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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "203a" (Fig.3-6) and "203b" (Fig.7) have both been used to designate the head; while "203b" (Fig.3-6) and "203a" (Fig.7) have both been used to designate the neck. 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. 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 16 recites the limitation “lite up” which is an informal version of “light up”. Appropriate correction is required.
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: “a decontaminator unit” in claim 2.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the mouth”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-20 depend from claim 1 and fail to remedy its deficiencies.
Claim 4 recites “at least one motor” and depends from claim 1 which recites “at least one motor”; it is not clear if the at least one motor recited in claim 4 refers to the same at least one motor recited in claim 1 or to a different and additional one.
For purposes of prior art examination, the at least one motor limitation in claim 4 is being interpreted as referring to the same at least one motor recited in claim 1.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “them” which is preceded by a plurality of limitations in claim 5 itself and also from claim 2 and claim 1 via dependency; it is not clear to which limitations the recitation of “them” refers to.
For purposes of prior art examination, the them limitation in claim 5 is being interpreted as referring to viruses, bacteria and fungi previously recited in claim 5.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the walls”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the term “a low-powered diaphragm pump with a 3V-6V rating” which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low-powered” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For purposes of prior art examination, the low-powered diaphragm pump limitation in claim 7 is being interpreted as referring to a diaphragm pump with a 3V-6V rating.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the mains”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the teeth”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the term “conventional LEDs” which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “conventional LEDs” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For purposes of prior art examination, the conventional LEDs limitation in claim 12 is being interpreted as referring to LEDs.
Claim 12 further recites the limitation “the interior region”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitations “the guide light,” “the bristles,” and “the LEDs”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claims 17-18 depend from claim 16 and fail to remedy its deficiencies.
Claim 18 recites the limitations “the conventional LEDs,” and “the guiding LED light”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 18 further recites the term “conventional LEDs” which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “conventional LEDs” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For purposes of prior art examination, the conventional LEDs limitation in claim 18 is being interpreted as referring to LEDs.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the conventional LEDs”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 further recites the term “conventional LEDs” which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “conventional LEDs” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For purposes of prior art examination, the conventional LEDs limitation in claim 19 is being interpreted as referring to LEDs.
Claim 20 recites the limitations “the clean mode,” “the sensitive mode,” “the whitening mode,” and “the massage mode”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Clarification and/or amendment is respectfully requested.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-12, 14-15 and 19 (as far as the claim(s) are definite and understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20170112603 A1; also US 10,080,632 B2) in view of KR 101255575 B1 – hereafter KR – and Li et al – hereafter Li – (US 20240041579 A1; also US 12,295,803 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches an electric toothbrush system (Fig.3), comprising:
(a) a base station (260) comprising
a second portion comprising a first tank (262) with a first pump (261) operationally connected thereto for dispensing water from the first tank into the mouth of a user (¶62),
and a second tank (264) with a second pump (263) operationally connected thereto for vacuuming oral fluid after brushing and collecting into the second tank (¶62);
(b) a toothbrush (210) comprising a toothbrush handle (230) having a proximal end and a distal end (Fig.3), the toothbrush handle comprising a first fluid conduit (250), and a second fluid conduit (251) extending partially from the proximal end towards the distal end along the length of the toothbrush handle, wherein the first fluid conduit is coupled to the first tank using a first hose (Fig.3), and the second fluid conduit is coupled to the second tank using a second hose (Fig.3);
one or more buttons (240) for controlling one or more functionalities of the toothbrush (¶55);
a head portion (220) comprising a head and a neck (Fig.3), the neck is configured to removably couple the head portion to the proximal end of the toothbrush handle (¶73), wherein the head portion comprises a pair of fluid channels (Fig.3) each axially aligned to the first fluid conduit, and the second fluid conduit of the toothbrush handle when the head portion is coupled to the toothbrush handle (Fig.3).
Lee does not explicitly teach the base comprising a first portion with a toothbrush mounting provision; the first and second pumps being diaphragm pumps; and a motion-inducing assembly comprising at least one motor mounted on a bracket, the motion-inducing assembly is housed within the toothbrush handle.
KR teaches an electric toothbrush system including a toothbrush in combination with a fluid dispensing mechanism (Fig.1/6). KR further teaches a base comprising a first portion with a toothbrush mounting provision (where 300 sits on).
Li teaches an electric toothbrush system including a toothbrush in combination with a fluid dispensing mechanism (Fig.1-4). Li further teaches the electric toothbrush system fluid dispensing mechanism includes a diaphragm pump (¶135); and a motion-inducing assembly comprising at least one motor (40) mounted on a bracket (84), the motion-inducing assembly is housed within the toothbrush handle (Fig.3; ¶189).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the electric toothbrush system of Lee by having the base comprising a first portion with a toothbrush mounting provision based on the teachings of KR because this would provide an upright mounting set up for the toothbrush which helps preventing exposing the toothbrush head to potential contaminants around a sink surface if the toothbrush is placed sideways on said sink surface.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the electric toothbrush system of Lee by having the first and second pumps being diaphragm pumps; and a motion-inducing assembly comprising at least one motor mounted on a bracket, the motion-inducing assembly is housed within the toothbrush handle based on the teachings of Li because, with respect to the pump limitation, this would require a simple substitution of one known element (pump of Lee) for another (diaphragm pump of Li) to obtain predictable results (generating a fluid flow to and from the toothbrush); and with respect to the motion-inducing assembly limitation, this would improve the oral cleaning effectiveness of the toothbrush compared to purely hand brushing.
Regarding claim 6, Lee, KR and Li further teach each of the first fluid conduit, and the second fluid conduit of the toothbrush handle are formed in the toothbrush handle (Lee Fig.3), however, do not explicitly teach the conduits being integrally formed on the walls of the toothbrush handle.
However, it has been held that if shifting the position of a component in a device would not have modified the operation of said device, said position shift of said component is unpatentable, additionally, a particular placement of a component in a device has been held to be an obvious matter of design choice. In the current instance, there is no evidence that having the conduits being integrally formed on the walls of the toothbrush handle, would change the operation of the electric toothbrush system in Lee, therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the electric toothbrush system of Lee by shifting the position/placement of the conduits being integrally formed on the walls of the toothbrush handle as an obvious matter of design choice (MPEP 2144.04 VI C).
Regarding claim 7, Lee, KR and Li further teach the first diaphragm pump is a diaphragm pump (Li ¶135), however, do not explicitly teach the diaphragm pump has a 3V-6V rating.
Note the above claim language in the claim 7 (diaphragm pump with a 3V-6V rating) is also functional language. It is well-settled that the manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art. Specifically, it has been held that 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2114 II. It is also noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art. Specifically, it has been held that “while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function" In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); and In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). MPEP 2114 I. In the current instance Lee, KR and Li teach the diaphragm pump which is the required structural limitation by the claim, therefore, the claim is not patentably distinct from the system of Lee, KR and Li.
Regarding claim 8, Lee, KR and Li further teach the second diaphragm pump is a diaphragm pump (Li ¶135), however, do not explicitly teach the diaphragm pump has a 9V-12V rating.
Note the above claim language in the claim 8 (diaphragm pump with a 9V-12V rating) is also functional language. It is well-settled that the manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art. Specifically, it has been held that 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2114 II. It is also noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art. Specifically, it has been held that “while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function" In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); and In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). MPEP 2114 I. In the current instance Lee, KR and Li teach the diaphragm pump which is the required structural limitation by the claim, therefore, the claim is not patentably distinct from the system of Lee, KR and Li.
Regarding claim 9, Lee, KR and Li further teach the base station is powered by the mains or using one or more batteries (Lee ¶62).
Regarding claim 10, Lee, KR and Li further teach the head comprises bristles (Lee, 221) for cleaning the teeth, and a guiding LED light surrounding the bristles to illuminate the interior region of the mouth (Lee ¶37, note “light emitted from the light emitting part 126 may be totally and internally reflected by the inside of the head portion 120 formed with a transparent material and lighten the surroundings of the brush”).
Regarding claim 11, Lee, KR and Li further teach the neck of the head portion is transparent (Lee ¶37, note “light emitted from the light emitting part 126 may be totally and internally reflected by the inside of the head portion 120 formed with a transparent material and lighten the surroundings of the brush”).
Regarding claim 12, Lee, KR and Li further teach the neck of the head portion or the toothbrush handle comprises LEDs (Lee 126/226) to illuminate the interior region of the mouth (Lee ¶37, note “light emitted from the light emitting part 126 may be totally and internally reflected by the inside of the head portion 120 formed with a transparent material and lighten the surroundings of the brush”).
Regarding claim 14, Lee, KR and Li further teach the head (203a) comprises at least one water dispensing port (Lee, 222) in fluid communication with the fluid channel of the head portion and the first fluid conduit of the toothbrush handle (Lee Fig.3).
Regarding claim 15, Lee, KR and Li further teach the head comprises at least one oral fluid vacuuming port (Lee 223) in fluid communication with the fluid channel of the head portion and the second fluid conduit of the toothbrush handle (Lee Fig.3).
Regarding claim 19, Lee, KR and Li further teach the toothbrush further comprises a second control circuitry comprising one or more microprocessors configured to control at least a guiding LED light surrounding the bristles of the head (Lee ¶37/38, note “light emitted from the light emitting part 126 may be totally and internally reflected by the inside of the head portion 120 formed with a transparent material and lighten the surroundings of the brush” and capability of the toothbrush to connect and transmit data to a user terminal which inherently requires one or more microprocessors), and the LEDs present in the neck of the head portion or the toothbrush handle (Lee Fig.3).
Claim(s) 13 and 20 (as far as the claim(s) are definite and understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, KR and Li as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hwang et al – hereafter Hwang – (US 20100106336 A1; also US 8,272,091 B2).
Regarding claim 13, Lee, KR and Li teach all the limitations of claim 1, see above, however do not explicitly teach the at least one motor is capable of producing vibrations up to 14000 VPM.
Hwang teaches electric toothbrushes with at least one motor (¶4; Fig.1,130) capable of producing controlled vibrations (¶2). Hwang further teaches how toothbrush vibrations are a result effective variable with respect to plaque removal (¶4); how high electric toothbrushes vibrate up to 20,000 and up to 30,000 vibrations per minute (¶5); and how vibrations per minute can be controlled based on operating modes (¶8).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the electric toothbrush system of Lee, KR and Li by having the at least one motor being capable of producing vibrations up to 14000 VPM via routine optimization based on the teachings of Hwang.
Regarding claim 20, Lee, KR and Li teach all the limitations of claim 1, see above, however do not explicitly teach during the clean mode the toothbrush head's vibration ranges from 10000 to 12000 VPM, during the sensitive mode the toothbrush head's vibration ranges from 7000 to 9000 VPM, during the whitening mode the toothbrush head's vibration ranges from 13000 to 14000 VPM, and during the massage mode the toothbrush head's vibration ranges from 2000 to 5000 VPM.
Hwang teaches electric toothbrushes with at least one motor (¶4; Fig.1,130) capable of producing controlled vibrations (¶2). Hwang further teaches how toothbrush vibrations are a result effective variable with respect to plaque removal (¶4); how high electric toothbrushes vibrate up to 20,000 and up to 30,000 vibrations per minute (¶5); and how vibrations per minute can be controlled based on a cleaning mode, soft-cleaning (i.e., sensitive) mode, whitening mode and massage mode (¶8).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the electric toothbrush system of Lee, KR and Li by during the clean mode the toothbrush head's vibration ranges from 10000 to 12000 VPM, during the sensitive mode the toothbrush head's vibration ranges from 7000 to 9000 VPM, during the whitening mode the toothbrush head's vibration ranges from 13000 to 14000 VPM, and during the massage mode the toothbrush head's vibration ranges from 2000 to 5000 VPM via routine optimization based on the teachings of Hwang.
Claim(s) 16-17 (as far as the claim(s) are definite and understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, KR and Li as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sokol et al – hereafter Sokol – (US 20200205952 A1; also US 11,399,925 B2) and Hwang et al – hereafter Hwang – (US 20100106336 A1; also US 8,272,091 B2).
Regarding claim 16, Lee, KR and Li teach all the limitations of claim 1, see above, however do not explicitly teach the one or more buttons for controlling one or more functionalities of the toothbrush includes at least: a button to turn the toothbrush ON/OFF; a button to initiate the dispensing of water from the first tank into the mouth of the user; a button to initiate vacuuming of the oral fluid from the mouth and collection into the second tank; and a button to lite up the guide light surrounding the bristles and the LEDs around the neck; a mode control button to control one or more operating modes of the toothbrush comprising a clean mode, a sensitive mode, a whitening mode, and a massage mode.
Sokol teaches an electric toothbrush system including a toothbrush in combination with a fluid dispensing mechanism (¶8). Sokol further teaches one or more buttons (Fig.12C/13A, 322a/b & 374a/b) for controlling one or more functionalities of the toothbrush including the following exemplary modes: off, low speed, high speed, or water flosser mode, or some combination thereof (¶104).
Hwang teaches electric toothbrushes with at least one motor (¶4; Fig.1,130) capable of producing controlled vibrations (¶2). Hwang further teaches how toothbrush vibrations are a result effective variable with respect to plaque removal (¶4); how high electric toothbrushes vibrate up to 20,000 and up to 30,000 vibrations per minute (¶5); and how vibrations per minute can be controlled based on a cleaning mode, soft-cleaning (i.e., sensitive) mode, whitening mode and massage mode (¶8).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the electric toothbrush system of Lee, KR and Li by having the one or more buttons for controlling one or more functionalities of the toothbrush includes at least: a button to turn the toothbrush ON/OFF; a button to initiate the dispensing of water from the first tank into the mouth of the user; a button to initiate vacuuming of the oral fluid from the mouth and collection into the second tank; and a button to lite up the guide light surrounding the bristles and the LEDs around the neck; a mode control button to control one or more operating modes of the toothbrush based on the teachings of Sokol and a duplication of parts (i.e., duplicating the amount of buttons to obtain the required claimed amount) because mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, in the current instance no new and unexpected result is produced by having more control buttons;
And by further having the one or more operating modes comprising a clean mode, a sensitive mode, a whitening mode, and a massage mode based on the teachings of Hwang because this would provide a user the option to select a desired cleaning mode depending on the specific situation and conditions of the user’s mouth.
Regarding claim 17, Lee, KR, Li, Sokol and Hwang further teach the one or more operating modes of the toothbrush identifies different vibrational speeds of the at least one motor (Hwang ¶8).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
The following claim limitations were not found in the prior art.
the first portion of the base station further comprises at least: a first control circuitry comprising one or more microprocessors; a power ON/OFF button; a plurality of LED indicators indicative of one or more operations of the toothbrush, and if the toothbrush is being operated with mains supply or batteries; and a decontaminator unit configured to decontaminate the water stored in the first tank using an activation button (as in the context of claim 2).
KR includes a control button on the disclosed base (Fig.1, base 100 & control button 123), however, there is no disclosure about mains supply or batteries operation and an activation button of a decontaminator unit to decontaminate the water stored in the first tank (interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a UV-C light to accomplish the claimed function, and equivalents thereof). There is a sterilization lamp disclosed to sterilize a nozzle (Fig.1, 340; see machine translation page 4 line 14-16), however, the sterilization lamp does not decontaminate water in a first tank.
No other prior art reference was found that would anticipate or allow establishing a prima facie case of obviousness in view of the cited prior art above.
the whitening mode involves turning OFF the conventional LEDs, the guiding LED light, and switching ON a Black Light UV-A light configured in the neck (as in the context of claim 18).
Hwang discloses a whitening mode, however, is based mainly on vibrations per minute of the toothbrush instead of control of LEDs and Black Light UV-A light.
No other prior art reference was found that would anticipate or allow establishing a prima facie case of obviousness in view of the cited prior art above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN G FLORES whose telephone number is (571)272-3486. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5:30pm Pacific Time.
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, Nathan E Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JUAN G FLORES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745