Detailed Action
Preliminary Amendment
1. Entry of applicant’s preliminary amendment dated 3-2-24 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.
Specification
3. Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the phrase “for example,” should be deleted. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1, applicant has not invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed cleaning or treatment module in that applicant claims specific structure related to the cleaning or treatment module being the claimed mount, holes, cleaning or treatment elements and actuation mechanism. Further, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the cleaning or treatment elements with elements being the generic non-structurally limiting term and the cleaning and treatment being the associated functional language and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the cleaning or treatment elements are detailed as, in some examples, each cleaning or treatment element comprises a set of one or more bristles for brushing a tooth of the mouth. Other forms of cleaning/treatment elements will be apparent to the skilled person (e.g. a pick or oral irrigator), Figure 2 also illustrates a plurality of cleaning elements 260 (e.g. brushes) mounted on the mount 100 for improved contextual understanding. The cleaning/treatment elements 520 may comprise, as illustrated, a bristle, tuft or brush for cleaning teeth/gums of a subject. However, any other form of cleaning/treatment element could be used instead and/or alongside a brush/tuft/bristle, such as an ultrasound cleaning element (e.g. CMUT), an LED for applying treatment light (e.g. UV light), electrode configurations to deliver electromagnetic or
electric fields), reservoirs filled with whitening powder or paste, water jet outlet (e.g. fluid emitting nozzle), an image sensor, optical fiber configuration or camera and so on. Another example of a treatment element may be a tooth alignment element, e.g. configured to contact and apply a force to or restrict movement of a tooth in order to realign the tooth to a desired position over time, as mounting of cleaning/treatment elements (e.g. tufting), micromotions of the mount may increase the cleaning efficacy of a cleaning/treatment or help removing brushed debris, or more evenly illuminating the mouth or controlling an average light incident per area if the cleaning elements comprise UV or blue light LEDs, or allow to modulate energy density fields of any other energy (e.g. RF, ultrasound, electrical, electrochemical exposed to oral tissues). Further, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed actuation mechanism and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the actuation mechanism is detailed as, the actuation mechanism may comprise: a motorized (mechanical) system configured to controllably stretch the mount in the first direction; an inflatable bladder fixed to one or both ends of the mount, and a fluid control system configured to control the entry and exit of fluid into the inflatable bladder to thereby control a stretching of the mount; a magnetic or electro-magnetic control system configured to control the stretching of the mount using a magnetic or electro-magnetic force; an electric control system configured to control the stretching of the mount using one or more materials exhibiting an electroactive responsive material property; a thermal control system configured to control the stretching of the mount using one or more temperature difference and/or gradient effects; and/or an optical control system configured to control the stretching of the mount using one or more electromagnetic waves, wherein the mount is photo-sensitive, the actuation mechanism 710 may comprise a motorized system configured to controllably deform/stretch the mount in the first direction. Examples of suitable motorized systems includes a motor shaft driving a spindle (e.g. lying along the first direction) or a motor shaft driving a pulley and winding up an (elastic) rope/chain.
As another example, the actuation mechanism may comprise an inflatable bladder fixed
to one or both ends of the mount, and a fluid control system configured to control the entry and exit of fluid (e.g. gas, air or combination of liquid and gas, or even bladder filled with gas and granular particles to exploit a granular jamming effect) into the inflatable bladder to thereby control a deforming, clamping and effective load transfer of the mount to the oral tissue. The inflatable bladder can be designed, e.g. through appropriate anisotropic extension that could be controlled by varying wall thickness, in such a way that stretching of the mount in the first direction can be performed. In some instances, the bladder may be controlled so that a vertical up-down motion of the mount can be controlled, e.g. for improved cleaning/treatment efficacy.
As another example, the actuation mechanism may comprise a magnetic or electro- magnetic control system configured to control the deformation of the mount using a magnetic or electro- magnetic force. For instance, one end of the mount may comprise a first magnetic element (e.g.
permanent magnetic, ferromagnetic or para, or diamagnetic end plate) and the second (other) end may comprise an electromagnet, having a controllable magnetic field which can define a magnetic force between the two ends of the mount. The positions of the first and second ends define the first direction. Another variant may be to have two passive permanent magnets, one stationary and fixed on an end plate, another one attached to a rotating or linear drive. Other examples of actuation mechanisms include: an electric control system configured to control the deformation of the mount using one or more materials exhibiting an electroactive responsive material property (e.g. electroactive polymer); a thermal control system (e.g. Peltier or Seebeck element) configured to control the deformation of the mount using one or more temperature difference and/or gradient effects; and/or an optical control system configured to control the deformation of the mount using one or more electromagnetic waves, wherein the mount is photo-sensitive, the actuation mechanism may be a linear actuator, the actuating mechanism may operate using a linear actuator or motorized system, e.g. a travelling nut actuator 1033 as illustrated.
Regarding claim 15, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed motorized system and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the motorized system is detailed as examples of suitable motorized systems includes a motor shaft driving a spindle (e.g. lying along the first direction) or a motor shaft driving a pulley and winding up an (elastic) rope/chain, motorized system, e.g. a travelling nut actuator 1033 as illustrated. Further, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed fluid control system and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the fluid control system is not detailed structurally. Further, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed magnetic or electro magnetic control system and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the magnetic or electro magnetic control system is detailed as, as another example, the actuation mechanism may comprise a magnetic or electro- magnetic control system configured to control the deformation of the mount using a magnetic or electro- magnetic force. For instance, one end of the mount may comprise a first magnetic element (e.g. permanent magnetic, ferromagnetic or para-, or diamagnetic end plate) and the second (other) end may comprise an electromagnet, having a controllable magnetic field which can define a magnetic force between the two ends of the mount. The positions of the first and second ends define the first direction. Another variant may be to have two passive permanent magnets, one stationary and fixed on an end plate, another one attached to a rotating or linear drive. Further, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed electric control system and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the electrical control system is detailed as an electric control system configured to control the deformation of the mount using one or more materials exhibiting an electroactive responsive material property (e.g. electroactive polymer). Further, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed thermal control system and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the thermal control system is detailed as a thermal control system (e.g. Peltier or Seebeck element). Further, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed optical control system and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the optical control system 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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 and 11-15 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 cleaning or treatment elements and applicant’s originally filed disclosure details the cleaning or treatment elements as seen in paragraph 4 of this office action and the terms and phrases “in some examples”, “e.g.”, “any other form”, “such as”, “and so on” and “any other energy” in applicant’s originally filed disclosure renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear to whether other types of cleaning or treatment elements than those disclosed are being contemplated by the claim. Further, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed actuation mechanism and applicant’s originally filed disclosure details the actuation mechanism as seen in paragraph 4 of this office action and the terms and phrases “examples”, “e.g.”, “as another example”, “in some instances”, “for instance”, “another variant” and “other examples”, renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear to whether other types of actuation mechanisms are being contemplated by the claim. Further, claim 1 lacks antecedent basis for “the geometric shape” in line 7.
Claim 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. It is unclear as to whether the first direction in line 4 of claim 2 is the same or different than the first direction detailed in parent claim 1. Further, claim 2 lacks antecedent basis for “the curvature or flatness of the mount” detailed in lines 2-3.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the curvature of the mount" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the operation" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the extend" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the cleaning mode" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 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 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed motorized system the motorized system is detailed in applicant’s originally filed disclosure as seen in paragraph 4 earlier and the terms and phrases “example” and “e.g.” renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear to whether other types of motorized systems than those disclosed are being contemplated by the claim. Further, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) with respect to the claimed fluid control system and as seen in paragraph 4 earlier, applicant’s originally filed disclosure does not structurally detail the claimed fluid control system and therefore it is unclear to what structure encompasses the fluid control system. Further, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed magnetic or electro magnetic control system and the magnetic or electro magnetic control system is detailed as seen in paragraph 4 earlier and the terms and phrases “as another example”, “for instance”, “e.g.” and “another variant” render the claim indefinite in that it is unclear to whether other types of magnetic or electro magnetic control systems than those disclosed are contemplated by the claim. Further, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed electric control system and the electric control system is detailed as seen in paragraph 4 earlier and the term “e.g.” renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear to whether other types of electric control systems are being contemplated by the claim. Further, applicant invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed thermal control system and the thermal control system is detailed as seen in paragraph 4 earlier and the term “e.g.” renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear to whether other types of thermal control systems than those disclosed are being contemplated by the claim. Further, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed optical control system and applicant’s originally filed disclosure does not detail the optical control system structurally and therefore it is unclear to what structure the optical control system encompasses.
Further, claim 15 lacks antecedent basis for “either end of the mount” in line 5. Further, it is unclear to whether the stretching detailed in line 8 is the same or different than the stretching detailed in lines 6-7 and if the stretching in line 8 is different than the stretching in lines 6-7, than the stretching in line 8 lacks antecedent basis. Further, it is unclear to whether the stretching detailed in line 10 is the same or different than the stretching detailed in lines 6-7 and/or the stretching detailed in line 8 and if the stretching in line 10 is different than the stretching in lines 6-7 and in line 8, than the stretching in line 10 lacks antecedent basis. Further, it is unclear to whether the stretching detailed in line 12 is the same or different than the stretching detailed in lines 6-7 and/or the stretching detailed in line 8 and/or the stretching detailed in line 10 and if the stretching in line 12 is different than the stretching in lines 6-7, also in line 8 and also in line 10, than the stretching in line 12 lacks antecedent basis. Further, it is unclear to whether the stretching detailed in line 14 is the same or different than the stretching detailed in lines 6-7 and/or the stretching detailed in line 8 and/or the stretching detailed in line 10 and/or the stretching detailed in line 12, and if the stretching in line 14 is different than the stretching in lines 6-7, also in line 8, also in line 10 and also in line 12, than the stretching in line 14 lacks antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 actuation mechanism – 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. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed cleaning or treating elements the top of item 216 of Gatzemeyer et al. provides for a brushing feature and therefore is commensurate with the brush detailed in applicant’s originally filed disclosure. Further, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed actuation mechanism items 230-340 and the motor of Gatzemeyer et al. is commensurate with the motorized system detailed in applicant’s originally filed disclosure.
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, the 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 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 the operation of the actuation mechanism – 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 the 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 control 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, an inflatable bladder fixed to either end of the mount and a fluid control system configured to control the entry and exit of fluid into the inflatable bladder to thereby control a stretching of the mount – not required by the claim given the and/or clause of the claim, a magnetic or electro-magnetic control system configured to control the stretching of the mount using a magnetic or electro-magnetic force – not required by the claim given the and/or clause in the claim, an electric control system configured to control the stretching of the mount using one or more materials exhibiting an electroactive responsive material property – not required by the claim given the and/or clause of the claim, a thermal control system configured to control the stretching of the mount using one or more temperature difference and/or gradient effects – not required by the claim given the and/or clause in the claim, and/or an optical control system configured to control the stretching of the mount using one or more electromagnetic waves, wherein the mount is photo-sensitive – not required by the claim given the and/or clause of the claim. 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
7. 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 desire.
Conclusion
8. 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 oral cleaning/treating devices in general:
U.S. Pat. No. 2,706,825 to Blakeman – shows oral cleaning device
U.S. Pat. No. 4,240,452 to Jean – shows oral cleaning device
U.S. Pat. No. 4,694,844 to Berl et al. – shows oral cleaning device
U.S. Pat. No. 6,514,445 to Cann et al. – shows oral cleaning device
U.S. Pat. No. 8,020,244 to Mashiko – shows oral cleaning device
U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0110767 to Newnham – shows oral cleaning device
U.S. Pat. No. 9,913,702 to Pruett – shows oral cleaning device
U.S. Pat. No. 10,433,635 to Lee – shows oral cleaning device
U.S. Pat. No. 10,485,328 to Jimenez et al. – shows oral cleaning device
U.S. Pat. No. 10,588,398 to Jimenez et al. – shows oral cleaning device
9. 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