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 .
This office action is in response to the claims filed 5/15/24. Claims 1-10 are pending in the instant application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 46. 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 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: “locking element” in claim 6 and “locking member” in claim 7 (note it appears that both the member and the element are the same according to the specification). Structure for performing the locking function can be found in Fig. 5-6 and para. 0039, a horizontally moveable structure.
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 1-10 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.
Regarding claims 1-10, the language “easily disassembled and assembled” (line 1, emphasis added) is unclear as the term ‘easily’ is a relative term and which would be different depending on a particular user/person and whether they think something is ‘easily’ disassembled/assembled.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the locking member" in line 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “display a working gear” (line 4) is unclear as the examiner cannot ascertain the meaning of this limitation or how a display light/digital display tube displays a working gear or if Applicant is intending to claim a gear (a structural element) as part of the claimed oral irrigator.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li (CN 215384803) (see attached translation).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses an oral irrigator easily disassembled and assembled (see Fig. 1-7 and abstract for example) which includes an oral irrigator nozzle (see Fig. 2 nozzle 300, translation pg. 4 4th full paragraph); an oral irrigator upper cover (see Fig. 3, upper cover 120, translation pg. 6 2nd full paragraph); an oral irrigator inner shell provided with a locking assembly for locking and installing the nozzle (see Fig. 2-3, the inner shell being defined by the upper frame element of main shell 100 and which is provided with locking assembly 460, see translation paragraph spanning pg. 5-6 and first full paragraph pg. 6); an oral irrigator main shell provided with first and second accommodating cavities in sequence and separated by a charging base, a water pump mechanism provided in the first accommodating cavity and the second accommodating cavity configured to store water, the pump mechanism configured to extract water in the second cavity and spray extracted water from the oral irrigator nozzle to clean teeth (see Fig. 2, main shell 100 with first accommodating cavity 101, second accommodating cavity 102; see translation pg. 4 4th full paragraph and pg. 5 4th paragraph; charging base 500, see Fig. 2-3 and translation pg. 5 first paragraph and 3rd paragraph which discloses 500 has a charging component 440; water pump mechanism 430, see translation pg. 4 4th-6th full paragraph); and an oral irrigator bottom cover with one end of the main shell provided with the inner shell and upper cover in sequence (upper frame components of 100 in Fig. 2-3 being the inner shell and with upper cover 120) and the other end detachably connected to the bottom cover (see Fig. 2-3, bottom cover 210, see translation pg. 6 3rd full paragraph for example).
Regarding claim 3, the Li device’s oral irrigator bottom cover is sleeved with a first waterproof ring (see Fig. 2-3, first waterproof ring shown sleeved on bottom cover 210 as shown).
Regarding claim 4, the Li device’s oral irrigator bottom cover is provided with a toggle bump configured to facilitate disassembly and assembly of the oral irrigator bottom cover (see Fig. 2-3, 220 and 221 forming a toggle bump which configured to facilitate disassembly/assembly, see translation pg. 6 3rd full paragraph).
Regarding claim 9, the Li device’s water pump mechanism includes first and second installation racks detachably connected, an oral irrigator water pump, oral irrigator motor and a battery provided between the installation racks (see Fig. 2-3, installation rack defined by element 440 which is a two part shell, also 411 which defines another installation rack, the left piece labeled 440 in Fig. 2-3 being the second installation rack, 411 being the first installation rack, see translation pg. 4 5th full paragraph; water pump 432, motor 431, and battery 410; translation pg. 4 5th-6th full paragraph); a water inlet end of the pump connected to the charging base by a pipeline, a water outlet end of the pump communicated with the nozzle and the motor configured to drive the water pump to perform pumping work (see Fig. 2, outlet end of pump 432 being connected to nozzle 300 as shown, inlet end connected via a pipeline 540, see translation pg. 5 1st full paragraph).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Ma et al. (CN 217244897) and Yuan et al. (2021/0275278).
Regarding claim 2, the Li device is silent as to the charging base including a storage rack with a storage slot configured to snap and store the nozzle; however, Ma teaches a similar oral irrigator including a storage rack with slot on a charging base configured to store the nozzle (see Ma Fig. 5 showing base 9 including storage rack/slot 92 which stores nozzle 1) and Yuan teaches an oral irrigator with detachable parts which snap fit together (see Yuan para. 0075). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Li device’s charging base to include a storage rack and slot and for this to have a snap fit, as taught by Ma and Yuan, in order to provide the ability to store the nozzle when not in use and for a well-known secure type of fit (see Ma Fig. 5).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Yu (2021/0059801).
Regarding claim 5, Li discloses the main shell being provided with a water inlet communicated with the second accommodating cavity and provided with a water tank door for closing the water inlet (see Li Fig. 2-3, 600 defining a water inlet via 103 in communication with second cavity 102, tank door 620, translation pg. 5 6th paragraph), but is silent as to the door being sleeved and connected with a second waterproof ring. However, Yu discloses a similar oral irrigator which includes a water tank door sleeved and connected with a waterproof ring (see Yu Fig. 1 and 6, door 10, waterproof ring 11, para. 0028). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Li device to include a waterproof ring for the water tank door, as taught by Yu, in order to provide a sealing element to prevent leakage of water (see Yu para. 0028).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Li et al. (CN 114795547) (hereinafter Li ‘547; see attached translation) and Yuan.
Regarding claim 6, the Li device is silent as to including an installation seat, locking element and a release button with an end of the nozzle passing through the upper cover and embedded in the seat, the release button embedded in the upper cover the locking element configured to pass through the seat and snap interface with the nozzle, the release button configured to drive the locking element to move horizontally so as to separate the locking element from the nozzle. However, Li ‘547 discloses a similar oral irrigator with the installation seat, locking element and release button as claimed (see Li ‘547 Fig. 6, 71 defining an upper surface which is an installation seat, locking element 72, release button 722; see translation pg. 5 1st and 2nd full paragraphs) and Yuan teaches an oral irrigator with detachable parts which snap fit together (see Yuan para. 0075). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Li device to include the locking assembly (including installation seat, locking element, and release button), for this to have a snap fit, as taught by Li ‘547 and Yuan, as this would have been obvious substitution of one known element for another and for a well-known secure type of fit.
Regarding claim 7, the modified Li device’s locking element/member is provided with a locking column sleeved and connected with a locking spring abutted against the installation seat (see Li ‘547 Fig. 6, spring 73, locking column 723, see translation pg. 5 1st and 2nd full paragraphs).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, Li ‘547, and Yuan as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (CN 217014300) (see attached translation).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Li device includes an installation platform (see Li Fig. 2-3 and Li ‘547 Fig. 8 which defines an installation platform for the locking assembly 7), but is silent as to including a reset spring provided in the platform abutted against the release button; however, Wu discloses a similar oral irrigator which teaches this feature (see Wu Fig. 2 and 5, release button 405, reset spring 404, see translation pg. 5 4th-6th full paragraph). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Li device to include a reset spring, as taught by Wu, in order to provide a return force for the release button (Wu pg. 5 4th-6th full paragraph).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Wu and Yuan.
Regarding claim 6, the Li device is silent as to including an installation seat, locking element and a release button with an end of the nozzle passing through the upper cover and embedded in the seat, the release button embedded in the upper cover the locking element configured to pass through the seat and snap interface with the nozzle, the release button configured to drive the locking element to move horizontally so as to separate the locking element from the nozzle. However, Wu discloses a similar oral irrigator with the installation seat, locking element and release button as claimed (see Wu Fig. 2-3 and 5, 2 defining an installation seat, locking element 401, release button 405; see translation pg. 5 4th-6th full paragraph) and Yuan teaches an oral irrigator with detachable parts which snap fit together (see Yuan para. 0075). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Li device to include the locking assembly (including installation seat, locking element, and release button), for this to have a snap fit, as taught by Wu and Yuan, as this would have been obvious substitution of one known element for another and for a well-known secure type of fit.
Regarding claim 7, the modified Li device locking element/member is provided with a locking column sleeved and connected with a locking spring abutted against the installation seat (see Wu Fig. 2 and 5, spring 404 sleeved on end of 401 which defines a column as shown, see translation pg. 5 4th-6th full paragraph).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, Wu, and Yuan as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Ma (see attached translation).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Li device includes an installation platform (see Li Fig. 2-3 and Wu Fig. 2-3 which defines an installation platform for the locking assembly/element 401), but is silent as to including a reset spring provided in the platform abutted against the release button; however, Ma discloses a similar oral irrigator which teaches this feature (see Ma Fig. 3 and 5, paragraph spanning pg. 4-5, “the dismounting button 5 and the button groove bottom of the groove 34 is provided with a spring, convenient for removing the downward pressing force of the dismounting button 5). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Li device to include a reset spring, as taught by Ma, in order to provide a return force for the release button (Ma paragraph spanning pg. 4-5).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Hu (2013/0000666) and Siemons et al. (2005/0058962).
Regarding claim 10, the Li device includes a control panel for controlling a working status of the oral irrigator provided on the second installation rack and provided with a display light configured to display a working gear of the oral irrigator (see Li Fig. 2-3, control panel 421 and display light 424, see translation pg. 4 last paragraph), but is silent as to including a digital display tube. However, Hu discloses a similar oral irrigator which includes a digital display (see Hu Fig. 1 and 4, para. 0029, display 124) and Siemons discloses a tube type of display is well-known (see Siemons Fig. 3 and claim 20). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Li device to include a display, as taught by Hu, in order to provide information regarding the operation of the oral irrigator, and for it to be a tube type of display, as taught by Siemons, as this would have been obvious substitution of one known element for another and one would expect the modified Li device to perform equally as well.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Li et al. (2019/0201175), Arias Haber et al. (2019/0358006), Yuan et al. (2020/0214814), Chen (CN 211271296), and Chen (CN 218106108) disclose oral irrigators similar to the claimed/disclosed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLIN W STUART whose telephone number is (571)270-7490. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5.
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, Timothy Stanis can be reached at 571-272-5139. 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.
/COLIN W STUART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights