DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the filing filed on May 18, 2026 Claims 1-3 and 5-15 havebeen examined in this application.
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 May 18th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3 and 5-15 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have not overcome each and every rejection utilizing the prior art of record previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed February 18th, 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 7/07/2023, has been acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 5/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments that the claimed subject matter is eligible subject matter under MPEP § 2106.05(a) II “the courts have also found that improvements in technology beyond computer functionality may demonstrate patent eligibility”, and points to examples that the courts have indicated may be sufficient to show an improvement in existing technology, which include:
“i. Particular computerized method of operating a rubber molding press, e.g., a modification of conventional rubber-molding processes to utilize a thermocouple inside the mold to constantly monitor the temperature and thus reduce under- and over-curing problems common in the art, Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 8 and 10 (1981)”
has been considered, but is not persuasive. The example from Diamond v. Diehr is drawn to a product that was improved through a process, however it is not applicable to this application, because the fact pattern does not apply here. Diamond v. Diehr describes a product that had its molecular structure changed in order to improve the product, whereas this application claims to improve the data gathered from brushing one’s teeth. These improvements are not analogous. Furthermore, although the amended claims recite additional clarifications of structural elements and details of processes, the claims as written still recite the abstract ideas of “receiving data”, “monitoring data”, “rejecting data”, and “providing a user with feedback”. Lastly, utilizing a “toothbrush” and sensors within the “handle” of the toothbrush still constitute insignificant extra-solution activity, because they are a means of performing the abstract ideas of data receiving, monitoring, and filtering. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 stands.
In response to the applicant’s argument that claims 1-3, 5-13 and 15 are unpatentable over Jeanne (US 2018/0160796 A1) in view of Serval (US 2019/0200746 A1) for failing to teach “rejecting a scrubbing motion detection when excessive rotation is detected”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Serval’s “stopping/starting recording” based on a threshold reads on “rejecting a scrubbing motion detection when excessive rotation is detected,” because “stopping recording” is rejecting the detection of data. In addition, the threshold of Serval is based on the movement of the toothbrush, which includes rotation in various axes. Both the claimed invention and Serval attempt to achieve the same goal of recording data while the toothbrush is in use and not recording data when there are motions (or lack thereof) not related to brushing/scrubbing. Since the combination of Jeanne in view of Serval teaches the claimed limitation, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 stands.
Therefore, claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15 are unpatentable over Jeanne et al. (US 2018/0160796 A1) in view of Serval et al. (US 2019/0200746 A1), and for at least these reasons, a prima facie case of obviousness has been made and a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 stands.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are drawn to a method (i.e., a process), claims 8-15 are drawn to a device (i.e., a manufacture). As such, claims 1-15 are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Under Step 2A Prong 1, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite any judicial exceptions including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes). Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite a method for providing feedback on scrubbing motion of a toothbrush having a handle, during its use, the method comprising: receiving motion information data of the toothbrush from an inertial measurement unit located within the handle; monitoring scrubbing motion data of the toothbrush along a first axis; monitoring rotation motion data of the toothbrush for excessive rotation around a second axis and a third axis of the toothbrush; rejecting a scrubbing motion detection when excessive rotation is determined by obtaining a rotational value from the received rotation motion data, comparing the rotational value to a set rotational threshold value, and rejecting the scrubbing motion detection when the rotational value exceeds the set rotational value; and providing the user with scrubbing feedback in response to a determination that the motion information data are within predefined parameters of a targeted motion of the toothbrush, wherein false scrubbing feedback is eliminated from the scrubbing feedback. The recited steps, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are receiving motion information data, monitoring scrubbing and rotation motion data, rejecting a scrubbing motion, and providing a user with scrubbing feedback. The recited steps, as drafted, are a process that is a method of applying an abstract idea, specifically mental processes (listening (receiving motion information data), observation (monitoring scrubbing and rotation data), filtering (rejecting scrubbing motion), and judgement (providing a user with scrubbing feedback)) and/or certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of brushing one’s teeth (receiving scrubbing motion data, monitoring scrubbing motion data, filtering/rejecting scrubbing motion data, providing feedback in response to scrubbing motion). If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, include a mental process and/or certain methods of organizing human activity, the limitations fall under the abstract ideas judicial exception and therefore recite ineligible subject matter. Accordingly, claims 1, 8, and 15 recite abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite additional elements that are significantly more than the judicial exception or meaningfully limit the practice of the judicial exception. The additional elements are listed below:
Representative Claim 1: A method for providing feedback on scrubbing motion of a toothbrush having a handle, during its use, the method comprising: receiving motion information data of the toothbrush from an inertial measurement unit located within the handle; monitoring scrubbing motion data of the toothbrush along a first axis; monitoring rotation motion data of the toothbrush for excessive rotation around a second axis and a third axis of the toothbrush; rejecting a scrubbing motion detection when excessive rotation is determined by obtaining a rotational value from the received rotation motion data, comparing the rotational value to a set rotational threshold value, and rejecting the scrubbing motion detection when the rotational value exceeds the set rotational value; and providing the user with scrubbing feedback in response to a determination that the motion information data are within predefined parameters of a targeted motion of the toothbrush, wherein false scrubbing feedback is eliminated from the scrubbing feedback.
Representative Claim 8: A power toothbrush for detecting scrubbing motion during use of the toothbrush, the toothbrush comprising: a handle; an inertial measurement unit within the handle to measure motions of the toothbrush and to generate motion data indicative of the motions of the toothbrush; at least one processor within the handle operable to, during an operating session: obtain information from the inertial measurement unit corresponding to the scrubbing motion of the toothbrush; obtain information from the inertial measurement unit corresponding to a rotation motion of the handle; calculate a rotational value from the received rotation motion information and compare the rotational value to a set rotational threshold value; calculate a scrubbing motion indication in parallel with the rotational value; reject the corresponding scrubbing motion indication when the rotational value exceeds the set rotational threshold value; and provide the user operating the toothbrush with scrubbing feedback wherein false scrubbing detection feedback is eliminated.
Regarding Claim 15: A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, causes a personal hygiene device to perform a method comprising: receiving motion information data of the personal hygiene device from an inertial measurement unit located within the personal hygiene device; monitoring scrubbing motion data of the personal hygiene device along a first axis; monitoring rotation motion data of the personal hygiene device for excessive rotation around a second axis and a third axis of the personal hygiene device; rejecting a scrubbing motion detection when excessive rotation is detected; and providing a user operating the personal hygiene device with scrubbing feedback in response to a determination that the motion information data are within predefined parameters of a targeted motion of the personal hygiene device, wherein false scrubbing feedback is eliminated from the scrubbing feedback.
(Examiner notes: The underlined claim terms above are interpreted as additional elements beyond the abstract idea and are further analyzed under Step 2A - Prong Two)
The additional elements are instructions for applying the judicial exceptions with a generic computing device as, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional elements of processors, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, a personal hygiene device, a toothbrush, and an inertial measurement unit are generic computer components for performing the above method, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional elements are generic components of a computing device used to apply the abstract idea.
Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the steps of: receiving data, monitoring scrubbing motion data, monitoring rotation motion data, rejecting scrubbing motion detection when a condition has been met, rejecting scrubbing motion detection when a data point exceeds a threshold, and providing feedback to a user (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), then it also falls within the “Organizing Human Processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas. The recited steps are a simulation that applies an abstract idea, specifically mental processes (observation (receiving data, monitoring scrubbing motion data, monitoring rotation motion data, providing feedback to a user), and/or evaluation (, rejecting scrubbing motion detection when a condition has been met, rejecting scrubbing motion detection when a data point exceeds a threshold)). If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, include a mental process and/or certain methods of organizing human activity (CMOHA), the limitations fall under the abstract ideas judicial exception and therefore recite ineligible subject matter. Accordingly, claims 1, 8, and 15 recite abstract ideas
Dependent Claims 2-3, 5-7, and 9-14 further narrow the abstract idea monitoring data, rejecting or filtering data, providing data to a user (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), then it also falls within the “Mental Processes” and is an abstract idea and then it also falls within the “Organizing Human Processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas and then also falls within the “Organizing Human Processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Independent claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 recite/describe nearly identical steps (and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claims 1, 8, and 15 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Under Step 2A Prong 2 the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A - Prong Two: In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “addition element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “receiving data”, “monitoring scrubbing motion data, monitoring rotation motion data”, “rejecting scrubbing motion detection when a condition has been met”, “rejecting scrubbing motion detection when a data point exceeds a threshold”, and “providing feedback to a user”, etc. (Claims 1, 8, and 15) are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.
Similarly, the limitations of applying “receiving data”, “monitoring scrubbing motion data, monitoring rotation motion data”, “rejecting scrubbing motion detection when a condition has been met”, “rejecting scrubbing motion detection when a data point exceeds a threshold”, and “providing feedback to a user” etc. (Independent Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15, and dependent claims 2-3, 5-7, and 9-14 are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components in a vehicle. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Further, the additional limitations beyond the abstract idea identified above, serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, it/they serve(s) to limit the application of the abstract idea to computerized environments (e.g., inertial measurement unit, non-transitory computer readable medium, a toothbrush, a processor, a personal hygiene device etc.). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The recited additional element(s) of receiving data, monitoring scrubbing motion data, monitoring rotation motion data, rejecting scrubbing motion detection when a condition has been met, rejecting scrubbing motion detection when a data point exceeds a threshold, and providing feedback to a user (Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15), additionally and/or alternatively simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-7, and 9-14, fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B: In step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is/are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for an "inventive concept." An "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the identified additional elements in independent claim(s) 1, 8, and 15, and dependent claims 2-3, 5-7, and 9-14 are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The recited additional element(s) of receiving data, monitoring scrubbing motion data, monitoring rotation motion data, rejecting scrubbing motion detection when a condition has been met, rejecting scrubbing motion detection when a data point exceeds a threshold, and providing feedback to a user (Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15), additionally and/or alternatively simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea) i.e. selecting users (i.e. using a user interface) is similar to “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”, is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here) (See MPEP 2106.05(d) (II)).
This conclusion is based on a factual determination. Applicant’s own disclosure at paragraph [0038] acknowledges that “Personal hygiene device is operable to acquire data from sensors 32 or any other sensor resident therein, and analyze the data to determine a quality of a brushing motion of the user operating personal hygiene device. One or more algorithms present on personal hygiene device may obtain data from sensors and convert that data into numerical representations.” (i.e. conventional nature of using a computer and/or computer program). This additional element therefore does not ensure the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or/and append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, and/or simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
The dependent claims 2-3, 5-7, and 9-14 are dependent from claims 1, and 8 and include all the limitations of the independent claims, but fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective independent claims is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim). Therefore, the dependent claims recite the same abstract idea. The limitations of the dependent claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For example:
The limitations of claims 2, 3, 9, 10, and 11 recite clarifications of gyroscopes, a triaxial magnetometer, and an accelerometer. Such clarifications, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are merely defining/selecting a type of data to be manipulated which, per MPEP 2106.05(g), is insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claims is also applicable on these claims.
The limitations of claim 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, and 14 recite clarifications of a summed quadrature calculation, a summation calculation, an output interface providing audio, video, and/or haptic feedback, a processor that supports execution of floating-point operations, and a processor that supports execution of fixed-point operations. The limitations are further instructions for applying the judicial exceptions with a generic computing device/interface acting as an intermediary for performing the abstract ideas of receiving data, monitoring scrubbing motion data, monitoring rotation motion data, rejecting scrubbing motion detection when a condition has been met, rejecting scrubbing motion detection when a data point exceeds a threshold, and providing feedback to a user, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claims is also applicable on these claims.
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, claims 1-3 and 5-15 are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claims 1-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeanne et al. (US 2018/0160796 A1) in view of Serval et al. (US 2019/0200746 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Jeanne discloses method for providing feedback on scrubbing motion of a toothbrush having a handle, during its use ([0006] The oral hygiene device, in one embodiment, includes a handle including a power drive system, an attachment assembly, a drive train assembly coupled to the attachment assembly, a magnet operable to produce a magnetic field, at least one sensor mounted within the magnetic field produced by the magnet, and at least one processor, [0125] the motion detected by the accelerometer corresponds to proper brushing/scrubbing technique), the method comprising:
receiving motion information data of the toothbrush from an inertial measurement unit located within the handle ([0124] standalone accelerometers, parts or all of one or more inertial measurement units (“IMUs”), accelerometers may be capable of detection motion);
monitoring scrubbing motion data of the toothbrush along a first axis ([0124] various single axis accelerometers may be used within oral hygiene device, to detect changes in motion of oral hygiene device along multiple axes (e.g., x-, y-, and/or z-axis));
monitoring rotation motion data of the toothbrush for excessive rotation around a second axis and a third axis of the toothbrush ([0124] may be used to detect motion of oral hygiene device along two or more axes);
rejecting a scrubbing motion detection when excessive rotation is determined by obtaining a rotational value from the received rotation motion data, comparing the rotational value to a set rotational threshold value, and rejecting the scrubbing motion detection when the rotational value exceeds the set rotational value; and
providing the user with scrubbing feedback in response to a determination that the motion information data are within predefined parameters of a targeted motion of the toothbrush, wherein false scrubbing feedback is eliminated from the scrubbing feedback ([0040] remove any effects of gravity from the accelerometer’s signal (false feedback or noise is eliminated), [0058] User interface includes a target brushing motion window that indicates bounds of the targeted brushing motion for the user operating oral hygiene device (predefined parameters), [0066] to application of a band-pass filter to remove noise/irrelevant frequency information, [0107] present user a feedback message advising the user to change the position of their brushing).
However, Jeanne is not relied upon disclosing rejecting a scrubbing motion detection when excessive rotation is determined by obtaining a rotational value from the received rotation motion data, comparing the rotational value to a set rotational threshold value, and rejecting the scrubbing motion detection when the rotational value exceeds the set rotational value.
Serval teaches rejecting a scrubbing motion detection when excessive rotation is determined by obtaining a rotational value from the received rotation motion data, comparing the rotational value to a set rotational threshold value, and rejecting the scrubbing motion detection when the rotational value exceeds the set rotational value ([0083] once the user picks up the oral hygiene device 1, the oral hygiene device 1 will generally be rotated roughly 45 degrees to be held primarily horizontal during brushing. Accordingly, one threshold criteria for determining that brushing is initiated 74 would be whether the oral hygiene device 1 has been titled within a certain angle range (rotational threshold) indicating the oral hygiene device 1 is horizontal or near horizontal. This could be an angle range of 20 degrees, 5 degrees, 10 degrees, or other suitable ranges. Additionally, a series of calibration sessions may indicate a suitable range. Of course, this could be detected by optical sensors 9 and/or motion sensors 11 (received rotation motion data), [0091] Once the data analyzed by the controller falls below (exceeds – meaning to go beyond a point, boundary, or limit) a certain threshold (compare to a threshold value) that indicates use, the system may stop recording data (rejecting scrubbing motion detection) or determine that brushing has stopped, [0097] The system 100 may determine if these motions are being performed the relative amount of these motions by filtering the data from motion sensors 11 or optical sensors 9 in certain axes that is indicative of each motion (rejecting scrubbing motion in various axes or rotational points)).
Jeanne and Serval are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because they are in the same field of oral hygiene systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the oral hygiene system, as disclosed by Jeanne, further including rejecting a scrubbing motion detection when excessive rotation is determined by obtaining a rotational value from the received rotation motion data, comparing the rotational value to a set rotational threshold value, and rejecting the scrubbing motion detection when the rotational value exceeds the set rotational value, as taught by Serval for the purpose of only recording data when brushing motions fall within the brushing range of frequencies (Serval, [0090]-[0093]).
Regarding Claim 2, Jeanne discloses wherein the inertial measurement unit includes at least two gyroscope sensors to determine rotation motion data of the toothbrush ([0124] gyroscopes).
Regarding Claim 3, Jeanne discloses wherein the inertial measurement unit includes a triaxial magnetometer (([0124] magneto meters; multi-axis accelerometers; multiple axes (e.g., x-, y-, and/or z-axis) (triaxial – three axes – x, y, z)).
Regarding Claim 5, Jeanne discloses wherein the rotational value is obtained by an averaged summed quadrature calculation ([0072] Integrations of the signals may be used to obtain various characteristics (Summed Quadrature Calculation is a way to approximate an Integral)).
Regarding Claim 6, Jeanne discloses wherein the rotational value is obtained by a summation calculation ([0072] Integrations of the signals may be used to obtain various characteristics (Integration is summation of continuous values within a range)).
Regarding Claim 7, Jeanne discloses wherein the feedback includes haptic feedback, visual feedback, and/or audio scrubbing feedback ([0046] As another example, input/output interface may provide an audio, visual, or haptic feedback to the user).
Regarding Claim 8, Jeanne discloses a power toothbrush for detecting scrubbing motion during use of the device toothbrush, the personal hygiene device toothbrush comprising ([0006] The oral hygiene device, in one embodiment , includes a handle including a power drive system (power toothbrush), [0125] the motion detected by the accelerometer corresponds to proper brushing/scrubbing technique):
a handle ([0006] The oral hygiene device, in one embodiment, includes a handle including a power drive system);
an inertial measurement unit within the handle to measure motions of the personal hygiene device toothbrush and to generate motion data indicative of the motions of the personal hygiene device toothbrush ([0010] The at least one processor is operable to obtain information from the at least one accelerometer corresponding to a brushing motion of the oral hygiene device, [0125] The accelerometers detect the motion of oral hygiene device as they move along various axes to perform a brushing motion);
at least one processor within the handle operable to, during an operating session ([0010] The oral hygiene device includes a handle portion including a power drive system, an attachment assembly, memory located within the handle portion, at least one accelerometer located within the handle portion , and at least one processor):
obtain information from the inertial measurement unit corresponding to the scrubbing motion of the personal hygiene device toothbrush;
calculate a rotational value from the received rotation motion information and compare the rotational value to a set rotational threshold value ([0058] User interface includes a target brushing motion window that indicates bounds of the targeted brushing motion for the user operating oral hygiene device (bounds = threshold value));
calculate a scrubbing motion indication in parallel with the rotational value ([0133] the difference between the received motion information (e.g., a frequency of motion) and the targeted brushing motion frequency is calculated); and
provide the user operating the personal hygiene device toothbrush with scrubbing feedback wherein false scrubbing detection feedback is eliminated ([0040] remove any effects of gravity from the accelerometer’s signal (false feedback or noise is eliminated), [0058] User interface includes a target brushing motion window that indicates bounds of the targeted brushing motion for the user operating oral hygiene device (predefined parameters), [0107] present user a feedback message advising the user to change the position of their brushing).
However, Jeanne is not relied upon disclosing obtain information from the inertial measurement unit corresponding to the scrubbing motion of the personal hygiene device toothbrush; obtain information from the inertial measurement unit corresponding to a rotation motion of the personal hygiene device handle; and reject the corresponding scrubbing motion indication when the rotational value exceeds the set rotational threshold value.
Serval teaches obtain information from the inertial measurement unit corresponding to the scrubbing motion of the personal hygiene device toothbrush ([0124] In other embodiments, the gyrometer and/or accelerometer detected inertial changes may be used in conjunction with or separate from magnetometer (combination of accelerometer, gyrometer and magnetometer is analogous to an inertial measurement unit)… Depending on the location of the inertial sensor, the orientation information may be combined with the inertial movement (motion) data to indicate the position of the bristles (bristles correspond to scrubbing/brushing));
obtain information from the inertial measurement unit corresponding to a rotation motion of the personal hygiene device handle ([0118] The data from a magnetometer 11 may be combined with the data output from an accelerometer 11 or data from the gyrometer 11 and accelerometer 11 (combination of accelerometer, gyrometer and magnetometer is analogous to an inertial measurement unit) or optical sensor/camera 9 to determine orientation and/or position… or how it is rotated about a its longitudinal axis (a longitudinal axis running lengthwise through the toothbrush) with respect to a gravity pointing down towards the earth, [0124] In other embodiments, the gyrometer and/or accelerometer detected inertial changes may be used in conjunction with or separate from magnetometer… In some embodiments, the orientation information may be combined with data output from sensors 11 or optical sensors 9 that indicate translational inertia, or positional changes); and
reject the corresponding scrubbing motion indication when the rotational value exceeds the set rotational threshold value ([0083] once the user picks up the oral hygiene device 1, the oral hygiene device 1 will generally be rotated roughly 45 degrees to be held primarily horizontal during brushing. Accordingly, one threshold criteria for determining that brushing is initiated 74 would be whether the oral hygiene device 1 has been titled within a certain angle range (rotational threshold) indicating the oral hygiene device 1 is horizontal or near horizontal. This could be an angle range of 20 degrees, 5 degrees, 10 degrees, or other suitable ranges. Additionally, a series of calibration sessions may indicate a suitable range. Of course, this could be detected by optical sensors 9 and/or motion sensors 11 (received rotation motion data), [0091] Once the data analyzed by the controller falls below (exceeds – meaning to go beyond a point, boundary, or limit) a certain threshold (compare to a threshold value) that indicates use, the system may stop recording data (rejecting scrubbing motion detection) or determine that brushing has stopped, [0097] The system 100 may determine if these motions are being performed the relative amount of these motions by filtering the data from motion sensors 11 or optical sensors 9 in certain axes that is indicative of each motion (rejecting scrubbing motion in various axes or rotational points).
Regarding Claim 9, Jeanne discloses wherein the inertial measurement unit includes at least one accelerometer to detect the scrubbing motion of the toothbrush ([0124] sensors of oral hygiene device may correspond to one or more accelerometers).
Regarding Claim 10, Jeanne discloses wherein the inertial measurement unit includes at least two gyro sensors to detect rotation motion of the handle ([0124] gyroscopes).
Regarding Claim 11, Jeanne discloses wherein the inertial measurement unit includes a triaxial magnetometer ([0124] magneto meters; multi-axis accelerometers; multiple axes (e.g., x-, y-, and/or z-axis) (triaxial – three axes – x, y, z)).
Regarding Claim 12, Jeanne discloses further comprising an output interface operable to provide audio, visual, and/or haptic scrubbing feedback ([0046] As another example, input/output interface may provide an audio, visual, or haptic feedback to the user).
Regarding Claim 13, Jeanne discloses wherein the processor supports execution of floating-point operations ([0011] processor is operable to receive information (one basic function of a processor includes executing floating-point operations)).
Regarding Claim 15, Jeanne discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, causes a personal hygiene device to perform a method comprising ([0006] The oral hygiene device… and at least one processor, [0043] Various types of storage mediums include, but are not limited to, hard-drives, solid state drives, flash memory, permanent memory (non-transitory)):
receiving motion information data of the personal hygiene device from an inertial measurement unit located within the personal hygiene device ([0124] standalone accelerometers, parts or all of one or more inertial measurement units (“IMUs”), accelerometers may be capable of detection motion);
monitoring scrubbing motion data of the personal hygiene device along a first axis ([0124] various single axis accelerometers may be used within oral hygiene device, to detect changes in motion of oral hygiene device along multiple axes (e.g., x-, y-, and/or z-axis);
monitoring rotation motion data of the personal hygiene device for excessive rotation around a second axis and a third axis of the personal hygiene device ([0124] may be used to detect motion of oral hygiene device along two or more axes); and
providing a user operating the personal hygiene device with scrubbing feedback in response to a determination that the motion information data are within predefined parameters of a targeted motion of the personal hygiene device, wherein false scrubbing feedback is eliminated from the scrubbing feedback ([0040] remove any effects of gravity from the accelerometer’s signal (false feedback or noise is eliminated), [0058] User interface includes a target brushing motion window that indicates bounds of the targeted brushing motion for the user operating oral hygiene device (predefined parameters), [0107] present user a feedback message advising the user to change the position of their brushing).
However, Jeanne is not relied upon disclosing rejecting a scrubbing motion detection when excessive rotation is detected.
Serval teaches rejecting a scrubbing motion detection when excessive rotation is detected ([0091] Once the data analyzed by the controller falls below (exceeds – meaning to go beyond a point, boundary, or limit) a certain threshold (compare to a threshold value) that indicates use, the system may stop recording data (rejecting scrubbing motion detection) or determine that brushing has stopped, [0097] The system 100 may determine if these motions are being performed the relative amount of these motions by filtering the data from motion sensors 11 or optical sensors 9 in certain axes that is indicative of each motion (rejecting scrubbing motion in various axes or rotational points)).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeanne et al. (US 2018/0160796 A1) in view of Breen et al. (US 2008/0211768 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Jeanne is not relied upon disclosing wherein the processor supports execution of fixed-point operations.
Breen teaches wherein the processor supports execution of fixed-point operations ([0058] fixed-point arithmetic).
Jeanne and Serval are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because they are in the same field of determining the inertia of an object. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the oral hygiene system, as disclosed by Jeanne, further including utilizing fixed-point operations as taught by Breen for the purposes of allowing algorithms to optimize calculations (Breen, [0058]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Richter et al. (US 10,064,711 A1) teaches a smart toothbrush and floss method and system.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAMID TARIQ HAFIZ whose telephone number is (571) 272-4629. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM, Monday through Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kang Hu can be reached on 571-270-1344. 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.
/HAMID TARIQ HAFIZ/
Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/ROBERT J UTAMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights