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 . If status of the application as subject to 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 a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7 are pending in the application and are presently examined.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the coil spring “length” and the “solid length” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities. Claim 4 states that “the coil spring has a length longer than the solid length thereof”. It is unclear in claim 4 what “thereof” refers to. The present specification (paragraph 81) states that that the “solid length” is a length of the coil spring in its most contracted position. If Applicant intends for “solid length” to mean a length of the coil spring, then Examiner suggests replacing “thereof” with “of the coil spring”.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor(s) regard as the invention.
Claim 4 states “the solid length”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in this claim.
It is unclear what direction this solid length refers to. This could be (a) a length of the wire of the coil spring, (b) a straight-line length of the spring in a direction parallel to a direction of spring motion, (c) a length / diameter of the spring in a direction perpendicular to a direction of spring motion, or (d) some other direction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The claims are in bold font, the prior art is in parentheses.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US5590434A (Imai).
Imai teaches the following claim 1 limitations:
An oral cleansing device (column 2, lines 13-25; figures 1-2: electric toothbrush) that is driven by a battery (column 2, line 18; figures 1-2: battery 6), the oral cleansing device comprising:
a battery housing (column 2, lines 17-18; figures 1-2: front case 2 & rear case 3) configured to house the battery (6), the battery housing (2 & 3) comprising:
a body (column 2, lines 17-18; figures 1-2: front case 2) comprising a housing space (Figure A below) in which the battery (6) is housed; and
a battery cover (column 2, lines 17-18; figures 1-2: rear case 3) that closes an opening (Figure A) of the housing space,
wherein the battery cover (3) comprises only a positive electrode terminal (column 2, lines 19-22; figure 2; Figure A: positive terminal) out of a negative electrode terminal electrically connected to a negative electrode of the battery and the positive electrode terminal electrically connected to a positive electrode of the battery (column 2, lines 17-25; figure 2; Figure A), and
the body (2) includes the negative electrode terminal (column 2, lines 23-25; figure 2; Figure A: negative terminal) electrically connected to the positive electrode terminal of the battery cover (3) via the battery (6)
Figure A: Annotated Imai Partial Figure 2
PNG
media_image1.png
388
869
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 2, Imai teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Imai also teaches the following limitation of claim 2:
the negative electrode terminal comprises a spring part (column 2, lines 23-25; figure 2: spring contact 15), and the battery cover (3) is positioned at a lower part (Figure A above) of the body (2)
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
The claims are in bold font, the prior art is in parentheses.
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US5590434A (Imai), as applied to claims 1-2, and further in view of JP2003031194A (Kozonoe).
With regard to claim 3, Imai fails to teach the following limitations, which are taught by Kozonoe:
the spring part comprises a leaf spring and a coil spring (Figure B below)
Figure B: Annotated Kozonoe Figure 1
PNG
media_image2.png
439
586
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kozonoe is directed to a contact terminal, for a battery, that doesn’t lose connection (abstract; paragraph 5). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, for Imai’s spring contact 15 to include a leaf spring and a coil spring, as taught by Kozonoe, so that the battery and terminal don’t lose connection.
With regard to claim 4, Imai teaches the following limitations:
the body comprises a contraction restricting part that restricts contraction of the spring part in a state where the coil spring has a length longer than the solid length thereof (Figure C below)
Figure C: Annotated Partial Imai Figure 2
PNG
media_image3.png
355
490
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 5, Imai fails to teach the following limitations, which are taught by Kozonoe:
the leaf spring comprises a positional displacement prevention part that prevents positional displacement of the coil spring (Figure D below)
Figure D: Annotated Imai Figure 2
PNG
media_image4.png
398
470
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, for Imai’s spring contact 15 to include a leaf spring and a coil spring, and for the leaf spring to include a positional displacement prevention part, as taught by Kozonoe, so that the battery and terminal don’t lose connection.
With regard to claim 6, Imai fails to teach the following limitations, which are taught by Kozonoe:
the leaf spring comprises a protrusion protruding toward the battery (page 4, lines 20-22; Figure D above: contact portion 5)
Imai uses a contact portion 5 to contact an electrode center (page 4, lines 20-22). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, for Imai’s spring contact 15 to include a leaf spring and a coil spring, and for the leaf spring to include a contact portion, as taught by Kozonoe, for contact at an electrode center.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US5590434A (Imai), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of GB2317555A (Shek). Imai fails to teach the following claim 7 limitations, which are taught by Shek:
the battery cover comprises a cover body to which the positive electrode terminal is attached, and the cover body is provided with a rib that prevents the negative electrode from coming into contact with the positive electrode terminal when the battery is housed in the battery housing in a state where the negative electrode faces the positive electrode terminal (Figure C below)
Figure C: Annotated Shek Partial Figure 1
PNG
media_image5.png
601
686
media_image5.png
Greyscale
As illustrated in Figure C above, the positive electrode protrudes outward from the battery, allowing contact with the positive electrode terminal. If, however, the battery flips 180o, with the negative electrode facing the positive electrode terminal, the rib would block contact, because the negative side of the battery is flat, and lacks the protrusion. It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, for Imai’s electric toothbrush to include a rib on the cover, as taught by Shek, to prevent contact between the negative electrode and the positive electrode terminal.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT WEST whose telephone number is 703-756-1363 and email address is Robert.West@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am - 7 pm ET.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684.
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.
/R.G.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights