Detailed Action
Amendment
1. This office action is in response to applicant’s amendments dated 6-3-26 and this office action is a final rejection.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
2. 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.
(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(s) 1-5, 7-8 and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 7,137,163 to Gatzemeyer et al.
Referring to claim 1, Gatzemeyer et al. discloses an oral appliance for cleaning and/or treating a mouth of a subject, the oral appliance comprising a mount – at 200,216, formed of a deformable material – see elastomeric material detailed in column 10 lines 12-61, and comprising one or more holes – see holes/openings not labeled but show in item 216 in figures 12-14, positioned such that when the mount – at 216, is stretched in a first direction, the geometric shape of the mount – at 216, is shifted so as to increase an amount of material that extends in at least one second different direction – see figures 8a-8b where when moving from the position of figure 8a to the position of figure 8b, the mount – at 216, at its top portion is stretched towards the right side of the device as seen in figure 8b, while the bottom of the mount – at 216 has portions moved downward in a different direction as seen at the third curve from the top of 216 in figure 8b, one or more cleaning or treatment elements – see top of 216 in figures 12-14 with cleaning/treating elements being the portions between the openings in the top of 216, and an actuator – at 230-240 and motor detailed in column 8 lines 11-24, configured to controllably stretch the mount in the first direction – see figures 5a-5c and 12-14, the one or more cleaning or treatment elements comprising one or more cleaning or treatment elements comprising one or more of bristles, brushes, tufts, picks, oral irrigators, ultrasound cleaning elements, LEDs, electrodes, reservoirs, water jet outlets, image sensors, optical fiber configurations, cameras, or tooth alignment elements mounted on the mount – at 216 – see the brush components/tufts at the projections at the top of 216 as seen in figures 12-14 and column 10 lines 12-61.
Referring to claim 2, Gatzemeyer et al. further discloses the one or more holes are positioned such that, when the mount – at 216, is stretched in the first direction – to the right in figures 8a-8b, a curvature or flatness of the mount – at 216, in a first plane changes – see at the bottom portion of 216 having curvature change at the third curve from the top of the mount, wherein the first plane is angled with respect to the first direction – see figure 8b where a plane extending through curvatures of the lower portion of 216 is angled/different than the first direction at the top of the 216.
Referring to claim 3, Gatzemeyer et al. further discloses the first direction is normal to the first plane – see at 216 in figure 8b.
Referring to claim 4, Gatzemeyer et al. further discloses the mount – at 216, is configured to be deformable between at least, a first configuration – see figure 8a, in which a radius of the curvature of the mount in the first plane is at a first value – see at least the third curve from the top of 216 in figure 8a, and a second configuration – see figure 8b, in which the radius of the curvature of the mount in the first plane is at a second value – see at 216 in figure 8b, smaller than the first value – see difference between the position of 216 in figure 8a versus the position of 216 in figure 8b, wherein the deforming between the first and second configurations is responsive to a stretching of the mount in the first direction – see at 216 in figures 8a-8b.
Referring to claim 5, Gatzemeyer et al. further discloses the stretching causes a change in length of the mount in the first direction – see change in length of the portion of 216 between the first and second curves from the top of 216 in the position change from figure 8a to that of figure 8b.
Referring to claim 7, Gatzemeyer et al. further discloses each hole of the mount – at the top of 216, is completely surrounded by deformable material of the mount – see figure 12.
Referring to claim 8, Gatzemeyer et al. further discloses a mount array comprising two or more mounts – see mounts – at 216 and 180 in figures 12-14.
Referring to claim 11, Gatzemeyer et al. further discloses a controller – see buttons on exterior of the device in figure 3 which would allow on/off operation of the device, the batteries detailed in column 5 lines 22-38 and associated wiring not shown connecting the motor to the batteries, configured to control an operation of the actuator – at 230-240 and the motor, to thereby control the geometric shape shift of the mount – see figures 12-14 and column 10 lines 12-61.
Referring to claim 12, Gatzemeyer et al. further discloses wherein the controller is configured to be operable in a cleaning mode – when the device is powered on, during which the controller controls the geometric shape of the mount – at 216, such that an extent of material in the first and/or second direction is greater than a minimum magnitude – see difference in the extent of 216 from the positions of figure 8a to that of figure 8b and the minimum magnitude can be considered either magnitude of the portions of 216 in either of figures 8a-8b in that applicant has not positively defined the minimum magnitude in the claim.
Referring to claim 13, Gatzemeyer et al. further discloses when operating in the cleaning mode, the controller varies the geometric shape of the mount – at 216, so that the mount – at 216, performs micromotions or vibrates – see figures 8a-8b and 12-14 and column 10 lines 12-61.
Referring to claim 14, Gatzemeyer et al. further discloses the controller is configured to be operable in a mouth-insertion mode or mouth-removal mode, during which the controller controls the geometric shape of the mount – at 216, such that the mount – at 216, is substantially flat or is deformed to its maximum curvature – see figures 8a-8b and 12-14 and column 10 lines 12-61 where the device is capable of being inserted and removed from the user’s mouth when the mount – at 216 is at its maximum curvature.
Referring to claim 15, Gatzemeyer et al. further discloses wherein the actuation mechanism comprises, a motorized system – at 230-240 and the motor detailed in column 8 lines 11-24, configured to controllably stretch the mount – at 216, in the first direction – see figures 8a-8b and column 10 lines 12-61. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed motorized system, items 230-240 detailing gears and a shaft and the motor and connections of these components of Gatzemeyer et al. is commensurate with the motor and spindle detailed in applicant’s originally filed disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gatzemeyer et al. as applied to claim 1 above.
Referring to claim 6, Gatzemeyer et al. further discloses the one or more holes of the mount – at 216, are two or more holes – see at the top of 216 in figure 14 and are aligned in parallel with each other and separated by a predetermined length – see at the top of 216 in figure 14. Gatzemeyer et al. does not disclose two or more holes are slits. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Gatzemeyer et al. and have the openings in any desired shape including the claimed slits, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring a sufficient portion of the mount contacts the mouth of the user during operation as desired.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s amended abstract dated 6-3-26 obviates the objections detailed in the last office action dated 3-3-26.
Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks/arguments dated 6-3-26 obviates the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 1-2, 4, 11-13 and 15 detailed in the last office action dated 3-3-26.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claim 1, the Gatzemeyer et al. reference US 7137163 discloses comprising one or more holes – see holes/openings not labeled but show in item 216 in figures 12-14, positioned such that when the mount – at 216, is stretched in a first direction, the geometric shape of the mount – at 216, is shifted so as to increase an amount of material that extends in at least one second different direction – see figures 8a-8b where when moving from the position of figure 8a to the position of figure 8b, the mount – at 216, at its top portion is stretched towards the right side of the device as seen in figure 8b, while the bottom of the mount – at 216 has portions moved downward in a different direction as seen at the third curve from the top of 216 in figure 8b. As seen in figures 12-14 of Gatzemeyer et al. at the top of item 216 holes are disposed through the material of 216 to form the humps and projections shown and detailed in column 10 lines 12-61. These items are considered holes since they form openings through the material of item 216 as seen in figures 12-14 of Gatzemeyer et al. Further, the mount at item 216 of Gatzemeyer et al. is made of an elastomeric material that provides the claimed geometric shape shift in that as seen in figures 8a-8b where when moving from the position of figure 8a to the position of figure 8b, the mount – at 216, at its top portion is stretched towards the right side of the device as seen in figure 8b given the different positions of the top of 216 from the position of figure 8a to the position of figure 8b, while the bottom of the mount – at 216 has portions moved downward in a different direction as seen at the third curve from the top of 216 in the position of figure 8b as compared to the position of this portion of item 216 in figure 8a. Given the movement of item 216 and the elastic material of item 216, this item is stretched by the forces acting on item 216 during the movement of item 216 as seen in figures 8a-8b.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claim 6, Gatzemeyer et al. discloses the mount – at 216, are two or more holes – see at the top of 216 in figure 14 and are aligned in parallel with each other and separated by a predetermined length – see at the top of 216 in figure 14. Further, the holes can be made into the claimed slits as detailed earlier in paragraph 3 of this office action, in that making the holes into slits would not make the device of Gatzemeyer et al. in operable for its intended purpose in that there would still be sufficient material forming the mount – at 216 to provide the polishing and cleaning functions detailed in figures 12-14 and column 10 lines 12-61. Further, as seen in figures 12-14 and column 10 lines 12-61 different shapes and orientations of the holes in the mount 216 are disclosed and Gatzemeyer et al. therefore provides a teaching of using holes of different sizes and making the holes of Gatzemeyer et al. into different sizes such as the claimed slits would allow for the device to be used to clean teeth of different sizes and orientations as desired. Therefore, Gatzemeyer et al. renders the claim obvious as detailed earlier in paragraph 3 of this office action.
Conclusion
5. 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.
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J PARSLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6890. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Peter Poon can be reached at (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
Prosecution Insights