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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 45-48, 56, 58, 60, 61, and 63 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,278,384. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the same inventive scope has been claimed as shown in the table listed below:
Application # 18,623,264
45. (New) A method comprising: receiving, by an application executing on a client device including one or more processors, motion data, the motion data being generated by one or more motion sensors of a toothbrush and being indicative of motion of the toothbrush during a brushing session; using the motion data, identifying, by the application, a first location of the toothbrush in a mouth of a user during a first portion of the brushing session; and causing, by the application, a schematic of a dentition including an indication of the first location to be presented via a user interface of the client device during the brushing session.
46. (New) The method of claim 45, wherein the schematic further includes an indication of how much time remains for brushing.
47. (New) The method of claim 45, wherein the schematic further includes an indication of brushing sufficiency.
48. (New) The method of claim 47, wherein the indication of brushing sufficiency includes indications of brushing sufficiency for each section of the mouth of the user.
56. (New) The method of claim 45, wherein the schematic further includes an indication of time spent brushing each section of the mouth of the user.
60. (New) The method of claim 45, wherein the application determines the current location based on a machine learning algorithm.
61. (New) The method of claim 45, wherein the first location is a section of the mouth of the user.
63. (New) The method of claim 45, further comprising: storing, during the brushing session in a memory of the toothbrush, the motion data.
7. An oral hygiene system for monitoring brushing and compliance with a tooth brush regimen, the oral hygiene system comprising: an oral hygiene device including a handle and a head; a sensor configured to output motion data indicative of motion of the oral hygiene device; a memory containing machine readable medium comprising machine executable code having stored thereon instructions for performing a method of determining a position and orientation of the oral hygiene device; and a control system coupled to the memory and comprising one or more processors, the control system being configured to execute the machine executable code to: determine a specific action performed by the oral hygiene device based at least on the motion data output by the sensor, wherein the specific action is determined by processing the motion data with a trained machine learning model, wherein the specific action includes a brush stroke type used in each section of a mouth of a user and position of the head of the oral hygiene device in the mouth of the user; and cause a mobile device to display a schematic of a dentition for the user including an amount of time spent brushing each section of the mouth of the user and the brush stroke type used in each section of the mouth of the user.
58. (New) The method of claim 45, wherein the one or more motion sensors include (i) a gyroscope, (ii) an accelerometer, (iii) a magnetometer, (iv) an inertial sensor, (v) a gyrometer, or (vi) any combination of (i) - (v).
8. The oral hygiene system of claim 7, wherein the sensor is at least one of a gyrometer, a magnetometer, and an accelerometer.
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 45-48, 50-59, and 61-64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Serval et al. (Pub # US 2018/0125623 A1).
Consider claim 45, Serval et al. clearly shows and discloses a method comprising: receiving, by an application executing on a client device including one or more processors, motion data, the motion data being generated by one or more motion sensors of a toothbrush and being indicative of motion of the toothbrush during a brushing session [0091]; using the motion data, identifying, by the application, a first location of the toothbrush in a mouth of a user during a first portion of the brushing session [0105]; and causing, by the application, a schematic of a dentition including an indication of the first location to be presented via a user interface of the client device during the brushing session [0061].
Consider claim 46, Serval et al. clearly shows and discloses the method, wherein the schematic further includes an indication of how much time remains for brushing [0072].
Consider claim 47, Serval et al. clearly shows and discloses the method, wherein the schematic further includes an indication of brushing sufficiency [0114].
Consider claim 48, Serval et al. clearly shows and discloses the method, wherein the indication of brushing sufficiency includes indications of brushing sufficiency for each section of the mouth of the user [0114].
Consider claim 50. Serval clearly shows and discloses the method, wherein the indication of brushing sufficiency is presented in real time [0048].
Consider claim 51, Serval et al. clearly shows and discloses the method, further comprising: using the motion data, identifying, by the application, a second location of the toothbrush in the mouth of the user during a second portion of the brushing session; causing, by the application, the schematic of the dentition including an indication of the second location to be presented via the user interface of the client device during the brushing session [0091].
Consider claim 52, Serval et al. clearly shows and discloses the method, wherein the indication of the second location is presented via the user interface of the client device during the second portion of the brushing session [0088].
Consider claim 53, Serval et al. clearly shows and discloses the method, further comprising: compiling, by the application based on the motion data, historical brushing information for the user, wherein the historical brushing information includes (i) an average time spent brushing per day, (ii) an average time spent brushing each section of the mouth of the user, (iii) average number of times the user brushes per day, (iv) brushing activity for a day, of (v) any combination of (i) - (iv); andcausing, by the application, an indication of the historical brushing information to be presented via the user interface of the client device [0115].
Consider claim 54, Serval et al. clearly shows and discloses the method, further comprising: using the motion data, determining, by the application, a brushing pressure; and causing, by the application, an indication of the brushing pressure to be presented via the user interface of the client device [0089].
Consider claim 55, Serval et al. clearly shows and disclose the method, wherein the schematic and the indication of the brushing pressure are presented simultaneously via the user interface of the client device [0049-0050].
Consider claim 56, Serval et al. clearly shows and disclose the method, wherein the schematic further includes an indication of time spent brushing each section of the mouth of the user [0072].
Consider claim 57, Serval et al. clearly shows and disclose the method, wherein the schematic further includes a visual representation of (i) sections of the mouth of the user that have been brushed, (ii) accuracy of brushing in each section of the mouth of the user, or (iii) both (i) and (ii) [0106].
Consider claim 58, Serval et al. clearly shows and disclose the method, wherein the one or more motion sensors include (i) a gyroscope, (ii) an accelerometer, (iii) a magnetometer, (iv) an inertial sensor, (v) a gyrometer, or (vi) any combination of (i) - (v) [0073].
Consider claim 59, Serval et al. clearly shows and disclose the method, wherein the application determines the first location based on a comparison of a current position of the toothbrush to calibration [0081].
Consider claim 61, Serval et al. clearly shows and disclose the method, wherein the first location is a section of the mouth of the user [0058].
Consider claim 62, Serval et al. clearly shows and disclose the method, further comprising: using the motion data, determining, by the application, a brushing recommendation; and causing, by the application, an indication of the brushing recommendation to be presented via the user interface of the client device [0091].
Consider claim 63, Serval et al. clearly shows and disclose the method, further comprising: storing, during the brushing session in a memory of the toothbrush, the motion data [0049-0050].
Consider claim 64, Serval et al. clearly shows and disclose the method, further comprising: transmitting, from the memory of the toothbrush to the application executing on the client device, the motion data, wherein the motion data is transmitted (i) during the brushing session, (ii) after the brushing session, or (iii) both (i) and (ii) [0053].
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 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serval et al. (Pub # US 2018/0125623 A1) as applied to claim 47 above, and further in view of Richter et al. (US Patent # 10,064,711 B1).
Consider claim 49, Serval et al. teaches the similar invention.
Serval et al. does not teach the method, wherein the indication of brushing sufficiency is depicted via color.
In the same field of endeavor, Richter et al. teaches wherein the indication of brushing sufficiency is depicted via color (Column 8 lines 9-22) for the benefit of indicating the trouble area.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the indication of brushing sufficiency is depicted via color as shown in Richter et al., in Serval et al. method for the benefit of indicating the trouble area.
Claim 60 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serval et al. (Pub # US 2018/0125623 A1) as applied to claim 45 above, and further in view of Gatzemeyer (Pub # US 2018/0137773 A1).
Consider claim 60, Serval et al. teaches similar invention.
Serval et al. does not teach the method, wherein the application determines the current location based on a machine learning algorithm.
In the same field of endeavor, Gatzemeyer teaches wherein the application determines the current location based on a machine learning algorithm [0055] for the benefit of improving accuracy.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the application determines the current location based on a machine learning algorithm as shown in Gatzemeyer, in Serval et al. method for the benefit of improving accuracy.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK K WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-1938. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM.
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, Curtis Kuntz can be reached at 571-272-7499. 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.
/JACK K WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2687