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 .
Status of Claims
2. Claims 1-20 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed September 12, 2024, fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. None of the foreign references have been provided with a concise explanation of relevance. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
In the instant case, the abstract recites “The present disclosure provides” which is language that can be implied, and should be deleted.
Additionally, the abstract recites “comprising” (line 2, line 5) which is form/legal phraseology, which should be avoided.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-4 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, line 2 recites “at least portion” which has omitted the word --a--. The Examiner suggests --at least a portion--.
Claim 4, the penultimate line recites “which close to the water outlet” which appears to have omitted a word such as --is--. The Examiner suggests --which is close to the water outlet--.
Claim 20, line 1 recites “which comprising” and the Examiner suggests --which comprises--.
Claim 20, line 7 recites “face to each other” and the Examiner suggests clarifying --face towards each other--.
Claim 20, line 7 recites “and dispose along” which appears to have omitted the letter --d--. The Examiner suggests --and disposed along--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 17-20 are 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 1, line 7 recites “the two limiting portions” which lacks antecedent basis. Furthermore, it is unclear if this is intended to be a separate structure from the “two abutting portions” and “two locating portions.”
Claim 17, line 1 recites “The nozzle for oral irrigator according to claim 15” which is confusing because claim 15 recites “The nozzle according to claim 10” and the introduction of the additional phrase “for oral irrigator” raises a question as to whether claim 15 required the oral irrigator.
Claim 18, line 1 recites “The nozzle for oral irrigator according to claim 15” which is confusing because claim 15 recites “The nozzle according to claim 10” and the introduction of the additional phrase “for oral irrigator” raises a question as to whether claim 15 required the oral irrigator.
Claim 19, line 1 recites “The nozzle for oral irrigator according to claim 15” which is confusing because claim 15 recites “The nozzle according to claim 10” and the introduction of the additional phrase “for oral irrigator” raises a question as to whether claim 15 required the oral irrigator.
Claim 20, line 7 recites “a second direction” which is confusing because no “first direction” has been recited.
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.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Claim 2, lines 2-3 recite “change a distance between the water outlet and teeth slit of a user by deformation, or the limiting portions are fitted to teeth of a user by deformation” which is directed to or encompassing a human organism. The Examiner suggests --are configured to change a distance between the water outlet and teeth slit of a user by deformation, or the limiting portions are configured to fit to teeth of user by deformation--.
Claim 5, lines 3-4 recite “change a distance between the water outlet and teeth slit of a user by deformation, or the limiting portions are fitted to teeth of a user by deformation” which is directed to or encompassing a human organism. The Examiner suggests --are configured to change a distance between the water outlet and teeth slit of a user by deformation, or the limiting portions are configured to fit to teeth of user by deformation--.
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) 4-6, 8-9, and 11-13, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chang et al. (10,952,830).
Regarding claim 4, Chang discloses a nozzle (Fig. 2) for an oral irrigator (oral irrigator device 10, Fig. 1A), comprising:
a spray head (nozzle 16 with guidance tip 26, Fig. 2), the spray head comprising:
a spray head main body (the narrow stem of nozzle 16, below the guidance tip 26, see Fig. 2), defining a first flow channel (channel 32, Fig. 2) extending in an axial direction thereof (channel 32 extends in an axial direction along the nozzle as seen in Fig. 2), one end of the first flow channel (the proximal end of orifice 31, Fig. 1A) being formed as a water inlet (water travels through channel 32 and orifice(s) 31, Figs. 1A-2), and the other end (distal end) is formed as a water outlet (water exits the “other end” of channel 32 at orifice 31 as seen in Figs. 2-3, “tip portion 28 includes an orifice 31 for exit of the liquid/air burst” see col. 6, lines 65-66); and
a stopping structure (guidance tip 26, Figs. 2-3), comprising two limiting portions (see “1. Abutting/Limiting Portions” and “2. Locating Portions” in annotated Figure A below. It is noted that a “portion” is a broad term, as Merriam-Webster defines it as “an often limited part of a whole.”) opposite to each other and disposed along a first direction (see “1a. First Direction” in Fig. A below) in a radial direction of the first flow channel (extending radially through channel 32, Figs. 2-3),
the two limiting portions (1) extending from the spray head main body in directions away from each other respectively (in opposite directions see Fig. 2 and Figure A below), each of the two limiting portions (1) having an abutting face (the surface of the limiting portions 1, best seen in Figure 2) which [is] close to the water outlet (the surface of the limiting portions closely approaches the water outlet at orifice 31), and the abutting face bending or tilting towards a water outlet direction (towards orifice 31, Fig. 2) as being away from the spray head main body (see Figure 2, the surface tilts away from the stem of the nozzle).
PNG
media_image1.png
289
752
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure A (from Fig. 3 of Chang): Chang has two abutting/limiting portions (1) opposite to each other and disposed along a first direction (1a) in a radial direction of the first flow channel, and two locating portions (2) opposite to each other and disposed along a second direction (2a) in the radial direction of the first flow channel, the first direction is perpendicular to the second direction (see 1a, 2a, above).
Regarding claim 5, Chang discloses wherein the two limiting portions (1, Fig. A Above) are soft and elastic (“made of a soft elastomeric material, such as rubber” see col. 7, lines 25-28), and the limiting portions change a distance between the water outlet and teeth slit of a user by deformation, or the limiting portions are fitted to teeth of a user by deformation (these are recitations of intended use, and the limiting portions are “made of a soft elastomeric material, such as rubber” and provide points of contact with teeth adjacent the interproximal space, see col. 7, lines 29-33. Thus, the structure is configured to be deformed against the teeth when pressed).
Regarding claim 6, Chang discloses wherein in the radial direction of the first flow channel (32), a thickness of each of the limiting portions (1, Fig. A above) gradually decreases in a direction away from the spray head main body (“base portion 30 can taper slightly forwardly to where it contacts tip portion 28, as shown in FIG. 2” see col. 7, lines 26-28).
Regarding claim 8, Chang discloses wherein outer surfaces of the two limiting portions (the outer surface(s) of limiting portions 1, see Fig. A above and Fig. 2) are in smooth transition connection with an outer surface of the spray head main body (the limiting portions have a smooth transition to the outer surface of the stem of the nozzle, i.e., the spray head main body, as seen in Figure 2).
Regarding claim 9, Chang discloses wherein the stopping structure further comprises two locating portions (see “2. Locating Portions” in annotated Figure A above) opposite to each other and disposed along a second direction (see “2a. Second Direction” in Fig. A above) in the radial direction of the first flow channel (extending radially through channel 32, Figs. 2-3), the first direction and the second direction are perpendicular to each other (see 1a and 2a in Fig. A above).
Regarding claim 11, Chang discloses wherein the two locating portions (2, Fig. A above) and the two limiting portions (1, Fig. A above) of the stopping structure are connected as a whole and formed as an annular structure (the locating portions 2 and limiting portions 1 are connected as a whole because they are both “portions” of the base 30, which is an annular structure as seen in Figure 2), and the annular structure surrounds and connects the spray head main body (see Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 12, Chang discloses wherein each of the two limiting portions (1, Fig. A) includes a first connecting end (end of each limiting portion adjacent the tip portion 28, Figs. 2-3) connected to the spray head main body and a first free end (outer peripheral surface of 1, Fig. A above) away from the spray head main body, each of the two limiting portions (1, Fig. A) respectively extends from the first connecting end to the first free end (the limiting “portions” extend from the first connecting end adjacent tip portion 28, to the free end at the outer peripheral surface of 1, see Fig. A above).
Regarding claim 13, Chang discloses wherein the abutting face (the surface of the limiting portions 1, best seen in Figure 2) is configured to be at least one of plane and curved surface (the surface is plane as seen in Fig. 2) extending from the first connecting end toward the first free end (the “abutting face” extends from the first connecting end adjacent tip portion 28, to the free end at the outer peripheral surface of 1, see Fig. A above), the abutting face is configured to be smooth in at least one direction of a direction extending from the first connecting end to the first free end and a circumferential direction along the first flow channel (see Figs. 2-3, the abutting face is smooth in any direction).
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(s) 1-2, 10, 15, and 17-19, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Chang et al. (10,952,830).
Regarding claim 1, Chang discloses a nozzle (Fig. 2) for an oral irrigator (oral irrigator device 10, Fig. 1A), comprising a spray head (nozzle 16 with guidance tip 26, Fig. 2),
the spray head comprising:
a spray head main body (the narrow stem of nozzle 16, below the guidance tip 26, see Fig. 2) defining a first flow channel (channel 32, Fig. 2) extending in an axial direction of the spray head main body (channel 32 extends in an axial direction as seen in Fig. 2), one end of the first flow channel (the proximal end of orifice 31, Fig. 1A) being formed as a water inlet (water travels through channel 32 and orifice(s) 31, Figs. 1A-2), and the other end (distal end) is formed as a water outlet (water exits the “other end” of channel 32 at orifice 31 as seen in Figs. 2-3, “tip portion 28 includes an orifice 31 for exit of the liquid/air burst” see col. 6, lines 65-66); and
a stopping structure (guidance tip 26, Figs. 2-3) comprising two abutting portions and two locating portions (see “1. Abutting/Limiting Portions” and “2. Locating Portions” in annotated Figure A above. It is noted that a “portion” is a broad term, as Merriam-Webster defines it as “an often limited part of a whole.”), wherein the two limiting portions (1, Fig. A. As best understood, the limiting portions are considered the abutting portions) are opposite to each other and disposed along a first direction (see “1a. First Direction” in Fig. A above) in a radial direction of the first flow channel (extending radially through channel 32, Figs. 2-3), the two locating portions (2, Fig. A) are opposite to each other and disposed along a second direction (see “2a. Second Direction” in Fig. A above) in the radial direction of the first flow channel (extending radially through channel 32, Figs. 2-3), the first direction (1a) is perpendicular to the second direction (2a, see Fig. A above), and the two limiting portions (1) extend from the spray head main body in directions away from each other respectively (the two limiting portions 1, 1, in Figure A above extend from the spray head main body in directions away from each other).
Chang discloses a first free end of each of the two limiting portions (see “10. First Free End” in Fig. A above) and a second free end of each of the two locating portions (see “20. Second Free End” in Fig. A above), but is silent regarding wherein the first free end of each of the two limiting portions extending from the spray head main body is farther away from the axial direction of the spray head main body than a second free end of each of the two locating portions extending from the spray head main body. However, it is noted that Chang suggests that the base portion (30) “could be other shapes, including rectangular” (see col. 7, lines 56-58) and it has been held that selection of a shape is an obvious matter of choice for a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the base portion (30) of Chang to be rectangular with one side longer than the other, as generally taught by Chang because this would merely be one of numerous shapes or configurations a person having ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of providing the base portion that is shaped to contact adjacent teeth, and since it has been held that selection of a shape is an obvious matter of choice for a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)). With the change in shape, the first free end of each of the two limiting portions extending from the spray head main body is farther away from the axial direction of the spray head main body than a second free end of each of the two locating portions extending from the spray head main body (because the two limiting portions will be further due to the modified rectangular shape).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Chang device discloses wherein the two limiting portions (1, Fig. A) are soft and elastic (“made of a soft elastomeric material, such as rubber” see col. 7, lines 25-28), and the limiting portions change a distance between the water outlet and teeth slit of a user by deformation, or the limiting portions are fitted to teeth of a user by deformation (these are recitations of intended use, and the limiting portions are “made of a soft elastomeric material, such as rubber” and provide points of contact with teeth adjacent the interproximal space, see col. 7, lines 29-33. Thus, the structure is configured to be deformed against the teeth when pressed).
Regarding claim 10, Chang discloses a first free end of each of the two limiting portions (see “10. First Free End” in Fig. A above) and a second free end of each of the two locating portions (see “20. Second Free End” in Fig. A above), but is silent regarding wherein the first free end of each of the two limiting portions extending from the spray head main body is farther away from the axial direction of the spray head main body than a second free end of each of the two locating portions extending from the spray head main body. However, it is noted that Chang suggests that the base portion (30) “could be other shapes, including rectangular” (see col. 7, lines 56-58) and it has been held that selection of a shape is an obvious matter of choice for a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the base portion (30) of Chang to be rectangular with one side longer than the other, as generally taught by Chang because this would merely be one of numerous shapes or configurations a person having ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of providing the base portion that is shaped to contact adjacent teeth, and since it has been held that selection of a shape is an obvious matter of choice for a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)). With the change in shape, the first free end of each of the two limiting portions extending from the spray head main body is farther away from the axial direction of the spray head main body than a second free end of each of the two locating portions extending from the spray head main body (because the two limiting portions will be further due to the modified rectangular shape).
Regarding claim 15, Chang discloses wherein the spray head main body comprises a protruding portion (tip portion 28, Figs. 2-3), at least part of the first flow channel (32, Figs. 2-3) is formed inside the protruding portion (see Figs. 2-3), the protruding portion defines a water outlet on the side of the water outlet direction (the orifice 31 at the end of tip portion 28 defines a water outlet).
Regarding claim 17, Chang discloses wherein one end of the protruding portion close to the water outlet (the portion of 30 that is immediately connected to the tip 28, Figs. 2-3) comprises a soft flange used for abutting against teeth (base 30 forms a soft flange as it is “made of a soft elastomeric material, such as rubber” and provide points of contact with teeth adjacent the interproximal space, see col. 7, lines 25-33).
Regarding claim 18, Chang is silent regarding wherein the protruding portion (tip 28, Fig. 2) does not exceed a joining line of the first free ends of the two limiting portions (see Fig. A and Figs. 2-3).
However, it is noted that Chang suggests that the base portion (30) “could be other shapes, including rectangular or triangular, as long as there is good contact between the base portion and the adjacent teeth and gums of the user” (see col. 7, lines 56-60) and it has been held that selection of a shape is an obvious matter of choice for a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the base portion (30) of Chang to have a curvature that protrudes beyond the tip 28, as generally taught by Chang because this would merely be one of numerous shapes or configurations a person having ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of providing the base portion that is shaped to contact adjacent teeth, and since it has been held that selection of a shape is an obvious matter of choice for a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)).
Regarding claim 19, Chang discloses wherein the protruding portion (tip 28, Fig. 2) exceeds a joining line of the first free ends (10, Fig. A above) of the two limiting portions (as seen in Figure 2, the tip 28 extends beyond the surface of the two limiting portions).
Claim(s) 3 and 16, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (10,952,830) in view of Meng et al. (CN 209392131 U).
Regarding claim 3, Chang discloses wherein the spray head main body comprises a protruding portion (tip portion 28, Fig. 2), at least portion of the first flow channel (32) is formed inside the protruding portion (see Fig. 2), the protruding portion (28) defines the water outlet on a water outlet direction side (the orifice 31 at the end of tip portion 28 defines a water outlet associated with channel 32). Chang is silent regarding the protruding portion forms at least one notch, and the at least one notch penetrates the protruding portion in the radial direction of the first flow channel so as to allow water from the first flow channel to flow through.
Meng teaches a related nozzle for an oral irrigator (Fig. 3) with a protruding portion (nozzle main body 110, Fig. 3) forming at least one notch (blocking groove 19, Fig. 3), and the at least one notch penetrates the protruding portion in the radial direction of a first flow channel (notch 19 penetrates in a radial direction of the first flow channel of jet outlet 13, see Figs. 1-3) so as to allow water from the first flow channel to flow through (water exits the jet outlet 13 within the notch 19, see Fig. 3). Meng states that this notch (19) helps ensure the teeth or gums are not contacted directly, so the outlet 13 is not blocked (see the fourth paragraph of page 4 of the English translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the protruding portion of Chang to have a notch penetrating the protruding portion in the radial direction of the first flow channel as taught by Meng to help ensure the teeth or gums are not contacted directly, so the nozzle outlet is not blocked.
Regarding claim 16, Chang is silent regarding wherein the protruding portion (28) is provided with at least one notch, and the at least one notch penetrates the protruding portion in the radial direction of the first flow channel so as to allow the water from the first flow channel to flow through.
Meng teaches a related nozzle for an oral irrigator (Fig. 3) with a protruding portion (nozzle main body 110, Fig. 3) forming at least one notch (blocking groove 19, Fig. 3), and the at least one notch penetrates the protruding portion in the radial direction of a first flow channel (notch 19 penetrates in a radial direction of the first flow channel of jet outlet 13, see Figs. 1-3) so as to allow water from the first flow channel to flow through (water exits the jet outlet 13 within the notch 19, see Fig. 3). Meng states that this notch (19) helps ensure the teeth or gums are not contacted directly, so the outlet 13 is not blocked (see the fourth paragraph of page 4 of the English translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the protruding portion of Chang to have a notch penetrating the protruding portion in the radial direction of the first flow channel as taught by Meng to help ensure the teeth or gums are not contacted directly, so the nozzle outlet is not blocked.
Claim 7, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (10,952,830) in view of Taylor (2010/0190132).
Regarding claim 7, Chang discloses a spray head being soft rubber (base 30 is a “soft elastomeric rubber” see col. 7, lines 25-28 and may also be considered part of the spray head). Chang is silent regarding the spray head further comprising a spray rod connected to the spray head main body and being in communication with the water inlet, the spray rod is a hard tube which is rigid, the hard tube comprises an embedded section which embedded in the spray head main body, and the hardness of the embedded section is greater than the hardness of the spray head main body.
Taylor teaches a related nozzle for an oral irrigator, comprising a spray rod (nozzle 230, Fig. 2) connected to a spray head main body (i.e., 190, and/or 110, Fig. 2) and being in communication with a water inlet (water passes through channel 180, Fig. 2), the spray rod is a hard tube (“shaft portion 110 may be formed from plastic, metal, ceramics, or other rigid or semi-rigid materials” see [0016] and note that nozzle 230 is an extension of the shaft 110), the hard tube comprises an embedded section which embedded in the spray head main body (threaded portion 245, Fig. 2, is an embedded section that embeds in 190). The threaded portion provides an expected result that the connector portion 190 can be selectively removed, to allow for replacement (see para. [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nozzle of Chang to include a spray rod connected to the spray head main body and being in communication with the water inlet, the spray rod is a hard tube which is rigid, the hard tube comprises an embedded section which embedded in the spray head main body as taught by Taylor so different attachments can be attached/removed, as desired.
The modified Chang/Taylor device does not specifically state the hardness of the embedded section is greater than the hardness of the spray head main body. However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. MPEP 2144.07.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hardness of the embedded section to be a rigid material such as metal, harder than the spray head main body because this would provide a suitable material for an external threaded section, and it has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 14, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (10,952,830) in view of Song et al. (CN 214857719 U).
Regarding claim 14, Chang is silent regarding wherein a projection of each of the limiting portion (1, Fig. A) in a first plane is arc-shaped, the first plane is parallel to the axial direction and parallel to an extending direction from the connecting end to the first free end of the first flow channel. However, it is noted that Chang suggests that the base portion (30) “could be other shapes, including rectangular or triangular, as long as there is good contact between the base portion and the adjacent teeth and gums of the user” (see col. 7, lines 56-60) and it has been held that selection of a shape is an obvious matter of choice for a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)).
Furthermore, Song teaches a related nozzle for an oral irrigator (Fig. 1) wherein a projection of each of the (corresponding) limiting portion in a first plane is arc-shaped (see Fig. 3, the splash-proof part 2 has arc-shaped limiting portions), the first plane is parallel to the axial direction and parallel to an extending direction from the connecting end to the first free end of the first flow channel (see Fig. 3). The arc-shaped limiting portion provides a function of being splash-proof as the irrigator is placed against the teeth (“the splash-proof part can effectively prevent the water column sprayed by the tooth-punching machine from spilling out after collision with the teeth” see the Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the base (30) of Chang to have a projection of each of the limiting portions in a first plane is arc-shaped, the first plane is parallel to the axial direction and parallel to an extending direction from the connecting end to the first free end of the first flow channel as taught by Song because this provides an expected result of a substantially splash-proof member, and since it has been held that selection of a shape is an obvious matter of choice for a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)).
Claim 20, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (10,952,830) in view of Taylor (2010/0190132) and Song et al. (CN 214857719 U).
Regarding claim 20, Chang discloses an oral irrigator (oral irrigator device 10, Fig. 1A), comprising a nozzle (Fig. 2) which comprising a spray head (nozzle 16 with guidance tip 26 and base 30, Fig. 2),
the spray head comprises a spray head main body (the stem of the nozzle 16, below the guidance tip 26, Fig. 2), wherein the spray head comprises a spray head main body (base 30, Figs. 2-3) and a stopping structure (guidance tip 26, Figs. 2-3), the spray head main body defines a first flow channel (channel 32, Fig. 2) extending in an axial direction of the spray head main body (channel 32 extends in an axial direction as seen in Fig. 2), one end of the first flow channel (the proximal end of orifice 31, Fig. 1A) is formed as a water inlet (water travels through channel 32 and orifice(s) 31, Figs. 1A-2), and the other end (distal end) is formed as a water outlet (water exits the “other end” of channel 32 at orifice 31 as seen in Figs. 2-3, “tip portion 28 includes an orifice 31 for exit of the liquid/air burst” see col. 6, lines 65-66), and the stopping structure comprises two limiting portions (1, see Fig. A above) across from each other and dispose along a second direction in the radial direction of the first flow channel (the “second direction” is considered the first direction 1a in Fig. A above), and the two limiting portions (1, Fig. A) respectively extend from the spray head main body in directions away from each other (see Fig. A), and have abutting faces (the surfaces of the limiting portions 1, best seen in Figure 2) close to the water outlet (the surface of the limiting portions closely approaches the water outlet at orifice 31), and the abutting faces bend or tilt towards a water outlet direction (towards orifice 31, Fig. 2) as being away from the spray head main body (see Figure 2, the surface tilts away from the stem of the nozzle).
Chang is silent regarding a spray rod; the two limiting portions facing to each other; the spray rod defines a second flow channel, and the spray head is provided at one end of the spray rod, such that the water inlet is in communication with the second flow channel.
Taylor teaches a related nozzle for an oral irrigator, comprising a spray rod (nozzle 230, Fig. 2) connected to a spray head main body (i.e., 190, and/or 110, Fig. 2) and the spray rod defines a second flow channel (the internal passage within the threaded portion 245, Fig. 2), and the spray head is provided at one end of the spray rod (attached to an end of the spray rod 230, see Fig. 2), such that the water inlet is in communication with the second flow channel (water passes through the channel of 230). The threaded portion provides an expected result that the connector portion 190 can be selectively removed, to allow for replacement (see para. [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nozzle of Chang to include a spray rod that defines a second flow channel, and the spray head is provided at one end of the spray rod, such that the water inlet is in communication with the second flow channel as taught by Taylor so different attachments can be attached/removed, as desired.
The modified Chang/Taylor device is still silent regarding the two limiting portions facing to each other. However, it is noted that Chang suggests that the base portion (30) “could be other shapes, including rectangular or triangular, as long as there is good contact between the base portion and the adjacent teeth and gums of the user” (see col. 7, lines 56-60) and it has been held that selection of a shape is an obvious matter of choice for a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)).
Furthermore, Song teaches a related nozzle for an oral irrigator (Fig. 1) wherein the (corresponding) limiting portion is arc-shaped (see Fig. 3, the splash-proof part 2 has arc-shaped limiting portions) such that the lateral surfaces are substantially facing towards each other (see Fig. 3). The arc-shaped limiting portion provides a function of being splash-proof as the irrigator is placed against the teeth (“the splash-proof part can effectively prevent the water column sprayed by the tooth-punching machine from spilling out after collision with the teeth” see the Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the base (30) of Chang/Taylor to have the limiting portion(s) substantially facing towards each other as taught by Song because this provides an expected result of a substantially splash-proof member.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the curvature of the splash-proof section (2, Fig. 3 of Song) such that the limiting portions face more directly towards one another, since it has been held that that selection of a shape is an obvious matter of choice for a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kovacevic-Milivojevic et al. (2017/0079755) discloses a related nozzle for irrigating the interproximal space of teeth, with an abutting portion having limiting portions and locating portions. Houle (2008/0255498) discloses a related nozzle for irrigating the teeth, with a plurality of different nozzle shapes. Grez et al. (2010/0304327) discloses a related nozzle for irrigating the interproximal space of teeth, with an abutting portion having limiting portions and locating portions. Schmalhurst et al. (2016/0296309) discloses a related nozzle for irrigating the interproximal space of teeth, having an embedded member. Zhou et al. (2024/0423767) discloses a related nozzle for irrigating the interproximal space of teeth, having various abutting, limiting, locating portions. Defenbaugh et al. (2013/0177868) discloses a related nozzle for irrigating the interproximal space of teeth, having an embedded portion. Wang et al. (2021/0379607) discloses a related nozzle for irrigating the interproximal space of teeth, having a notch and various abutting, limiting, locating portions. Chang et al. (9,931,186) discloses a related nozzle for an oral irrigator. Hafele et al. (5,616,028) discloses a related nozzle for an oral irrigator. Maloney et al. (4,386,911) discloses a related nozzle for an oral irrigator, having various abutting, limiting, locating portions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER E MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1473. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30 (Eastern).
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, Timothy Stanis can be reached at 571-272-5139. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER E MILLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights