Detailed Action Preliminary Amendment 1. Entry of applicant’s preliminary amendment dated 12-9-23 into the application file is acknowledged. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 3. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the computer readable medium claimed encompasses non-statutory subject matter being transitory signals in that applicant’s originally filed disclosure does not disclose only non-transitory signals are used. Claim Interpretation 4. 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. Regarding claim s 1 and 12 , applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed drive arrangement and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the drive arrangement is not detailed structurally. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 5. 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 1-1 4 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 is 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. Applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed drive arrangement and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the drive arrangement is not detailed structurally and therefore it is unclear to what constitutes the claimed drive arrangement. Further, it is unclear to whether the sensed pH level detailed in lines 7-10 of claim 1 is the same or different than the oral pH level detailed in line 5 of claim 1. Claim 1 2 is 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. Applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed drive arrangement and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the drive arrangement is not detailed structurally and therefore it is unclear to what constitutes the claimed drive arrangement. Further, it is unclear to whether the sensed pH level detailed in line 6 of claim 1 2 is the same or different than the sensed oral pH level detailed in line 5 of claim 1 2 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 6 . 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) 1- 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U . S. Patent No. 10,064,711 to Richter et al. Referring to claim s 1 , 12 and 1 6 , Richter et al. discloses a power toothbrush and associated method and associated computer readable storage medium on a processor – at 143, comprising , a toothbrush head – at 113,115, a handle – at 117, to which the toothbrush head – at 113,115, is coupled – see figure 2 , comprising a drive arrangement – at 131, for driving the toothbrush head with a vibratory motion using drive parameters – see figures 2-4 and column 7 lines 49-67 , a pH sensor – at 123, for sensing an oral pH level – see column 1 line 57 to column 2 line 14 and column 13 lin e 4 to column 14 line 4, and a controller – at 133-145, wherein the controller – at 133-145, is adapted to , determine or receive drive parameters – see column 5 line 35 to column 6 line 62 and column 7 lines 49-67 , which depend on the sensed level – see column 7 lines 49-67, and apply the drive parameters which depend on the sensed level s to the drive arrangement – at 131 – see column 7 lines 49-67 . Richter et al. does not disclose the controller determines or receives drive parameters which depend on the sensed pH level and apply the drive parameters which on the sensed pH level to the drive arrangement. However, Richter et al. does disclose the drive motor – at 131 can be controlled based on sensor data as seen in column 7 lines 49-67 and the use of the terms/phrases “for example”, “etc.” and “such as” in this passage of Richter et al. does not prohibit the device /method of Richter et al. only to the sensors disclosed in this passage and therefore Richter et al. contemplates using other types of sensors and as seen in column 1 line 57 to column 2 line 14 and column 13 line 4 to column 14 line 4 of Richter et al., the use of a pH sensor with the toothbrush is disclosed and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device /method of Richter et al. and use any suitable sensor including the pH sensor disclosed by Richter et al., to control the motor of the toothbrush as detailed in column 7 lines 49-67 of Richter et al., so as to yield the predictable result of making the device more user friendly by allowing for the device /method to immediately and automatically control the device to correct any issues determined by the sensor(s), so as to allow the user of the device /method to not have to take any other corrective action after the initial use of the toothbrush. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed drive arrangement, the motor – at 131 of Richter et al. is at least functionally equivalent to applicant’s disclosed drive arrangement in that applicant has not specifically disclosed the drive arrangement structurally and the motor – at 131 of Richter et al. provides the vibratory motion claimed. Referring to claim 2, Richter et al. further discloses the controller – at 133-145, is adapted to determine the drive parameters – see column 5 line 35 to column 6 line 62 and column 7 lines 49-67. Referring to claim s 3 -4 and 13 , Richter et al. further discloses t he controller can provide an indication if the sense d pH level is below a threshold pH level – see column 2 lines 3-14 where the sensed pH level is below a threshold value of 5.5 and then the controller controls the device to provide an indication to the user , but does not disclose the controller is adapted to , if the sensed pH level is below the pH threshold, to set the drive parameters to a more gentle brushing mode. However, Richter et al. does disclose the drive motor – at 131 can be controlled based on sensor data as seen in column 7 lines 49-67 and the use of the terms/phrases “for example”, “etc.” and “such as” in this passage of Richter et al. does not prohibit the device /method of Richter et al. only to the sensors disclosed in this passage and therefore Richter et al. contemplates using other types of sensors and as seen in column 1 line 57 to column 2 line 14 and column 13 line 4 to column 14 line 4 of Richter et al., the use of a pH sensor with the toothbrush is disclosed and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device /method of Richter et al. and use any suitable sensor including the pH sensor disclosed by Richter et al., to control the motor based on the threshold value of pH as detailed in column 2 lines 3-14, so as to control the toothbrush as detailed in column 7 lines 49-67 of Richter et al., so as to yield the predictable result of making the device /method more user friendly by allowing for the device /method to immediately and automatically control the device to correct any issues determined by the sensor(s), so as to allow the user of the device /method to not have to take any other corrective action after the initial use of the toothbrush. Specific to claim s 4 and 13 , Richter et al. further discloses the controller – at 133-145, is adapted to set the drive parameters which would control frequency or amplitude of vibrations – see column 7 line 49-67, but does not disclose setting drive parameters to a more gentle brushing mode by lowering a frequency or amplitude of the vibrations. However, Richter et al. does disclose the drive motor – at 131 can be controlled based on sensor data as seen in column 7 lines 49-67 and the use of the terms/phrases “for example”, “etc.” and “such as” in this passage of Richter et al. does not prohibit the device /method of Richter et al. only to the sensors disclosed in this passage and therefore Richter et al. contemplates using other types of sensors and as seen in column 1 line 57 to column 2 line 14 and column 13 line 4 to column 14 line 4 of Richter et al., the use of a pH sensor with the toothbrush is disclosed and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device /method of Richter et al. and use any suitable sensor including the pH sensor disclosed by Richter et al., to control the motor based on the threshold value of pH as detailed in column 2 lines 3-14, so as to control the toothbrush as detailed in column 7 lines 49-67 of Richter et al., so as to yield the predictable result of making the device /method more user friendly by allowing for the device /method to immediately and automatically control the device to correct any issues determined by the sensor(s), so as to allow the user of the device /method to not have to take any other corrective action after the initial use of the toothbrush. Referring to claim 5, Richter et al. further discloses the controller – at 133-145, is adapted to set the drive parameters to a more gentle brushing mode by ending the brushing – see column 7 lines 49-67 and providing a recommendation to the user – see via providing indications to the user as seen in 1 line 57 to column 2 line 14 and column 13 line 4 to column 14 line 4 , but does not disclose the more gentle brushing mode is ending the brushing and does not disclose the recommendation is to switch to manual brushing or to change a toothbrush head. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Richter et al. and add the controlling of the more gentle brushing mode being ending the brushing and to provide a recommendation to either switch to manual brushing or to change the toothbrush head as claimed, so as to yield the predictable result of automatically controlling operation of the device based on the user’s needs while also encouraging proper maintenance of the device as desired. Referring to claim s 6 -8 and 14 , Richter et al. further discloses a force or pressure sensor – at 145, for detecting a brushing force or pressure applied by the toothbrush head – see column 6 line 13 to column 7 line 67 . Specific to claim s 7 and 14 , Richter et al. further discloses the drive parameters include a force or pressure threshold, wherein the controller – at 133-145, is adapted to compare the sensed brushing force or pressure with the force or pressure threshold – see for example column 6 line 13 to column 7 line 67 and column 10 line 49 to column 11 line 9 , and if the force or pressure threshold is reached, providing a warning , or reduce the applied force or pressure – see for example column 10 line 49 to column 11 line 9 . Specific to claim s 8 and 14 , Richter et al. further discloses the controller – at 133-145, is adapted to set the force or pressure threshold – see for example column 6 line 13 to column 7 line 67 and column 10 line 49 to column 11 line 9 , but does not disclose the set force or pressure threshold is in dependence on the sensed pH level. However, Richter et al. does disclose the device/ drive motor – at 131 can be controlled based on sensor data as seen in column 7 lines 49-67 and the use of the terms/phrases “for example”, “etc.” and “such as” in this passage of Richter et al. does not prohibit the device /method of Richter et al. only to the sensors disclosed in this passage and therefore Richter et al. contemplates using other types of sensors and as seen in column 1 line 57 to column 2 line 14 and column 13 line 4 to column 14 line 4 of Richter et al., the use of a pH sensor with the toothbrush is disclosed and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device /method of Richter et al. and use any suitable sensor including the pH sensor disclosed by Richter et al., to control the motor and forces produced by the motor based on the threshold value of pH as detailed in column 2 lines 3-14, so as to control the toothbrush as detailed in column 7 lines 49-67 of Richter et al., so as to yield the predictable result of making the device /method more user friendly by allowing for the device to immediately and automatically control the device to correct any issues determined by the sensor(s), so as to allow the user of the device /method to not have to take any other corrective action after the initial use of the toothbrush. Referring to claim 9, Richter et al. further the controller – at 133-145, further comprises an input – at 145, for receiving information about food and drink intake – see via pH sensor as detailed in column 2 lines 3-14 , and is adapted to provide a recommendation of when to perform brushing in dependence on the food and drink intake – see 1 line 57 to column 2 line 14 and column 13 line 4 to column 14 line 4 where the pH sensed can be below a threshold as related to drink consumption and can cause the user to be indicated so as to take action such as brushing . Referring to claim 10, Richter et al. further discloses an input – at 145, for receiving information about an intake – see drink intake in column 2 lines 3-14 , and is adapted to provide brushing recommendations in dependence on the medication or supplement intake – see for example 1 line 57 to column 2 line 14 and column 13 line 4 to column 14 line 4 where the pH sensed can be below a threshold as related to drink consumption and can cause the user to be indicated so as to take action such as brushing. Richter et al. does not disclose the intake is medication or supplements. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Richter et al. and use the device with any types of intakes including the medication and supplements claimed, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing the user to monitor their own health in real time and to take action to improve their health in real time as desired. Referring to claim 11, Richter et al. a wireless communications system – see transmitter or transceiver in column 5 lines 64-67, capable of providing the sensed pH level to an external device – see column 5 lines 64-67, and capable of receiving the drive parameters from the external devic e – see the transceiver detailed in column 5 lines 64-67. Conclusion 7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to powered toothbrushes in general: U.S. Pat. No. 6,453,497 to Chiang et al. – shows powered toothbrush U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0310900 to Curry et al. – shows powered toothbrush U.S. Pat. No. 10,342,648 to Bloch et al. – shows powered toothbrush U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0196871 to Ortiz et al. – shows powered toothbrush U.S. Pat. No.10,813,373 to Shreve – shows powered toothbrush U.S. Pat. No. 11,523,679 to Mediratta et al. – shows powered toothbrush 8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DAVID J PARSLEY whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6890 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm EST . 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 Peter Poon can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-6891 . 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. /DAVID J PARSLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643