Detailed Action
Amendment
1. This office action is in response to applicant’s amendments dated 7-22-26 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 § 112
2. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claim limitations of the amplitude is measured as a maximum absolute displacement from a neutral position as detailed in claim 20 are not described in applicant’s originally filed specification/disclosure in that as seen in applicant’s response dated 7-22-26, applicant indicates that support for the new claims 16-20 is found in paragraphs [0055]-[0059] of applicant’s specification as detailed in associated PGPUB 2025/0009491 and a review of this section of the specification does not provide support for the claim limitations of claim 20 in that this portion of applicant’s specification appears to only provide support for new claims 16-19. A review of the other portions of the applicant’s originally filed disclosure/specification does not provide a description of the claim limitations of claim 20 in that as seen in paragraph [0041] of the ‘491 document appears to be the closest disclosure to the claim language of claim 20 and this portion of applicant’s specification discloses a peak amplitude but does not disclose this peak amplitude is measured as a maximum absolute displacement from a neutral position.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 3, 13 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,363,565 to Paffrath.
Referring to claim 1, Paffrath discloses a power toothbrush device comprising, a brush head member – at 4 and 26-30, having a set of bristles – at 27, at a distal end thereof – see figure 1, a body portion – at 2,5,18,19,22, coupled with the brush head member – at 4 – see figure 1, and a drivetrain assembly – at 8, 12-16, 20-21 and 24, arranged within the body portion – at 2,5,22 – see figure 1, the drivetrain assembly comprising, an actuator – at 8, configured to generate periodic linear movement – see at 33 in figure 1 and column 7 lines 3-49, and a drivetrain shaft – at 11,12,14,21, configured to transmit the generated periodic linear movement to the brush head member – at 4 – see at 33 in figure 1 and see column 7 lines 3-49, such that the set of bristles – at 27, move in a first direction – at 33, that is parallel to a z-axis of the power toothbrush device – see at 33 in figure 1, wherein the z-axis is perpendicular to a central axis of the power toothbrush device – see figure 1 with axis aligned at 33 perpendicular to the central longitudinal axis extending through – 4,5,22, wherein the set of bristles – at 27, are configured to move at an amplitude equal to or greater than 0.25 mm – see up to 0.4 mm in column 7 lines 37-49, and a frequency equal to or greater than 0.25 Hz – see between 130-200 Hz in column 7 lines 37-49, in the first direction – see at 33 in figure 1 and column 7 lines 3-49.
Referring to claim 3, Paffrath further discloses the set of bristles – at 27, are configured to move at a frequency less than 520 Hz in the first direction – see 130-200 Hz in column 7 lines 37-49.
Referring to claim 13, Paffrath further discloses the drivetrain shaft – at 11,12, is configured to be displaced along the z-axis of the power toothbrush device to generate the periodic linear movement – at 33 – see figure 1 and column 7 lines 3-49.
Referring to claim 20, Paffrath further discloses the amplitude is measured as a maximum absolute displacement from a neutral position – see column 7 line 37-49 detailing a stroke length of about plus or minus 2mm and the term “about” implies the stroke length can be slightly greater than 2mm and making the stroke length 2.5mm would increase the length 0.5mm which equates to 0.02 inches about 1/64th of an inch and this is a very small distance that is considered to be encompassed by the about plus or minus 2mm disclosed by Paffrath in column 7 lines 37-49.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paffrath as applied to claim 1 above.
Referring to claim 2, Paffrath further the set of bristles – at 27, are configured to move at an amplitude up to 0.4 mm and less than 3 mm in the first direction – see column 7 lines 37-49. Paffrath does not disclose the amplitude is greater than 0.5 mm, but this would only be 0.1mm greater than Paffrath’s disclosed amplitude and the device of Paffrath would function as intended when using this 0.1mm more in amplitude, so as to yield the predictable result of better ensuring the bristles contact the user’s teeth during use. Further, applicant places no criticality on the amplitude being greater than 0.5mm up to 3.0mm in that applicant discloses the amplitude cannot be greater than 3.0mm due to teeth chatter and as seen in column 7 lines 37-49 of Paffrath only amplitudes under 3.0mm are disclosed.
Claim(s) 4-6, 9-12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paffrath as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0025080 to Jungnickel et al.
Referring to claim 4, Paffrath does not disclose the drivetrain shaft is further configured to periodically rotate the set of bristles in a second direction different than the first direction, wherein the second direction is about the central axis of the power toothbrush device. Jungnickel et al. does disclose the drivetrain shaft – at 22, is further configured to periodically rotate the set of bristles – at 20, in a second direction – at A, different than the first direction – at B – see figure 1, wherein the second direction – at A, is about the central axis of the power toothbrush device – see at A in figure 1. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Paffrath and add the bristles rotating in a second direction as disclosed by Jungnickel et al., so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the bristles contact more of the surface area of the teeth being treated by the device.
Referring to claim 5, Paffrath as modified by Jungnickel et al. further discloses the set of bristles – at 27, are configured to move in the first direction – at 33, at a first frequency – see figure 1 of Paffrath, and the set of bristles – at 20, are configured to move in the second direction – at A, at a second frequency – see figure 1 of Jungnickel et al., but does not disclose the second frequency is the same as the first frequency, but Jungnickel et al. does disclose the amplitude and frequency can be adjusted as seen in paragraph [0028] of Jungnickel et al., and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Paffrath as modified by Jungnickel et al. and have second frequency the same as the first frequency as claimed, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the bristles contact more of the surface area of the teeth being treated by the device.
Referring to claim 6, Paffrath as modified by Jungnickel et al. further discloses the drivetrain shaft – at 11,21, of Paffrath and – at 22 of Jungnickel et al., is further configured to operate the periodic linear movement – at 33 of Paffrath and – at B in phase with the rotational movement – at 32 of Paffrath and – at A of Jungnickel et al. – see figure 1 of Paffrath and figure 1 of Jungnickel et al.
Referring to claim 9, Paffrath as modified by Jungnickel et al. does not disclose the set of bristles are configured to move at an amplitude equal to or greater than 0.50 mm and a frequency equal to or greater than 40 Hz in the second direction, but does disclose the amplitude and frequency can be adjusted as seen in paragraph [0028] of Jungnickel et al. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Paffrath as modified by Jungnickel et al. and have second amplitude and second frequency at any suitable value including the claimed values, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the bristles contact more of the surface area of the teeth being treated by the device.
Referring to claim 10, Paffrath as modified by Jungnickel et al. does not disclose the set of bristles are configured to move at an amplitude greater than 0.5 mm and less than 6 mm in the second direction, but does disclose the amplitude can be adjusted as seen in paragraph [0028] of Jungnickel et al. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Paffrath as modified by Jungnickel et al. and have the second amplitude at any suitable value including the claimed values, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the bristles contact more of the surface area of the teeth being treated by the device.
Referring to claim 11, Paffrath as modified by Jungnickel et al. does not disclose the set of bristles are configured to move at a frequency less than 500 Hz in the second direction, but does disclose the frequency can be adjusted as seen in paragraph [0028] of Jungnickel et al. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Paffrath as modified by Jungnickel et al. and have the second frequency at any suitable value including the claimed values, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the bristles contact more of the surface area of the teeth being treated by the device.
Referring to claim 12, Paffrath does not disclose the drivetrain assembly further comprises a resilient member and a pivot point within the resilient member, wherein the pivot point is configured to reverse the generated periodic linear movement. Jungnickel et al. does disclose the drivetrain assembly further comprises a resilient member – at 28,30, and a pivot point within the resilient member – see where items 28,30 cross each other in figures 4-10, wherein the pivot point is configured to reverse the generated periodic linear movement – see figures 4-10 and paragraphs [0038]-[0047]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Paffrath and add the resilient member of Jungnickel et al., so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring movement of the bristles allows for more contact with the surface area of the teeth being treated by the device.
Referring to claim 14, Paffrath as modified by Jungnickel et al. further discloses the actuator – at 12,14, is configured to generate the periodic rotational movement – at A, in the second direction – at A – see figure 1 and paragraphs [0037]-[0047] of Jungnickel et al. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Paffrath as modified by Jungnickel et al. and add the actuator generating the periodic rotation as disclosed by Jungnickel et al., so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring movement of the bristles allows for more contact with the surface area of the teeth being treated by the device.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paffrath as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0175207 to Kraus et al.
Referring to claim 7, Paffrath does not disclose the actuator of the drivetrain assembly comprises a magnet and conductors to generate the periodic linear movement. Kraus et al. does disclose the actuator – at 28-30, of the drivetrain assembly comprises a magnet – at 28 and conductors – at 29, to generate the periodic linear movement – see figure 1 and paragraph [0030]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Paffrath and add the actuator with magnet and conductors as disclosed by Kraus et al., so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the bristles contact more of the surface area of the teeth being treated by the device.
Claim(s) 8 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paffrath as modified by Jungnickel et al. as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0175207 to Kraus et al.
Referring to claim 8, Paffrath as modified by Jungnickel et al. does not disclose the actuator of the drivetrain assembly comprises a magnet and conductors to generate the periodic linear movement. Kraus et al. does disclose the actuator – at 28-30, of the drivetrain assembly comprises a magnet – at 28 and conductors – at 29, to generate the periodic linear movement – see figure 1 and paragraph [0030]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Paffrath and Jungnickel et al. and add the actuator with magnet and conductors as disclosed by Kraus et al., so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the bristles contact more of the surface area of the teeth being treated by the device.
Referring to claim 15, Paffrath as modified by Jungnickel et al. and Kraus et al. further discloses the drivetrain assembly further comprises a resilient member – at 28,30, and a pivot point within the resilient member – see where items 28,30 cross each other in figures 4-10 of Jungnickel et al., wherein the pivot point is configured to reverse the generated periodic rotational movement – see figures 4-10 and paragraphs [0038]-[0047]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Paffrath as modified by Jungnickel et al. and Kraus et al. and add the resilient member of Jungnickel et al., so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring movement of the bristles allows for more contact with the surface area of the teeth being treated by the device.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 16-19 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.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s response dated 7-22-26 indicates a replacement abstract was filed, but after reviewing the documents dated 7-22-26, it appears that no replacement abstract was filed.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claims 1 and new claim 20, the Paffrath reference US 6363565 discloses the set of bristles – at 27, are configured to move at an amplitude equal to or greater than 0.25 mm – see up to 0.4 mm in column 7 lines 37-49, and a frequency equal to or greater than 0.25 Hz – see between 130-200 Hz in column 7 lines 37-49, in the first direction – see at 33 in figure 1 and column 7 lines 3-49. Applicant’s originally filed disclosure/specification does not detail whether the disclosed amplitude equates to the total travel length of the bristles are a stroke length of the bristles. Therefore the total travel length of about 0.4 mm disclosed by Paffrath discloses the claimed amplitude. Further, Paffrath discloses a stroke length that can be 2.5mm in that this equates to applicant’s new claim 20 and as seen in column 7 lines 37-49 of Paffrath the stroke length of about plus or minus 2mm can be considered as 2.5mm in that the term “about” in column 7 lines 37-49 of Paffrath, implies the stroke length can be slightly greater than 2mm and making the stroke length 2.5mm would increase the stroke length 0.5mm which equates to 0.02 inches about 1/64th of an inch and this is a very small distance that is considered to be encompassed by the about plus or minus 2mm disclosed by Paffrath in column 7 lines 37-49. Further, when considering the device of Paffrath would have its individual components manufactured to design tolerances that would vary slightly from the design dimensions, the slight increase from 2.0mm to 2.5mm in stroke length of Paffrath can further be considered as being within design tolerances of the components of Paffrath, given the small increase in stroke length of 0.5mm (0.02 in about 1/64th of an inch).
Regarding the prior art rejections of claims 2-15, applicant relies upon the same arguments with respect to parent claim 1 discussed earlier.
Conclusion
7. 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 powered toothbrushes in general:
U.S. Pat. No. 5,189,751 to Giuliani et al. – shows powered toothbrush
U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0255665 to Kraus et al. – shows powered toothbrush
8. 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.
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
Prosecution Insights