Detailed Action
Amendment
1. This office action is in response to applicant’s amendments dated 3-2-26 and this office action is a non-final rejection.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Regarding claim 9, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed diffusing element and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the diffusing element is detailed as For example, diffusing element 36 may be a translucent layer of white paint on the bottom outer diameter of ring-shaped body 34 of which the bottom 3 mm of handle 12 has a blocking layer of primer of the paint removed to allow light to pass through to the outside of housing 22. In other embodiments, material selected for diffusing element 36 can be a clear material, transparent material, translucent material, or combinations thereof, which transmits light to the outside of the housing. Some examples of suitable materials for a diffusing element include glass, polymethyl methacrylate, polycarbonate, copolyesters, polypropylene, polyethyleneteraphthalate, silicone, combinations thereof, for example polyester and polycarbonate, or the like as detailed in paragraphs [0061]-[0062] of applicant’s originally filed specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. Claim 9 is 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. Applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed diffusing element as detailed in paragraph 2 of this office action and the phrases “for example”, “some examples” and “or the like” in paragraphs [0061]-[0062] of applicant’s originally filed specification renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear as to whether other types of diffusing elements than those disclosed are being contemplated by the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-9 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WIPO No. 2019/137831 to Vugts et al.
Referring to claims 1 and 15, Vugts et al. discloses an oral care device and a method for illuminating a portion of an outer surface of a housing of an oral care device comprising, a housing – at 230, and a light guide member – at 110,122,122a,122b,124,124a,124b,130,312,314, comprising a ring-shaped body – at 110,122,124, adapted to be disposed within the housing – at 230 – see figures 3-7b, and having an outer surface contoured to complement an inner surface of the housing – at 230 – see at 110,230 in figures 5-7b, a light receiving surface – at 122,124, a light emitting surface – at 312,314, and a light coupling portion – at 122a,124a, adapted to accommodate a light source – at 50a,50b, - see figures 5a-7b, and configured to direct light emitted by the light source – at 50a,50b, to the light receiving surface – at 122,122b,124,124b, and/or 130, wherein light received by the light receiving surface propagates through the ring- shaped body – at 110, via internal reflection to the light emitting surface – at 314 – see figures 3-7b and page 2 line 23 to page 3 line 26 and page 14 line 24 to page 15 line 15, where the light is directed out of the light guide member and uniformly illuminates a portion of an outer surface of the housing – at 230, of the device – see figures 5a-7b and page 2 line 23 to page 3 line 26 and page 11 line 20 to page 15 line 15. Specific to claim 15, Vugts et al. discloses the light source – at 50a,50b, is configured to emit light in response to a parameter that is being monitored by the device during a working session of the device – see for example page 1 line 30 to page 3 line 36, providing visual feedback to the user about the parameter monitored during a working session of the device – see figures 3-7b and see for example page 1 line 30 to page 3 line 36.
Referring to claim 4, Vugts et al. further discloses the light receiving surface – at 122,122b,124,124b, is located on a compliant arm – at 122,124, of the ring-shaped body – at 110 – see figures 3-7b.
Referring to claim 5, Vugts et al. further discloses the light receiving surface – at 122,122b,124,124b,130, is located on a compliant part – at 110,122,124, of the ring-shaped body – at 110 – see figures 3-7b.
Referring to claim 6, Vugts et al. further discloses the light coupling portion includes an extension arm – at 122a,124a, that curves inward towards a center of the ring- shaped body – at 110,122,124, to facilitate coupling of the light-source – at 50a,50b, to the light receiving surface – at 122,124 – see figures 3-7b.
Referring to claim 7, Vugts et al. further discloses the illuminated portion of the outer surface of the housing – at 230, includes an outer circumference of the housing – see figures 5a-7b.
Referring to claim 8, Vugts et al. further discloses the light emitting surface – at 312,314, provides uniform illumination at a proximal end of the device – see figures 3-7b and page 14 line 24 to page 15 line 15.
Referring to claim 9, Vugts et al. further discloses the light guide member further comprises a diffusing element – at 130, coupled to the light emitting surface – at 312,314 – see figures 3-7b, and adapted for diffusing light at the outer surface of the housing – at 230 – see figures 3-7b, page 12 line 20 to page 13 line 29 and page 14 line 24 to page 15 line 15. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) analysis with respect to the claimed diffusing element item 130 of Vugts et al. is at least a functional equivalent to applicant’s disclosed diffusing element in that item 130 of Vugts et al. provides similar function of diffusing light at/to the outer surface of the housing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vugts et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,253,212 to Fujita.
Referring to claim 2, Vugts et al. does not disclose the light coupling portion includes a cutout portion adapted to couple the light receiving surface to the light source. Fujita does disclose the light coupling portion – at 4, includes a cutout portion – at open space receiving item 14, adapted to couple the light receiving surface – surface of 4 contacting 14, to the light source – at 14 – see figure 2. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Vugts et al. and add the cutout portion to the light coupling portion as disclosed by Fujita, so as to yield the predictable result of durably securing the light source to the light coupling portion.
Referring to claim 3, Vugts et al. as modified by Fujita further discloses the light guide member further comprises a reflector – see reflectors/reflecting material detailed in page 2 line 23 to page 3 line 26 and page 14 line 24 to page 15 line 15 of Vugts et al., configured to reflect light from the cut-out portion – cutout of Fujita dispose in 122a,124a of Vugts et al., that travels between the light source – at 50a,50b, and the light receiving surface – at 122b,124b,130 – see figures 3-7b of Vugts et al. Vugts et al. as modified by Fujita does not disclose the reflector is at the cut-out portion and between the light source and the light receiving surface. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Vugts et al. as modified by Fujita and have the reflector in any desired location including between the light source and light receiving surface as claimed, so as to yield the predictable result of providing the desired light characteristics/intensity for the device as desired.
Claim(s) 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vugts et al. in view of Fujita.
Referring to claim 10, Vugts et al. discloses an oral care device comprising, a housing – at 230, and a light guide member – at 110,122,122a,122b,124,124a,124b,130,312,314, comprising a ring-shaped body – at 110,122,124, adapted to be disposed within the housing – at 230 – see figures 3-7b, and having an outer surface contoured to complement an inner surface of the housing – at 230 – see at 110,230 in figures 5-7b, a light receiving surface – at 122,124, a light emitting surface – at 312,314, and a light coupling portion – at 122a,124a, adapted to accommodate a light source – at 50a,50b, - see figures 5a-7b, and configured to direct light emitted by the light source – at 50a,50b, to the light receiving surface – at 122,122b,124,124b, and/or 130, wherein light received by the light receiving surface propagates through the ring- shaped body – at 110, via internal reflection to the light emitting surface – at 314 – see figures 3-7b and page 2 line 23 to page 3 line 26 and page 14 line 24 to page 15 line 15, where the light is directed out of the light guide member and uniformly illuminates a portion of an outer surface of the housing – at 230, of the device – see figures 5a-7b and page 2 line 23 to page 3 line 26 and page 11 line 20 to page 15 line 15. Vugts et al. further discloses the housing – at 230, is configured to be held in a hand of a user – see figures 3-7b, the light coupling portion – at 122a,124a, is adapted to optically couple the light source – at 50a,50b to the light receiving surface – at 122,124 – see figures 3-7b, the light source – at 50a,50b, is configured to emit light in response to a parameter that is being monitored by the device during a working session of the device – see for example page 1 line 30 to page 3 line 36, providing visual feedback to the user about the parameter monitored during a working session of the device – see figures 3-7b and see for example page 1 line 30 to page 3 line 36. Vugts et al. does not disclose the light coupling portion is adapted to house the light source. Fujita does disclose the light coupling portion – at 4, is adapted to house the light source – at 14 – see figure 2. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Vugts et al. and add the light coupling portion housing the light source as disclosed by Fujita, so as to yield the predictable result of durably securing the light source to the light coupling portion.
Referring to claim 11, Vugts et al. as modified by Fujita further discloses the light coupling portion – at 4, includes a cutout portion – at open space receiving item 14, adapted to couple the light receiving surface – surface of 4 contacting 14, to the light source – at 14 – see figure 2 of Fujita. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Vugts et al. as modified by Fujita and add the cutout portion to the light coupling portion as disclosed by Fujita, so as to yield the predictable result of durably securing the light source to the light coupling portion.
Referring to claim 12, Vugts et al. as modified by Fujita further discloses the light receiving surface – at 122,122b,124,124b, is located on a compliant arm – at 122,124, of the ring-shaped body – at 110 – see figures 3-7b of Vugts et al.
Referring to claim 13, Vugts et al. as modified by Fujita further discloses the light receiving surface – at 122,122b,124,124b,130, is located on a compliant part – at 110,122,124, of the ring-shaped body – at 110 – see figures 3-7b of Vugts et al.
Referring to claim 14, Vugts et al. as modified by Fujita further discloses the light coupling portion includes an extension arm – at 122a,124a, that curves inward towards a center of the ring- shaped body – at 110,122,124, to facilitate coupling of the light-source – at 50a,50b, to the light receiving surface – at 122,124 – see figures 3-7b of Vugts et al.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s amended abstract dated 3-2-26 obviates the objections detailed in the last office action dated 10-28-25.
Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks/arguments dated 3-2-26 obviates the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 6 and 14 detailed in the last office action dated 10-28-25.
Applicant’s remarks/arguments date 3-2-26 obviates the prior art rejections of claims 1-15 detailed in the last office action dated 10-28-25.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J PARSLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm EST.
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, Peter Poon can be reached at (571) 272-6891. 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.
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643