DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed September 15, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1 – 10 are pending in the application with claim 10 being newly added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “wherein the piston assembly consists of a piston base and a piston” in last second line. The phrase “consists of” is a new matter. The originally filed specification (see ¶10 or ¶25) states “the piston assembly includes a piston base and a piston”. Furthermore, the filed specification (see ¶28) states “Moreover, terms, such as "include", "comprise" or any other variations thereof are intended to cover a non-exclusive inclusion, so that a process, method, article, or device that includes a series of elements not only includes those elements, but also includes other elements not explicitly listed, or further includes elements inherent to the process, method, article, or device”. Thus, the above recited limitation is a new matter.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 – 5 and 7 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 219176506U – herein after Li) in view of Liu Xiao (CN 220487836U – herein after Liu) and Young Henry (US 2,686,091 – herein after Young).
In reference to claim 1, Li teaches a pump assembly (seen in fig. 1) for an oral irrigator (see ¶1 or ¶35 of translation), comprising:
a housing (see ¶35 of translation);
wherein an accommodating cavity is defined within the housing,
wherein the accommodating cavity comprises a pump body accommodating cavity (space corresponding to pump housing 21), a fluted disk accommodating cavity (space corresponding to transmission structure 30), and a motor accommodating cavity (space corresponding to motor 41);
wherein the pump body accommodating cavity, the fluted disk accommodating cavity, and the motor accommodating cavity are sequentially defined in a vertical direction (this direction being ↨ in view of fig. 1);
wherein a pump body (20, see fig. 1) is disposed in the pump body accommodating cavity, an eccentric fluted disk (321/32, see fig. 1) is disposed in the fluted disk accommodating cavity, and a driving motor (41, see fig. 1) is disposed in the motor accommodating cavity;
wherein the driving motor is connected to the eccentric fluted disk and is configured to drive the eccentric fluted disk, wherein the eccentric fluted disk is connected to the pump body through a connecting rod (23, see fig. 1) and is configured to drive the pump body (as evident from fig. 1 and disclosure in ¶34 of translation);
wherein the pump body (20) comprises (see figs. 1-2) a pump housing (21), a pump cavity (space within 21, see ¶29 of translation) is defined in the pump housing, a metal sleeve (211, see ¶29 of translation) is disposed in the pump cavity and an inner wall surface (inner wall) of the metal sleeve is a smooth wall surface (the surface is considered to be “smooth” since Li discloses reduction in friction between the piston and inner wall of the metal sleeve; see ¶29 of translation; also referred as “mirror polished”).
Li remains silent on the pump assembly, wherein “the housing comprises a front housing and a rear housing, wherein the front housing and the rear housing are connected and are fitted with each other, wherein an accommodating cavity is defined between the front housing and the rear housing”.
However, Liu teaches a pump assembly (10, see figs. 1-3) for an oral irrigator (see ¶34 of translation), comprising: a housing (21+22); wherein the housing comprises a front housing (21) and a rear housing (22), wherein the front housing and the rear housing are connected and are fitted with each other (in an assembled state of the pump assembly), wherein an accommodating cavity (space) is defined between the front housing and the rear housing (as evident from fig. 2); wherein the accommodating cavity (see fig. A below) comprises a pump body accommodating cavity (labeled “c1”), a fluted disk accommodating cavity (labeled “c2”), and a motor accommodating cavity (labeled “c3”).
PNG
media_image1.png
962
1025
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. A: Edited fig. 2 of Liu to show claim interpretation.
Li discloses the functional pumping assembly within a housing. Liu teaches the use of an upper bracket and a lower bracket designed to secure a pump and its associated connector within a housing. It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Li’s pump assembly for provision of front and rear housings as taught by Liu to improve structural stability (for instance: reciprocating pump generates vibration; Liu’s bracket system provides a known mechanical solution for securing the motor and pump body, ensuring they remain aligned during high-speed operation) and/or facilitate ease of assembly, as these are well-known benefits of using internal chassis brackets in portable electronic devices.
Li remains silent on the pump assembly, “wherein a knurled rough surface is disposed on an outer wall of the metal sleeve, a rough surface is disposed on an inner wall of the pump cavity, wherein the rough surface is at least partially overlapped and fitted with the knurled rough surface using a glue” [note: “inner wall of the pump cavity” = inner circumferential wall of the pump housing 21].
However, Young teaches a pump sleeve/liner (12, see figs. 3-4 and disclosure in col. 3, lines 51-75) wherein a knurled rough surface (roughened or grooved surface 12a) is disposed on an outer wall (outer circumferential wall) of the sleeve (12), a rough surface (roughened or grooved surface 10a) is disposed on an inner wall (inner circumferential wall) of a shell/cylinder (10), wherein the rough surface is at least partially overlapped with the knurled rough surface (as evident from fig. 4) using a glue (adhesive 14).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Li’s pump assembly by providing rough surfaces as taught by Young to the sleeve’s outer wall and the inner wall, which the sleeve mates with, in the pump housing of Li in order to promote stronger adhesion that is fluid tight between the two surfaces [note that stronger adhesion is based on the well-established principle in mechanical engineering that increasing surface roughness (knurling) significantly increases the effective surface area for adhesive bonding; Young explicitly teaches that roughening surfaces increases the “axial shear strength of the adhesive bond” (see col. 3, lines 61-64)].
In reference to claim 2, Li teaches the pump assembly for the oral irrigator, wherein the pump body (20) comprises a piston assembly (assembly formed of components 22 and 221, see fig. 2), a first end (bottom end, in view of fig. 2) of the piston assembly is connected to the connecting rod (23), and a second end (top end, in view of fig. 1) of the piston assembly is inserted into the pump cavity (within 21) and is slidably connected to the metal sleeve (211) [see ¶29 of translation].
In reference to claim 3, Li teaches the pump assembly for the oral irrigator, wherein the piston assembly (assembly formed of components 22 and 221) comprises a piston base (see fig. B below: regarded to be a portion that connects with the connecting rod) and a piston (see fig. B below: regarded to be a portion that defines a face that pressurizes the fluid), the piston is disposed at one end (top end in view of fig. 2) of the piston base away (in ↑ direction, in view of fig. 2) from the connecting rod (23).
PNG
media_image2.png
438
1062
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. B: Edited fig. 2 of Li to show claim interpretation.
In reference to claim 4, Li teaches the pump assembly for the oral irrigator, comprising the metal sleeve (211).
Li remains silent on the pump assembly, wherein the metal sleeve is a steel sleeve.
However, Liu teaches the pump assembly for the oral irrigator, wherein the metal sleeve (12) is a steel sleeve (see ¶47 of translation).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the metal sleeve in Li’s pump assembly from steel as taught by Liu since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for making the sleeve from “steel”.
In reference to claim 5, Li teaches the pump assembly for the oral irrigator, wherein the pump body (20) comprises a water inlet (referred as “inlet” in ¶28 of translation) and a water outlet (referred as “outlet” in ¶28 of translation), a water inlet pipe (not shown but present as per ¶30 of translation) is connected (via water pipe connector 261) to the water inlet, a water inlet valve plate (27, see fig. 2 and ¶28 of translation) is clamped between the water inlet pipe and the water inlet, and a water outlet valve (25, see ¶28 of translation and fig. 2) is connected to the water outlet.
In reference to claim 7, Li teaches the pump assembly for the oral irrigator, wherein a water outlet connector (24+29, see ¶32 of translation and fig. 2) is connected to an upper end of the water outlet (as evident from fig. 2 and in view of disclosure in ¶32 of translation), and the water outlet connector covers (in view of figs. 1-2) a periphery of the water outlet valve (25).
In reference to claim 8, Li teaches the pump assembly for the oral irrigator, wherein (see fig. 2 and ¶33 of translation) ring gear teeth (teeths) are disposed on the eccentric fluted disk (32), a driving gear (31) is disposed on an output shaft (referred as “output shaft”) of the driving motor (41), and the driving gear is engaged with the ring gear teeth (as evident from figs. 1-2).
In reference to claim 9, Li, as modified, teaches the pump assembly for the oral irrigator, wherein the knurled rough surface is a texture having regular patterns (see fig. 4 of Young: this surface being 12a which is considered to have groove patterns).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Liu, Young and Wagner, Robert D (US 2023/0363870 – herein after Wagner).
Li remains silent on the pump assembly for the oral irrigator, wherein the water outlet valve is a duckbill valve.
However, Wagner teaches a similar pump assembly for the oral irrigator, wherein the outlet valve (155, see fig. 3) is a duckbill valve (see ¶91: “Further, in some embodiments, a valve 155, which may be a one-way valve, such as a reed valve, duck bill valve, or the like, may be positioned within the hub 300 and be oriented between the pump chamber 224 and one of the pump outlets and/or pump chamber 224 and pump inlet 310”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute an outlet valve in the pump assembly of Li for a duckbill outlet valve as taught by Wagner in order to obtain the predictable result of allowing the flow of water to be discharged from the pump body. KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
Response to Arguments
The following Applicant's arguments filed September 15, 2025 have been fully considered:
Applicant’s argument with respect to rejection of claim 9 under 35 USC 112: The arguments are found to be persuasive and thus, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103: The arguments are moot. The amendment to claim 1 changed the scope of the claim. As a result, the previously applied prior arts have been re-evaluated and re-applied to claim 1 as secondary references, in view of newly relied upon primary reference of Li.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejection of claim 6 under 35 USC 103: The arguments are not found to be persuasive for following reasons:
The Applicant argues that Wagner only broadly mentions a duckbill valve and fails to teach the “detailed function or effect” of improved sealing or discharge efficiency.
A duckbill valve is a well-known type of one-way check valve. The “improved sealing” and “discharge efficiency” claimed by the Applicant are inherent functional characteristic of a duckbill valve when used in a fluid pump system. Wagner explicitly lists a “duck bill valve” as a suitable one-way valve for an oral irrigator pump. Substituting one known type of one-way valve (of Li) with another known type (as taught by Wagner) for the purpose of controlling fluid flow is an example of an obvious substitution of known elements to achieve predictable results. Furthermore, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant’s arguments with respect newly added claim 10: The arguments are moot in view of 35 USC 112(a) rejection discussed above for the claim.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIRAG JARIWALA whose telephone number is (571)272-0467. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM-5 PM.
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, ESSAMA OMGBA can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/CHIRAG JARIWALA/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/BRYAN M LETTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746