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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the 6/17/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). It is unclear what specifically Applicant argues is the hindsight reasoning in the “simple math” argument. This argument was not used to respond to the physical or functional structure of the claim, but to the number of light elements. The physical and functional structure are clearly taught by Newman and Gastemeyer.
Applicant argues Newman does not disclose sequential activation of light elements. This was never argued by the Examiner. However, it is noted [Applicant appears to omit this in the arguments against Newman] not only teach the light segments based on spatial feedback but on brushing time too [¶43, “[t]he multi-functional light component 200 can be arranged to communicate, during a brushing session, the usage data relating to at least one usage property selected from the group consisting of a battery charging status, a pressure applied by a user during the brushing session, a position or orientation of the toothbrush relative to the teeth of the user, a portion of the teeth being brushed, a progress of the brushing session, including an estimation of a portion of completion of brushing of pre-designated dental surfaces, and any combination thereof”, ¶48 (emphasis added), “[a]lso, the multi-functional light component 200 can be arranged to provide an indication that the brushing session has exceeded a threshold of time”].
Applicant argues, Gatzemeyer teaches handle-based feedback, not a holder-based timer. Examiner disagrees. Gatzemeyer does teach a sequential light timer just not a holder-based [figs. 21A-21D, ¶13, “a timer unit configured to track time during performance of the oral care session”, ¶14, “one or more light sources positioned to illuminate the illumination ring; and the control circuit configured to activate the one or more light sources in a manner that informs the user, during the oral care session, of the time that has passed during performance of the oral care session.”]. The only difference is that the light timer is not in a magnetic holder.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Starting from Hogan’s holder, one of ordinary skill would combine both the specific functional arrangement of Gatzemeyer and the specific light structure in the holder of Newman, with the magnetic holder of Hogan, in order to yield the predictable result of providing progress of the time of brushing (¶10-11 of Newman, ¶152-156 of Gatzemeyer). Hogan provides end times but not visual progress.
One would incorporate the light sources of Gatzemeyer to a magnetic holder-based, as a combination of known elements (i.e., magnetic base of Hogan; sequential light segments of Gatzemeyer; and magnetic holder-based with light segments used for brushing session times in Newman) according to known method (i.e., Newman teaches the structural method; Gatzemeyer teaches the functional method) to yield predictable results of providing progress of the time of brushing (MPEP 2143I (A)). Also, the combination is a mere rearrangement of parts (i.e., light segments) shifting positions between a brush handle to a brush magnetic base, without modifying the operation of the device individually, or in combination (MPEP 2144.05 VI C).
For the reasons discussed above the rejections are still valid and deemed proper.
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 1-4, 6, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hogan US 5,864,288 in view of Gatzemeyer US 2021/0186414 A1 and Newman US 20230040855 A1.
Re claims 1, 15, Hogan teaches a kit comprising a personal care implement 4 comprising a section at least partially made from a magnetic and/or ferromagnetic material 510 (fig. 5, col. 3 ll. 54-60), and a magnetic holder 1 to which the personal care implement 4 is magnetically attachable and detachable (figs. 1-2, 5), wherein the magnetic holder 1 being activated by detaching the personal care implement from the magnetic holder (fig. 9);
wherein the magnetic holder 3 comprises a timer 906 (fig. 9), the timer being activated by detaching the personal care implement 904 from the magnetic holder.
wherein a first visual, acoustic and/or haptic signal 909 (fig. 9) is given by the magnetic holder when a pre-defined time period expired; and
wherein a second visual, acoustic and/or haptic signal 911 (fig. 9) is given by the magnetic holder if the personal care implement is attached to the magnetic holder before the pre-defined time period expired.
Hogan does not teach wherein light indication segments are activated one after the other, in a sequential progression, each after a pre-defined period of time, wherein the pre-defined period of time is from about 10 seconds to about 30 seconds.
However, Gatzemeyer teaches an illumination ring 150 (figs. 21A-21D) with a number of light indication segments [151, 152, 153, 154], the light indication segments being activated one after the other, in a sequential progression, each after a pre-defined period of time from about 10 seconds to about 30 seconds [¶152-156, “the control circuit 110 activates all of the light sources 170 in the first quadrant grouping 171a, which in turn causes the first quadrant segment 151 of the illumination ring 150 to illuminate …The first quadrant segment 151 of the illumination ring 150 is equivalent to the 12 O'clock to 3 O'clock region of the illumination ring 150. As the time continues to elapse during the oral care session, the first quadrant segment 151 of the illumination ring 150 remains illuminated. Next…after expiration of a second time period during the oral care session, the control circuit 110 is configured to activate the one or more light sources 170 in a manner that illuminates the first quadrant segment 151 of the illumination ring 150 and a second quadrant segment 152 of the illumination ring 150. This means that after the second time period has expired, the control circuit 110 activates all of the light sources 170 in the first quadrant grouping 171a and all of the light sources 170 in the second quadrant grouping 171b, which in turn causes the first and second quadrant segments 151, 152 of the illumination ring 150…. The second quadrant segment 152 of the illumination ring 150 is equivalent to the 3 O'clock to the 6 O'clock region of the illumination ring, and thus after elapse of the second time period the 12 O'clock to 6 O'clock region of the illumination ring 150 is illuminated as shown in FIG. 21B….the fourth time period may correspond to a recommended brushing time. The recommended brushing time may be two minutes, although it could be more or less than two minutes. In such embodiments, each of the first, second, third, and fourth time periods is thirty seconds”].
Hogan and Gatzemeyer fail to teach wherein the magnetic holder comprises the light indication segments and the number of segments is six arranged in a circle.
However, Newman teaches a magnetic holder comprising six light indication segments arranged in a circle [Fig. 5] used to provide progress of the brushing session [¶ 10-11, “a multi-functional light component for communicating, including instantaneously communicating during the brushing session, at least one element of the usage data…[t]he at least one element of the usage data may be selected from the group consisting of …a progress of the brushing session”].
The only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is that the prior art does not incorporate the magnetic holder with six light indication segments arranged in a circle for activation of each segment one after the other after a pre-defined period of time is from about 10 seconds to about 30 second into a single combined apparatus. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities to incorporate both the magnetic holder of Hogan, the function of Gatzemeyer, and the specific light segment structure of Newman into a combined apparatus before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. No inventive effort would have been required and the resulting combined apparatus would yield predictable results providing progress of brushing time. Even in the context of a combined apparatus, the features of the Hogan, Gatzemeyer, and Newman would be expected to work as intended, with each element in the combined apparatus performing the same function as it did separately. No new functionality would arise from the combination.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the specific functional arrangement of Gatzemeyer and the specific light structure of Newman with the magnetic holder of Hogan, in order to yield the predictable result of providing progress of the time of brushing (¶10-11 of Newman, ¶152-156 of Gatzemeyer), and it has been held that a mere rearrangement of parts (i.e., light segments of Gatzemeyer) shifting positions between a brush handle to a brush magnetic holder that does not modify the operation of the device individually, or in combination would be an obvious matter of design choice (MPEP 2144.05 VI C).
The limitations of wherein a first visual, acoustic and/or haptic signal 909 (fig. 9) is given by the magnetic holder “when all light indication segments have been activated” and a second visual, acoustic and/or haptic signal 911 (fig. 9) is given by the magnetic holder “if the personal care implement is attached to the magnetic holder before all light indication segments have been activated”, would have been obvious. Hogan teaches the “congratulatory message” 909 when the pre-defined time has expired, therefore, this would occur at the time that all light indication segments have been activated in the combination. Similarly, the “admonishing message” 911 would occur before the time that all light indication segments have been activated in the combination.
Re claim 2, Hogan further teaches wherein the magnetic holder 1 comprises a battery driven [“apparatus of FIG. 7 may be suitably battery powered”] printed circuit board assembly, comprising a microcontroller [“FIG. 9 is a flowchart illustrating the steps of operation of microcontroller or controller 420 of FIG. 4”].
Re claim 3, Hogan further teaches wherein the magnetic holder comprises means for detecting the presence of the personal care implement, the means selected from the group consisting of a Hall Sensor, a Reed Contact Sensor, a switch, a light sensor, a proximity sensor and a movable magnet exhibiting a signal detectable by the microcontroller (figs. 2-3, 5-6, “other forms of switching devices may be utilized. For example a lever switch, photoelectric, magnetic (e.g., reed switch, Hall effect, or other type of proximity switch), inductive, or other type of switch may be used to provide a waterproof and reliable connection”).
Re claim 4, Hogan further teaches wherein the personal care implement comprises a handle (fig. 1), and the section of the personal care implement being at least partially made from a magnetic and/or ferromagnetic material is at least a portion of the handle (fig. 5).
Re claim 6, wherein the timer is activated after a pre-defined time period after the personal care implement is detached from the magnetic holder 905 (fig. 9).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hogan US 5,864,288 in view of Gatzemeyer US 2021/0186414 A1 and Newman US 20230040855 A1 and in further view of Hempel US 5,163,566.
Re claim 5, Hogan, Gatzemeyer, and Newman teach the invention as discussed above for claim 1 but fail to teach wherein the section of the personal care implement being at least partially made from a magnetic and/or ferromagnetic material is a magnetic ring, sheet or clip attached to the personal care implement, a metal ring, sheet or clip attached to the personal care implement and/or a movable magnet attached to the personal care implement.
However, Hempel teaches a magnetic holder for a toothbrush including a metal sheet (Abstract) mount in the toothbrush to the holder.
Thus, the references each disclose a toothbrush with a magnetic system to attach the toothbrush to the holder. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the metal sheet of Hempel could have been substituted for the magnet of Hogan because both serve the purpose of providing a magnetic attachment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the metal sheet of Hempel for the magnet of Hogan according to known methods to yield the predictable result of providing a magnetic connection between the toothbrush and the holder.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hogan US 5,864,288 in view of Gatzemeyer US 2021/0186414 A1 and Newman US 20230040855 A1 and in further view of Robinson US 6,606,755.
Re claim 7, Hogan, Gatzemeyer, and Newman teach the invention as discussed above for claim 1, including a predefined time 905 (fig. 9) but fail to teach wherein the pre-defined time period is from about 2 seconds to about 20 seconds.
Robinson teaches a timed toothbrush with a predetermined time interval which provides time to apply toothpaste (col. 2, ll. 33-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a pre-defined time period of the start message 905 between 2 to 20 seconds in order to yield the predictable result of giving the user time to apply toothpaste.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Carlos A. Rivera whose telephone number is (571)270-5697. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM -4PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
C. A. R.
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/C. A. RIVERA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights