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 .
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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 Interpretation
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a motion generator” in claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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.
Claim 5 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.
Claim 5 recites: “…wherein the second frequency is approximately three times lower than the second frequency.” It is unclear how the second frequency can lower than itself.
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) 1-4 and 7-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dengler, US 10,828,136.
Regarding claim 1, Dengler discloses a personal care device (10), comprising: a body portion (16); a cleaning unit (12) having a set of cleaning elements (bristles, 40); a controller arranged within the body portion (18, Figure 1); an actuator assembly arranged to be driven by the controller (20, column 6 lines 7-19), the actuator assembly comprising an actuator (20) configured to generate first and second periodic movements of the cleaning unit (first cleaning motion 42; second cleaning motion is 44, 46, 48, 50, 52, 60, see Abstract; alternatively first and second movements, column 6 lines 29-41), wherein the first and second periodic movements operate at different frequencies or out-of-phase with each other (Figures 1-8, column 8 lines 20-54, claims 6-7). Regarding claim 2, the first periodic movement is transmitted to the cleaning unit such that at least one cleaning element of the set of cleaning elements moves in a first direction about a central axis of the personal care device or along a line that is tangential to a platen of the cleaning unit (first direction 42); and wherein the second periodic movement is transmitted to the cleaning unit such that at least one cleaning element of the set of cleaning elements moves in a second direction that is different than the first direction (Figures 1-8), wherein the second direction is normal to the platen of the cleaning unit (tapping; Figures 2-4, 44, 46, 48). Regarding claim 3, the set of cleaning elements are configured to move according to the first periodic movement at a first frequency and the set of cleaning elements are configured to move according to the second periodic movement at a second frequency that is different than the first frequency (first and second resonant frequencies, different at least in their direction, see Abstract, claim 9, and Figures showing motion). Regarding claim 4, the first frequency is inherently higher or lower than the second frequency (although no specific frequency is given, they are not the same frequencies in the representation of the motion). Regarding claim 7, the first and second periodic movements are phase shifted from each other by approximately 90 degrees or 270 degrees (in the embodiment of Figure 3, see directional arrows that the period of motion 46 changes approximately every 90 degrees). Regarding claim 8, wherein the first and second periodic movements are phased shifted from each other by approximately 180 degrees (embodiment of Figure 4, see graphical representation of motion).
Regarding claim 9, Dengler discloses a personal care device (10), comprising: a body portion (16); a cleaning unit (12) having a set of cleaning elements (bristles, 40); an actuator assembly configured to drive the cleaning unit (20, column 6 lines 7-19), wherein the actuation assembly is arranged within the body portion (Figure 1) and comprises: a drivetrain (drive shaft 24) configured to periodically move the set of elements in a first periodic movement (movement 42) such that at least one cleaning element of the set of cleaning elements moves in a first direction about a central axis of the personal care device (axis 34, Figure 1); and a motion generator configured to move the set of cleaning elements in a second periodic movement (movement 44, 46, or 48) such that at least one cleaning element of the set of cleaning elements moves in a second direction that is different than the first direction (Figures 2-4), wherein the second direction is normal to the platen of the cleaning unit (Figures 2-4). Regarding claim 10, the second direction is parallel to an axis of alignment of the cleaning elements (Figures 2-4). Regarding claim 11, the first and second periodic movements are phase shifted from each other by approximately 90 degrees (in the embodiment of Figure 3, see directional arrows that the period of motion 46 changes approximately every 90 degrees). Regarding claim 12, there is a motion conversion element coupled with the drivetrain (32, Figure 1); and a tapping plate configured to be activated by moving the drivetrain (cantilever of 43 in Figure 2; also see column 6 lines 42-52), wherein the tapping plate is configured to move the set of cleaning elements in the second periodic movement (resonant tapping motions, column 6 lines 58 to column 7 line 11). Regarding claim 13, the drivetrain comprises a first actuator (20) and the motion generator comprises a second actuator (cantilever to the main platen of the cantilevered bristles, column 6 lines 47-52).
Claim(s) 9-10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schwarz-Hartmann et al., US 5,974,615.
Regarding claim 9, Schwarz-Hartmann et al. disclose a personal care device (1), comprising: a body portion (2); a cleaning unit (3) having a set of cleaning elements (bristles, 4); an actuator assembly configured to drive the cleaning unit (includes reference numbers 30-48, see Figures 1-6), wherein the actuation assembly is arranged within the body portion (Figures 1-6) and comprises: a drivetrain (30, also includes 32, 33, 34, 35, 36) configured to periodically move the set of elements in a first periodic movement (alternating rotary movement 49) such that at least one cleaning element of the set of cleaning elements moves in a first direction about a central axis of the personal care device (axis 27 is central to the head, Figure 1); and a motion generator configured to move the set of cleaning elements in a second periodic movement (motion generator includes 43, 44, 45, 48; reciprocating stroke movement 50, Figure 1) such that at least one cleaning element of the set of cleaning elements moves in a second direction that is different than the first direction (Figures 1-6), wherein the second direction is normal to the platen of the cleaning unit (Figures 1 and 6). Regarding claim 10, the second direction is parallel to an axis of alignment of the cleaning elements (Figures 1 and 6). Regarding claim 13, the drivetrain comprises a first actuator (30, column 10 lines 38-49) and the motion generator comprises a second actuator (44; column 10 line 58 to column 11 line 11).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dengler, US 10,828,136 in view of Schwarz-Hartmann et al., US 5,974,615.
Dengler discloses all elements previously discussed above, however fails to describe that the second frequency is approximately two times higher than the first frequency. In Dengler, there is a first period movement at a first frequency where at least one cleaning element of the set of cleaning elements moves in a first direction about a central axis of the personal care device (frequency of 42) and a second period of movement at a second frequency where the at least one cleaning element moves in a direction that is normal to a platen of the cleaning unit (frequency of the motion represented by direction arrows 44, 46, 48, 50, 52).
Also as discussed above, Schwartz-Hartmann et al. teach a similar personal care device where there is a first period movement at a first frequency where at least one cleaning element of the set of cleaning elements moves in a first direction about a central axis of the personal care device (rotary movement represented by arrow 49 in the Figures) and a second period of movement at a second frequency where the at least one cleaning element moves in a direction that is normal to a platen of the cleaning unit (stroke movement represented by arrow 50 in the Figures). Regarding claim 6, Schwartz-Hartmann et al. teach that the second stroke frequency is set at a higher frequency than the first rotary frequency, “preferably at two to three times the rate” (column 2 lines 57-60). The frequencies are to impart a poking motion to loosen plaque from the teeth and to also provide a wiping motion on dental surfaces (column 2 lines 50-56, column 3 lines 39-57).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first and second frequencies of Dengler so that the second frequency is approximately two times higher than the first frequency, as taught by Schwartz-Hartmann et al., so that a user is able provide motion to the cleaning elements that are effective in brushing teeth and removing plaque from surfaces.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwarz-Hartmann et al., US 5,974,615 in view of Dengler, US 10,828,136.
Regarding claim 1, Schwarz-Hartmann et al. disclose a personal care device (1), comprising: a body portion (2); a cleaning unit (3) having a set of cleaning elements (bristles, 4); an actuator assembly arranged to be driven and comprises an actuator (includes reference numbers 30-48, see Figures 1-6) configured to generate first and second periodic movements of the cleaning unit (rotary movement 49 and stroke movement 50, direction arrows shown Figures 1 and 6), wherein the first and second periodic movements operate at different frequencies or are out-of-phase with each other (column 2 lines 57-60, column 3 lines 1-8, 58-67). Regarding claim 2, the first periodic movement (alternating rotary movement 49) is transmitted to the cleaning unit such that at least one cleaning element of the set of cleaning elements moves in a first direction about a central axis of the personal care device (axis 27 is central to the head, Figure 1); and wherein the second periodic movement (stroke movement 50) is transmitted to the cleaning unit such that at least one cleaning element of the set of cleaning elements moves in a second direction that is different than the first, wherein the second direction is normal to the platen of the cleaning unit (Figures 1 and 6). Regarding claim 3, the set of cleaning elements are configured to move according to the first periodic movement at a first frequency and the set of cleaning elements are configured to move according to the second periodic movement at a second frequency that is different than the first frequency (column 2 lines 57-60, column 3 lines 1-8). Regarding claims 4 and 6, the second stroke frequency is set at a higher frequency than the first rotary frequency, “preferably at two to three times the rate” (column 2 lines 57-60). The frequencies are to impart a poking motion to loosen plaque from the teeth and to also provide a wiping motion on dental surfaces (column 2 lines 50-56, column 3 lines 39-57).
Regarding claim 1, Schwarz-Hartmann et al. fail to disclose that the personal care device comprises a controller arranged within the body portion. There is discussion within Schwarz-Hartmann et al. that the frequency is “set” (column 2 line 37, column 3 lines 1-4, column 4 lines 20-30) and mentions that controls for the two motors permit independent selection of the frequency (column 4 lines 31-39).
Dengler discloses all elements previously described above, including that a personal care device comprises a controller arranged in the body portion (18, Figure 1) and an actuator assembly arranged to be driven by the controller (20, column 6 lines 7-19). The controller (includes any suitable controller, processor, power source, and/or other electronics; column 5 lines 58-62) and controls an actuator/drive train (20) to produce motion at a first frequency and a second frequency (column 6 lines 7-19).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the personal care device of Schwarz-Hartmann et al. to include a controller arranged in the body portion so that its actuator assembly is arranged to be driven by the controller, as Dengler teaches, so that the motors can be set to operate at specific frequencies to complete desired brushing movements.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwarz-Hartmann et al., US 5,974,615 in view of Dengler, US 10,828,136.
Regarding claim 14, Schwarz-Hartmann et al. fail to disclose that the personal care device comprises a controller configured to control the actuation assembly, wherein the controller is configured to receive an input signal from the first actuator and control the second actuator based on the received input signal from the first actuator. There is discussion within Schwarz-Hartmann et al. that the frequency is “set” (column 2 line 37, column 3 lines 1-4, column 4 lines 20-30) and mentions that controls for the two motors permit independent selection of the frequency (column 4 lines 31-39).
Dengler discloses all elements previously described above, including that a personal care device comprises a controller arranged in the body portion (18, Figure 1) and an actuator assembly arranged to be driven by the controller (20, column 6 lines 7-19). The controller (includes any suitable controller, processor, power source, and/or other electronics; column 5 lines 58-62) and controls an actuator/drive train (20) to produce motion at a first frequency and a second frequency (column 6 lines 7-19). Further regarding claim 14, the controller is configured to control the actuation assembly, wherein the controller is configured to receive an input signal from the first actuator and control the second actuator based on the received input signal from the first actuator (column 6 lines 29-41, it is “responsive to the motor controller…to produce the second mechanical stimulus (e.g., a second movement having a second resonant frequency)…”). Regarding claim 15, the controller is configured to generate a frequency and phase difference of the second periodic movement relative to the first periodic movement based on the received input signal (claim 9, provides a resonant sinusoidal motion).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the personal care device of Schwarz-Hartmann et al. to include a controller configured to control the actuation assembly and is configured to receive an input signal from the first actuator and control the second actuator based on the input signal, as Dengler teaches, so that the motors can be set to operate at specific resonant frequencies to complete desired brushing movements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Laura C Guidotti whose telephone number is (571)272-1272. The examiner can normally be reached typically M-F, 6am-9am, 10am-4:30pm.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/LAURA C GUIDOTTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
lcg
Prosecution Insights