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 .
Claim Interpretation
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: “splicing structure” in claim 13 (corresponds to inner threads or buckle, paragraph [0060]).
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “suction” in claim 1 is used by the claim to mean “force” (or attraction), while the accepted meaning is “the act or process of exerting a force by reduced air pressure over part of its surface.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. In paragraphs [0051]-[0052] of the applicant’s disclosure, it appears that the usage of the term “suction” is to describe the magnetic behavior of the magnetic members (104) and the iron post (204). Is the term “suction” referring to magnetic force based on the polarity of the magnetic members and the iron post? It appears that the term “suction” may be from a translation into English from a foreign document.
Claim 4 line 2 recites that the mounting groove includes “a second limiting post”. Claim 4 depends from claim 1, and neither claims 1 or 4 require a first limiting post. Is claim 4 meant to depend from claim 3?
Claim 7 line 2 recites that the eccentric inner shaft comprises “a second rotating groove”. Claim 7 depends from claim 1, and neither claims 1 or 7 require a first rotating groove. Is claim 7 meant to depend from one of claims 5 or 6?
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the electric toothbrush" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As best understood, none of the prior art made of record discloses, teaches, or suggests a toothbrush head comprising the limitations of claim 1, in particular that the toothbrush head comprises first and second connecting structures wherein one of the first connecting structure and the second connecting structures is a rotating shaft, and the other is a sleeve head, the sleeve head is provided with a rotating hole corresponding to a shape of the rotating shaft, the rotating shaft is provided therein with a magnetic suction iron post, the sleeve head is provided therein with two magnetic suction members attracting to each other, and the two magnetic suction members are located on opposite sides of the magnetic suction iron post.
US 11,173,021 to Papazian discloses a toothbrush head including a toothbrush round head (62, see Figures) which is provided with bristles on one side (63, see particularly Figure 8B) and a first connecting structure on the other side (79, see particularly Figure 8B), the toothbrush round head being provided with a first transmission groove on a side wall (78a, Figure 8B); a large body (64) which is provided with a mounting groove (75), the mounting groove being provided with a mounting base for mounting the toothbrush round head (80, Figures 6 and 9), the mounting base being provided with a second connecting structure that cooperates with the first connecting structure (sidewalls of 80), and the mounting base being rotatably connected to the toothbrush round head (Figures 6-7B); an eccentric inner shaft (65), which is provided within the large body (Figure 7B), the eccentric inner shaft being movably connected to the large body (column 5 lines 14-19), the eccentric inner shaft being provided with a transmission structure that cooperates with the first transmission groove (84, Figure 12), one of the first connecting structure and second connecting structure is a sleeve head (80) with a retaining hole therein (Figure 9). Papazian does not disclose a rotating shaft provided with a magnetic suction iron post or that the sleeve head has two magnetic suction members attracting to each other and located on opposite sides of the magnetic suction iron post.
CN 117100411 A appears to be related to the present application and is not applicable as prior art as it is published after the effective filing date of the present application and appears to be from the same inventor.
DE 102011013086 A1 teaches a toothbrush head wherein a toothbrush round head having bristles on one side (5) connects to a large body (6) via magnetic force within connecting structure (3, 4; see English translation). DE 102011013086 A1 fails to include many limitations of claim 1. Other relevant prior art includes US 11,553,999 to Scherrer et al. and US 2024/0164512 to Deilami.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Laura C Guidotti whose telephone number is (571)272-1272. The examiner can normally be reached typically M-F, 6am-9am, 10am-4:30pm.
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.
/LAURA C GUIDOTTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
lcg