaning of this limitation, in particular the phrase ‘fully formed’.
Claims 4, 6, and 15 are rejected based on dependency on a rejected claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 9-10, and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsuura (JP H105253) (see attached translation).
Regarding claim 1, Matsuura discloses an oral irrigator (see Fig. 4 showing the oral irrigator, summary of invention section for example) which includes a connecting rod (see Fig. 8-9, 11-14, connecting rod 1, pg. 3-4, “connecting rod 1”); and a piston including a sidewall defining a piston cavity (see Fig. 8-9, 11-14, piston 2 with cavity 3 therein to receive piston end 4 of connecting rod 1, sidewall as shown, pg. 3-4); and a rod cutout defined in the sidewall that enables insertion of a portion of the connecting rod into the piston cavity wherein after insertion the connecting rod extends from the piston cavity past a bottom edge of the sidewall (see Fig. 8-9, 11-14, cutout 29 allowing insertion of connecting rod which extends from the cavity past the bottom edge of the sidewall as shown).
Regarding claim 2, the Matsuura device’s piston further includes a closed top end coupled to the sidewall (see Fig. 8-9 and 11-14 showing closed top end being the end of piston 2 at the top of the top of the figures); a bottom open end defined by the bottom edge of the sidewall wherein the rod cutout extends from a portion of the bottom edge upwards towards the closed top end (see Fig. 8-9, 11-14); and a coupling aperture configured to receive a portion of a piston end of the connecting rod (see Fig. 8-9 and 11-14, coupling aperture 30, pg. 6-7).
Regarding claim 9, the Matsuura device’s piston end spans across a width of the piston and the connecting rod is inserted into the piston cavity via a sidewall region of the piston (see Fig. 8-9, 11-14 and accompanying disclosure in the translation).
Regarding claim 10, the Matsuura device’s piston is secured to the connecting rod without a fastener (see Fig. 8-9, 11-14, note no additional, separate element in the form of a fastener is utilized to secure piston 2 and connecting rod 1 together except for structural elements thereon as with the instant invention).
Regarding claim 12, Matsuura discloses an oral irrigator (see Fig. 4 showing the oral irrigator, summary of invention section for example) which includes a reservoir (reservoir 10 Fig. 4-5, pg. 4-5); a handle fluidly connected to the reservoir (handle 9, Fig. 4-5, pg. 4-5); and a pump configured to pump fluid from the reservoir to the handle including a connecting rod (see Fig. 8-9, 11-14, connecting rod 1, pg. 3-4, “connecting rod 1”); and a piston coupled to the connecting rod and including a rod cutout defined within a sidewall of the piston (see Fig. 8-9, 11-14, piston 2 with cavity 3 therein to receive piston end 4 of connecting rod 1, sidewall as shown, pg. 3-4, Fig. 8-9, 11-14, cutout 29).
Regarding claim 13, the Matsuura device’s connecting rod includes a first end and a second end wherein the first end is coupled to the piston such that after insertion of the connecting rod the piston moves correspondingly with the connecting rod (see Fig. 8-9 and 11-14, first end 4, second end opposite thereof, pg. 3-5).
Regarding claim 14, the Matsuura device is such that a portion of the first end of the connecting rod is received into the sidewall of the piston (see Fig. 8-9, 11-14, first end 4 received into sidewall as shown, see also pg. 3-7).
Regarding claim 15, the Matsuura device is such that the portion is curved in at least one direction (see Fig. 8-9, 11-14 showing portion/end 4 being curved in at least one direction).
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ma et al. (CN 211648385) (see attached translation).
Regarding claim 1, Ma discloses an oral irrigator (see Fig. 1-4 and pg. 3-4) which includes a connecting rod (see Fig. 1 and 3-4, connecting rod 16, see pg. 3-4); and a piston including a sidewall defining a piston cavity (see Fig. 1 and 4, piston including elements 17 and 18, pg. 3-4, cavity shown in Fig. 1 which houses piston end of connecting rod 16); and a rod cutout defined in the sidewall that enables insertion of a portion of the connecting rod into the piston cavity wherein after insertion the connecting rod extends from the piston cavity past a bottom edge of the sidewall (see Fig. 4, portion of sidewall of piston at 17 having a cutout able to receive connecting rod which extends from bottom edge of the sidewall as shown).
Regarding claim 2, the Ma device’s piston further includes a closed top end coupled to the sidewall (see Fig. 1 and 4, closed top end being top end at 18); a bottom open end defined by the bottom edge of the sidewall wherein the rod cutout extends from a portion of the bottom edge upwards towards the closed top end (see Fig. 1 and 3-4); and a coupling aperture configured to receive a portion of a piston end of the connecting rod (see annotated Fig. 4 below showing a coupling aperture to receive portion of piston when the piston also includes element 6, see Fig. 1 showing plural coupling apertures on either sides of the sidewall, pg. 3-4).
PNG
media_image1.png
763
683
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, the Ma device’s coupling aperture includes first and second coupling apertures positioned on first and second sides of the sidewall to form an insertion aperture (see annotated Fig. 4 showing a coupling aperture, see Fig. 1 showing plural coupling apertures on either sides of the sidewall which forms an insertion aperture for 6, pg. 3-4).
Regarding claim 4, the Ma device’s connecting rod defines a piston end that extends between the first and second coupling apertures (see Fig. 1, upper end of 16 being the piston end, or this end and also including 6, see pg. 3-4); and the piston further includes a bearing for engaging with the piston end of the connecting rod (see Fig. 1 and 4, surfaces being complimentarily curved/shaped with each other such that it defines a bearing per the instant applications definition of such which can be formed as an aperture/surface).
Regarding claim 5, the Ma device’s bearing is formed as a coupling aperture defined within the sidewall of the piston (see annotated Fig. 4 and Fig. 1); and the first end of the connecting rod includes a curved bearing surface positioned within and engaging the bearing (see Fig. 1 and 4, first end being upper end of 16, or also including 6, which is curved and engages the bearing, pg. 3-4).
Claim(s) 21-26 and 31-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (2022/0079708).
Regarding claim 21, Zhang discloses an oral irrigator (see Fig. 1-6, abstract for example) which includes a drive assembly (drive assembly including motor 17 with gear shaft and gear 126, Fig. 3, para. 0078-0079); a pump housing defining a pump chamber and a gear housing configured to secure a drive element of the drive assembly in a position within the gear housing wherein the pump housing and gear housing are formed by a single wall (see annotated Fig. 2 with pump and gear housing defined by a single wall element 112 which is a singular part as shown, see para. 0046, drive element being the drive/gear shaft of motor 17).
PNG
media_image2.png
790
788
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22, the Zhang device’s drive element includes a gear shaft and the drive assembly further including a gear rotationally coupled to the gear shaft (see Fig. 2-3, gear shaft of motor 17 which rotationally couples to gear shaft 126).
Regarding claim 23, the Zhang device’s gear housing further includes a support formed in part by the wall of the gear housing configured to secure the drive element (see Fig. 2-4, bottom part of housing, labeled above, including structure which secures elements therein as shown).
Regarding claim 24, the Zhang device’s support is formed fully by the wall of the gear housing (see Fig. 2-4, bottom part of housing, labeled above, including structure which fully secures elements therein as shown).
Regarding claim 25, the Zhang device’s single wall prevents separate movement of the pump chamber and the drive element relative to one another (see Fig. 2-3, annotated Fig. 2 above, when assembled the single wall element 112 prevents separate movement of the pump chamber to the drive elements as shown).
Regarding claim 26, the Zhang device further includes a gear cover operably coupled to the gear housing to enclose a portion of the gear housing (see Fig. 1-2, gear cover 114), wherein the gear housing includes a first support for supporting a first end of the drive element and the gear cover includes a second support for supporting a second end of the drive element, wherein the drive element is a gear shaft (see Fig. 2-3, bottom part of housing 112, labeled above, including first support structure which secures end of drive shaft of motor 17 as shown, opening of gear cover 114 a second support for supporting the second end of the drive/gear shaft of motor 17 as shown).
Regarding claim 31, the Zhang device’s pump housing includes an extension extending from a portion of the wall of the gear housing to define the pump chamber therein (see annotated Fig. 2 above, the pump housing is an extension from the portion of the wall of the gear housing and defines the chamber as shown).
Regarding claim 32, the Zhang device further includes a fitting coupled to the pump housing and fluidly coupled to the pump chamber configured to deliver and receive fluid from the pump chamber and secured to the housing by one or more fasteners arranged to extend parallel to the pump chamber (see Fig. 2, fitting 154 and 152 with 156 defining a fastener, see para. 0048-0050).
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma.
Regarding claim 6, the Ma device is silent as to the curved bearing surface being curved in first and second directions as claimed (note: Ma only appears to show single direction curvature of upper end of 16, or also including 6); however, 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 Ma device’s bearing surface to have additional, more spherical curvature in plural directions in order to provide smoother interfacing surfaces. See also MPEP 2144.04 IV B.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Liu et al. (2023/0046766), Williams et al. (2017/0252251), Cammack (3,425,410), Senff et al. (2017/0209234), and Hickman et al. (4,108,167) disclose oral irrigator devices similar to the claimed/disclosed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLIN W STUART whose telephone number is (571)270-7490. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5.
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, Justine Yu can be reached at 571-272-4835. 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.
/COLIN W STUART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785