DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Jungnickel (PGPub 20130025080).
Jungnickel teaches an oral cleaning device, comprising: a cleaning unit (20) having a set of cleaning elements (bristles); a body portion (figure 1) coupled with the cleaning unit; and a drivetrain assembly (22, 26) arranged within the body portion, the drivetrain assembly comprising: a drivetrain shaft (22) at least partially contained within the body portion and configured to engage the cleaning unit; and an electromagnetic assembly (14) configured to: (i) periodically drive the drivetrain shaft and thereby the cleaning unit in a first direction about or along a first axis of the oral cleaning device (A); and (ii) periodically drive the drivetrain shaft and thereby the cleaning unit in a second direction about or along a second axis of the oral cleaning device, wherein the second direction is different than the first direction (B) (paragraph 0035-0037) and wherein the second axis is perpendicular to the first axis.
With regards to claim 3, the first axis is a central axis of the oral cleaning device.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 8-10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Jungnickel (USPN 2010132139).
Jungnickel teaches an oral cleaning device, comprising: a cleaning unit (5) having a set of cleaning elements (bristles); a body portion (figure 1) coupled with the cleaning unit; and a drivetrain assembly arranged within the body portion, the drivetrain assembly comprising: a drivetrain shaft (4) at least partially contained within the body portion and configured to engage the cleaning unit; and an electromagnetic assembly (paragraph 0088-0091) configured to: (i) periodically drive the drivetrain shaft and thereby the cleaning unit in a first direction about or along a first axis of the oral cleaning device (8); and (ii) periodically drive the drivetrain shaft and thereby the cleaning unit in a second direction about or along a second axis of the oral cleaning device, wherein the second direction is different than the first direction (9) (paragraph 0074) and wherein the second axis is perpendicular to the first axis.
With regards to claim 3, the first axis is a central axis of the oral cleaning device.
With regards to claim 8, there is a resonator (25) connected to the drivetrain shaft, wherein the resonator is configured to rotate about the first axis; a resilient member (24) having a first end and a second end and a pivot point, wherein the resilient member is connected, at its first end, to the resonator; and a magnet (30) connected to the second end of the resilient member; wherein the electromagnetic assembly further comprises first and second conductors (31) configured to interact with the magnet to periodically drive the drivetrain shaft and thereby the cleaning unit in the first direction about or along the first axis.
With regards to claim 9, the electromagnetic assembly further comprises third and fourth conductors (31; figure 11) arranged in parallel with the first and second conductors, and wherein the third and fourth conductors are configured to interact with the magnet to periodically drive the drivetrain shaft and thereby the cleaning unit in the second direction about or along the second axis.
With regards to claim 10, a drivetrain assembly for an oral cleaning device, the oral cleaning device having a body portion (figure 1), the drivetrain assembly comprising: a drivetrain shaft (4) at least partially contained within the body portion and configured to engage a cleaning unit (5) comprising a set of cleaning elements (bristles); a resonator (25) connected to the drivetrain shaft, wherein the resonator is configured to rotate about a first axis of the oral cleaning device; a resilient member (24) having a first end and a second end and a pivot point, wherein the resilient member is connected, at its first end, to the resonator; a magnet (30) connected to the second end of the resilient member; and an electromagnetic assembly (paragraph 0088-0091) comprising first and second conductors (31) configured to interact with the magnet to periodically drive the drivetrain shaft and thereby the cleaning unit in a first direction about or along the first axis of the oral cleaning device (8), the electromagnetic assembly further comprising third and fourth conductors (31; figure 11) configured to interact with the magnet to periodically drive the drivetrain shaft and thereby the cleaning unit in a second direction about or along a second axis of the oral cleaning device (9), wherein the second direction is different than the first direction and wherein the second axis is perpendicular to the first axis.
With regards to claim 13, the electromagnetic assembly is configured to cease periodically driving the drivetrain shaft in the first direction or the second direction in response to user input received at an input (on/off) in the body portion of the oral cleaning device.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 11-12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jungnickel (‘139) in view of Sayles (WO 2015092597).
Jungnickel teaches all the essential elements of the claimed invention however fails to teach: the amplitude and frequency that the cleaning elements move at (claim 2 and 11) and
the movement in the first direction stops while movement in the second direction starts (claim 4 and 12) after a certain time (claim 15).
Sayles teaches a toothbrush with a brush head that has several single motions (figure 1c and 1d) (page 2, paragraph 2). The motions are singular meaning only one of the motions occurs at a time. The motions change after a certain time frame (figure 2a-2c). The cleaning elements are configured to move at an amplitude greater than 0.5 mm and less than 3 mm (claim 2 states that it is approximately .5mm-6.6 mm) and a frequency greater than 0.25 Hz and less than 520 Hz (claim 2 states that it is between 50 and 500 Hz) in the first direction or the second direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jungnickel so that the cleaning elements have the amplitude and frequency, and the singular brush head motions as taught by Sayles to allow the user the ability to chose the appropriate motion, movement and time lapse for each use.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jungnickel (‘139) and Sayles (‘597) in view of Ha (KR 100849629).
Jungnickel and Sayles teaches all the essential elements of the claimed invention however fails to teach that a user input will change the motion of the brushhead. Ha teaches a toothbrush with a forward and reverse switch (not shown) to change the rotation direction of the head. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jungnickel and Sayles so that the user can operate a switch to change between motions of the brush head similar to Ha’s forward and reverse switch to allow for a quick mode change.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 6 and 14 teach the limitation of a sensor configured to detect angle information at which the cleaning elements are positioned relative to one or more tooth or gum surfaces of a mouth of a user. The angle detected will cease periodically driving the drivetrain shaft in the first direction or the second direction in response to a sensor signal received from a sensor.
None of the prior art teach this limitation nor would it have been obvious to modify the prior art to achieve the claimed invention since there is no motivation or teaching to do so.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAY LYNN KARLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1268. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th (6am-5pm).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
/SHAY KARLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights