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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/20/2024 was filed after the mailing date of the non-final rejection on 07/14/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 15 is rejected under U.S.C. 101 as being unpatentable.
Regarding Claim 15, it may not be patented as written because it meets the following criteria listed in MPEP 2106.03(I), “Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as 'data per se') or a computer program per se (often referred to as 'software per se') when claimed as a product without any structural recitations." To remedy this, Examiner recommends amending the claim language by beginning with “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium containing software that, when executed…”
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 limitations use 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 is: “control unit” in claims 1, 3-7, & 9-11.
The corresponding structure of this unit is disclosed in the specification to be a controller (48).
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.
(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.
Claims 1-3, 6, & 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Yu et al (US 20140002626 A1, hereinafter, "Yu").
Regarding Claim 1, Yu teaches a personal care device comprising: an image capture device adapted, in use, to capture images of one or more features of a user (Yu, Abstract, ln. 1, "…an intra-oral camera…"); a vibrator adapted to vibrate the personal care device so that, in use, the personal care device vibrates with a vibration cycle having a vibration frequency (Yu, Fig. 3, [0032], ln. 3, "In a vibration cycling step 210…"); a sensor adapted to sense an operating parameter of the personal care device (Yu, Abstract, ln. 1, "An autofocus…"); and a control unit adapted to determine a target part of the vibration cycle based on the sensed operating parameter and to control the image capture device based on the target part of the vibration cycle (Yu, Fig. 3, [0032], ln. 3-7, "In a vibration cycling step 210, the liquid lens is vibrated or modulated, rapidly changing the lens shape so that the lens has three focal positions. An image is captured for each vibration position of the liquid lens. A focus detection step 220 then executes, in which the focus of each captured image is measured and the relative focus at each vibration position is analyzed…").
Regarding Claim 2, Yu teaches the limitations of dependent Claim 1 as noted above. Yu teaches the personal care device comprises an oral care device, and wherein the image capture device is adapted, in use, to capture images of one or more oral features of a user (Yu, Abstract, ln. 1-2, "…an intra-oral camera modulates the focus of a liquid lens in a cycle that has at least first, second, and third focus positions and obtains an image at each focus position…").
Regarding Claim 3, Yu teaches the limitations of dependent Claim 1 as noted above. Yu teaches the control unit is adapted to control the image capture device to synchronise a timing of image capture with the target part of the vibration cycle (Yu, Fig. 3, [0032], ln. 3-7, "In a vibration cycling step 210, the liquid lens is vibrated or modulated, rapidly changing the lens shape so that the lens has three focal positions. An image is captured for each vibration position of the liquid lens. A focus detection step 220 then executes, in which the focus of each captured image is measured and the relative focus at each vibration position is analyzed…").
Regarding Claim 6, Yu teaches the limitations of dependent Claim 1 as noted above. Yu teaches the image capture device comprises a camera, and wherein the control unit is adapted to control the image capture device to synchronise signal acquisition from the camera with the target part of the vibration cycle (Yu, Fig. 3, [0032], ln. 3-7, "In a vibration cycling step 210, the liquid lens is vibrated or modulated, rapidly changing the lens shape so that the lens has three focal positions. An image is captured for each vibration position of the liquid lens. A focus detection step 220 then executes, in which the focus of each captured image is measured and the relative focus at each vibration position is analyzed…").
Regarding Claim 14, Yu teaches A method of controlling a personal care device (Yu, Abstract, ln. 1, "…an intra-oral camera…"), wherein the personal care device comprises: an image capture device adapted, in use, to capture images of one or more features of a user (Yu, Abstract, ln. 1-2, "…an intra-oral camera modulates the focus of a liquid lens in a cycle that has at least first, second, and third focus positions and obtains an image at each focus position…"); a vibrator adapted to vibrate the personal care device so that, in use, the personal care device vibrates with a vibration cycle having a vibration frequency (Yu, Fig. 3, [0032], ln. 3-4, "In a vibration cycling step 210, the liquid lens is vibrated or modulated…”); and a sensor arrangement adapted to sense an operating parameter of the personal care device (Yu, Abstract, ln. 1, "An autofocus…"), and wherein the method comprises: determining a target part of the vibration cycle based on the sensed operating parameter (Yu, Fig. 3, [0032], ln. 3-7, "In a vibration cycling step 210, the liquid lens is vibrated or modulated, rapidly changing the lens shape so that the lens has three focal positions. An image is captured for each vibration position of the liquid lens. A focus detection step 220 then executes, in which the focus of each captured image is measured and the relative focus at each vibration position is analyzed…"); and controlling the image capture device based on the determined target part of the vibration cycle (Yu, Fig. 3, [0032], ln. 3-7, "In a vibration cycling step 210, the liquid lens is vibrated or modulated, rapidly changing the lens shape so that the lens has three focal positions. An image is captured for each vibration position of the liquid lens. A focus detection step 220 then executes, in which the focus of each captured image is measured and the relative focus at each vibration position is analyzed…").
Regarding Claim 15, Yu teaches A computer program comprising computer program code means which is adapted, when said computer program is run on the personal care device, to implement the method claim 14 (Reasons for rejection are the same as Claim 14).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Molnar (WO 2020161619 A1, hereinafter, "Molnar").
Regarding Claim 4, 18/723186 and Yu teach the limitations of dependent Claim 1 as noted above. Molnar teaches the control unit is configured to generate a timestamp based on the target part of the vibration cycle, the timestamp being configured to identify a timing of the target part of the vibration cycle (Molnar, pg. 12, para. 1, ln. 3-6, "Timing mechanism 110 is adapted to track at least one time characteristic, such as a duration that has passed between receipt of one temperature information signal to receipt of another temperature information signal, a duration that the temperature information signals indicate a stable temperature, or to provide a timestamp to a received temperature information signal."). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Molnar with those of Yu because it is widely known in the art to use a timing mechanism to provide a timestamp.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Masuda (US 5489950 A, hereinafter, "Masuda").
Regarding Claim 5, Yu teaches the limitations of dependent Claim 1 as noted above. Masuda teaches the image capture device comprises an illumination device configured, in use, to illuminate a part of the user, and preferably wherein the control unit is adapted to control the illumination device to synchronise a timing of illumination with the target part of the vibration cycle (Masuda, Background, [0005], ln. 6-7, "The scanning mirror vibrates on a supporting point, and the vibrating frequency of the mirror is synchronized with the illuminating frequency of the LEDs."). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Masuda with those of Yu because it is widely known in the art to synchronize an illuminating frequency with a vibrating frequency.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Serval et al (US 20200179089 A1, hereinafter, "Serval"), and Feng et al (CN 111839789 A, hereinafter, "Feng").
Regarding Claim 7, 18/723186 and Yu teach the limitations of dependent Claim 1 as noted above. Serval teaches the vibrator comprises a vibrator motor (Serval, [0018], ln. 1-2, "…the oral hygiene device may include an electronic motor, for vibrating the oral hygiene device head during brushing."). Serval does not teach the sensor arrangement comprises a drive sensor adapted to sense a drive signal of the vibrator motor. However, Feng teaches the sensor arrangement comprises a drive sensor adapted to sense a drive signal of the vibrator motor (Feng, Abstract, ln. 9-10, "…the vibration sensor detects the vibration signal change of the motor shaft of the motor in real time, and sends the vibration signal back to the controller…"). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Feng and Serval with those of Yu because it is widely known in the art to use vibrator motors in oral care devices, and for those motors to have vibration sensors. Serval and Feng do not teach the control unit is adapted to determine the target part of the vibration cycle based on a time period when the sensed drive signal meets a predetermined drive signal requirement. However, Yu teaches the control unit is adapted to determine the target part of the vibration cycle based on a time period when the sensed drive signal meets a predetermined drive signal requirement (Yu, Fig. 3, [0032], ln. 3-7, "In a vibration cycling step 210, the liquid lens is vibrated or modulated, rapidly changing the lens shape so that the lens has three focal positions. An image is captured for each vibration position of the liquid lens. A focus detection step 220 then executes, in which the focus of each captured image is measured and the relative focus at each vibration position is analyzed…"). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Yu with those of Serval, Feng, and Yu because it is widely known in the art to target a vibration cycle based on vibration position.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu, Serval, Feng, and Ogunshina et al (JP 2021525138 A, hereinafter, "Ogunshina").
Regarding Claim 8, Yu, Serval, and Feng teach the limitations of dependent Claim 7 as noted above. Ogunshina teaches the sensed drive signal is representative of a drive current or voltage of the motor, and wherein the predetermined requirement is that the magnitude of the drive current or voltage crosses a current or voltage threshold value (Ogunshina, Fig. 13, pg. 9, para. 8, ln. 2-8, "The amount of current drawn from the battery 18 by the motor 16 is detected by the current sensor 47 and supplied to the comparison module 43. The comparison module 43 reads a threshold value [or a plurality of threshold values] from the memory 45 based on the measured value of the battery voltage. Next, the comparison module 43 compares the threshold value [or a plurality of threshold values] read from the memory 45 with the current value detected from the current sensor 47. When the threshold is exceeded, the comparison module outputs a pressure signal P supplied to the control module 46…"). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Ogunshina with those of Yu, Serval, and Feng because it is widely known in the art to use a current sensor to ensure that current remains below a threshold value.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Choi & Min (KR 102129425 B1, hereinafter, "Choi") and Miyazawa (US 20190222764 A1, hereinafter, "Miyazawa").
Regarding Claim 9, Yu teaches the limitations of dependent Claim 1 as noted above. Choi teaches the sensor arrangement comprises a movement sensor adapted to sense an angular velocity of a part of the personal care device (Choi, last two lines of pg. 4, "…a sensor that can not only know the direction of the geomagnetism directly, but also the magnitude from a vibration cycle."). Choi does not teach wherein the control unit is adapted to determine the target part of the vibration cycle based on a time period when the sensed angular velocity meets a predetermined velocity requirement, preferably wherein the velocity requirement is that the magnitude of the sensed angular velocity does not exceed a velocity threshold value. However, Yu teaches the control unit is adapted to determine the target part of the vibration cycle based on a time period when the sensed angular velocity meets a predetermined velocity requirement (Yu, Fig. 3, [0032], ln. 3-7, "In a vibration cycling step 210, the liquid lens is vibrated or modulated, rapidly changing the lens shape so that the lens has three focal positions. An image is captured for each vibration position of the liquid lens. A focus detection step 220 then executes, in which the focus of each captured image is measured and the relative focus at each vibration position is analyzed…"). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Yu with those of Choi because it is widely known in the art to use a hall effect sensor to determine angular velocity so that a camera can capture image at specific points in the vibration cycle of a vibrating motor. Miyazawa teaches preferably wherein the velocity requirement is that the magnitude of the sensed angular velocity does not exceed a velocity threshold value (Miyazawa, Fig. 1, [0107], ln. 8-9, "The camera control unit 142 determines that the background angular velocities are stable if the magnitude of the difference 804 is less than the threshold value…"). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Miyazawa, Yu, and Choi with those of Yu because it is widely known in the art to use a sensor to detect an angular velocity above a certain threshold to stop capturing an image in conjunction with a vibrating motor.
Claims 10 & 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Choi.
Regarding Claim 10, Yu teaches the limitations of dependent Claim 1 as noted above. Choi teaches the sensor arrangement comprises a Hall sensor adapted to sense a magnetic field at a part of the personal care device, and wherein the control unit is adapted to determine the target part of the vibration cycle based on a time period when then sensed magnetic field meets a predetermined magnetic field requirement (Choi, last two lines of pg. 4, "…a sensor that can not only know the direction of the geomagnetism directly, but also the magnitude from a vibration cycle.").
Regarding Claim 11, Yu teaches the limitations of dependent Claim 1 as noted above. Choi teaches the sensor arrangement comprises a vibration sensor adapted to sense an acceleration or excursion of a vibration of a part of the personal care device (Choi, last two lines of pg. 4, "…a sensor that can not only know the direction of the geomagnetism directly, but also the magnitude from a vibration cycle."). Choi does not teach the control unit is adapted to determine the target part of the vibration cycle based on a time period when the acceleration or excursion of the sensed vibration meets a predetermined acceleration or excursion requirement. However, Yu teaches the control unit is adapted to determine the target part of the vibration cycle based on a time period when the acceleration or excursion of the sensed vibration meets a predetermined acceleration or excursion requirement (Yu, Fig. 3, [0032], ln. 3-7, "In a vibration cycling step 210, the liquid lens is vibrated or modulated, rapidly changing the lens shape so that the lens has three focal positions. An image is captured for each vibration position of the liquid lens. A focus detection step 220 then executes, in which the focus of each captured image is measured and the relative focus at each vibration position is analyzed…").
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Choi and Liu et al (CN 112274286 A, hereinafter, "Liu").
Regarding Claim 12, Yu and Choi teach the limitations of dependent Claim 11 as noted above. Liu teaches the predetermined requirement is that the acceleration or excursion of the sensed vibration exceeds a vibration threshold value (Liu, pg. 7, para. 3, ln. 8-10, "…the second end of the driving assembly 12 along at least partially located on the same radial section, so as to ensure that the brush head assembly 13 vibration exceeds a threshold value, such that the drive assembly 12 swing exceeds a threshold value."). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Liu with those of Yu and Choi because it is widely known in the art that a vibration must exceed a threshold value.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Pfenniger & Meier (US 20190236935 A1, hereinafter, "Pfenniger").
Regarding Claim 13, Yu teaches the limitations of dependent Claim 1 as noted above. Pfenniger teaches the personal care device comprises a toothbrush (Pfenniger, [0195], ln. 2, "…an electrical toothbrush…"), a mouthpiece (Pfenniger, [0195], ln. 2, "…an electrical gum massaging device…"), a shaver (Pfenniger, [0196], ln. 1, "…an electrical wet shaver."), or a skin cleansing brush (Pfenniger, [0199], ln. 1, "…an electric facial care device.").
Double Patenting / Non-Statutory
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/723186 in view of Yu. 18/723186 Claim 1 does not teach a sensor adapted to sense an operating parameter of the personal care device. However, Yu teaches a sensor adapted to sense an operating parameter of the personal care device (Yu, Abstract, ln. 1, "An autofocus…"). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Yu with those of 18/723186 because it is widely known in the art to use autofocus, comprising a sensor, to sense operating parameters in devices with cameras in them.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 2 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of copending Application No. 18/723186 in view of Yu. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of 18/723186 with those of Yu because it is widely known in the art to affix cameras to oral care devices.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 3 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of copending Application No. 18/723186 in view of Yu. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of 18/723186 with those of Yu because it is widely known in the art to synchronize image capture timing with vibration cycles.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 5 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of copending Application No. 18/723186 in view of Yu. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of 18/723186 with those of Yu because it is widely known in the art to synchronize illumination with vibration.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 6 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of copending Application No. 18/723186 in view of Yu. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of 18/723186 with those of Yu because it is widely known in the art to adjust vibration frequency based on frame rates to synchronize image capture with vibration cycles.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1 & 9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 & 11 of copending Application No. 18/722519 in view of Yu. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of 18/722519 with those of Yu because it is widely known in the art to use angular velocity as an operating parameter and identify a target part of a vibration cycle based on the angular velocity meeting a predetermined requirement.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 11 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of copending Application No. 18/7225519 in view of 18/723186 and Yu. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of 18/722519 with those of 18/723186 and Yu because it is widely known in the art for an operating parameter to comprise an acceleration or excursion of a vibration of a personal care device, and to determine the timing of the target part of the vibration cycle based on the acceleration or excursion meeting a predetermined requirement.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 12 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of copending Application No. 18/722519 in view of 18/723186, 18/722519, and Yu. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of 18/722519 with those of 18/723186, Yu and 18/722519 because it is widely known in the art to make a requirement of the acceleration or excursion of a sensed vibration exceeding a threshold value.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 13 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11 & 12 of copending Application No. 18/723186 in view of Yu and Pfenniger. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of 18/723186 and Pfenniger with those of 18/723186 and Yu because it is widely known in the art to make vibrating toothbrushes, mouthpieces, shavers, and skin cleansing brushes.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 14 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/723186 in view of Yu.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 15 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 1 in view of Yu.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN DANIEL BARRY whose telephone number is (571)270-0432. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 0730-1630.
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, Lin Ye can be reached on 517-272-7372. 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.
/STEVEN DANIEL BARRY/Examiner, Art Unit 2638
/LIN YE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2638
Prosecution Insights