Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of Claims
2. Claims 1-20 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
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:
“visual feedback element … modified based on the first setting or the second setting being selected” in claim 11. The corresponding structure appears to be one or more light emitting diodes (see para. [0063] of the published application).
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 § 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.
Claim 5 is 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 5, line 1 recites “wherein the first setting is selected by a user” which is a method step. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 97 USPQ2d 1737 (Fed. Cir. 2011). MPEP 2173.05(p)(II).
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 pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claim(s) 8-10, 12, and 14-17 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Snyder et al. (2007/0105065).
Regarding claim 8, Snyder discloses an oral irrigator (Fig. 2) comprising:
a reservoir (reservoir 54, Fig. 4);
a pump (pump 86, Fig. 4) in fluid communication with the reservoir (reservoir 54, Fig. 4; “activates a pump 86 through a drive mechanism 84 that draws fluid from the reservoir 54 and delivers the fluid to the tip 56 in a controlled and pressurized manner” see the first sentence of [0056]), wherein the pump pumps fluid from the reservoir to an outlet (nozzle tip 56, Fig. 2; “activates a pump 86 through a drive mechanism 84 that draws fluid from the reservoir 54 and delivers the fluid to the tip 56 in a controlled and pressurized manner” see the first sentence of [0056]);
a motor (motor 82, Fig. 4) coupled to the pump to drive the pump (“motor 82 … that, based on the state of the control structure 80, activates a pump 86” see the first sentence of [0056]); and
a control module (control structure 80, Fig. 2) in electrical communication with the motor (alters a voltage applied to the motor; “the control 80 of FIG. 2 permits the user to select a low or high motor speed by correspondingly altering the voltage level applied to the motor” see the first sentence of [0087]) to vary an output of the motor (varies motor speed, see para. [0087]), wherein
when a first setting (i.e., low motor speed setting; see the first sentence of [0087]) corresponding to a first pressure output for the outlet (reducing motor speed reduces fluid pressure, see the first sentence of [0087]) is selected the control module (80) drives the motor by applying a first voltage waveform to the motor (the voltage waveform associated with the lower motor speed selection, see the first sentence of [0087]); and
when a second setting (i.e., high motor speed setting; see the first sentence of [0087]) corresponding to a second pressure output for the outlet (reducing motor speed reduces fluid pressure, see the first sentence of [0087]. Thus, the “high motor speed” selection would have a relatively higher fluid pressure) is selected the control module (80) drives the motor by applying a second voltage waveform to the motor (the voltage waveform associated with the higher motor speed selection, see the first sentence of [0087]), wherein the second voltage waveform is different from the first voltage waveform (the low or high motor speeds are selected by “altering the voltage level applied to the motor” see the first sentence of [0087]. Thus, the first and second voltage waveforms will be different).
Regarding claim 9, Snyder discloses further comprising a control actuator (“control structure 80 includes a wedge shaped pad 102 with three buttons 104, 106, 108 integrated therein and adapted for depression by a user’s thumb or finger” see para. [0056]), wherein the control actuator is configured to receive a user input to select the first setting or the second setting (“the control 80 of FIG. 2 permits the user to select a low or high motor speed” see the first sentence of [0087]).
Regarding claim 10, Snyder discloses wherein the control actuator (i.e., button(s) 104, 106, 108) is in electrical communication with the control module (the buttons communicate the selection(s) made to the control module).
Regarding claim 12, Snyder discloses wherein the first voltage waveform (the waveform associated with low motor speed, para. [0087]) has a first frequency and a first voltage magnitude (a voltage provided to the motor will necessarily have a first frequency and a first voltage magnitude) and the second voltage waveform (the waveform associated with high motor speed, para. [0087]) has a second frequency and a second voltage magnitude (the voltage provided to the motor will necessarily have a frequency and magnitude. The claims do not require that the frequency/magnitudes differ).
Regarding claim 14, Snyder discloses a method of driving a pump (pump 86, Fig. 4) for an oral irrigator (Fig. 2) comprising:
determining a first setting (i.e., a low motor speed setting; “Reducing the motor speed may also reduce the pressure of the delivered fluid, and in one embodiment, the control 80 of FIG. 2 permits the user to select a low or high motor speed by correspondingly altering the voltage level applied to the motor” see the first sentence of [0087]) corresponding to a first output characteristic (a reduced fluid pressure due to the reduced motor speed, see the first sentence of [0087]) for the oral irrigator;
based on the first setting, applying a first control waveform (the voltage waveform associated with the lower motor speed selection, see the first sentence of [0087]) to a motor (motor 82, Fig. 4) coupled to the pump (“motor 82 … that, based on the state of the control structure 80, activates a pump 86” see the first sentence of [0056]), wherein the first control waveform is associated with the first output characteristic (the voltage waveform associated with the lower motor speed selection is associated with a lower fluid pressure, see the first sentence of [0087]);
receiving a user input (at control structure 80, Fig. 2) to change from the first setting to a second setting (the user is permitted to select a low speed setting and a high speed setting, and thus the user can change from a first setting to a second setting and vice versa; see the first sentence of [0087]), wherein the second setting (i.e., the high motor speed setting; see the first sentence of [0087]) corresponds to a second output characteristic (a relatively higher fluid pressure) of the oral irrigator different from the first output characteristic (the higher fluid pressure from the higher motor speed selection is different from the relatively lower fluid pressure from the lower motor speed selection, see para. [0087]); and
based on the second setting, applying a second control waveform (the voltage waveform associated with the higher motor speed selection, see the first sentence of [0087]), different than the first control waveform to the motor (the user selects a low or high motor speed by “altering the voltage level applied to the motor” and thus there will be different voltages associated with the first and second control waveforms. See para. [0087]).
Regarding claim 15, Snyder discloses wherein the first setting (i.e., low motor speed setting, see the first sentence of [0087]) is determined based on a user input via a control actuator (“control structure 80 includes a wedge shaped pad 102 with three buttons 104, 106, 108 integrated therein and adapted for depression by a user’s thumb or finger” see para. [0056]. The button(s) determine the user input, “the control 80 of FIG. 2 permits the user to select a low or high motor speed” see the first sentence of [0087]).
Regarding claim 16, Snyder discloses wherein the second setting (i.e., high motor speed setting, see the first sentence of [0087]) is determined based on a user input via a control actuator (“control structure 80 includes a wedge shaped pad 102 with three buttons 104, 106, 108 integrated therein and adapted for depression by a user’s thumb or finger” see para. [0056]. The button(s) determine the user input, “the control 80 of FIG. 2 permits the user to select a low or high motor speed” see the first sentence of [0087]).
Regarding claim 17, Snyder discloses wherein the first output characteristic comprises a first fluid pressure (a relatively lower fluid pressure, associated with the lower motor speed, see the first sentence of [0087]) and the second output characteristic comprises a second fluid pressure (a relatively higher fluid pressure, associated with the higher motor speed, see the first sentence of [0087]).
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 13 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Snyder et al. (2007/0105065) in view of Hunter et al. (WO 2011/084511).
Regarding claim 1, Snyder discloses an oral irrigator (Fig. 2) comprising:
a pump (pump 86, Fig. 4) in fluid communication with a reservoir (reservoir 54, Fig. 4; “activates a pump 86 through a drive mechanism 84 that draws fluid from the reservoir 54 and delivers the fluid to the tip 56 in a controlled and pressurized manner” see the first sentence of [0056]);
a motor (motor 82, Fig. 4) configured to selectively activate the pump (“motor 82 … that, based on the state of the control structure 80, activates a pump 86” see the first sentence of [0056]); and
a control element (control structure 80, Fig. 2) in electrical communication with the motor (alters a voltage applied to the motor; “the control 80 of FIG. 2 permits the user to select a low or high motor speed by correspondingly altering the voltage level applied to the motor” see the first sentence of [0087]) and configured to vary a control signal based on a user input (the user provides input via control structure 80, Fig. 2, to vary the voltage of a control signal. See the first sentence of [0087]), wherein the variation of the control signal modifies at least one characteristic of a fluid flow output by the pump (variation of the voltage of the control signal modified a pressure of the delivered fluid, see the first sentence of [0087]).
Snyder is silent regarding the control element being a “processing” element.
Hunter teaches a related oral irrigation device (Fig. 1) having a processing element (controller 108, Fig. 1; “controller 108 includes an on-board microprocessor” see page 13, lines 2-6) in electrical communication with the motor (“controller 108 is electrically coupled between the power source 106 and the actuator 125, such that the controller 108 can selectively apply, withdraw and otherwise adjust the electrical input signal provided by the power source 106 to the actuator 125” see page 12, lines 25-28) and configured to vary a control signal based on user input (“controller 108 can be a simple switch that is operable by a local interface. For example, a button provided on the housing 102 may be manipulated by a user” see page 12, lines 28-30; “the electrical input being shaped by the selected application … the electrical input can be shaped by the controller to provide a different or even time varying electrical value” see page 13, lines 4-5), wherein the variation of the control signal modified at least one characteristic of a fluid flow (i.e., pressure) output by a pump (injector; “transfer pressure can be adjusted, for example, by controlling the electrical input signal applied to the injector … the transfer pressure may be varied over time” see page 7, lines 1-8; and “Pulses can be used to dynamically control (e.g., servo-control) the magnitude, direction and duration of the force … The device also includes the ability to pulse shape to use different waveforms for each cycle” see page 10, lines 4-11). The use of a control element with a micro-processor provides greater control over the electrical input by allowing different or time varying electrical values to be used, such as with dynamic pulse shape waveforms.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the control element of Snyder to include a micro-processor configured to vary the electrical input signal over time as taught by Hunter because this processing ability provides greater control over the fluid pressure by allowing different or time varying electrical values to be used, such as with dynamic pulse shape waveforms.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Snyder/Hunter device discloses wherein the control signal is a voltage waveform (Snyder discloses the control element 80 “alter[s] the voltage level applied to the motor” see the first sentence of [0087], and this control element has been modified by Hunter to allow different voltage waveforms to be utilized, see page 10, lines 4-11) and intermittently applies a voltage to the motor (in the modified device, a voltage waveform is applied to the motor).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Snyder/Hunter device discloses wherein the control signal varies at least one of a voltage magnitude or a voltage frequency to modify an output pressure by the pump (at least a voltage magnitude is modified, as Snyder discloses the control element 80 “permits the user to select a low or high motor speed by correspondingly altering the voltage level applied to the motor” see the first sentence of [0087], this control element has been modified by Hunter to allow different voltage waveforms to be utilized, see page 10, lines 4-11. Different voltage waveforms will have different magnitudes and/or frequencies).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Snyder/Hunter device discloses wherein in response to a first setting the control signal reduces at least a voltage magnitude to reduce an output pressure by the pump (Snyder discloses “Reducing the motor speed may also reduce the pressure of the delivered fluid …the control 80 of FIG. 2 permits the user to select a low or high motor speed by correspondingly altering the voltage level applied to the motor” see the first sentence of [0087]. Thus, selecting a low motor speed will reduce the output pressure by the pump). The modified device is also able to adjust the shape of the voltage waveform as taught by Hunter, but does not specifically state the first setting (low motor speed setting) would also reduce a voltage frequency applied to the motor.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the waveform of the first setting to additionally reduce the voltage frequency, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art (reducing motor speed by reducing a voltage level as disclosed by Snyder, and providing adjustable time varying motor waveforms as taught by Hunter), discovering the optimum or workable ranges (i.e., reducing both voltage magnitude and frequency) involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 5, the modified Snyder/Hunter device discloses wherein the first setting is selected by a user (the user operates the control structure 80 to select a low or high motor speed, see Fig. 2 and para. [0087] of Snyder).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Snyder/Hunter device discloses further comprising a control actuator (the button/switch associated with control 80, Fig. 2 of Snyder. Hunter’s controller 108 also utilizes a button/switch, see pages 12-13) in electrical communication with the processing element (movement of the button/switch is communicated to the micro-processor of controller 108), wherein the control actuator is configured to receive a user input to vary the control signal (the user is able to manipulate the button/switch, such as to select a low or high motor speed, see para. [0087] of Snyder. The modification taught by Hunter still allows a button/switch to be manipulated by the user).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Snyder/Hunter device discloses wherein the control actuator is an electrical switch (“controller 108 can be a simple switch that is operable by a local user interface …” see page 12, line 25, through page 13, line 9 of Hunter. Additionally, para. [0056] of Snyder states that the control structure 80 includes an electrical switch).
Regarding claim 13, Snyder is silent regarding wherein the control module (80) further comprises a processing element to determine the first setting or the second setting.
Hunter teaches a related oral irrigation device (Fig. 1) having a processing element (controller 108, Fig. 1; “controller 108 includes an on-board microprocessor” see page 13, lines 2-6) in electrical communication with the motor (“controller 108 is electrically coupled between the power source 106 and the actuator 125, such that the controller 108 can selectively apply, withdraw and otherwise adjust the electrical input signal provided by the power source 106 to the actuator 125” see page 12, lines 25-28) and configured to vary a control signal based on user input (“controller 108 can be a simple switch that is operable by a local interface. For example, a button provided on the housing 102 may be manipulated by a user” see page 12, lines 28-30; “the electrical input being shaped by the selected application … the electrical input can be shaped by the controller to provide a different or even time varying electrical value” see page 13, lines 4-5), wherein the variation of the control signal modified at least one characteristic of a fluid flow (i.e., pressure) output by a pump (injector; “transfer pressure can be adjusted, for example, by controlling the electrical input signal applied to the injector … the transfer pressure may be varied over time” see page 7, lines 1-8; and “Pulses can be used to dynamically control (e.g., servo-control) the magnitude, direction and duration of the force … The device also includes the ability to pulse shape to use different waveforms for each cycle” see page 10, lines 4-11). The use of a control element with a micro-processor provides greater control over the electrical input by allowing different or time varying electrical values to be used, such as with dynamic pulse shape waveforms, and would allow the first and second settings of Snyder to be easily selected.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the control module of Snyder to include a micro-processor configured to vary the electrical input signal over time as taught by Hunter because this processing ability provides greater control over the fluid pressure by allowing different or time varying electrical values to be used, such as with dynamic pulse shape waveforms.
Claim 11 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Snyder et al. (2007/0105065) in view of Dabrowski (2008/0313829).
Regarding claim 11, Snyder is silent regarding comprising a visual feedback element, wherein the visual feedback element is modified based on the first setting or the second setting being selected.
Dabrowski teaches a related handheld dental cleaning device (Figs. 1-2) comprising a visual feedback element (user interface 40, Fig. 2, which includes an LED associated with different modes 46, 48, 50), wherein the visual feedback element is modified based on a first setting or second setting being selected (“The selection of the particular mode or routine desired is accomplished by simply successively pushing mode select button 44... The individual LED lights associated with the modes will be lit successively, as the mode button 44 is operated, to provide a clear visual indication of which mode/routine in the microprocessor has at that point been selected” see para. [0019] and Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the control module of Snyder to include a mode selection switch, processor, and LEDs associated with different modes as taught by Dabrowski to provide a clear visual indication of which mode/setting in the microprocessor has at that point been selected.
Claim 18 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Snyder et al. (2007/0105065) in view of Miffitt (4,282,866).
Regarding claim 18, Snyder is silent regarding wherein the first control waveform is a square waveform.
Miffitt teaches a related portable hydromassage appliance (Fig. 1, Fig. 5) having a motor (motor 12, Fig. 1) driving a pump (pump 11, Fig. 1), wherein a first control waveform is a square waveform (see square voltage waveform in Fig. 4B), and states that the square wave signal can activate the motor in a pulsating mode (see col. 7, lines 59-65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the first control waveform of Snyder to utilize a square waveform as taught by Miffitt because this can produce a pulsating flow of water, which is understood to have a desirable massaging effect.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 9,642,677 in view of Snyder et al. (2007/0105065), Hunter et al. (WO 2011/084511), Dabrowski (2008/0313829), and/or Miffitt (4,282,866).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, the instant claims are merely a broader version of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,642,677 as they omit various limitations therein. Furthermore, to any extent that the instant claims recite any limitations not found within claims 1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 9,642,677, the missing limitations are taught by Snyder, Hunter, Dabrowski, and/or Miffitt and would merely provide expected results (see the 35 USC 103 rejection(s) above).
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 10,945,912 in view of Snyder et al. (2007/0105065), Hunter et al. (WO 2011/084511), Dabrowski (2008/0313829), and/or Miffitt (4,282,866).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, the instant claims are merely a broader version of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,945,912 as they omit various limitations therein. Furthermore, to any extent that the instant claims recite any limitations not found within claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 10,945,912, the missing limitations are taught by Snyder, Hunter, Dabrowski, and/or Miffitt and would merely provide expected results (see the 35 USC 103 rejection(s) above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Peterson et al. (2010/0017954) discloses a variable motor drive system for pumping a fluid, stating the user may independently adjust the frequency, amplitude, offset, period, phase, and shape of the signals provided to the electric motor, including square waveforms and states that an adjustment in waveform profiles alters the fluid features or the therapeutic and relaxing actions provided. Wada et al. (2015/0282908) discloses a related oral irrigator that adjusts voltage applied to the pump to change the flow rate. Loyd et al. (2003/0172451) discloses a variable speed motor driving a pump, with a control panel that allows various modes to be selected and indicated with LEDs. Leber et al. (4,607,627) discloses a related irrigation device with pulse width control. Moret (3,811,432) discloses a related oral irrigator that can modulate pressure amplitude of the liquid. Pacher et al. (5,344,317) discloses a related oral irrigator that can vary voltage to adjust the output. Atkinson et al. (4,669,453) discloses a related lavage system that can adjust voltage to adjust the output. Linden (5,019,038) discloses a related irrigator that has a potentiometer to vary the voltage supplied to the motor.
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
