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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed July 16th, 2025 has been entered. The drawing objection, specification objections, claim objections, 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretations, and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) claim rejections made in the previous office action have been withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the specification fails to provide any structure to explain how the head of the personal care device is “releasably connected” with the fourth end of the driver. Since the applicant does not provide sufficient structure to perform the claimed function, it is unreasonable to conclude that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claims 2-4, 6-9, and 11-20 are rejected due to their dependency on previously rejected claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 6-8 merely repeat claim limitations already recited in claim 1. According to MPEP 608.01(n), “a dependent claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) if… it fails to add a limitation to the claim upon which it depends”.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian et al. (CN 114099029 A), hereinafter Tian, in view of Lee (US 20180008388 A1), as evidenced by Shortt et al. (US 20030162146 A1), hereinafter Shortt.
Regarding claim 1, Tian discloses (Fig. 1-7) a personal care device (a waterproof teeth washer; Para. 0076, line 1) comprising: a handle assembly (66), configured for holding, the handle assembly comprising a handle barrel (upper shell 9 and lower shell 22) and a top ring (cover plate 3), wherein the handle barrel has a main extension line extending along an axial direction of the handle assembly, and a first end and a second end provided opposite to each other, the main extension line extends from the first end to the second end (See annotated Fig. 2); the top ring is provided with a clamp (See annotated Fig. 1 and 2), the top ring is clamped with the first end through the clamp, and a part of the top ring (the clamp) extends into the handle barrel from the first end (Fig. 2); a first seal (5) is provided between the handle barrel and the top ring and is configured to seal a gap between the top ring and the handle barrel (Para. 0076, lines 13-15; Fig. 2), a driver (The motor [16], pump [13], and nozzle [1]) comprising a third end (See annotated Fig. 2) provided in the handle barrel and a fourth end (See annotated Fig. 2) extending out of the first end of the handle barrel, wherein the driver generates vibration during operation (Para. 0080, line 8, “the vibration frequency of the motor is 2300 times per minute”), the top ring is provided around a peripheral side of the driver (Para. 0081, lines 8-9; Fig. 2); A second seal (4), provided in the handle barrel (Fig. 5), and located between the driver and the top ring (Para. 0081, lines 16-19; Fig. 5), wherein a part of the second seal located between the driver and the top ring is configured as an elastic part (Para. 0081, line 18; The second seal is made of a “soft silicone material”, wherein silicone is known to be elastic), and the elastic part is used to seal a gap between the driver and the top ring (Para. 0076, lines 21-23).
PNG
media_image1.png
810
483
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2 (Tian)
PNG
media_image2.png
308
226
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 (Tian)
However, Tian fails to explicitly disclose wherein a portion of the vibration is transmitted to the handle barrel, a portion of the vibration is transmitted to a head of the personal care device, and wherein the head of the personal care device is releasably connected with the fourth end, and wherein the elastic part of the second seal absorbs and reduces the vibration transmitted to the handle barrel during operation of the driver (Tian does disclose wherein the second seal is an O-ring, see Fig. 1, made of silicone, see Para. 0081, line 18).
Nevertheless, Lee teaches (Fig. 1-16c) a personal care device (100, 200) comprising a driver (incl. 220, 240, and 270) that includes a drive unit (270) and a nozzle (220; See Fig. 4), wherein the drive unit “supplies positive pressure for supplying a washing liquid” (Para. 0062; The drive unit is functionally similar to the motor and pump of Tian) through the nozzle. Releasably connected to an end (222; See Fig. 8) of the driver is a head (100) of the personal care device (Para. 0054, “The cleaning body 100 may be separably coupled to the main body 200”), wherein the head comprises a brush (103) -“to remove foreign substances such as food particles or dental calculus stuck between the teeth” (Para. 0003) and ejection ports (102) to “spray a high-pressure washing liquid” (Para. 0057). The driver further includes a vibration motor (240) held in a motor accommodating portion (227) of the nozzle (See Fig. 9-10). The driver generates vibration (Para. 0067, “when electric power is supplied to the vibration generator [i.e., the motor 240], the vibration generator generates vibration, and as a result, the vibration transmission unit [i.e., the nozzle] 220 vibrates”), wherein a portion of the vibration is transmitted to a handle barrel (201; Para. 0023, “… attenuates vibration which is generated in the vibration transmission unit and transmitted to the outer case”), and wherein a portion of the vibration is transmitted to the head of the personal care device (Para. 0068, “As the vibration transmission unit 220 vibrates, the cleaning body 100 coupled to the vibration transmission unit 220 vibrates, and the vibration is transmitted to the cleaning head 101 formed at one end of the cleaning body 100, and as a result, the brush 103 finally vibrates, thereby removing foreign substances on the teeth or in the mouth”) to improve convenience for the user during brushing (Para. 0005, a vibrating brush “minimize[es] the movement of the user's wrist or arm” and “improv[es] convenience for the user”). Lee also teaches wherein a silicone elastic part (230) is positioned between the driver and the handle barrel to absorb and reduce the vibration transmitted to the handle barrel during operation of the driver (Para. 0074, “The vibration damping unit 230 may have a function of absorbing vibration, and therefore, the vibration, which is generated in the vibration transmission unit 220, is inhibited from being transmitted to the outer case 201 which is a handle portion grasped by the user, and as a result, it is possible to further improve convenience for the user without degrading toothbrush performance”; Para. 0075, “The vibration damping unit 230 may be made of an elastic material in order to maximize the vibration damping performance, and more particularly, the vibration damping unit 230 may be made of, but not limited to, silicone or a rubber-based elastic material”). Shortt provides evidence that an O-ring made of silicone (as in Tian), is able to serve the dual-purpose of a “fluid-tight seal” and absorbing/reducing vibrations (Para. 0065, “the O-ring 24 may be made of silicone… The O-ring 24 is water resistant so that when secured around the shaft 8 and positioned within the upper handle housing 6, a fluid tight seal is formed which helps prevent water from entering into the cavity of the oral hygiene device 2”; Para. 0067, “By suspending the primary motor 30… by the O-ring 24 on the shaft 8… the transfer of vibration from the primary motor 30 to the handle housing 3 is dampened”; Para. 0118, “the O-ring 24 may serve to isolate the vibrations of the secondary motor 36 from the handle housing 3, of the oral hygiene device 2”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the fourth end of the driver of Tian (i.e., the nozzle) to be releasably connected to a cleaning body (i.e., the head of the personal care device; the cleaning body comprising a brush head and ejection ports), as taught by Lee, in an attempt to improve the cleaning effect and increase the removal of foreign particles stuck between the teeth. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the driver of Tian to include a vibration motor for generating vibration, wherein a portion of the vibration is transmitted to the brush head, as taught by Lee, to improve convenience for the user during brushing. Examiner notes that the limitation wherein “the elastic part is used to… absorb and reduce vibrations transmitted to the handle barrel during operation of the driver” is considered to be intended use (See MPEP 2111.02 [II]), which the elastic part of Tian is capable of performing, as evidenced by Lee and Shortt.
Claims 2-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian in view of Lee, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 4604800 A), hereinafter Yamamoto.
Regarding claim 2, Tian as modified by Lee discloses the personal care device of claim 1.
However, Tian as modified fails to disclose wherein the first seal is provided with at least one first protrusion, and the at least one first protrusion is in interference fit with the handle barrel (Tian does disclose wherein the first seal is an O-ring, see Fig. 1).
Nevertheless, Yamamoto teaches (Col. 1, lines 11-26) it is old and well-known in the art that conventional O-rings that abut against generally flat-shaped sealing surfaces are likely to be deformed to such an extent as to decrease the effectiveness of the seal and allow the entry of water into a casing which can damage the internal contents. Yamamoto further teaches an improved sealing element (7) with at least one first protrusion (See annotated Fig. 5) that creates an effective seal between two casing members (1 and 2), wherein the first protrusion is in interference fit with an annular plug (6) of one of the casing members (Col. 4, lines 56-68 and Col. 5, lines 1-13; Fig. 5-6).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the first seal of Tian to include at least one first protrusion and to modify the handle barrel of Tian to have an annular plug, as taught by Yamamoto, such that the at least one first protrusion is in interference fit with the handle barrel to create a lasting and effective seal and prevent water damage to the internal contents of Tian.
PNG
media_image3.png
416
403
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 5 (Yamamoto)
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Yamamoto teaches wherein the first protrusion is configured as a closed loop extending in a peripheral direction along an outer wall of the sealing element (See the dotted line in annotated Fig. 5). Therefore, the combination of Tian, Lee, and Yamamoto discloses the claim limitations for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 4, Tian as modified by Lee and Yamamoto discloses the personal care device of claim 3.
However, Tian as modified fails to disclose wherein a side of the top ring facing an inner wall surface of the handle barrel is provided with a slot, the slot is engaged with the first seal, and the first seal is provided in the slot.
Nevertheless, Yamamoto teaches (Fig. 5) wherein the sealing element (7) is seated in a groove (5) of a casing member (1) to align the sealing element with the annular plug (6; Col. 1, lines 35-39 and 41-45).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the top ring of Tian to have an annular slot for seating the first seal, as taught by Yamamoto, to ensure proper alignment of the first seal with the annular plug of the handle barrel.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Tian with Lee and Yamamoto discloses the claim limitations for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 2 (See the 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection of claim 6).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Tian with Lee and Yamamoto discloses the claim limitations for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 3 (See the 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection of claim 7).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Tian with Lee and Yamamoto discloses the claim limitations for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 4 (See the 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection of claims 8).
Claims 9, 11-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian in view of Lee and Yamamoto, as applied to claim 6-8 above, and further in view of Liu (CN 108542531 A).
Regarding claim 9, Tian as modified by Lee and Yamamoto discloses the personal care device of claim 6.
However, Tian as modified fails to disclose wherein the second seal is comprised of a first sealing ring and a second sealing ring, and wherein an inner wall surface of the first sealing ring is provided with at least one second protrusion.
Nevertheless, Liu teaches (Fig. 1-4) a seal (10) for a similar personal care device (100), wherein the seal has a first sealing ring (11) and second sealing ring (12; See annotated Fig. 1); the first sealing ring seals the gap between a transmission shaft (20) and the seal, and the second sealing ring seals the gap between the seal and the outer shell (30) of the personal care device. The first sealing ring is configured as a closed loop extending in a peripheral direction along an outer wall of the transmission shaft (Fig. 3), wherein an inner wall surface (15) of the first sealing ring is provided with at least one protrusion (13; Corresponding to the “second” protrusion of the instant application), and the at least one protrusion is in interference fit with a periphery of the transmission shaft (Fig. 3; Para. 0034, line 9). The second sealing ring cooperates with the first sealing ring to seal the gap between the transmission shaft and casing of the personal care device. The second sealing ring is provided on an outer wall surface of the first sealing ring (Fig. 1; Para. 0034, lines 1-3) and extends toward the outer shell of the device; In the case of Tian, the only possible path for the second seal to extend towards the outer shell of the device is between the top ring and support platform (51) of the handle barrel (See seal path 1 in annotated Fig. 7 of Tian; Examiner notes that Liu suggests [Para. 0039] that the third extending portion 123 of the second seal may be removed).
Accordingly, because Tian and Liu both pertain to waterproof sealing personal care devices, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the second seal of Tian with the seal of Liu, the seal being modified as appropriate (e.g., removing the third extending portion [123] as suggested by Liu and altering the size of the seal [See MPEP § 2144.04 (IV) (A) Changes in Size]) to achieve the predictable result of sealing the gap between the transmission shaft and top ring.
PNG
media_image4.png
452
554
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 (Liu)
PNG
media_image5.png
523
468
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 7 (Tian)
Regarding claim 11, Tian as modified by Lee and Yamamoto discloses the personal care device of claim 7.
However, Tian as modified fails to disclose wherein the second seal is comprised of a first sealing ring and a second sealing ring, and wherein an inner wall surface of the first sealing ring is provided with at least one second protrusion.
Nevertheless, Liu teaches (Fig. 1-4) a seal (10) for a similar personal care device (100), wherein the seal has a first sealing ring (11) and second sealing ring (12; See annotated Fig. 1); the first sealing ring seals the gap between a transmission shaft (20) and the seal, and the second sealing ring seals the gap between the seal and the outer shell (30) of the personal care device. The first sealing ring is configured as a closed loop extending in a peripheral direction along an outer wall of the transmission shaft (Fig. 3), wherein an inner wall surface (15) of the first sealing ring is provided with at least one protrusion (13; Corresponding to the “second” protrusion of the instant application), and the at least one protrusion is in interference fit with a periphery of the transmission shaft (Fig. 3; Para. 0034, line 9). The second sealing ring cooperates with the first sealing ring to seal the gap between the transmission shaft and casing of the personal care device. The second sealing ring is provided on an outer wall surface of the first sealing ring (Fig. 1; Para. 0034, lines 1-3) and extends toward the outer shell of the device; In the case of Tian, the only possible path for the second seal to extend towards the outer shell of the device is between the top ring and support platform (51) of the handle barrel (See seal path 1 in annotated Fig. 7 of Tian; Examiner notes that Liu suggests [Para. 0039] that the third extending portion 123 of the second seal may be removed).
Accordingly, because Tian and Liu both pertain to waterproof sealing personal care devices, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the second seal of Tian with the seal of Liu, the seal being modified as appropriate (e.g., removing the third extending portion [123] as suggested by Liu and altering the size of the seal [See MPEP § 2144.04 (IV) (A) Changes in Size]) to achieve the predictable result of sealing the gap between the transmission shaft and top ring.
Regarding claim 12, Tian as modified by Lee and Yamamoto discloses the personal care device of claim 8.
However, Tian as modified fails to disclose wherein the second seal is comprised of a first sealing ring and a second sealing ring, and wherein an inner wall surface of the first sealing ring is provided with at least one second protrusion.
Nevertheless, Liu teaches (Fig. 1-4) a seal (10) for a similar personal care device (100), wherein the seal has a first sealing ring (11) and second sealing ring (12; See annotated Fig. 1); the first sealing ring seals the gap between a transmission shaft (20) and the seal, and the second sealing ring seals the gap between the seal and the outer shell (30) of the personal care device. The first sealing ring is configured as a closed loop extending in a peripheral direction along an outer wall of the transmission shaft (Fig. 3), wherein an inner wall surface (15) of the first sealing ring is provided with at least one protrusion (13; Corresponding to the “second” protrusion of the instant application), and the at least one protrusion is in interference fit with a periphery of the transmission shaft (Fig. 3; Para. 0034, line 9). The second sealing ring cooperates with the first sealing ring to seal the gap between the transmission shaft and casing of the personal care device. The second sealing ring is provided on an outer wall surface of the first sealing ring (Fig. 1; Para. 0034, lines 1-3) and extends toward the outer shell of the device; In the case of Tian, the only possible path for the second seal to extend towards the outer shell of the device is between the top ring and support platform (51) of the handle barrel (See seal path 1 in annotated Fig. 7 of Tian; Examiner notes that Liu suggests [Para. 0039] that the third extending portion 123 of the second seal may be removed).
Accordingly, because Tian and Liu both pertain to waterproof sealing personal care devices, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the second seal of Tian with the seal of Liu, the seal being modified as appropriate (e.g., removing the third extending portion [123] as suggested by Liu and altering the size of the seal [See MPEP § 2144.04 (IV) (A) Changes in Size]) to achieve the predictable result of sealing the gap between the transmission shaft and top ring.
Regarding claim 14, Tian as modified by Lee, Yamamoto, and Liu discloses the personal care device of claim 9.
However, Tian as modified fails to disclose wherein an outer wall surface of the second sealing ring is provided with at least one third protrusion.
Nevertheless, Liu teaches wherein the second sealing ring (12; See annotated Fig. 1) has at least one protrusion (14; Para. 0034, line 4-5; Corresponding to the “third” protrusion of the instant application) that is in interference fit with the casing of the personal care device to create a waterproof seal (Fig. 3; Para. 0034, lines 10-13), wherein the location of the protrusion can be set on any surface of the second sealing ring that cooperates with the casing of the personal care device (Para. 0038; e.g., on the first [121] or the second [122] extending portion, see Fig. 1).
Accordingly, 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 second sealing ring of Tian -– as modified by Lee, Yamamoto, and Liu – by placing a “third” protrusion on the first or the second extending portion of the second sealing ring, as taught by Liu, to create a waterproof seal and prevent water damage to the internal contents of Tian.
Regarding claim 15, Tian as modified by Lee, Yamamoto, and Liu discloses the personal care device of claim 14.
However, Liu as modified fails to disclose wherein a side of the top ring facing the second sealing ring is provided with a “fourth” protrusion in interference fit with a periphery of the second sealing ring.
Nevertheless, Yamamoto teaches (Col. 1, lines 11-26) it is old and well-known in the art that conventional seals that abut against generally flat-shaped sealing surfaces are likely to be deformed to such an extent as to decrease the effectiveness of the seal and allow the entry of water into a casing which can damage the internal contents. Yamamoto further teaches an improved sealing element (7) with a protrusion (See annotated Fig. 5) that creates an effective seal by being in interference fit with an annular plug (6; i.e., a protrusion) of one of the casing members (Col. 4, lines 56-68 and Col. 5, lines 1-13; Fig. 5-6).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the side of the top ring facing the second sealing ring of Tian – as modified by Lee, Yamamoto, and Liu – to include an annular plug (or “fourth” protrusion), as taught by Yamamoto, to create a more effective seal against the “third” protrusion on the second sealing ring.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian in view of Lee, Yamamoto, and Liu, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Jian (US 20230380947 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Tian as modified by Lee, Yamamoto, and Liu discloses the personal care device of claim 9. Tian also discloses wherein the top ring is provided with a channel (See annotated Fig. 7 of Tian above), the channel is parallel to a radial plane of the main extension line and has a preset height, the fourth end extends out of the first end from the channel along a direction of the main extension line (Annotated Fig. 2 of Tian above).
However, Tian as modified fails to disclose wherein the first sealing ring protrudes out of the second sealing ring towards the first end and extends into the channel, an inner wall surface of a part of the first sealing ring extending into the channel is provided with at least one protrusion.
Nevertheless, Jian teaches (Fig. 1-5) a sealing shaft sleeve (18; Fig. 5) for a similar personal care device (10), wherein the sealing shaft sleeve has a first sealing ring and a second sealing ring (See annotated Fig. 5). The first sealing ring protrudes out of the second sealing ring and a part of the first sealing ring extends upward into a connecting component (25), an inner wall surface of the part of the first sealing ring extending upward into the connecting component is provided with at least one protrusion (See annotated Fig. 5).
Accordingly, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the first sealing ring of Tian – as modified by Lee, Yamamoto, and Liu – to extend upward, as taught by Jian, into the channel of the top ring (See seal path 2 in annotated Fig. 7 of Tian), and to provide a protrusion on the inner wall surface of that part of the first sealing ring, as taught by Jian, to achieve the predictable result of further waterproof sealing the device.
PNG
media_image6.png
672
620
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 5
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian in view of Lee, Yamamoto, and Liu, as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (CN 113208761 A), hereinafter Wu.
Regarding claim 16, Tian as modified by Lee, Yamamoto, and Liu discloses the personal care device of claim 15. Tian as modified also discloses wherein the second sealing ring comprises a first sealing portion (See extension portion 121 in annotated Fig. 1 of Liu) and a second sealing portion (See extension portion 122 in annotated Fig. 1 of Liu), the first sealing portion is connected with the first sealing ring, the second sealing portion is connected with an end of the first sealing portion away from the first sealing ring and extends towards the second end of the handle barrel.
However, Tian as modified fails to explicitly disclose wherein the “third” protrusion surrounds an outer wall surface of the second sealing portion, and the “fourth” protrusion is in interference fit with the first sealing portion.
Nevertheless, Liu suggests that the second sealing ring can have more than one “third” protrusion (Para. 0034, line 4-5), wherein the location(s) of the protrusion can be set on any surface of the second sealing ring that cooperates with the casing of the personal care device (Para. 0038). Furthermore, Wu teaches (Fig. 1-5) a second sealing ring (1322; See Fig. 4) for a similar personal care device (10) with multiple protrusions (13221); one of the protrusions is provided on a horizontal extension portion, and another protrusion is provided on a vertical extension portion. Furthermore, Yamamoto teaches (Col. 1, lines 11-26) it is old and well-known in the art that conventional seals that abut against generally flat-shaped sealing surfaces are likely to be deformed to such an extent as to decrease the effectiveness of the seal and allow the entry of water into a casing which can damage the internal contents. Yamamoto further teaches an improved sealing element (7) with a protrusion (See annotated Fig. 5) that creates an effective seal by being in interference fit with an annular plug (6; i.e., a protrusion) of one of the casing members (Col. 4, lines 56-68 and Col. 5, lines 1-13; Fig. 5-6).
Accordingly, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide multiple annular protrusions, as suggested by Liu, such as one protrusion on the horizontal first sealing portion and one protrusion on the vertical second sealing portion, as taught by Wu, wherein the corresponding surfaces of the casing (e.g., the inner surface of the top ring) is provided with a corresponding annular plug to create an effective seal that achieves the predictable result of keeping water out of the personal care device.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian in view of Lee, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jungnickel (US 20210315675 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Tian as modified by Lee discloses the personal care device of claim 1.
However, Tian as modified fails to disclose wherein at least a part of the handle barrel is configured as a metal piece.
Nevertheless, Jungnickel teaches (Para. 0017) that a handle suitable for use in a personal-care implement, particularly an electrically operated personal-care implement, can be made from a hard plastic material, or from a metal, for example stainless steel or aluminum; Such materials are highly durable and allow for slim product designs.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try making the handle barrel of Tian out of metal, as taught by Jungnickel, as a person with ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp (See MPEP §2143 (E) "Obvious To Try" – Choosing From a Finite Number of Identified, Predictable Solutions, With a Reasonable Expectation of Success).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian in view of Lee and Yamamoto, as applied to claims 2-4 above, and further in view of Jungnickel.
Regarding claims 18-20, Tian as modified by Lee and Yamamoto discloses the personal care device of claims 2-4. However, Tian as modified fails to disclose wherein at least a part of the handle barrel is configured as a metal piece.
Nevertheless, Jungnickel teaches (Para. 0017) that a handle suitable for use in a personal-care implement, particularly an electrically operated personal-care implement, can be made from a hard plastic material, or from a metal, for example stainless steel or aluminum; Such materials are highly durable and allow for slim product designs.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try making the handle barrel of Tian out of metal, as taught by Jungnickel, as a person with ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp (See MPEP §2143 (E) "Obvious To Try" – Choosing From a Finite Number of Identified, Predictable Solutions, With a Reasonable Expectation of Success).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's argument filed July 16th, 2025 with respect to the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) has been fully considered but is not persuasive. Specifically, applicant has amended “personal care component” to “head of the personal care device” to overcome the rejection. However, this amendment still does not explain how the head of the personal care device is “releasably connected” with the fourth end of the driver (Specifically, the applicant has failed to disclose the structure of the head that facilitates a releasable connection). Therefore, it is unreasonable to conclude that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. Accordingly, the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is maintained.
Applicant's arguments filed July 16th, 2025 with respect to the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 are reproduced below in bolded text and followed by the examiner’s responses:
1) The driving component in Tian is inherently a water pressure boosting system, not a vibration transmission mechanism:
The driving component in Tian (motor 16 + plunger pump 13) is solely used for pumping water (paragraph [0080] of Tian), and its vibration is an operational byproduct rather than a designed function. Tian explicitly states that the motor 16 functions to "drive the plunger pump to rotate and pressurize the water flow" (paragraph [0080] of Tian), and the description of the vibration frequency (2300 times per minute) merely reflects the motor's inherent characteristics, not active transmission of vibration to the head of the care device.
The driver in amended claim 1 is designed to directly transmit vibration to the head of the care device (e.g., the brush head of an electric toothbrush), whereas the nozzle 1 in Tian is a static water outlet component (relying on water impact for cleaning), representing an inherent difference
in working principles.
2) The "inherency" inference regarding vibration transmission is invalid: The Office Action cites MPEP § 2122 to assert that vibration transmission constitutes an "inherent result". However, controlling precedent requires that such characteristics must be necessarily present, inevitably occurring, and verifiable. However: Vibration transmission in Tian is not necessarily present: The specification of Tian emphasizes that "motor 16 operates with a sound level of only 50dB" (paragraph [0080]), indicating that its design object is vibration and noise reduction rather than utilizing vibration. No evidence proves that vibration is transmitted to the nozzle: Tian does not disclose that the nozzle enhances cleaning effectiveness due to vibration, and there is no evidence indicating that vibration transmission is an inherent feature in Tian.
Applicant’s arguments above have been considered but are moot because a new ground of rejection has been made in this office action that does not rely on the previous inherency argument. Specifically, the driver of Tian is modified by the teachings of Lee to include a vibration motor for generating vibration, such that a portion of the vibration is transmitted to the head of the personal care device; Lee also teaches that a portion of the vibration will be transmitted to the handle barrel (See the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1 in this office action).
3) Tian does not disclose the dual functions of the second seal:
Seals in Tian are solely for waterproofing and have no vibration-damping design: The nozzle waterproof ring 4 in Tian (referred to as the "second seal" in the Office Action) is located between the nozzle and the installation inner tube (claim 3 of Tian), with a singular function of preventing water leakage (paragraph [0076] of Tian). Tian never mentions that its waterproof ring has a vibration-damping effect. The vibration-damping function of the second seal in amended claim 1 of the present application requires specific structural designs (such as the shape of the elastic member and positional arrangement), but the waterproof ring in Tian is a static compression seal (paragraph [0081] of Tian: "clamped and embedded in the wall of the installation inner tube"), with no space for elastic deformation to absorb vibration.
Material properties do not equate to functional design: The Office Action points out that "silicone will inherently absorb and reduce vibrations," but material properties are not equivalent to technical features: Tian did not select silicone to achieve vibration damping (absorb and reduce the vibration)-Tian's specification only emphasizes that silicone is used for waterproof performance (paragraph [0081]), not for vibration control. Vibration damping (absorb and reduce the vibration) requires structural cooperation: The second seal in amended claim 1 is configured as an elastic member, but the waterproof ring 4 in Tian is an O shape-ring (Figure 1 of Tian), lacking the deformation freedom required for vibration damping (absorb and reduce the vibration).
Examiner notes that “there is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference” (See MPEP 2112(II)). Therefore, the fact that Tian never mentions that its waterproof ring has a vibration-damping effect does not disprove the inherency argument.
Examiner has provided Shortt as evidence that the shape (i.e., an O-ring), the positional arrangement (i.e., between the vibrating nozzle and the handle barrel), and compressive state (Para. 0065 of Shortt, “the O-ring 24 is circumferentially constrained and may be compressed between an annular backplate 28 of the shaft 8 and an annular sealing shoulder 7 defined on the interior of the upper handle housing 6”) of the waterproof ring of Tian is suitable for vibration-damping (See the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1 in this office action). Examiner acknowledges that Tian does not explicitly disclose that silicone was selected to achieve vibration-damping, however MPEP § 2112(I) states “the discovery of properties of a known material does not make it novel”. Lee provides evidence that silicone “maximize[s]… vibration damping performance” (Para. 0075 of Lee); It is also the case that the vibration-damping O-ring of Shortt is composed of silicone. Therefore, Examiner maintains that the silicone O-ring of Tian performs the claimed function of “absorb[ing] and reduc[ing] vibrations transmitted to the handle barrel during operation of the driver”.
Ichiro discloses a tooth-brushing machine. Ichiro merely mentions that its driving methods are fluid-driven (pulsating water current) or electromagnetic-driven ("Piston 5 is connected to movable iron core 8 of solenoid 7... a pulsating electric current is applied to solenoid 7, so that piston 5 is driven back and forth inside cylindrical portion 3 in a reciprocating manner"), rather than motor-driven. Moreover, the driving source of Ichiro (solenoid /pump) is fixed to the nozzle base or main body 13 (FIGS. 1, 3 of Ichiro), which does not involve a path for vibration transmission to the handle barrel. Furthered, the function of the spring 11 in Ichiro is to reset the piston 5 ("spring 11 improves the brushing effect by increasing the stroke of bristle bundle 4, and also serves to prevent bristle bundle 4 from being caught between the teeth when the brushing position is altered' and FIGS. 2-3 of Ichiro), not to absorb and reduce the vibration transmitted to the handle barrel during operation of the driver.
Therefore, Ichiro does not disclose the driver and its segmented extension structure as defined in amended claim 1 of the present application; Ichiro does not involve a transmission path for vibration to the handle barrel and the detachable head of the personal care device; furthermore, Ichiro does not suggest the design requirement or specific structure of an elastic seal for vibration damping (absorb and reduce the vibration).
Thus, Ichiro also does not disclose or suggest the above distinguishing technical features.
In addition, the combination of Tian and Ichiro cannot suggest the above distinguishing technical feature, in particular the "a head of the personal care device that is releasably connected with the fourth end", the reasons are as follows:
1) Replacement of the nozzle in Tian requires overall replacement: To replace the nozzle (1) in Tian, the upper cover plate (3) and the nozzle retaining ring (2) must be disassembled; moreover, the fixation of Tian's nozzle relies on mechanical locking between the limiting boss (64) and the retaining ring (2) (Figure 2) (paragraph [0081] of Tian). It can be seen that the replacement of Tian's nozzle (1) involves a complex disassembly and assembly process and needs to be realized by overall replacement, rather than a direct releasable connection at an end of the driver.
2) The screw disassembly structure of Ichiro cannot be directly applied to Tian: The nozzle of Tian needs to withstand the high-pressure water flow from the plunger pump (13) (0.6mm water outlet, paragraph [0081] of Tian). If the exposed screw structure of Ichiro is adopted instead, it will damage Tian's multi-stage waterproof ring sealing system (nozzle waterproof ring 4, pump body waterproof ring 10), leading to the risk of water leakage.
Furthermore, the motor vibration frequency of Tian is 2300 times per minute; if the screw structure of Ichiro is adopted, it will probably introduce the problem that the screw connection is prone to loosening under high-frequency vibration.
3) A person skilled in the art has no motivation to combine Tian and Ichiro to obtain the above distinguishing technical features: The brush head (with bristles) of Ichiro relies on mechanical reciprocating motion for cleaning, while the nozzle of Tian is only used for directional water jetting (without mechanical moving parts). A person skilled in the art has no motivation to apply the mechanical transmission structure of the tooth-brushing machine of Ichiro into the sealed water flow system of the water flosser of Tian, since their working principles (Tian (water jetting) and Ichiro (bristle vibration)) are completely different.
Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that the subject matter of the amended claim 1 is non-obvious and thus patentable over Tian, in view of Ichiro
Applicant’s arguments above have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the Ichiro reference.
Yamamoto is cited to teach that "the first seal is provided with at least one first protrusion;
the first protrusion is configured as a closed loop extending in a peripheral direction along an outer wall of the first seal; a side of the top ring facing an inner wall surface of the handle barrel is provided with a slot, the slot is matched with the first seal; a side of the top ring facing the second sea ling ring is provided with a fourth" protrusion in interference fit with a periphery of the second sealing ring" as defined in claims 2-4, and 15 of the present application. The Applicant respectfully submits that Yamamoto fails to cure the above discussed defects of Tian and Ichiro, in particular, fails to disclose or suggest the above identified features.
Liu is cited to teach that "the second seal is comprised of a first sealing ring and a second sealing ring, and wherein an inner wall surface of the first sealing ring is provided with at least one Page second protrusion; an outer wall surface of the second sea ling ring is provided with at least one third protrusion" as defined in claims 9 and 14 of the present application. The Applicant respectfully submits that Liu fails to cure the above discussed defects of Tian and Ichiro, in particular, fails to disclose or suggest the above identified features.
Jian is cited to teach that "the top ring is provided with a channel; the channel is parallel to a radial plane of the main extension line and has a preset height, the fourth end extends out of the first end from the channel along a direction of the main extension line" as defined in claim 13 of the present application. The Applicant respectfully submits that Jian fails to cure the above discussed defects of Tian and Ichiro, in particular, fails to disclose or suggest the above identified features.
Wu is cited to teach that "the third protrusion surrounds an outer wall surface of the second sealing portion, and the fourth protrusion is in interference fit with the first sealing portion." as defined in claim 16 of the present application. The Applicant respectfully submits that Wu fails to cure the above discussed defects of Tian and Ichiro, in particular, fails to disclose or suggest the above identified features.
Jungnickel is cited to teach that "at least a part of the handle barrel is configured as a metal piece" as defined in claim 17 of the present application. The Applicant respectfully submits that Jungnickel fails to cure the above discussed defects of Tian and Ichiro, in particular, fails to disclose or suggest the above identified features.
Furthermore, Applicant believes that the above distinguishing technical features of amended claim 1 of the present application are not common knowledge in the art: In view of the above, Tian, Ichiro, Yamamoto, Liu, Jian, Wu and Jungnickel do not disclose or suggest the above distinguishing technical features
Applicant's arguments above fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Due to the fact that Tian, Ichiro, Yamamoto, Liu, Jian, Wu and Jungnickel have already achieved their objects through their respective solutions, which different with the above distinguishing technical features. There is no need for mutual combination between Tian, Ichiro, Yamamoto, Liu, Jian, Wu and Jungnickel, …
As stated in the MPEP, “Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments” (MPEP 2123(II)). The fact that Tian, Ichiro, Yamamoto, Liu, Jian, Wu and Jungnickel have disclosed examples of personal care devices that implement a particular feature does not teach away from using that particular feature to modify another personal care device. Additionally, the teachings of the prior art are able to combined “to produce the claimed invention when there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so” (MPEP 2143.01); it is not necessary for there to be a “need”.
… nor is it known how to combine two different solutions with completely different concepts and methods of operation.
In response to applicant's argument above the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Shen et al. (CN 113633421 A).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAVINO ROJAS whose telephone number is (703)756-5828. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7am - 4pm.
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, David Posigian can be reached on (313) 446-6546. 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.
/SAVINO ROJAS JR./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights