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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 8/6/2024 are being considered.
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 1-16 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 recites the limitation “wherein the first floor portion of the floor of the first dentature channel is free of any air bladders and teeth cleaning pads”. “the first dentature channel” lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear if this is the same or different channel as the dentature channel previously recited in the claim. As such the claims are determined to be indefinite. For examination purposes, it will be assumed they are the same channel.
Claims 2-16 are rejected due to dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-9, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) as being anticipated by Solow (US 4,224,710).
Regarding claim 1, Solow discloses a teeth cleaning device comprising:
a support structure (Item 20 Figure 1) comprising a floor, a glossal wall, and a facial wall that collectively define a dentature channel configured to receive at least a portion of a dentature of a user, the floor of the dentature channel comprising a first floor portion, a second floor portion, and a third floor portion, the first floor portion being located between the second and third floor portions;
a first floor air bladder located along the second floor portion and a second floor air bladder located along the third floor portion;
a first floor teeth cleaning pad coupled to the first floor air bladder and a second floor teeth cleaning pad coupled to the second floor air bladder, the first and second floor teeth cleaning pads being configured to engage biting surfaces of premolar and molar teeth of the user when the teeth cleaning device is positioned within an oral cavity of the user (Figure 7 shows brushes 102 and 104 on first and second side portions being actuated by a volume of air. Column 4 Lines 30-47 discuss how there can be a bladder instead of a piston arrangement which saves on space. Further, discussed is how Item 110 is locate on the sets of molars with birstles thereon); and
wherein the first floor portion of the floor of the first dentature channel is free of any air bladders and teeth cleaning pads (Figure 8 shows the first floor portion that is located between the two brushes and two bladders. The point is free from any bristles projecting from there and lacks any bladders from that portion. Column 4 Lines 47-56));
an air-flow subsystem fluidly coupled to the first and second floor air bladders (Column 3 Lines 7-25).
Regarding claim 3, Solow discloses the teeth cleaning device according to claim 1 wherein the first and second floor air bladders are spaced apart from one another by the first floor portion of the floor of the first dentature channel (Figure 7).
Regarding claim 4, Solow discloses the teeth cleaning device according to claim 1 wherein the first floor portion has a first minimum width measured between the facial and glossal walls (Figure 8), the second floor portion has a second minimum width measured between the facial and glossal walls, and the third floor portion has a third minimum width measured between the facial and glossal walls (Figure 7), the first minimum width being less than the first and second minimum widths (Figure 7-9 shows how the molar area is wider to accommodate the first and second bladders).
Regarding claim 6, Solow discloses the teeth cleaning device according to claim 1 further comprising: at least one glossal air bladder (Item 102) coupled to the glossal wall and fluidly coupled to the air-flow subsystem; and at least one glossal teeth cleaning pad coupled to the at least one glossal air bladder and configured to engage glossal surfaces of the user’s teeth.
Regarding claim 7, Solow discloses the teeth cleaning device according to claim 6 wherein the at least one glossal teeth cleaning pad is a single continuous teeth cleaning pad that extends continuously along portions of the glossal wall that are aligned with each of the first, second, and third floor portions (Item 102 is a pad that extends continuously along portions of the glossal wall).
Regarding claim 8, Solow discloses the teeth cleaning device according to claim 1 further comprising: at least one facial air bladder (Item 104) coupled to the facial wall and fluidly coupled to the air-flow subsystem; and at least one facial teeth cleaning pad coupled to the at least one facial air bladder and configured to engage facial surfaces of the user’s teeth.
Regarding claim 9, Solow discloses the teeth cleaning device according to claim 1 wherein each of the first and second floor teeth cleaning pads comprises a substrate layer and a plurality of teeth cleaning elements extending from the substrate layer (In the embodiment of figure 10, the bristles extend from substrate 130 and the bladder (132) attaches to the sidewall of Item 130).
Regarding claim 14 Solow discloses the teeth cleaning device according to claim 9 wherein each of the plurality of teeth cleaning elements comprises a flat distal end, and wherein the flat distal ends of all of the plurality of teeth cleaning elements lie in a common plane (best shown in Figure 5).
Regarding claim 15 Solow discloses the teeth cleaning device according to claim 1 wherein the first floor portion comprises an exposed top surface that extends between the first and second floor teeth cleaning pads (Figure 8, the top surface is facing the top teeth).
Regarding claim 16 Solow discloses the teeth cleaning device according to claim 15 wherein the first floor portion is an arcuate portion of the floor (Figure 9).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solow (US 4,224,710) in view of Solow (US 4,346,492), herein referenced as Solow B.
Regarding claim 2, Solow discloses the teeth cleaning device according to claim 1. Solow fails to explicitly disclose further comprising a control unit operably coupled to the air-flow subsystem, the control unit configured to: (1) pressurize the air bladders with external air in a pressurization mode; (2) transfer air between select ones of the air bladders in a cleaning mode; and (3) depressurize the air bladders by releasing the pressurized air from the air bladders to an ambient atmosphere.
Solow B teaches a control unit operably coupled to the air-flow subsystem, the control unit configured to: (1) pressurize the air bladders with external air in a pressurization mode; (2) transfer air between select ones of the air bladders in a cleaning mode (Figure 1 and Column 2 Line 64- Column 3 Line 48); and (3) depressurize the air bladders by releasing the pressurized air from the air bladders to an ambient atmosphere (Item 44). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute the pressurization means of Solow for that taught in Solow B. Such a modification would help prevent damage to gums (Solow B Column 3 Lines 16-22).
Claims 10, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solow (US 4,224,710) in view of Lowe (US 2014/0272761).
Regarding claim 10 and 11, Solow discloses the teeth cleaning device according to claim 9. Solow fails to explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of teeth cleaning elements are in a shape of a truncated cone or a truncated pyramid
Lowe et al. teaches a teeth cleaning device wherein the plurality of teeth cleaning elements are in a shape of a truncated cone or a truncated pyramid (which tapers from a base to a tip). (paragraphs [0069] and [0070]; “various shapes protrusions are possible, including cylinders with... flat or rounded... tops, polygonal pillars... with tops, cones, boxes...and the like, as well as any combinations thereof”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teeth cleaning elements of Solow such that they are in a shape of a truncated cone or a truncated pyramid as taught by Lowe . Sucha modification is viewed as a change in shape, which has been held to be of routine by one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). Lowe discusses how different lengths, angles, clusters and bristle shapes are all known to affect the cleaning/massaging capabilities. Further in paragraph 43 of the instant application there is discussion of other shapes being used to obtain a desired cleaning affect. Thus there is no criticality discussed for the claimed shape.
Regarding claim 13 Solow discloses the teeth cleaning device according to claim 9. Solow fails to explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of teeth cleaning elements are positioned along the substrate layer in an offset arrangement which forms a hexagonal grid.
Lowe teaches a cleaning device wherein the plurality of cleaning elements are arranged in a hexagonal pattern (Paragraph 20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Solow such that the cleaning elements were arranged on the substrate in a hexagonal pattern as taught by Lowe. Such a modification is viewed as a change in shape, which has been held to be of routine by one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). Lowe discusses how different lengths, angles, clusters and bristle shapes are all known to affect the cleaning/massaging capabilities. Further in paragraph 43 of the instant application there is discussion of other shapes being used to obtain a desired cleaning affect. Thus there is no criticality discussed for the claimed cluster shape.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solow (US 4,224,710) in view of Fischer (US 2003/0159224)
Regarding claim 12, Solow discloses the teeth cleaning device according to claim 9. Solow fails to explicitly disclose each of the plurality of teeth cleaning elements is formed from thermoplastic polyurethane.
Fischer teaches a cleaning device wherein the plurality of teeth cleaning elements is formed from thermoplastic polyurethane (Paragraph 17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material of Solow such that the pads were made of the thermoplastic material as taught by Fischer. Such a material is discussed to give the benefit of “the flexible structure can perform different functions, e.g. massaging the gums, damping the cleaning movement, removing plaque, polishing the tooth surface, suspending the bristles in an elastic manner and/or sealing non-welded locations.”
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solow (US 4,224,710) in view of Brewer (US 2010/0062397)
Regarding claim 17 Solow discloses a teeth cleaning device comprising:
a support structure (Item 20) comprising a floor, a glossal wall, and a facial wall that collectively define a dentature channel configured to receive at least a portion of a dentature of a user;
a first facial air bladder, a second facial air bladder, and a third facial air bladder located along the facial wall with the first facial air bladder positioned in between the second and third facial air bladders (Figures 1 and 2 , Item 32 has a plurality of brushes along the facial wall);
a first glossal air bladder, a second glossal air bladder, and a third glossal air bladder located along the glossal wall with the first glossal air bladder positioned in between the second and third glossal air bladders (Figures 1 and 2 , Item 28 has a plurality of brushes along the glossal wall;
an air pump (Item 60) operably coupled
a control unit operably coupled to the air pump to control operation of the air pump (Column 4 Lines 10-19 discusses power being turned on and cleaning operation occurring, thus there is a level of a controller).
Solow fails to explicitily disclose the first facial air bladder via a first valve; the second glossal air bladder via a second valve; the second facial air bladder and the third glossal air bladder via a third valve; the second glossal air bladder and the third facial air bladder via a fourth valve.
Brewer teaches multiple bladders (For example Item 1315) and discusses how flapper valves are used to help control air flow to the valves (Paragraph 56). Brewer also discusses how the bite force can affect the pneumatic system and a valve can be added to help control the pressure (Paragraph 89). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Solow to include a plurality of valves as taught by Brewer. Having multiple valves that independently control the different bladders would ensure the bladders were equally pressing against the users moral cavity. This would decrease excessive rubbing and decrease the chance of soar spots. Please note that duplication of parts (valves and flow paths) as discussed in MPEP 2144.04 is viewed as obvious.
Regarding claim 18 Solow in view of Brewer disclose the teeth cleaning device according to claim 17 further comprising: a first floor air bladder positioned in between the second facial air bladder and the second glossal air bladder, and a second floor air bladder positioned in between the third facial air bladder and the third glossal air bladder (similar to that discussed in the rejection of claim 17. Solow discloses several different bladder locations. Brewer discusses using valves to control bladders. It would have been obvious to control any of the bladders independently since pressure control of a chamber is a known function in the art that would prevent a bladder over pressurizing).
Regarding claim 19 Solow in view of Brewer disclose the teeth cleaning device according to claim 18 wherein the air pump is operably coupled to both of the first and second floor air bladders via a fifth valve (similar to that discussed in the rejection of claim 17. Solow discloses several different bladder locations. Brewer discusses using valves to control bladders. It would have been obvious to control any of the bladders independently since pressure control of a chamber is a known function in the art that would prevent a bladder over pressurizing).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 5, Sollow fails to disclose the first floor portion changing in size from one end to another. Although one might speculate that this happens, the facts of Sullow can not definitively prove so.
Regarding claim 20, Sollow in view of Brewer fails to disclose a transfer pump on otp of the air pump.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOM R RODGERS whose telephone number is (313)446-4849. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8AM-5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/TOM RODGERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights