DETAILED ACTION
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
This action is in reply to the communications filed on 12/10/2025.
The Examiner notes claims 1-16 are currently pending and have been examined; Claims 5-10 & 15 have been withdrawn by a Response to Election/Restriction filed on 3/31/2025, see below for more detail.
The Examiner notes elected claims 1-4, 11-14, & 16 are currently pending and have been examined; claim(s) 1 & 3 is/are currently amended; all other claims are original or previously presented. Please see the Response to Amendments and Response to Arguments sections below for more details.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 5-10 & 15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Groups 2-4, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/31/2025.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“Attention-inducing member” in claim 1-2, 4, 11, 13-14, & 16. Wherein the instant application the attention-inducing member is interpreted per the applicant's disclosure in Figures 1-5, 8, & 10-12 and ¶23 to be an image, picture, or 3D model of a character or toy and/or in ¶24 an image manufactured with a lenticular printing technique.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
And/or
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nguyen et al. (US 20170303674), hereinafter Nguyen.
Regarding claim 1: (Each claim status is listed above in the Status of Claims section) Nguyen discloses a toothbrush [100] comprising:
a toothbrush head comprising a brush portion having a plurality of bristles [Fig 1;102 is the toothbrush head with a brush portion having a plurality of bristles];
a toothbrush handle having an end connected to the toothbrush head [Fig 1; ¶22; 104 is the toothbrush handle with an end connected to 102]; and
an attention-inducing member [106] comprising a detachable portion detachably provided at the other end of the toothbrush handle and an image portion extending from the detachable portion [Fig 6; ¶22 & ¶29; 118 is a detachable portion that is provided at the other end of the toothbrush (i.e. 108) and the rest of 106 extends away from 118; Fig 7-8 also show alternative detachable portions] and having a character embodied therein [Fig 1 & 6; ¶25];
wherein when the detachable portion is provided at the other end of the toothbrush handle [Fig 1 & 6; ¶22; 106 is provided on 108 which is positioned at the second end of toothbrush handle (see ¶22)], a direction in which the image portion of the attention-inducing member extends from the detachable portion is maintained at an angle substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the toothbrush handle so that the image portion is configured to be disposed at the front of sight of an infant or child who is the target of brushing throughout a brushing time [Fig 1-6; 106 extends away from the centerline of handle at an angle close to perpendicular, Fig 5 particularly shows 106 extending away (toward the top of the page) from the centerline of the handle; the image portion is disposed in front of sight of an infant or child as some portion of 106 can be seen at any angle depending on how the brush is held]; wherein the image portion induces the target of brushing to participate in an action of tooth brushing or to make a predetermined shape of mouth [106 is capable of inducing a target of brushing in participating in brushing and/or to make a predetermined shape of mouth].
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KWANGHYUN KIM (KR 200476679 Y1), hereinafter Kim.
Regarding claim 1: Kim discloses a toothbrush [100] comprising:
a toothbrush head comprising a brush portion having a plurality of bristles [Fig 1-3; 120 is the toothbrush head with a brush portion having a plurality of bristles (S)];
a toothbrush handle having an end connected to the toothbrush head [Figure 1 of this action & Fig 1-3; 110 is the toothbrush handle with an end connected to 120]; and
an attention-inducing member [C] comprising a detachable portion detachably provided at the other end of the toothbrush handle and an image portion extending from the detachable portion [Figure 1 of this action & Fig 2-3; the detachable portion can be provided at the other end of the toothbrush handle (i.e. 110) and the image portion extends away from the detachable portion; Fig 3 shows that the image portion can extend away from the detachable portion at different angles] and having a character embodied therein [Figure 1 of this action & Fig 2-3; ¶10-¶11 of the translation; C is a character which can be a ‘Lego’ or similar product];
wherein when the detachable portion is provided at the other end of the toothbrush handle [Figure 1 of this action & Fig 2-3], a direction in which the image portion of the attention-inducing member extends from the detachable portion is maintained at an angle substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the toothbrush handle so that the image portion is configured to be disposed at the front of sight of an infant or child who is the target of brushing throughout a brushing time [Figure 1 of this action & Fig 2-3; when the detachable portion is attached to the end of the handle opposite 120, the image portion can extend away from the detachable portion inline with the handle axis or at an angle perpendicular to the handle axis; in the latter case the image portion is disposed at the front of sight of an infant or child who is having their teeth brushed with said toothbrush; image portion can be moved to different nubs at the other end of the handle and be straight of bend but will be in front of sight of the target of brushing throughout the brushing time]; and wherein the image portion induces the target of brushing to participate in an action of tooth brushing or to make a predetermined shape of mouth [The image portion is capable of inducing a target of brushing in participating in brushing and/or to make a predetermined shape of mouth].
PNG
media_image1.png
807
714
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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(s) 2, 4, 11, 14, & 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KWANGHYUN KIM (KR 200476679 Y1) in view of DUNN et al. (US 20200305590), hereinafter Dunn.
Regarding claim 2 & 14: Kim discloses the toothbrush of claim 1, further comprising a coupling member [Fig 1-3; the protrusions on the toothbrush handle are the coupling member] …, and a mounting portion provided … fixed to the other end of the toothbrush handle [Fig 1-3; the two protrusion on the end of the toothbrush handle are the mounting member], wherein the detachable portion of the attention-inducing member is detachably provided on the mounting portion of the coupling member … [Fig 2-3; C is detachably provided on the mounting portion of the coupling member]
Kim is silent in regards to further comprising a coupling member provided with a support portion of which one end extends from the other end of the toothbrush handle into the toothbrush handle toward the toothbrush head so as to be fixed, and a mounting portion provided on the other end of the support portion and fixed to the other end of the toothbrush handle, wherein the detachable portion of the attention-inducing member is detachably provided on the mounting portion of the coupling member through magnetic force.
Dunn teaches a brush [10] comprising a coupling member [Fig 1-3; 44-46 form a coupling member] provided with a support portion of which one end extends from the other end of the toothbrush handle into the toothbrush handle toward the toothbrush head so as to be fixed [Fig 3; ¶50; 44 extends from the end of the handle towards the brush head], and a mounting portion provided on the other end of the support portion and fixed to the other end of the toothbrush handle [Fig 1-3; 45-46 form a mounting portion at the end of 44 and fixed to the end of the brush handle]; wherein the detachable portion of the attention-inducing member is detachably provided on the mounting portion of the coupling member through magnetic force [Fig 1-3; ¶43-¶44 & ¶50; the coupling member is magnetically attracted to 103 (which can be an attention-inducing member) to have 103 be detachably attached to the brush handle].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the toothbrush as disclosed by Kim to have a coupling member provided with a support portion of which one end extends from the other end of the toothbrush handle into the toothbrush handle toward the toothbrush head so as to be fixed, and a mounting portion provided on the other end of the support portion and fixed to the other end of the toothbrush handle; wherein the detachable portion of the attention-inducing member is detachably provided on the mounting portion of the coupling member through magnetic force as taught by Dunn for the purpose of having a magnetic attachment of the toothbrush to the attention-inducing member as an alternative attaching means with the added benefit of the using the magnetic force to hold the toothbrush to a base or other magnetically attractable object to store the toothbrush [Dunn: Abstract & ¶43].
Claim 4: Kim as modified teaches the toothbrush of claim 2, wherein either one of the mounting portion of the coupling member and the detachable portion of the attention-inducing member is provided as a magnet and the other is made of a metal that is detachable by a magnetic force of the magnet, or both the mounting portion of the coupling member and the detachable portion of the attention-inducing member are provided as magnets that are detachable by magnetic force [Dunn: ¶44; either the mounting member or the attention-inducing member may have a magnet and the other a plate or both can be magnets].
Claim 11: Kim as modified teaches the toothbrush of claim 2, wherein the image portion of the attention-inducing member is provided as at least one of an image, picture, or a 3D model, of a character or a toy [Kim: Fig 2-3; ¶10-¶11 of the translation; C is a character which can be a ‘Lego’ or similar product].
Claim 16: Kim as modified discloses a toothbrush set comprising: the toothbrush of claim 1 [see above for the rejection details]; and a toothbrush holder [10] which is configured to be provided on a wall or mirror in a space [Kim: Fig 3; Pg3:¶4 of the translation], in which the toothbrush is to be used, and to which the detachable portion of the attention-inducing member is detachably provided through magnetic force [Dunn: the replacement of the attachment structure to magnetic would also apply to the holder as it uses the same attachment structure].
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Dunn further in view of BAERTSCHI et al. (US 20210145162), hereinafter Baertschi.
Claim 12: Kim as modified teaches the toothbrush of claim 2, but is silent in regards to wherein the image portion is manufactured using a lenticular printing technique.
However Baertschi teaches a toothbrush with attention-inducing images on the handle [Fig 21-24] wherein the image portion is manufactured using a lenticular printing technique [¶22, ¶137-¶138, ¶149; Lenticular printed images are used with toothbrush attention-inducing images].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the image portion as taught by Kim as modified to have the image portion is manufactured using a lenticular printing technique as taught by Baertschi as an additional or alternative structure or image technique that will draw attention to the image portion [Baertschi: ¶22, ¶137-¶138, ¶149].
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Dunn further in view of TAKAGI (JP 3128548 U), hereinafter Takagi.
Claim 13: The toothbrush of claim 2, but is silent in regards to further comprising a light-emitting unit disposed on the attention-inducing member to irradiate light to the outside.
However Takagi further teaches a light-emitting unit disposed on the attention-inducing member to irradiate light to the outside [Pg3:¶7 of the translation; the attention-inducing member can emit light to further draw attention].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the attention-inducing member as taught by Kim as modified to have a light-emitting unit disposed on the attention-inducing member to irradiate light to the outside as taught by Takagi for the purpose of further drawing attention to the attention-inducing member. With the further addition of a timer the light can indicate how long the teeth have been brushed. See Takagi Pg3:¶7 of the translation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is in condition for allowance.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 102 & 103 Rejection
Applicant's arguments, see Pages 6-12, filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant claims that no prior art teaches that the image portion is maintained perpendicular to the handle so that the image portion is configured to be disposed at the front of sight. Specifically claiming that that limitation means that the image portion can rotate to maintain its locationHowever, maintaining a perpendicular orientation to the handle so that the image portion is capable of being disposed at the front of sight does not specifically require rotational movement of the image portion relative to the handle or any other object. Both Nguyen or Kim can be held or rotated in such a way that a portion of the image portion is disposed at the front of sight thereby meeting the limitation’s specific requirements. Additionally the image portion of Kim can be repositioned throughout the brushing time to maintain a perpendicular orientation of the image portion to the handle.The Examiner notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.The Examiner further notes that the limitation “wherein the image portion induces the target of brushing to participate in an action of tooth brushing or to make a predetermined shape of mouth” is not tied to the limitation maintaining the image portion’s orientation and thus the image portion is not required to induce the target to participate in brushing or make a predetermined mouth shape the entire brushing time. The arguments addressing this other limitation will be further addressed below.
The Applicant claims that no prior art teaches an image portion that is capable of the claimed behavioral induction. More specifically that the image portions of Nguyen or Kim cannot induce the target of brushing to participate in an action of tooth brushing or to make a predetermined shape of mouth. The Applicant goes on to claim that this requires the image portions of Nguyen and Kim to show facial expressions corresponding to a particular mouth shape to be formed by the user nor are they designed to induce a child to shape their mouth in a predetermined way. The Applicant claims that the claim limitation is a structurally configured “instructional character” whose mouth shape defines a target mouth posture to be imitated.However none of the facial expression or “instructional character” information is in the claims. They also do not appear to have any support in the disclosure for adding them into the claims. Therefore as long as the image portion can induce a target of brushing to participate in brushing or hold their mouth open for brushing it is interpreted as meeting the limitations. It is noted that Kim’s character can have a picture of a face in a specific orientation printed on the head portion of the image portion.Therefore the rejections are maintained.
All dependent claim rejections are maintained as the claim 1 rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON R MCCONNELL whose telephone number is (303)297-4608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 0700-1600 MST [0900-1800 EST] 2nd Friday 0700-1500 MST [0900-1700 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, Brian Keller can be reached on (571) 272-8548. 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.
/AARON R MCCONNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723