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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 2 objected to because of the following informalities:
“and optionally adjoining the first force range” should be “and optionally adjoining the first force value range”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 1-4, 6, 8-12, 14, 16, 18-20, These claims all cite a device (feedback device, control unit, drive unit, feedback unit, processor, force sensor, at least one sensor), structured and/or arranged to perform a function. It is unclear what exactly is required by a device “structured and/or arranged”, this phrase seems to essentially mean the device is configured to be perform the claimed function, and will be interpreted as such for the purposes of examination.
Additionally, Claim 1 cites an improper Markush group in the limitation “…drive unit structured and/or arranged for driving the personal care head into a motion that is characterized by at least one motion parameter being one from the list comprising a speed, an amplitude and a frequency” as the list of possible motion parameters is open ended, making it unclear what the metes and bounds of the claim limitation is. For the purposes of examination this will be interpreted as “…drive unit structured and/or arranged for driving the personal care head into a motion that is characterized by at least one motion parameter being one from the list consisting of a speed, an amplitude and a frequency”
Claims dependent on the rejected claims are rejected based upon their dependency to a rejected claim.
Regarding Claim 8, Claim 8 cites the term “user-noticeable orderliness” which is unclear, as it is unclear what is required by this term. This appears to be the degree to which the user can notice the signal, however it is unclear what the metes and bounds of this limitation would be. It is unclear what would be considered noticeable by a user. For example, the feedback signal of claim 8 could be a visual, audible or haptic feedback signal as claimed in claim 5, an LED would be a visual signal, and a change in color could indicate feedback, but how would one determine the degree to which one color is noticeable over another. Similarly, if we examine the volume of an audible signal, one could consider a loud signal to have a start degree of user-noticeable orderliness, and a quieter signal to have a decreased degree of user-noticeable orderliness. However, the inverse could also be considered true, wherein a personal care device could play a song while in use by a user, and the base volume would be considered the starting degree of user-noticeable orderliness, and as the difference between the optimal force value and the determine force value grows, the song becomes quieter. As such the claim is indefinite and Examiner will take a broad interpretation of claim 8, requiring that the personal care device indicate to a user in some way that the determined force is deviating from optimal force value.
Regarding Claims 14, 15 and 19, these all cite the word “optionally” before a limitation, which makes it unclear if the following limitation is required by claim. For the purposes of examination, these limitations will be treated as optional and not required by the 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 (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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 12-15, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Subhash (US 20210393026 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Subhash discloses A personal care device comprising
a personal care head (257);
a force sensor (Pressure sensor 367) structured and/or arranged for acquiring force sensor data indicative of a force value with which the personal care head is pushed against a treatment surface along at least a first force direction (See Para [0144] “The pressure sensor 367 is operatively coupled to the circuit board 353 and is disposed in the neck 345. In this exemplary embodiment, the pressure sensor 367 is in the form of a flex sensor that provides sensor data to the programmable processor 359 based on whether and how much the neck 345 flexes during a brushing routine. In certain other embodiments, the pressure sensor 367 may be disposed in the head 347 and be in the form of a strain sensor. In such embodiments, the pressure sensor 367 provides sensor data to the programmable processor 359 based on whether and how much strain is placed on the head 347 during a brushing routine.”);
a processor (277) structured and/or arranged for determining the force value from the force sensor data (See Para [0102] “The circuit board 271 serves as an electronic junction, so that all electronic components may be controlled by the programmable processor 277 and thereby be utilized during operation of the oral care system 101. Each of the sensors included in the electric toothbrush 251 are configured to generate sensor data which is communicated to the programmable processor 277.” And further see Fig. 7 showing processor 277 evaluates brushing pressure 309, Examiner notes that Force is a result of Mass and acceleration and Pressure the result of Force over an area, as the mass of the cleaning head and the area of the cleaning head is fixed, measuring either the pressure or the acceleration of the cleaning head would be a measurement of force);
a drive unit (267) structured and/or arranged for driving the personal care head into a motion that is characterized by at least one motion parameter being one from the list comprising a speed, an amplitude and a frequency (Stroke frequency, see Para [0125] “In certain embodiments, the active motor control 317 includes increasing or decreasing the stroke frequency of the vibratory motor 267 during a brushing routine.”); and
a control unit (active motor control 317) structured and/or arranged for controlling the motion parameter of the personal care head (See Para [0126] “In certain embodiments, the active motor control 317 includes increasing or decreasing the stroke frequency of the vibratory motor 267 during a brushing routine.”) in dependence on the determined force value (See Fig. 17B showing determined pressure controlling the motor stroke frequency) such that in a first force value range extending from a first lower force value to a first upper force value the motion parameter is gradually increased from a first motion parameter start value to a first motion parameter end value when the force value increases from the first lower force value to the first upper force value (See Fig. 22 showing the motion parameter (y-axis) gradually increasing as the force value (x-axis) increases).
Regarding Claim 2, Subhash discloses wherein the control unit (317) is structured and/or arranged for controlling the motion parameter such that in a second force value range extending from a second lower force value (See Annotated Figure A) to a second upper force value (See Annotated Figure A) and being subsequent to and optionally adjoining the first force range the motion parameter is gradually increased from a second motion parameter (See Annotated Figure A) start value that is identical with the first motion parameter end value to a second motion parameter end value (See Annotated Figure A) when the force value increases from a second lower force value being identical to the first upper force value to a second upper force value so that the second motion parameter end value represents an overall peak value of the motion parameter (See Annotated Figure A).
PNG
media_image1.png
585
944
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure A (Fig. 22 Subhash)
Regarding Claim 3, Subhash discloses wherein the control unit is structured and/or arranged for controlling the motion parameter such that in a second force value range extending from a second lower force value to a second upper force value and being subsequent to and optionally adjoining the first force value range the motion parameter is gradually decreased from a second motion parameter start value that is identical with the first motion parameter end value to a second motion parameter end value when the force value increases from a second lower force value being identical to the first upper force value to a second upper force value so that the first motion parameter end value represents an overall peak value of the motion parameter (See Para [0192] “Using the machine learning process discussed above, the process 591 determines 601 if the applied stroke pressure is too high, too low, or acceptable for the tissue type. If the applied stroke pressure is too high 603, the process 591 will decrease the stroke frequency. If the applied stroke pressure is too low 605, the process 591 will increase the stroke frequency. In the event that the applied stroke frequency is acceptable, then the process 591 will maintain the stroke frequency at the then-current level.” With the First motion parameter start being an initial value, the first motion parameter end value and second motion parameter start value being the value maintained when the when the stroke frequency is acceptable, and the second motion parameter end value being when the stroke pressure is too high).
Regarding Claim 4, Subhash discloses all the limitations of claim 2 and in additional discloses wherein the control unit is structured and/or arranged for controlling the motion parameter such that in a third force value range extending from a third lower force value to a third upper force value and being subsequent to and optionally adjoining the second force value range, the motion parameter is gradually decreased from a third motion parameter start value that is identical with the second motion parameter end value to a third motion parameter end value when the force value increases from a third lower force value being identical to the second upper force value to a third upper force value, optionally wherein the control unit is structured and/or arranged for controlling the motion parameter such that in a fourth force value range extending from a fourth lower force value to a fourth upper force value and being subsequent to the third force value range the motion parameter is gradually decreased from a fourth motion parameter start value that is identical with the third motion parameter end value to a fourth motion parameter end value when the force value increases from a fourth lower force value being identical to the third upper force value to a fourth upper force value (See Para [0192] “Using the machine learning process discussed above, the process 591 determines 601 if the applied stroke pressure is too high, too low, or acceptable for the tissue type. If the applied stroke pressure is too high 603, the process 591 will decrease the stroke frequency. If the applied stroke pressure is too low 605, the process 591 will increase the stroke frequency. In the event that the applied stroke frequency is acceptable, then the process 591 will maintain the stroke frequency at the then-current level.” And Para [0185] “For example, should the circumstances call for it, using the machine learning process, the oral care system 101 can increase or decrease the stroke frequency of the vibratory motor every half second, or even less. If the vibratory motor has a stroke frequency on the order of 200 Hz, adjusting the stroke frequency upward by 5 HZ every half second can make a significant difference in how many extra strokes get applied to a potential problem spot on the teeth of the user. Similarly, the stroke frequency may be adjusted downward to help prevent overbrushing. The amount of adjustment to the stroke frequency made by any process disclosed herein is not to be limited unless expressly stated in a claim.”.
Subhash teaches as shown in the citations of [0185] and [0192] that the control unit is arranged to adjust the motor motion parameter based (in part) on the sensed force parameter, and that as the force parameter increases, the motion parameter decreases and that force can be adjusted in discrete steps of 5hz. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention would understand that each of these discrete steps could represent a third, fourth, fifth, Nth (N being an arbitrary number of steps) etc.… Force value range extending from a Nth lower force value to a Nth upper force value and being subsequent to and optionally adjoining the (N-1)th force value range, the motion parameter is gradually decreased from a Nth motion parameter start value that is identical with the (N-1)th motion parameter end value to a Nth motion parameter end value when the force value increases from a Nth lower force value being identical to the (N-1)th upper force value to a Nth upper force value.
Regarding Claim 12, Subhash discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses comprising at least one sensor (IMU 279, See Para [0104] “Certain embodiments of the IMU 279 may generate additional types of sensor data. The linear acceleration data, orientation data, and magnetometer data from the IMU 279 are further processed by the oral care system 101, as part of the sensor data, in a manner described in greater detail below to help provide enhanced oral care for a user of the oral care system 101.”) structured and/or arranged to create sensor data indicative of a position or location of the personal care device relative to the treatment surface (See Para [0105] “Using the linear acceleration data, the orientation data, and the magnetometer data, the IMU 279 may be used to establish a device coordinate system for the electric toothbrush 251. Similar to the oral care device 151 shown in FIG. 2, the device coordinate system for the electric toothbrush 251 has the x-axis defined as the longitudinal axis of the electric toothbrush 251, the z- axis is defined by the downward pull of gravity, and the y-axis is defined as that axis that is orthogonal to both the x-axis and the z-axis. As is described in more detail below, the oral care system 101 facilitates determining the location and orientation of the head 257 of the electric toothbrush 251 within the oral cavity of the user by generating transformed sensor data, in which the orientation data is expressed in terms of an angular orientation system.”).
Regarding Claim 13, Subhash discloses all the limitations of claim 12 and in addition discloses wherein the sensor is at least one selected from a list comprising an accelerometer, a gyroscope, a barometer, a magnetometer, and a camera (See Para [0103] “The sensors included in the electric toothbrush 251 include an inertial measurement unit (IMU) 279, an image sensor 281, and an optical sensor 283. In this exemplary embodiment, the IMU 279 is a micro-electro-mechanical system (MEMS), which is a component that is readily available on the market and includes an accelerometer, a gyroscope, and a magnetometer.”).
Regarding Claim 14, Subhash discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses wherein the control unit is structured and/or arranged to provide compliance feedback about a level of compliance with a predetermined optimum force value or optimum force value range with which the personal care head should be pushed against the treatment surface (See Para [0127] “Also during or following analysis of the transformed sensor data, the programmable processor 277 may communicate user feedback 319 to the user. This user feedback 319 may include one or more of an oral care score 321 reflecting one or more of evaluated oral care characteristics, audible, visual, and/or haptic signals 323 to the user in real-time during the brushing routine, images and/or video 325 obtained during the brushing routine, and advice or instructive representations 327 of the sensor data and/or data analysis performed using the sensor data.”), which compliance feedback is provided during an ongoing personal care session and/or after a completed personal care session and/or for at least one previous personal care session, optionally wherein the compliance feedback is provided for at least two different positions or locations on the treatment surface ((considered an optional limitation not required by the claim, see 112(b) rejection, however See Para [0198] “Moreover, the process 651 may assign an oral care score to each of the oral care characteristics that is evaluated for any brushing routine. In certain embodiments, the assigned oral care scores may be saved in a memory so that a comparison can be made between a first brushing routine and a second brushing routine. Additionally, changes over time in assigned oral care scores may be tracked by the user, or even provided to the user’s dental care professional.”).
Regarding Claim 15, Subhash discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses wherein the force sensor is responsive to a deflection of a first portion of the personal care device with respect to a second portion of the personal care device in dependence on the currently applied force with which the personal care head is pushed against the treatment surface (See Para [0144] “The pressure sensor 367 is operatively coupled to the circuit board 353 and is disposed in the neck 345. In this exemplary embodiment, the pressure sensor 367 is in the form of a flex sensor that provides sensor data to the programmable processor 359 based on whether and how much the neck 345 flexes during a brushing routine.”), optionally wherein the force sensor comprises a Hall sensor and a permanent magnet that are each disposed at a different one of the first portion and the second portion of the personal care device (considered an optional limitation not required by the claim, see 112(b) rejection).
Regarding Claim 17, Subhas discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses wherein the personal care device is an electric toothbrush (See Figs. 1-3 and Para [0159] “FIG. 12 illustrates the manner in which the sensor data is processed for the oral care system 101. While this process is described in connection with the oral care device 151 of FIG. 2, it should be readily apparent that this same process also applies to the toothbrushes 251, 341 of FIGS. 5 and 8 and for any other embodiment within the scope of the claims”.
Regarding Claim 18, Subhas discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses wherein the drive unit is structured and/or arranged for driving the personal care head into a motion that an oscillatory rotational motion (See Para [0101] “The electric toothbrush 251 includes a vibratory motor 267 with a shaft 269 that mechanically engages the neck 255 so that when the vibratory motor 267 is activated, vibrations are induced in the head 257 of the electric toothbrush 251. In certain embodiments, the shaft 269 of the vibratory motor 267 may directly mechanically engage the head 257, instead of the neck 255. The vibratory motor 269 may be arranged to induce vibrations in the head in any number of ways which are known in the art, and as such, the particular manner in which the vibratory motor 267 induces vibrations in the head 257 of the electric toothbrush 251 is not to be limiting of the invention unless expressly stated in a claim.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 5, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subhash (US 20210393026 A1) in view of Gatzemeyer (US 11361672 B2).
Regarding Claim 5, Subhash discloses all the limitations of claim 2 and in addition discloses comprising a feedback unit for providing a visual, audible or haptic feedback (See Para [0127] “Also during or following analysis of the transformed sensor data, the programmable processor 277 may communicate user feedback 319 to the user. This user feedback 319 may include one or more of an oral care score 321 reflecting one or more of evaluated oral care characteristics, audible, visual, and/or haptic signals 323 to the user in real-time during the brushing routine, images and/or video 325 obtained during the brushing routine, and advice or instructive representations 327 of the sensor data and/or data analysis performed using the sensor data.”) and suggests but does not explicitly disclose, relating to the determined force value and/or relating to the force value range in which the determined force value lies and/or relating to a difference between the determined force value and an optimal force value and/or relating to a match between the determined force value and the optimal force value (See Para [0127] cited above and Para [0131] “Certain embodiments of the IMU 361 may generate additional types of sensor data. The linear acceleration data, orientation data, and magnetometer data from the IMU 361 are further processed by the oral care system 101, as part of the sensor data, in a manner described in greater detail below to help provide enhanced oral care for a user of the oral care system 101.”).
However, Gatzemeyer discloses a similar personal care device that provides feedback based upon an optimal force value and a determined force value (See Col 7 Line 47-57 “In one embodiment, the sensors generate brushing session data indicative of brushing motion, location, and/or pressure. This data is then used to determine that the user is avoiding brushing a certain portion of the dentiture, or using only minimal pressure. This avoidance can indicate an oral sensitivity at or adjacent to that portion of the dentiture. To confirm, a user interface, upon receiving such brushing session data, can provide the user a question such as “Do you have oral sensitivity in the region indicated below,” with an image of the user's dentiture and an indication of the avoided portion.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the controller of Subhash to control the feedback relating to the determined force value and/or relating to the force value range in which the determined force value lies and/or relating to a difference between the determined force value and an optimal force value and/or relating to a match between the determined force value and the optimal force value during personal care routine, as advantageously suggested by Gatzemeyer (See Col 7 Line 47-57 cited above) and doing so would improve the quality of the care routine performed by the user of the device.
Regarding Claim 19, Subhas discloses all the limitations of claim 2 and in addition discloses and a separate feedback device (105) structured and/or arranged for additionally or alternatively providing at least one of a visual, audible or haptic feedback (See Para [0127] “Also during or following analysis of the transformed sensor data, the programmable processor 277 may communicate user feedback 319 to the user. This user feedback 319 may include one or more of an oral care score 321 reflecting one or more of evaluated oral care characteristics, audible, visual, and/or haptic signals 323 to the user in real-time during the brushing routine, images and/or video 325 obtained during the brushing routine, and advice or instructive representations 327 of the sensor data and/or data analysis performed using the sensor data. In certain embodiments, the audible, visual, and/or haptic signals 323 used as feedback to the user may be made using the programmable device 105.”) and suggests but does not explicitly disclose relating to the determined force value and/or relating to the force value range in which the determined force value lies and/or relating to a difference between the determined force value and an optimum force value and/or relating to a match between the determined force value with the optimum force value, optionally wherein the personal care device and the separate feedback device are structured and/or arranged for at least one-directional wireless communication from the personal care device to the separate feedback device. (considered an optional limitation not required by the claim, see 112(b) rejection. However, See Para [0127] cited above and Para [0131] “Certain embodiments of the IMU 361 may generate additional types of sensor data. The linear acceleration data, orientation data, and magnetometer data from the IMU 361 are further processed by the oral care system 101, as part of the sensor data, in a manner described in greater detail below to help provide enhanced oral care for a user of the oral care system 101.”).
However, Gatzemeyer discloses a similar personal care device that provides feedback based upon an optimal force value and a determined force value (See Col 7 Line 47-57 “In one embodiment, the sensors generate brushing session data indicative of brushing motion, location, and/or pressure. This data is then used to determine that the user is avoiding brushing a certain portion of the dentiture, or using only minimal pressure. This avoidance can indicate an oral sensitivity at or adjacent to that portion of the dentiture. To confirm, a user interface, upon receiving such brushing session data, can provide the user a question such as “Do you have oral sensitivity in the region indicated below,” with an image of the user's dentiture and an indication of the avoided portion.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the controller of Subhash to control the feedback relating to the determined force value and/or relating to the force value range in which the determined force value lies and/or relating to a difference between the determined force value and an optimal force value and/or relating to a match between the determined force value and the optimal force value during personal care routine, as advantageously suggested by Gatzemeyer (See Col 7 Line 47-57 cited above) and doing so would improve the quality of the care routine performed by the user of the device.
Regarding Claim 20, Subhas discloses all the limitations of claim 19 and in addition discloses wherein the personal care device and the separate feedback device are structured and/or arranged for bidirectional wireless communication (See Para [0118] “The IMU 279 includes a 3-axis accelerometer 295, a 3-axis magnetometer 297, a 3-axis gyroscope 299, and an internal calibration unit 301. In certain embodiments, the IMU 279 may also include a wireless communication module which may be used to enable direct wireless communications with the programmable processor 293 of the programmable device 105.”).
Claim(s) 6-8, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subhash (US 20210393026 A1) in view of Gatzemeyer (US 11361672 B2) as modified in claim 5 and in further view of Goslin (US 20210327297 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Subhash as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 5 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the feedback unit is structured and/or arranged for providing a start feedback signal indicating that the determined force value essentially matches the optimal force value, and for providing a current feedback signal deviating from the start feedback signal the stronger, the larger the difference is between the optimal force value and the determined force value.
However, Goslin discloses a similar personal care device that provides live feedback to a user, (See Para [0048] “The adjustment to the audio profile may include changing to the individual presentation values to match, and/or substantially match, the individual user values. By way of non-limiting illustration, the first presentation value may be adjusted by the first difference in order to match the first user value. This auditory feedback may change one or more attributes of the song based on how the user is doing. By way of non-limiting illustration, if the user starts humming incorrectly (e.g., off pitch), the song will also change (e.g., to match the user's pitch). This way the user may hear the song is playing incorrectly, to illicit the user to change their input. That is, the better the song sounds, the better the user may be humming, while the worse the song sounds, the worse the user may be humming. In some implementations, user engagement with the user device may include engagement with one or more physical input devices at one or more specified points in time (e.g., pressing a physical button on beat with a note).”
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify feedback unit such that wherein the feedback unit is structured and/or arranged for providing a start feedback signal indicating that the determined force value essentially matches the optimal force value, and for providing a current feedback signal deviating from the start feedback signal the stronger, the larger the difference is between the optimal force value and the determined force value. As doing so would provide real time feedback to a user and assist in improving the effectiveness of their personal care routine.
Regarding Claim 7, Subhash as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 6 and in addition discloses wherein the change between the start feedback signal and the current feedback signal is gradual in dependence on the difference between the optimal force value and the determined force value (See Para [0048] of Goslin cited above in the rejection of claim 6).
Regarding Claim 8, Subhash as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 6 and in addition discloses wherein the feedback unit is structured and/or arranged to provide the start feedback signal comprising a start degree of user-noticeable orderliness and to gradually decrease the degree of user-noticeable orderliness of the current feedback signal the more the larger the difference between the optimal force value and the determined force value is (See Para [0048] of Goslin cited above in the rejection of claim 6, The feedback starts by matching the user, and as the difference between the sense value and the optimal value increases, the feedback changes from orderly (in tune with the user), to disorderly).
Regarding Claim 10, Subhash as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 8 and in addition discloses wherein the feedback is audible feedback (See Para [0048] of Goslin cited above in the rejection of claim 6),
And suggests and the control unit is structured and/or arranged to provide an audible feedback signal in accordance with the following implementation:
wherein the start feedback signal comprises a sound having a first frequency and a second frequency being a harmonic of the first frequency and the current feedback signal is a sound where at least one of the first or second frequencies is gradually varied in dependence on the difference is between the optimal force value and the determined force value (See Para [0048] of Goslin cited above in the rejection of claim 6, The feedback starts by matching the user (Harmonic to the users input), and as the difference between the sense value and the optimal value increases, the feedback changes from orderly (in tune with the user), to disorderly).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the feedback signal of Subhash as modified to comprise a pair of harmonic sound signals that deviate from being in harmony in dependence on the difference of the sensed value and the optimal value as doing so would allow for one to apply the principles of Goslin with respect to a different measured value such as applied force.
Regarding Claim 11, Subhash as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 8 and in addition discloses wherein the feedback is haptic feedback (See Subhash Para [0096] “Also during or following analysis of the transformed sensor data, the programmable processor 199 may communicate user feedback 217 to the user. This user feedback 217 may include one or more of an oral care score 219 reflecting one or more of evaluated oral care characteristics, audible, visual, and/or haptic signals 221 to the user in real-time during the oral care routine, images and/or video 223 obtained during the oral care routine, and advice or instructive representations 225 of the sensor data and/or data analysis performed using the sensor data.”), but does not explicitly disclose control unit is structured and/or arranged to provide a haptic feedback signal in accordance with the following implementation:
However, Subhash as modified does suggest wherein the start feedback signal comprises a vibration having a first frequency and a second frequency being a harmonic of the first frequency and the current feedback signal is a vibration where at least one of the first or second frequencies is gradually varied in dependence on the difference is between the optimal force value and the determined force value (See Para [0048] of Goslin cited above in the rejection of claim 6, The feedback starts by matching the user (Harmonic to the users input), and as the difference between the sense value and the optimal value increases, the feedback changes from orderly (in tune with the user), to disorderly).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the feedback signal of Subhash as modified to comprise a pair of harmonic Haptic signals that deviate from being in harmony in dependence on the difference of the sensed value and the optimal value as doing so would allow for one to apply the principles of Goslin with respect to a different measured value such as applied force.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subhash (US 20210393026 A1) in view of Gatzemeyer (US 11361672 B2) as modified in claim 5 and in further view of Goslin (US 20210327297 A1) as modified in claim 8 and in further view of Farrell (US 20200029680 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Subhash as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 8 and in addition discloses wherein the feedback is visual feedback (See Subhash Para [0096] “Also during or following analysis of the transformed sensor data, the programmable processor 199 may communicate user feedback 217 to the user. This user feedback 217 may include one or more of an oral care score 219 reflecting one or more of evaluated oral care characteristics, audible, visual, and/or haptic signals 221 to the user in real-time during the oral care routine, images and/or video 223 obtained during the oral care routine, and advice or instructive representations 225 of the sensor data and/or data analysis performed using the sensor data.”), but does not disclose and the control unit is structured and/or arranged to provide a visual feedback signal in accordance with one of the following implementations to decrease the orderliness of the feedback:
- the start feedback signal is a graphical symbol or an image, and the current feedback signal is the graphical symbol or image that is dissolved the more, the larger the difference is between the optimal force value and the determined force value; or
- the start feedback signal is a matching overlay of two identical graphical symbols or images, and the matching graphical symbols or images are moved away from each other the more, the larger the difference is between the force value at the optimal force value and the currently applied force value.
However, Farrell discloses a similar smart personal care device where that tracks the overall use time of an attachment, associating a full ring of light indicating a new attachment, and the ring of light diminishes as different age thresholds are reached (See Figure 5 of Farrell and Para [0059]) and further discloses increasing the illumination of rings as a user progress towards a goal of a personal care regimen (See Para [0065] “Similar to the embodiments in which the status indicator 30 is configured to indicate the usage history of the attachments 14, the status indicator 30 can be configured to alternatively, or additionally, indicate the status or progress of the chosen regimen in any manner discussed herein (e.g., sound, visual, haptic feedback, etc.). In one embodiment, the status indicator 30 includes a light source used to illuminate a ring, symbol, or area of the personal care device 10 (e.g., such as the ring shown in FIG. 5), which becomes increasingly illuminated as progress is made toward one or more goals of the regimen.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the feedback system of Subhash the start feedback signal is a graphical symbol or an image, and the current feedback signal is the graphical symbol or image that is dissolved the more, the larger the difference is between the optimal force value and the determined force value, as Farrell discloses that this method of displaying information is just an exemplary method and would one of ordinary skill in the art would (Para [0067] “While several inventive embodiments have been described and illustrated herein, those of ordinary skill in the art will readily envision a variety of other means and/or structures for performing the function and/or obtaining the results and/or one or more of the advantages described herein, and each of such variations and/or modifications is deemed to be within the scope of the inventive embodiments described herein. More generally, those skilled in the art will readily appreciate that all parameters, dimensions, materials, and configurations described herein are meant to be exemplary and that the actual parameters, dimensions, materials, and/or configurations will depend upon the specific application or applications for which the inventive teachings is/are used. Those skilled in the art will recognize, or be able to ascertain using no more than routine experimentation, many equivalents to the specific inventive embodiments described herein.”) Indicating that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that there are different equivalent methods of providing visual feedback regarding optimizing a personal care routine,
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subhash (US 20210393026 A1) in view of Lev (US 20030000032 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Subhash discloses all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose comprising at least one sensor structured and/or arranged to create sensor data indicative of a motion of the personal care device, wherein the control unit is structured and/or arranged for switching on the drive unit of the personal care device in case the sensor data indicative of motion of the personal care device indicate a lifting of the personal care device from a rest position.
However, Lev discloses a similar personal care device that includes a motor that responds to a sensor to activate, such as a sensor detecting the device has left a rest position. See Para [0008] “The automatic mode allows the user to insert the brush head into the user's mouth before the motor is engaged and the brush head starts moving. Engagement of the motor is accomplished by one of a number of methods, each of which utilizes an operator sensitive switch located within the toothbrush housing. One method merely requires the user to bring the brush head into contact with one or more teeth; here, the downward force on the brush head actuates the switch. Another method relies on the force generated by the user's grip to actuate the switch and start the motor. Yet another method involves the use of sensors in the handle such that the presence of the user's hand actuates the switch that engages the motor. The rotation of the motor, through various mechanical linkages, causes the brush head to oscillate, facilitating tooth cleaning.”)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Subhash such that the control unit is structured and/or arranged for switching on the drive unit of the personal care device in case the sensor data indicative of motion of the personal care device indicate a lifting of the personal care device from a rest position as doing so would be an obvious matter of automating a manual activity. It has been held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04 III.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tyler James McFarland whose telephone number is (571)272-7270. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-5PM (E.S.T), Flex First Friday.
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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
/T.J.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723