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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding amended claim 1 Applicant argues:
“Thus, in par. [0063] and [0066], Gerhardt simply notes that the current use parameters (force/angle/velocity) can help determine a location of the device (e.g., at an interproximal gap or not at an interproximal gap), which then may be used to determine if fluid should be jetted. This is not the same as what is recited in claim 1. In claim 1, a particular type of movement (scrubbing) triggers the prevention of delivery of working fluid. The type of movement in claim 1 is unrelated to the location of the device as described in Gerhardt. In the present claims and application, the specific scrubbing movement type simply prevents delivery of working fluid, regardless of whether the device is proximate an interdental space.”
However, paragraph [0063] makes clear that binary values are provided to deliver fluid and prevent the delivery of fluid. According to the prior art: “When the binary value is 1, fluid may be jetted from the oral care device, and when the binary value is 0, fluid may not be jetted from the oral care device” (see paragraph [0063]). Thus, fluid is prevented based on a binary value of 0. Furthermore, in paragraph [0066] the prior art makes clear that a brushing/scrubbing motion is created as training data, i.e. a predetermined movement type. The trained parameter (brushing/scrubbing type of movement) is stored and provides both a 1 or a 0, i.e. delivery of fluid or prevention of fluid delivery, as disclosed in paragraph [0063]. Therefore, claims 1-2, 4, and 6-15 are still anticipated by the GERHARDT et al. (USPGPUB 2022/0192807) disclosure and applicant’s arguments are not convincing.
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)(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, 4, 6-16, 18-19, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by GERHARDT et al. (USPGPUB 2022/0192807).
Regarding Claim 1, GERHARDT et al. disclose an oral treatment device (2) for use in treating an oral cavity of a user, the oral treatment device (2) comprising:
an inertial measurement unit, IMU, operable to output signals dependent on position and/or movement of the oral treatment device (see paragraph [0054]);
a fluid delivery system for delivering working fluid to the oral cavity of a user (see paragraph [0043]); and
a controller (1) configured to:
process signals received from the IMU indicating position and/or movement of the oral treatment device relative to the oral cavity of the user (see paragraph [0063]); and
on the basis of the processing, output a control signal to the fluid delivery system to control delivery of the working fluid (see paragraph [0063]), wherein the controller is further configured to:
process the signals received from the IMU to determine that the oral treatment device is being moved according to a predetermined movement type (see paragraph [0066]), the predetermined movement type being a scrubbing movement (see paragraph [0066]); and
in response to the determination, output the control signal to the fluid delivery system to prevent delivery of the working fluid (see paragraphs [0063] and [0066]-[0067]).
Regarding Claim 2, GERHARDT et al. disclose the oral treatment device according to claim 1, wherein the control signal is operable to cause prevention of delivery of working fluid by the fluid delivery system (see “binary value is 0” along with the rest of paragraph [0063]).
Regarding Claim 4, GERHARDT et al. disclose the oral treatment device according to claim 1, wherein movement of the oral treatment device according to the predetermined movement type impedes the use of the oral treatment device in treating the oral cavity of the user (see paragraphs [0009], [0063], and [0075]).
Regarding Claim 6, GERHARDT et al. disclose the oral treatment device according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to:
process the signals received from the IMU to determine an orientation (see “angle of an oral care device” in paragraph [0066] and paragraph [0068]) of the oral treatment device; and
output the control signal to the fluid delivery system based on the determined orientation (see paragraphs [0063] and [0066]-[0067]).
Regarding Claim 7, GERHARDT et al. disclose the oral treatment device according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to:
process the signals received from the IMU to determine a change in orientation of the oral treatment device during use of the oral treatment device (see paragraphs [0010]-[0011], [0023], and [0071]-[0072]); and
output the control signal to the fluid delivery system based on the determined change in orientation of the oral treatment device (see paragraph [0063]).
Regarding Claim 8, GERHARDT et al. disclose the oral treatment device according to claim 1,
wherein the oral treatment device (2) comprises a head (4), the head (4) being operable to be moved along a row of teeth between a first end of the row and a second end of the row (see paragraph [0044]),
wherein the fluid delivery system is at least partly comprised in the head (see paragraphs [0043]-[0044]), and
wherein the controller is configured to:
process the signals received from the IMU to determine a trajectory of the head of the oral treatment device between the first end of the row and the second end of the row (see paragraph [0023]); and
output the control signal to the fluid delivery system based on the determined trajectory (see paragraph [0063]).
Regarding Claim 9, GERHARDT et al. disclose the oral treatment device according to claim 8, wherein the controller is configured to:
process the signals received from the IMU to determine a change in orientation of the head of the oral treatment device during movement of the head of the oral treatment device between the first end of the row and the second end of the row (see paragraphs [0010]-[0011], [0023], and [0071]-[0072]); and
output the control signal to the fluid delivery system based on the determined change in orientation of the head (see paragraph [0063]).
Regarding Claim 10, GERHARDT et al. disclose the oral treatment device according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to:
process the signals received from the IMU to determine that movement of the oral treatment device relative to the oral cavity has ceased (see paragraphs [0056] and [0072] and Figure 9); and
in response to the determination, output the control signal to the fluid delivery system to cause the fluid delivery system to deliver the working fluid (see paragraph [0063]).
Regarding Claim 11, GERHARDT et al. disclose the oral treatment device according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to:
process the signals received from the IMU to detect an interproximal gap between adjacent teeth in the oral cavity of the user (see paragraph [0056]); and
output the control signal to the fluid delivery system in response to detecting the interproximal gap (see paragraph [0063]).
Regarding Claim 12, GERHARDT et al. disclose the oral treatment device according to claim 11, wherein the controller is configured to output the control signal to the fluid delivery system to cause the fluid delivery system to deliver working fluid to the detected interproximal gap (see paragraph [0063]).
Regarding Claim 13, GERHARDT et al. disclose the oral treatment device according to claim 1, wherein the oral treatment device (2) comprises a toothbrush (see paragraphs [0043]-[0044]).
Regarding Claim 19, GERHARDT et al. disclose the oral treatment device of claim 1, wherein the scrubbing movement is back-and-forth movement (see “brushing motion” in paragraph [0066]; brushing motion is defined as back-and-forth strokes) of the oral treatment device.
Regarding Claim 21, GERHARDT et al. disclose the oral treatment device of claim 1, wherein the determination of the scrubbing movement is based on whether the signals received from the IMU indicate that the oral treatment device is being moved back-and-forth repetitively (see “brushing motion” in paragraph [0066]; brushing motion is defined as back-and-forth strokes which would repeat).
Regarding Claim 14, GERHARDT et al. disclose a method of operating an oral treatment device (2) for use in treating an oral cavity of a user, the oral treatment device (2) comprising:
an inertial measurement unit, IMU, operable to output signals dependent on position and/or movement of the oral treatment device (see paragraph [0054]);
a fluid delivery system for delivering working fluid to the oral cavity of a user (see paragraph [0043]); and
a controller (1),
the method comprising, at the controller:
processing signals received from the IMU indicating position and/or movement of the oral treatment device relative to the oral cavity of the user (see paragraph [0063]); and
on the basis of the processing, outputting a control signal to the fluid delivery system to control delivery of the working fluid (see paragraph [0063]), the method further comprising:
processing the signals received from the IMU to determine that the oral treatment device is being moved according to a predetermined movement type (see paragraph [0066]), the predetermined movement type being a scrubbing movement (see paragraph [0066]); and
in response to the determination, outputting the control signal to the fluid delivery system to prevent delivery of the working fluid (see paragraphs [0063] and [0066]-[0067]).
Regarding Claim 15, GERHARDT et al. disclose a computer program comprising a set of instructions which, when executed by a computerized device (1), cause the computerized device (1) to perform a method of operating an oral treatment device (2)for use in treating an oral cavity of a user, the oral treatment device (2) comprising an inertial measurement unit, IMU, operable to output signals dependent on position and/or movement of the oral treatment device (see paragraph [0054]), and a fluid delivery system for delivering working fluid to the oral cavity of a user (see paragraph [0043]), the method comprising:
processing signals received from the IMU indicating position and/or movement of the oral treatment device relative to the oral cavity of the user (see paragraph [0063]); and
on the basis of the processing, outputting a control signal to the fluid delivery system to control delivery of the working fluid (see paragraph [0063]), the method further comprising:
processing the signals received from the IMU to determine that the oral treatment device is being moved according to a predetermined movement type (see paragraph [0066]), the predetermined movement type being a scrubbing movement (see paragraph [0066]); and
in response to the determination, outputting the control signal to the fluid delivery system to prevent delivery of the working fluid (see paragraphs [0063] and [0066]-[0067]).
Regarding Claim 16, GERHARDT et al. disclose the computer program of claim 15, wherein the scrubbing movement is back-and-forth movement (see “brushing motion” in paragraph [0066]; brushing motion is defined as back-and-forth strokes) of the oral treatment device.
Regarding Claim 18, GERHARDT et al. disclose the computer program of claim 15, wherein the determination of the scrubbing movement is based on whether the signals received from the IMU indicate that the oral treatment device is being moved back-and-forth repetitively (see “brushing motion” in paragraph [0066]; brushing motion is defined as back-and-forth strokes which would repeat).
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.
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) 17, 20, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GERHARDT et al. (USPGPUB 2022/0192807) as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 6-16, 18-19, and 21 above, and further in view of DUINEVELD et al. (EP 3,725,263).
Regarding claim 17, GERHARDT et al. disclose the computer program of claim 15. However, they do not disclose a computer program wherein the scrubbing movement is based on whether the signals received from the IMU indicate that oral treatment device is being moved back-and-forth at a speed beyond a predetermined speed threshold. DUINEVELD et al. disclose a computer program wherein the scrubbing movement is based on whether the signals received from the IMU indicate that oral treatment device is being moved back-and-forth at a speed beyond a predetermined speed threshold (see paragraph [0108]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the computer program disclosed by GERHARDT et al. by including a computer program wherein the scrubbing movement is based on whether the signals received from the IMU indicate that oral treatment device is being moved back-and-forth at a speed beyond a predetermined speed threshold, as disclosed by DUINEVELD et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a liquid flow rate that is regulated by the speed of the brush head (see paragraph [0108]).
Regarding claim 20, GERHARDT et al. disclose the oral treatment device of claim 1. However, they do not disclose an oral treatment device wherein the scrubbing movement is based on whether the signals received from the IMU indicate that oral treatment device is being moved back-and-forth at a speed beyond a predetermined speed threshold. DUINEVELD et al. disclose an oral treatment device wherein the scrubbing movement is based on whether the signals received from the IMU indicate that oral treatment device is being moved back-and-forth at a speed beyond a predetermined speed threshold (see paragraph [0108]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by GERHARDT et al. by including an oral treatment device wherein the scrubbing movement is based on whether the signals received from the IMU indicate that oral treatment device is being moved back-and-forth at a speed beyond a predetermined speed threshold, as disclosed by DUINEVELD et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a liquid flow rate that is regulated by the speed of the brush head (see paragraph [0108]).
Regarding claim 22, GERHARDT et al. disclose the method of claim 14. However, they do not disclose a method wherein the scrubbing movement is based on whether the signals received from the IMU indicate that oral treatment device is being moved back-and-forth at a speed beyond a predetermined speed threshold. DUINEVELD et al. disclose a method wherein the scrubbing movement is based on whether the signals received from the IMU indicate that oral treatment device is being moved back-and-forth at a speed beyond a predetermined speed threshold (see paragraph [0108]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by GERHARDT et al. by including a method wherein the scrubbing movement is based on whether the signals received from the IMU indicate that oral treatment device is being moved back-and-forth at a speed beyond a predetermined speed threshold, as disclosed by DUINEVELD et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a liquid flow rate that is regulated by the speed of the brush head (see paragraph [0108]).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL COLLINS whose telephone number is (571)272-8970. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached at (571) 270-3415. 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.
M.K.C.
5/27/2026
/MICHAEL COLLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights