DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
Figures 1a, 1b and 4 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following:
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “cleaning elements” in lines 5-6 should apparently be replaced with “at least one cleaning element”.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “the first and second cleaning element groups” in line 22 should apparently be replaced with “first and second cleaning element groups of the at least two groups of cleaning elements”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: actuation means in claim 10.
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.
Based on a review of the specification, an actuation means is interpreted to include a motor, or equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6 and 7 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.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase "and preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It appears the intended meaning may be that the limitations following are not required features of the claimed apparatus, and this meaning will be used for purposes of examination.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 2 requires that cleaning element unit comprises two groups of cleaning element, which feature is already required by claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2008/0083075 to Dickie (“Dickie”).
Regarding claim 1, Dickie teaches an oral cleaning arrangement (abstract, note Figs. 12 – 17 and para [0042]), comprising: a main body (ref. 220); at least one cleaning element unit (ref. 256, 258, 260 and 264), the cleaning element unit comprising a base (ref. 260 and 264, para [0041]) and further comprising at least two groups of cleaning elements upstanding from the base (bristle tufts of ref. 256 and 258), the groups defining different spatial layouts, height profiles and/or angular profiles of the cleaning elements with respect to the base, compared to one another (note Figs. 16 and 17, ref. 256 and 258 bristles tufts with different heights), and the two groups being spaced from one another by a gap (gaps between bristle tufts of ref. 256 and 258); wherein the cleaning element unit is linked to the main body by a coupling which permits pivotal or angular motion of the cleaning element unit base relative to the main body (para [0042], note Figs. 16 and 17, changing angles of ref. 256 and 258 relative to ref. 220); wherein the oral cleaning arrangement is arranged for engaging teeth of a user with cleaning elements of the at least one cleaning element unit during use, and wherein said coupling is such as to permit changing of an angle of the base with respect to teeth to which the device is being engaged (para [0042], note Figs. 16 and 17, changing angles of ref. 256 and 258 relative to ref. 220); wherein the oral cleaning arrangement is for use as part of a brushing mouthpiece device, wherein the oral cleaning arrangement comprises a mouthpiece portion for at least partial receipt in the mouth during use, wherein the body of the mouthpiece portion defines a tooth receiving channel defining an arcuate contour shaped for approximately following a contour of at least a portion of a user's dental arch to permit receipt of a row of teeth into the channel (note Figs. 16 and 17, ref. 220 is arcuate and forms a channel); wherein the at least one cleaning element unit is arranged such that the cleaning elements of the first and second cleaning element groups extend into the channel from a side face for engagement with teeth surfaces during use (note Figs. 16 and 17); and wherein the oral cleaning arrangement comprises multiple of the cleaning element units (ref. 256 and 258) at a series of positions along the arcuate contour defined by the mouthpiece portion, for cleaning teeth at different locations along the dental arch.
Regarding claim 2, Dickie discloses an arrangement wherein the cleaning element unit comprises two groups of cleaning elements (bristle tufts of ref. 256 and 258).
Regarding claim 3, Dickie discloses an arrangement wherein said coupling is such as to permit varying of an angle between the main body and a directional axis of the cleaning element unit extending from the first cleaning element group to the second cleaning element group (para [0042], note Figs. 12-17, changing angles of ref. 256 and 258 relative to ref. 220).
Regarding claim 4, Dickie discloses an arrangement wherein the coupling is such as to restrict linear motion of the base relative to the main body along a direction defined by an axis extending from the first cleaning element group to the second cleaning element group (para [0042], note Figs. 12-17).
Regarding claim 6, Dickie discloses an arrangement wherein the coupling permits rotational motion of the base relative to the main body in at least a first plane of rotation which is orientated substantially normal to a surface of the base from which the cleaning elements extend, and extends along a direction from the first group of cleaning elements to the second group of cleaning elements (para [0042], note Figs. 12-17, changing angles of ref. 256 and 258 relative to ref. 220).
Regarding claim 7, Dickie discloses an arrangement wherein the coupling further permits rotational motion relative to the main body in a second plane of rotation which is orientated substantially normal to a surface of the base from which the cleaning elements extend, and extends along a direction perpendicular to a line from the first group of cleaning elements to the second group of cleaning elements (para [0042], note Figs. 12-17, changing angles of ref. 256 and 258 relative to ref. 220).
Regarding claim 9, Dickie discloses an arrangement wherein the device includes a pair of cleaning element units facing one another from opposite positions across the channel, for respectively cleaning different sides of teeth received in the channel, and connected to said same connection point by respectively oppositely extending arms, wherein the pivotal motion of the pair of cleaning element units is coupled such that the two pivotally swing together about the connection point (para [0042], note Figs. 12-17, note ref. 256, 258, 260 and 264).
Regarding claim 10, Dickie teaches an oral care device (abstract, note Figs. 12 – 17 and para [0042]) comprising: an oral cleaning arrangement as claimed in any preceding claim (see, e.g., the analysis for claim 1); and an actuation means (Fig. 16, ref. 234, para [0042]) for inducing, in operation, a periodic motion of cleaning elements.
Regarding claim 11, Dickie discloses an arrangement wherein the periodic motion is linear cyclical motion along a linear directional axis; and wherein the coupling is such that the cleaning element unit base is pivotable relative to the main body of the oral cleaning arrangement about a rotational axis which is substantially parallel with said linear directional axis of the motion (para [0042], note Figs. 12-17, changing angles of ref. 256 and 258 relative to ref. 220).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2008/0083075 to Dickie (“Dickie”).
Regarding claim 5, Dickie does not explicitly teach the arrangement wherein each group of cleaning elements defines an elongate shaped footprint on the base. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to rearrange the cleaning elements, including wherein each group of cleaning elements defines an elongate shaped footprint on the base, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance cleaning. Note that rearrangement of parts is prima facie obvious, as are changes in shape. MPEP 2144.04(III)(B) and(VI)(C).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art reference is Dickie. The prior art references of record, taken alone or in combination, do not anticipate or suggest fairly the limitations of: wherein the coupling comprises a connection point displaced from the cleaning element unit at a location in-between sides of the channel, and integrated in a floor of the channel, and the coupling further comprising an arm extending from the connection point to the cleaning element unit base; and wherein the connection point permits an angular motion of the arm for permitting swinging of the cleaning element unit along an arc relative to the connection point to thereby change an angle of the cleaning element unit relative to tooth surfaces of teeth received in the channel, in combination with the other structural elements as instantly recited. Upon further search no other prior art has been located at the date of this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC GOLIGHTLY whose telephone number is (571)270-3715. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10 am - 7 pm.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/ERIC W GOLIGHTLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights