DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 2, 4 and 9 – 27 are pending. Claims 3 and 5 – 8 are cancelled.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because :
Claim 22 recites: "A computer program comprising a set of instructions which, when executed by a computerised device, cause the computerised device to perform a method of operating an oral treatment device for use in treating an oral cavity of a user, the oral treatment device comprising a head for use in treating an oral cavity of a user, the oral cavity comprising a plurality of oral cavity zones; a fluid delivery system for delivering working fluid to the oral cavity of the user; and an inertial measurement unit, IMU, operable to output signals dependent on position and/or movement of the head of the oral treatment device, the method comprising: receiving signals from the IMU indicating position and/or movement of the head of the oral treatment device relative to the oral cavity of the user; processing the received signals to obtain classification data to identify, from the plurality of oral cavity zones, an oral cavity zone in which the head of the oral treatment device is located, wherein the obtained classification data indicates the oral cavity zone in which the head of the oral treatment device is located; and controlling the oral treatment device to output a control signal to a control circuit of the fluid delivery system using the indicated oral cavity zone, wherein upon receipt of the control signal, the control circuit of the fluid delivery system controls delivery of the working fluid according to the control signal."
MPEP 2106.03 explains the rules regarding the statutory categories of invention:
As the courts' definitions of machines, manufactures and compositions of matter indicate, a product must have a physical or tangible form in order to fall within one of these statutory categories. Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348, 111 USPQ2d at 1719. Thus, the Federal Circuit has held that a product claim to an intangible collection of information, even if created by human effort, does not fall within any statutory category. Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1720 (claimed "device profile" comprising two sets of data did not meet any of the categories because it was neither a process nor a tangible product). Similarly, software expressed as code or a set of instructions detached from any medium is an idea without physical embodiment. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449, 82 USPQ2d 1400, 1407 (2007); see also Benson, 409 U.S. 67, 175 USPQ2d 675 (An "idea" is not patent eligible). Thus, a product claim to a software program that does not also contain at least one structural limitation (such as a "means plus function" limitation) has no physical or tangible form, and thus does not fall within any statutory category. Another example of an intangible product that does not fall within a statutory category is a paradigm or business model for a marketing company. In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359, 1364, 90 USPQ2d 1035, 1039-40 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
[ . . . ]
A claim whose BRI covers both statutory and non-statutory embodiments embraces subject matter that is not eligible for patent protection and therefore is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Such claims fail the first step (Step 1: NO) and should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, for at least this reason. In such a case, it is a best practice for the examiner to point out the BRI and recommend an amendment, if possible, that would narrow the claim to those embodiments that fall within a statutory category.
For example, the BRI of machine readable media can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007). When the BRI encompasses transitory forms of signal transmission, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 as failing to claim statutory subject matter would be appropriate. Thus, a claim to a computer readable medium that can be a compact disc or a carrier wave covers a non-statutory embodiment and therefore should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See, e.g., Mentor Graphics v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d at 1294-95, 112 USPQ2d at 1134 (claims to a "machine-readable medium" were non-statutory, because their scope encompassed both statutory random-access memory and non-statutory carrier waves).
Claim 22 is directed to an ineligible "computer program including a set of instructions" without any physical or tangible form. The structure recited in the claim (e.g., "the computerised device to perform a method of operating an oral treatment device for use in treating an oral cavity of a user") are not positively recited and simply define how the instructions are intended to be used (i.e., "a set of instructions which, when executed by a computerised device, cause the computerised device to perform a method"). Furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim includes non-statutory embodiments since the disclosure explains that the invention may be implemented with software and the non-transitory forms are not mandatory:
Spec. p, 10: "Figure 2 shows a schematic block diagram of the oral treatment device 100, according to embodiments. The oral treatment device 100 comprises a controller 210. The controller 210 is operable to perform various data processing and/or control functions according to embodiments, as will be described in more detail below. The controller 210 may comprise one or more components. The one or more components may be implemented in hardware and/or software. The one or more components may be co-located or may be located remotely from each other in the oral treatment device 100. The controller 210 may be embodied as one or more software functions and/or hardware modules. In embodiments, the controller 210 comprises one or more processors 210a configured to process instructions and/or data. Operations performed by the one or more processors 210a may be carried out by hardware and/or software. The controller 210 may be used to implement the methods described herein. In embodiments, the controller 210 is operable to output control signals for controlling one or more components of the oral treatment device 100.
Spec., pp. 48-49: "In embodiments of the present disclosure, the oral treatment device 100 comprises a controller 210. The controller 210 is configured to perform various methods described herein. In embodiments, the controller 210 comprises a processing system. Such a processing system may comprise one or more processors and/or memory. Each device, component, or function as described in relation to any of the examples described herein, for example the image sensor equipment 230, user interface 250, and/or machine learning agent, may similarly comprise a processor or may be comprised in apparatus comprising a processor. One or more aspects of the embodiments described herein comprise processes performed by apparatus. In some examples, the apparatus comprises one or more processors configured to carry out these processes. In this regard, embodiments may be implemented at least in part by computer software stored in (non-transitory) memory and executable by the processor, or by hardware, or by a combination of tangibly stored software and hardware (and tangibly stored firmware). Embodiments also extend to computer programs, particularly computer programs on or in a carrier, adapted for putting the above-described embodiments into practice. The program may be in the form of non-transitory source code, object code, or in any other non-transitory form suitable for use in the implementation of processes according to embodiments. The carrier may be any entity or device capable of carrying the program, such as a RAM, a ROM, or an optical memory device, etc."
Spec., p. 49: "The techniques described herein may be implemented in software or hardware, or may be implemented using a combination of software and hardware. They may include configuring an apparatus to carry out and/or support any or all of techniques described herein. Although at least some aspects of the examples described herein with reference to the drawings comprise computer processes performed in processing systems or processors, examples described herein also extend to computer programs, for example computer programs on or in a carrier, adapted for putting the examples into practice. The carrier may be any entity or device capable of carrying the program. The carrier may comprise a computer readable storage media. Examples of tangible computer-readable storage media include, but are not limited to, an optical medium (e.g., CD-ROM, DVD-ROM or Blu-ray), flash memory card, floppy or hard disk or any other medium capable of storing computer-readable instructions such as firmware or microcode in at least one ROM or RAM or Programmable ROM (PROM) chips."
Thus, claim 22 is ineligible.
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 4 and 20 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 4 and 20 are rejected on the basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 721-22 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi, 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984). A Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives defined by the Markush group (i.e., alternatives from which a selection is to be made in the context of a combination or process, or alternative chemical compounds as a whole) share a “single structural similarity” and a common use. A Markush grouping meets these requirements in two situations. First, a Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives are all members of the same recognized physical or chemical class or the same art-recognized class, and are disclosed in the specification or known in the art to be functionally equivalent and have a common use. Second, where a Markush grouping describes alternative chemical compounds, whether by words or chemical formulas, and the alternatives do not belong to a recognized class as set forth above, the members of the Markush grouping may be considered to share a “single structural similarity” and common use where the alternatives share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. See MPEP § 2117.
The Markush grouping of claim 4 is improper because the alternatives defined by the Markush grouping do not share both a single structural similarity and a common use for the following reasons: Since the claim 4 Markush grouping requires selecting from an open list of alternatives (i.e., "a tooth surface selected from a list comprising"), the claim fails to comport with the definiteness requirement since it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim. The disclosure fails to resolve this ambiguity since it merely repeats the claim language. See, e.g., Spec., pp. 5, 33, 38 ("a given oral cavity zone of the plurality of oral cavity zones is indicative of: a quadrant or sextant of the oral cavity of the user; and a surface selected from a list comprising: buccal, lingual, and occlusal surfaces"). Since teeth include more than buccal, lingual, and occlusal surfaces, see, e.g., Surfaces of the Teeth, 3/16/2016, Surfaces of the Teeth - An Overview of Dental Anatomy - Dentalcare, it is not clear which other surfaces are included, for example, in the open claim scope (Also attached).
PNG
media_image1.png
716
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
To overcome this rejection, Applicant may set forth each alternative (or grouping of patentably indistinct alternatives) within an improper Markush grouping in a series of independent or dependent claims and/or present convincing arguments that the group members recited in the alternative within a single claim in fact share a single structural similarity as well as a common use.
Claim 20 is directed toward the oral care device, however, claims method steps. The limitations are vague in that they unclear if they are directed to the device or the process of using the device.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 – 5 and 9 – 20 and 22 – 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serval et al. (WO 2018037318 A1) in view of Duineveld (EP 3725263 A1) and Deane (WO 2019/185497 A1) as cited by Applicant.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Serval teaches an oral treatment device (oral hygiene devices, 1; Fig. 1) comprising: a head (head, 42; Fig. 3A) for use in treating an oral cavity of a user (Paragraph [0098]), the oral cavity comprising a plurality of oral cavity zones (Paragraph [0171]); an inertial measurement unit, IMU (Paragraph [0021]), operable to output signals dependent on position and/or movement of the head of the oral treatment device (Paragraph [0109]); a fluid delivery system (flosser, 1) for delivering working fluid to the oral cavity of the user (Paragraph [0130]), the fluid delivery system comprising a control circuit (interfacing circuit; Paragraph [0080])and a controller (controller, 13) configured to: receive signals from the IMU indicating position and/or movement of the head of the oral treatment device relative to the oral cavity of the user (Paragraph [0134] and [0134]); process the received signals using a trained classification algorithm to obtain classification data (Paragraph [0179] and [0180]), wherein the classification algorithm is trained to identify, from the plurality of oral cavity zones, an oral cavity zone in which the head of the oral treatment device is located (Paragraph [0191] and [0208] – 02103]) , wherein the obtained classification data indicates the oral cavity zone in which the head of the oral treatment device is located (Paragraph [0171]); and control the oral treatment device to output a control signal based on the classification data (Paragraphs [0220] – [0224]).
Serval does not explicitly teach the oral treatment device to output a control signal based on the classification data to the control circuit of the fluid delivery system such that upon receipt of the control signal, the control circuit of the fluid delivery system controls the delivery of the working fluid according to the control signal; wherein the trained classification algorithm is located on the oral treatment device.
Duineveld, however, teaches the oral treatment device (fluid based tooth cleaning system, 10) to output a control signal (via control unit, 50) based on the indicated oral cavity zone (Paragraph [0028]) to the control circuit of the fluid delivery system such that upon receipt of the control signal, the control circuit of the fluid delivery system controls the delivery of the working fluid according to the control signal (Abstract).
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 of Serval to further include the oral treatment device to output a control signal based on the classification data to the control circuit of the fluid delivery system such that upon receipt of the control signal, the control circuit of the fluid delivery system controls the delivery of the working fluid according to the control signal, as taught by Duineveld, to provide a device capable of dislodging matter located within a gap between the user's teeth, thus providing an improved cleaning experience.
Deane, further teaches an oral care device (personal care device, 12) wherein the algorithm is located on the oral treatment device (12; Paragraphs [0025] – [0026]).
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 of Serval to further include wherein the algorithm is located on the oral treatment device, as taught by Deane, to provide a device that delivers speed and reliability.
Regarding Claim 2, Serval, as modified, teaches the oral treatment device (Fig. 1) wherein the plurality of oral cavity zones comprises more than two oral cavity zones (Paragraphs [0130], [0134], [0171] and [0193]).
Regarding Claim 4, Serval, as modified, teaches the oral treatment device (Fig. 1) wherein a given oral cavity zone of the plurality of oral cavity zones is indicative of: a quadrant or sextant of the oral cavity (Paragraph [0193]), and a tooth surface selected from a list comprising: buccal, lingual, and occlusal tooth surfaces (Paragraph [0164]).
Regarding Claim 5, Serval, as modified, teaches the oral treatment device (Fig. 1) wherein the classification algorithm comprises a machine learning algorithm (Paragraphs [0198] – [0206]).
Regarding Claim 9, Serval, as modified, teaches the oral treatment device of clam 1 as discussed above.
Serval does not explicitly teach the control signal is operable to cause the control circuit to prevent the delivery of the working fluid based on the classification data.
Duineveld, however, teaches the control signal is operable to cause the control circuit to prevent the delivery of the working fluid based on the classification data (Paragraph [0029]).
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 of Serval to further include the control signal is operable to cause the control circuit to prevent the delivery of the working fluid based on the classification data, as taught by Duineveld, to provide a device that can stop the flow of fluids, thus preventing waste and saving money.
Regarding Claim 10, Serval, as modified, teaches the oral treatment device (Fig. 1) wherein the controller (13) is configured to cause a user interface (Fig. 1) to provide an output dependent on the classification data (Paragraphs [0026] – [0030]).
Regarding Claim 11, Serval, as modified, teaches the oral treatment device (Fig. 1) wherein the controller (13) is configured to cause the user interface (Fig. 1) to provide the output during use of the oral treatment device in treating the oral cavity of the user (Paragraphs [0036] – [0047]).
Regarding Claim 12, Serval, as modified, teaches the oral treatment device (Fig. 1) wherein the controller (13) is configured to cause the user interface (Fig. 1) to provide the output after use of the oral treatment device in treating the oral cavity of the user (Paragraph [0080]).
Regarding Claim 13, Serval, as modified, teaches the oral treatment device (Fig. 1) wherein the output provided by the user interface comprises an audio, visual and/or haptic output (Paragraph [0101]).
Regarding Claim 14, Serval, as modified, teaches the oral treatment device (Fig. 1) wherein the user interface (Fig. 1) is comprised in a remote device (30), and wherein the controller (13) is configured to output a signal to the remote device to cause the user interface to provide the output (Paragraph [0180]).
Regarding Claim 15, Serval, as modified, teaches the oral treatment device (Fig. 1) wherein the oral treatment device comprises the user interface (Paragraph [0101]).
Regarding Claim 16, Serval, as modified, teaches the oral treatment device (Fig. 1) wherein the controller (13) is configured to cause a user interface to provide an output, the output comprising a notification notifying the user to position the head of the oral treatment device in a predetermined oral cavity zone (Paragraph [0101]).
Regarding Claim 17, Serval, as modified, teaches the oral treatment device (Fig. 1) wherein the controller (13) is configured to modify the classification algorithm using the received signals from the IMU (Paragraphs [0168] – [0171).
Regarding Claim 18, Serval, as modified, teaches the oral treatment device (Fig. 1) wherein the controller (13) is configured to store the classification data in a memory (Paragraph [0180]).
Regarding Claim 19, Serval, as modified, teaches the oral treatment device (Fig. 1) wherein the controller (13) is configured to output the classification data for transmission to a remote device (Paragraph [0092]).
Regarding Claim 20, Serval, as modified, teaches the oral treatment device (Fig. 1) wherein the controller (13) is configured to: after controlling delivery of the working fluid according to the control signal: output the classification data for transmission to a remote device (Paragraph [0128]; receive training data from a remote device; and modify the classification algorithm using the received training data (Paragraphs [0214] – [0219]).
Regarding Independent Claim 22, Serval teaches a computer program (Claims 23 – 24) comprising a set of instructions which, when executed by a computerized device, cause the computerized device to perform a method of operating an oral treatment device for use in treating an oral cavity of a user (Paragraph [0043]), the oral treatment device comprising a head (42) for use in treating an oral cavity of a user (Paragraph [0098]), the oral cavity comprising a plurality of oral cavity zones (Paragraph [0109]), a fluid delivery system (flosser, 1) for delivering working fluid to the oral cavity of the user (Paragraph [0130]); and an inertial measurement unit, IMU (Paragraph [0021]), operable to output signals dependent on position and/or movement of the head of the oral treatment device (Paragraph [0109]), the method comprising: receive signals from the IMU indicating position and/or movement of the head of the oral treatment device relative to the oral cavity of the user (Paragraph [0134] and [0134]); process the received signals using a trained non-linear classification algorithm to obtain classification data (Paragraph [0179] and [0180]), wherein the classification algorithm is trained to identify, from the plurality of oral cavity zones, an oral cavity zone in which the head of the oral treatment device is located (Paragraph [0191] and [0208] – 02103]) , wherein the obtained classification data indicates the oral cavity zone in which the head of the oral treatment device is located (Paragraph [0171]).
Serval does not explicitly teach the oral treatment device to output a control signal based on the classification data to the control circuit of the fluid delivery system such that upon receipt of the control signal, the control circuit of the fluid delivery system controls the delivery of the working fluid according to the control signal; wherein the trained classification algorithm is located on the oral treatment device.
Duineveld, however, teaches the oral treatment device (fluid based tooth cleaning system, 10) to output a control signal (via control unit, 50) based on the indicated oral cavity zone (Paragraph [0028]) to the control circuit of the fluid delivery system such that upon receipt of the control signal, the control circuit of the fluid delivery system controls the delivery of the working fluid according to the control signal (Abstract).
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 of Serval to further include the oral treatment device to output a control signal based on the classification data to the control circuit of the fluid delivery system such that upon receipt of the control signal, the control circuit of the fluid delivery system controls the delivery of the working fluid according to the control signal, as taught by Duineveld, to provide a device capable of dislodging matter located within a gap between the user's teeth, thus providing an improved cleaning experience.
Deane, further teaches an oral care device (personal care device, 12) wherein the algorithm is located on the oral treatment device (12; Paragraphs [0025] – [0026]).
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 of Serval to further include wherein the algorithm is located on the oral treatment device, as taught by Deane, to provide a device that delivers speed and reliability.
Regarding Claim 23, Serval, as modified, teaches the oral treatment device (Fig. 1) wherein the trained classification algorithm is a trained non-linear classification algorithm (Paragraphs [0179] – [0180]).
Regarding Claim 24, Serval, as modified, teaches the oral treatment device (Fig. 1) wherein the received signals are processed using a trained non-linear classification algorithm to obtain the classification data, the trained non-linear classification algorithm being located on the oral care treatment device (Paragraphs [0179] – [0180]).
Regarding Claim 25, Serval, as modified, teaches the oral treatment device (Fig. 1) wherein the trained classification algorithm is a trained non-linear classification algorithm (Paragraphs [0179] – [0180]).
21 and 25 – 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serval et al. (WO 2018037318 A1) in view of Duineveld (EP 3725263 A1) and Jeanne (WO 2019/192862 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 21, Serval teaches a method of operating an oral treatment device for use in treating an oral cavity of a user, the oral treatment device comprising: a head (head, 42; Fig. 3A) for use in treating an oral cavity of a user (Paragraph [0098]), the oral cavity comprising a plurality of oral cavity zones (Paragraph [0171]); a fluid delivery system (flosser, 1) for delivering working fluid to the oral cavity of the user (Paragraph [0130]), the fluid delivery system comprising a control circuit (interfacing circuit; Paragraph [0080]); an inertial measurement unit, IMU (Paragraph [0021]), operable to output signals dependent on position and/or movement of the head of the oral treatment device (Paragraph [0109]); a controller (controller, 13) wherein before treating the oral cavity of the user, the method comprises, wherein to treat the oral care cavity of the user the method comprises at the controller (13); receive signals from the IMU indicating position and/or movement of the head of the oral treatment device relative to the oral cavity of the user (Paragraph [0134] and [0134]); process the received signals to obtain classification data using the trained classification algorithm(Paragraph [0179] and [0180]), to identify, from the plurality of oral cavity zones, an oral cavity zone in which the head of the oral treatment device is located (Paragraph [0191] and [0208] – 02103]) , wherein the obtained classification data indicates the oral cavity zone in which the head of the oral treatment device is located (Paragraph [0171]).
Serval does not explicitly teach the oral treatment device to output a control signal based on the classification data to the control circuit of the fluid delivery system such that upon receipt of the control signal, the control circuit of the fluid delivery system controls the delivery of the working fluid according to the control signal; training a classification algorithm by a support-vector machine as a non- probabilistic non-linear binary classifier with a Gaussian radial basis function kernel to produce a trained classification algorithm: and wherein to treat the oral cavity of the user, the method comprises, at the controller.
Duineveld, however, teaches the oral treatment device (fluid based tooth cleaning system, 10) to output a control signal (via control unit, 50) based on the indicated oral cavity zone (Paragraph [0028]) to the control circuit of the fluid delivery system such that upon receipt of the control signal, the control circuit of the fluid delivery system controls the delivery of the working fluid according to the control signal (Abstract).
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 of Serval to further include the oral treatment device to output a control signal based on the classification data to the control circuit of the fluid delivery system such that upon receipt of the control signal, the control circuit of the fluid delivery system controls the delivery of the working fluid according to the control signal, as taught by Duineveld, to provide a device capable of dislodging matter located within a gap between the user's teeth, thus providing an improved cleaning experience.
Jeanne, further teaches training a classification algorithm by a support-vector machine (Paragraph [0052]) as a non- probabilistic non-linear binary classifier with a Gaussian radial basis function kernel to produce a trained classification algorithm (Paragraphs [0013] and [0049]).
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 of Serval to further include training a classification algorithm by a support-vector machine as a non- probabilistic non-linear binary classifier with a Gaussian radial basis function kernel to produce a trained classification algorithm, as taught by Jeanne, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements
perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claims 26 and 27, Serval, as modified, teaches the oral treatment device (Fig. 1) according to claim 1 and the computer program according to claim 22, as discussed above.
Serval does not explicitly teach wherein the trained classification algorithm is trained by a support-vector machine as a non-probabilistic non- linear binary classifier with a Gaussian radial basis function kernel.
Jeanne, however, teaches wherein the trained classification algorithm is trained by a support-vector machine (Paragraph [0052]) as a non- probabilistic non-linear binary classifier with a Gaussian radial basis function kernel (Paragraphs [0013] and [0049]).
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 of Serval to further include training a classification algorithm by a support-vector machine as a non- probabilistic non-linear binary classifier with a Gaussian radial basis function kernel, as taught by Jeanne, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicants Arguments/Remarks dated July 27, 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1 – 5 and 9 – 25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Deanne and Jeanne.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATINA N HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday; 5:30am to 3:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KATINA N. HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights