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. Information Disclosure Statement Applicant’s information disclosure statement submitted on 12/22/2023 has not been signed by the Applicant. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and Species I in the reply filed on 02/05/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 36-37, 40-48, and 50-53 are examined. Claims 38-39, 49, and 54-55 are withdrawn. Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i) . Claim Objections Claim s 36-37, 40-42, 46 , 48, 50, and 52 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 36, line 5, change: “cleaning space in a brush-like fashion.” Claim 37, line 1, change: “wherein [[a]] the at least one shuttle comprises…” Claim 40, line 2, change: “wherein the side struts of [[a]] the at least one shuttle…” Claim 41, lines 1-2, change: “wherein [[in]] the base strut of the least one [[the]] shuttle…” Claim 42, line 1, change: “wherein the at least one shuttle…” Claim 46, line 2, change: “is capable of reversing [[the]] movement directions…” Claim 48, line 4, change: “are capable of executing [[a]] the plunging movement…” Claim 50, line 3, change: “positioned at [[the]] a center of the X-shape.” Claim 52, line 1, change: “wherein in [[the]] a region…” Claim 52, line 2, change: “[[the]] adjacent base struts are connected…” Appropriate correction is required. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “drive unit” as recited in claim 42 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. C laim Interpretations 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. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a. Claim 42 - “ drive unit ” read as a unit [means] for driving and executing oscillating rotating motion . has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use generic placeholders: a. Claim 42 – “ unit ” coupled with functional language: a. “ for driving and executing oscillating rotating motion ” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: I nterpreted as: see 35 USC 112, 2nd Paragraph rejection . Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 42-47 and 51-53 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 42 recites “ a drive unit ” which has been interpreted as a limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function. A review of the specification does not yield the acts that perform the function of a drive unit and it is not shown by the figures provided . A review of the specification does not yield describe what applicant considers “ a drive unit ”. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. In claim 42 the recitation “ a drive unit ” renders the claims indefinite because the specification does not define the structure or acts corresponding to “ a drive unit ”. The reason that the claim is indefinite is that without a limiting specification, which is required by statute, the claim limitation becomes an unbounded purely functional limitation. There are no boundaries or limits imposed by structure, material or acts. The claim will cover all ways of performing a function, known and unknown. Therefore, such an unbounded limitation renders the claim indefinite. Claim 47 is indefinite because it is unclear of the dependency of the claim. Claim 47, line 1, recites dependency, but does not state the claim number upon which the claim is dependent on. For such reasons, the claim is indefinite as it is unclear of the metes and bounds of the limitations recited. Claim 51 is indefinite because the claim recites that the X-shape is not symmetrical in the last line of the claim. It is unclear how the X-shape is not symmetrical because , for example , in Fig. 1 shown below of Applicant’s drawings, the X-shape is symmetrical about a hashed plane illustrated below. Therein, due to the inconsistent language with regard to the disclosure, the claim limitation is unclear and renders the claim indefinite because the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. Fig. 1 Dependent claims are also rejected due to their dependency of a rejected independent claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. 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. Claims 36-37 and 40-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Al-Qaffas ( U.S. 8,316,496 ). Regarding claim 36 , Al-Qaffas discloses a device for cleaning surfaces including teeth, interdental spaces, and gums (toothbrush, Col. 2, lines 45-55) , wherein the cleaning device comprises at least one shuttle (assembly shown in Fig. 6 comprising plate 34 and brushes 35 and 33) , which is embodied as U-shaped or C-shaped in order to encompass a subregion of a dental arch quadrant (i.e., components 34, 33, and 35 form an inverted U-shape or side-way C-shape as shown by the broken lines in Fig. 6’ below) , wherein the shuttle defines a cleaning space (cleaning space “a”, Fig. 6’) , wherein filaments or filament bundles extend into the cleaning space in brush-like fashion (i.e., bristles of the brushes 28, 33, 35 extend into the cleaning space “a” shown in Fig. 6’ , Col. 3, lines 63-67 ) . Fig. 6’ Regarding claim 37, Al-Qaffas discloses wherein a shuttle comprises at least one base strut (34) and two side struts (s1, s2, Fig. 6’) protruding from the base strut as regions defining the cleaning space (as shown in Fig. 6’) , wherein the filaments or filament bundles are attached to at least the side struts (i.e., bristles are attached to brushes 33 (formed by side strut “s2”) and 35 (formed by side strut “s1”), Col. 3, lines 63-67) . Regarding claim 40, Al-Qaffas discloses wherein the side struts of a shuttle are positioned on the base strut (as shown in Fig. 5, the side struts s1,s2 each comprise of a gear 32 that is positioned on the base strut 34). Regarding claim 41, Al-Qaffas discloses wherein in the base strut the shuttle has filaments or filament bundles attached thereto (i.e., brush 28 comprising bristles is attached to the base strut 34, as shown in Fig. 6, Col. 3, lines 63-67) . Regarding claim 42, Al-Qaffas discloses wherein the shuttle has a drive fitting (i.e., shuttle has bevel gear 26, which is a drive fitting, as shown in Fig. 3) that is capable of being mechanically coupled to a drive unit (i.e., drive fitting 26 is mechanically coupled to bevel gear 24 of shaft 22, wherein a drive unit (i.e., motor 16) is connected to the shaft 22 for transmission of rotational movement and power from the motor, Col. 3, lines 45-60) . Regarding claim 43, Al-Qaffas discloses wherein the device comprises at least one drive unit (motor 16, Col. 3, lines 45-60) , which is capable of producing a first reversing swiveling motion of the shuttle (t he limitation “ capable of producing a first reversing swiveling motion of the shuttle” is functional language relating to the use of the apparatus. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (see MPEP 2114). Since Al-Qaffas discloses all of the structural limitations of the claim, the toothbrush device (Fig. 1) comprising the drive unit (motor 16) is capable of performing the recited functional language). Regarding claim 44, Al-Qaffas discloses wherein the at least one drive unit (motor 16, Col. 3, lines 45-60) is capable of producing a second eccentric rotating motion of the shuttle (t he limitation “ capable of producing a second eccentric rotating motion of the shuttle” is functional language relating to the use of the apparatus. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (see MPEP 2114). Since Al-Qaffas discloses all of the structural limitations of the claim, the toothbrush device (Fig. 1) comprising the drive unit (motor 16) is capable of performing the recited functional language) . Regarding claim 45, Al-Qaffas discloses wherein the at least one drive unit (motor 16, Col. 3, lines 45-60) , is capable of producing a third reversing swiveling motion of the shuttle (t he limitation “ capable of producing a third reversing swiveling motion of the shuttle ” is functional language relating to the use of the apparatus. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (see MPEP 2114). Since Al-Qaffas discloses all of the structural limitations of the claim, the toothbrush device (Fig. 1) comprising the drive unit (motor 16) is capable of performing the recited functional language) . Regarding claim 46, Al-Qaffas discloses wherein the drive unit (motor 16, Col. 3, lines 45-60) is capable of reversing the movement directions with a predetermined frequency or with changeable frequencies (t he limitation “ capable of reversing the movement directions with a predetermined frequency or with changeable frequencies ” is functional language relating to the use of the apparatus. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (see MPEP 2114). Since Al-Qaffas discloses all of the structural limitations of the claim, the toothbrush device (Fig. 1) comprising the drive unit (motor 16) is capable of performing the recited functional language) . Regarding claim 47, Al-Qaffas discloses wherein a first group of filaments have a different hardness or rigidity than a second group of filaments (i.e., the first group of filaments (i.e., bristles) of brushes 33 and 35 have a different thickness and hardness than the second group of filaments (i.e., bristles) of brush 28, Col. 3, lines 63-67) . Regarding claim 48, Al-Qaffas discloses wherein a first plurality of filaments or filament bundles (i.e., the first group of filaments (i.e., bristles) of brushes 33 and 35) are capable of executing a plunging movement during an approaching movement of the shuttle and a second plurality of filaments or filament bundles (i.e., second group of filaments (i.e., bristles) of brush 28) are capable of executing a plunging movement during a retracting movement (t he limitation s “ capable of executing a plunging movement during an approaching movement of the shuttle ” and “ capable of executing a plunging movement during a retracting movement ” are functional language relating to the use of the apparatus. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (see MPEP 2114). Since Al-Qaffas discloses all of the structural limitations of the claim, the toothbrush device (Fig. 1) comprising the first group of filaments (brushes 33, 35) and the second group of filaments (brush 28) is capable of performing the recited functional language) . Allowable Subject Matter Claim 50 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Regarding claim 50, the prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest wherein the cleaning device comprises two base struts and four side struts, wherein the base struts cross each other in an X shape, wherein the drive fitting is positioned at the center of the X-shape. Castaldo (US 2020/0128946 A1) discloses of an electric toothbrush (Fig. 13) with an electric motor coupled to an output shaft that protrudes from an upper end 30 of the handle 3 ([0186]). However, as shown in Fig. 13, the output shaft which connects to portion 900 is not positioned at a center of the X-shape. The center of the X-shape is shown at location 420 in Fig. 14. Claims 51-53 would be allowable if the 112 rejections stated above are overcome, due to their dependency on claim 50. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ERIC J ZAMORA ALVAREZ whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-7928 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 7:30 am- 5:00 pm EST alternating Fridays off . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT COURTNEY HEINLE can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3508 . 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 . /ERIC J ZAMORA ALVAREZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745 03/23/2026