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 .
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.
1. Claims 4-8 and 13 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.
2. Claim 4-8 recite the various iterations of the limitation “the first direction and the second direction are offset by an angle that is” between some given range. It is unclear to the examiner whether offset angle is an angle formed between the two directions or the offset angle is formed relative to an axis for each respective direction. As best understood by the examiner from the specifications, the offset angle range will be interpreted as the angle between the vectors going in the first direction and second direction and will be treated as such for the sake of the Office Action.
3. Claim 13 recite the limitation “wherein the first region and the second region are configured to move by at most 3 mm, in respective linear directions generally along respective lines connecting centroids of teeth in respective regions of the first region and the second region”. It is unclear to the examiner where in which direction exactly “respective lines connecting centroids of teeth” refer to, as lines can connect from any set of two teeth. As best understood by the examiner from the specifications, the direction in which first region and second region move will be interpreted as tangentially along the U-shaped perimeter of user’s teeth and will be treated as such for the sack of the Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
(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.
5. Claims 1, 9, 10 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Garner (US 2013/0014332).
6. Regarding claim 1, Garner discloses a personalized toothbrush device, wherein comprises:
a drive mechanism (gear train 360, Figure 7), comprising:
a first motor connection point (reciprocating pin 680, wherein it is moved up and down through gear train assembly 360, Figure 7);
a second motor connection point (reciprocating pin 682, wherein it is also moved up and down through gear train assembly 360, figure 7);
and one or more motors (wherein motor 350 “actuates the eccentric paths of the first cam follower 670 and the second cam follower 672, causing a reciprocation of the first and second reciprocating pins 680, 682”, paragraph [0064], Figure 7);
a customized mouthpiece configured to couple with the drive mechanism (mouthpiece 220 can eject from handle (wherein drive assembly is housed) to “allows a multitude of users to insert a personal mouthpiece 220 into the handle 210 for use of the device 100”, paragraph [0053], Figure 2),
the customized mouthpiece (embodiment shown in Figure 32) comprising:
a first region (left bristle strip 3100, Figure 32) including a first mouthpiece connection point (left foot 3200, Figure 32) that is configured to couple to the first motor connection point (wherein motor actuates reciprocating pins 680 and 682, which “alternatingly press against the feet 3200 to confer motion to the bristle strips 3100”, paragraph [0097], Figure 32);
a second region (right bristle strip 3100, Figure 32) including a second mouthpiece connection point (right foot 3200, Figure 32) that is configured to couple to the second motor connection point (wherein motor actuates reciprocating pins 680 and 682, which “alternatingly press against the feet 3200 to confer motion to the bristle strips 3100”, paragraph [0097], Figure 32);
and a third region (flexible region 2810, wherein “allows the bristle strip to move around the curve of the dental arch”, paragraph [0096], Figure 32) connecting the first region (left bristle strip 3100, Figure 32) and the second region (right bristle strip 3100, Figure 32), such that the first region can be moved independently of the second region (wherein “H-beam 2800 fixedly engages the upper bristle strip 3100” , in which reciprocating pins 680 and 682 engage alternatively with feet 3200, thus having the left bristle strip 3100 operating independently of the right bristle strip 3100, paragraph [0097], Figure 32).
PNG
media_image1.png
728
685
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 (Garner)
PNG
media_image2.png
465
716
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 7 (Garner)
PNG
media_image3.png
561
540
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 32 (Garner)
7. Regarding claim 9, Garner discloses the personalized toothbrush device of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the customized mouthpiece comprises:
one or more customized dental trays (framed mouthpiece 400 with bristle bundles 440, Figure 4) configured to receive a user’s teeth and gums (“the framed mouthpiece 400 is of a size and dimension so to fit in a user's mouth”, paragraph [0059], Figure 4);
and a plurality of cleaning elements, customized based at least in part on the user’s teeth and gums (“allow bristle bundles 440 to engage substantially all the surfaces of substantially all the user's teeth”, paragraph [0059], Figure 4). Furthermore, “longer bristle bundles 440 are typically for the cleaning of the facial or lingual faces of teeth as well as the gum line”, paragraph [0085].
PNG
media_image4.png
520
714
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 (Garner)
8. Regarding claim 10, Garner discloses the personalized toothbrush device of claim 9, and further wherein:
each cleaning element of the plurality of cleaning elements is customized at least in part on the user’s teeth and gums (“allow bristle bundles 440 to engage substantially all the surfaces of substantially all the user's teeth”, paragraph [0059], Figure 4). Furthermore, “longer bristle bundles 440 are typically for the cleaning of the facial or lingual faces of teeth as well as the gum line”, paragraph [0085].
9. Regarding claim 14, Garner discloses the personalized toothbrush device of claim 1, and further discloses wherein:
the third region (flexible region 2810, Figure 32) includes a first wall (wall A, Figure 32) and a second wall (wall B, Figure 32);
and the first wall and the second wall (wall A and wall B, Figure 32) are configured to change in curvature when the first region and the second region (left and right bristle strips 3100, Figure 32) of the customized mouthpiece are moved (“the flexible region 2810 allows the bristle strip to move around the curve of the dental arch due to the flexible region's 2810 compliance”, paragraph [0096]). Thus, curvature of both walls will evidently change when mouthpiece moves around user’s teeth.
10. Regarding claim 15, Garner discloses the personalized toothbrush device of claim 14 and further discloses wherein:
the first wall (wall A, Figure 32) changes in curvature in a first manner and the second wall (wall B, Figure 32) changes in curvature in a second manner that is different from the first manner (see Figure 32, wherein the curvature of wall A has a greater curvature than wall B, thus being distinctively different).
11. Regarding claim 16, Garner discloses the personalized toothbrush device of claim 14, and further discloses wherein:
a left portion (along left bristle strip 3100, Figure 32) of the first wall (wall A, Figure 32) and a left portion (along left bristle strip 3100, Figure 32) of the second wall (wall B, Figure 32) change in curvature in a first manner (for example, when one of reciprocating pins 680 or 682 engages on foot 3200 on the left portion, left bristle strip 3100 will be raised relative to right bristle strip 3100, therefore curvature on the left portion of both walls A and B will change relative to the right portion, Figure 32);
and a right portion (along right bristle strip 3100, Figure 32) of the first wall (wall A, Figure 32) and a right portion (along right bristle strip 3100, Figure 32) of the second wall (wall B, Figure 32) change in curvature in a second manner that is different from the first manner (for example, left bristle strip is raised via reciprocating pin, therefore, the curvature of both walls on the left portion would be drastically different from the right portion, vice versa, Figure 32).
12. Regarding claim 17, Garner discloses the personalized toothbrush device of claim 14, and further discloses wherein:
a left portion (along left bristle strip 3100, Figure 32) of the first wall (wall A, Figure 32) and a right portion (along right bristle strip 3100, Figure 32) of the second wall (wall B, Figure 32) change in curvature in a first manner (curvature of wall A and B is already different and distinct when mouthpiece is at an unengaged state, therefore, the wall A along left portion will change differently from wall B along right portion when mouthpiece is engaged via reciprocating pins 680 or 682 on either side);
and a right portion (along right bristle strip 3100, Figure 32) of the first wall (wall A, Figure 32) and a left portion (along left bristle strip 3100, Figure 32) of the second wall (wall B, Figure 32) change in curvature in a second manner that is different from the first manner (curvature of wall A and B is already different and distinct when mouthpiece is at an unengaged state, therefore, the wall A along right portion will change differently from wall B along left portion when mouthpiece is engaged via reciprocating pins 680 or 682 on either side);
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
13. 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.
14. Claims 2, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garner (US 2013/0014332) in view of Stapelbroek (US 2013/0089836).
15. Regarding claim 2, Garner discloses the personalized toothbrush device of claim 1, however, it does not disclose wherein the drive mechanism further comprises:
a first motor connected to the first motor connection point;
and a second motor connected to the second motor connection point;
and the first motor drives the first region of the customized mouthpiece in a first direction, while the second motor drives the second region of the customized mouthpiece is a second direction that is different from the first direction.
Stapelbroek further discloses a mouthpiece toothbrush with at least 3 distinct regions, with a drive mechanism to operate the movement of mouthpiece. Furthermore, Stapelbroek teaches wherein:
a first motor (DC motor 200, Figure 10) connected to the first motor connection point (drive arm 205, configured to engage with left portion of mouthpiece 197, Figure 10);
and a second motor (DC motor 201, Figure 10) connected to the second motor connection point (drive arm 206, configured to engage with right portion of mouthpiece 198, Figure 10);
and the first motor (DC motor 200, Figure 10) drives the first region of the customized mouthpiece (left portion 197, Figure 10) in a first direction, while the second motor (DC motor 201, Figure 10) drives the second region (right portion 198, Figure 10) of the customized mouthpiece is a second direction that is different from the first direction (wherein the two drive arms of a different embodiment “move in opposing directions, inwardly and outwardly by the action of motor, … towards (against) and away from the respective side regions of the teeth”, paragraph [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to configure Garner’s drive mechanism to include two separate motors to engage with different sections of the mouthpiece as taught by Stapelbroek. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that adding a motor for each respective reciprocating pin would allow for an easier control of a first region and a second region. Thus, the two regions operate completely independent of each other, allowing for more movement configurations within the mouthpiece.
PNG
media_image5.png
538
596
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 10 (Stapelbroek)
16. Regarding claim 3, Garner modified in view of Stapelbroek discloses the personalized toothbrush device of claim 2, and further teaches wherein:
the first motor and the second motor (DC motor 200 and 201 which now has been substituted in Garner’s drive mechanism) are configured to operate out of phase (wherein it has been established by Stapelbroek that the two motors engage with the arms to “move in opposing directions, inwardly and outwardly by the action of motor, … towards (against) and away from the respective side regions of the teeth”, paragraph [0023]), such that a vector component of the first direction is generally opposite a vector component of the second direction (see Figure 10 of Stapelbroek, wherein arrows shows the alternating movement of left portion and right portion of mouthpiece due to motors, wherein first vector and second vector are opposite to each other).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further configure Garner’s drive mechanism in view of Stapelbroek to have the two motors operating out of phase and wherein the left portion and right portion move in opposing directions. One of ordinary skill would recognize opposing movement of the two mouthpiece portions allow movement “against and away from the teeth, providing a cleaning action” as taught by Stapelbroek, paragraph [0026].
17. Regarding claim 4, Garner in view of Stapelbroek discloses the personalized toothbrush device of claim 2, however, it does not disclose wherein:
the first direction and the second direction are offset by an angle that is less than or equal to 40 degrees.
Stapelbroek further discloses an embodiment in Figure 1, wherein the first direction (direction of arm 40 which engages with left portion 197, Figure 1, 10) and the second direction (direction of arm 42, which engages with left portion 198, Figure 1, 10) are offset by an angle that is less than or equal to 40 degrees (“two connecting arms 40, 42 first angle outwardly at an angle which is approximately 5-15 degrees, up to an approximately 40 degrees” paragraph [0023], Figure 1). Therefore, combining the angles of the two arms, it gives a range of 10-80 degrees.
The range of individual angles for each arm disclosed by Stapelbroek would effectively define an angle between the first and second directions between 10-80 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to configure Garner’s drive mechanism for the first direction of the left portion mouthpiece and second direction of the right portion mouthpiece to be offset by an angle within the range of Stapelbroek (10-80 degrees) further wherein angle falls within 40 degrees or less as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range, and since it has been held that “in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”, MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, one of ordinary skill would be able to adjust the angle between the first and second direction to appropriately accommodate user’s mouth.
18. Regarding claim 5, Garner in view of Stapelbroek discloses the personalized toothbrush device of claim 2, however, it does not disclose wherein:
the first direction and the second direction are offset by an angle that is between 5 and 20 degrees.
Stapelbroek further discloses an embodiment in Figure 1, wherein the first direction (direction of arm 40 which engages with left portion 197, Figure 1, 10) and the second direction (direction of arm 42, which engages with left portion 198, Figure 1, 10) are offset by an angle that is between 5 and 20 degrees (“two connecting arms 40, 42 first angle outwardly at an angle which is approximately 5-15 degrees, up to an approximately 40 degrees” paragraph [0023], Figure 1). Therefore, combining the angles of the two arms, it gives a range of 10-80 degrees.
The range of individual angles for each arm disclosed by Staplebroek would effectively define an angle between the first and second directions between 10-80 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to configure the angle between the first direction and second direction of Garner’s left portion and right portion of the mouthpiece to be within the range as taught by Stapelbroek of 10-80 degrees, and further adjusted to 5-20 degrees as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range, and since it has been held that “in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”, MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, one of ordinary skill would be able to adjust the angle between the first and second direction to appropriately accommodate user’s mouth.
19. Regarding claim 6, Garner in view of Stapelbroek discloses the personalized toothbrush device of claim 2, however, it does not disclose wherein:
the first direction and the second direction are offset by an angle that is between 10 and 20 degrees.
Stapelbroek further discloses an embodiment in Figure 1, wherein the first direction (direction of arm 40 which engages with left portion 197, Figure 1, 10) and the second direction (direction of arm 42, which engages with left portion 198, Figure 1, 10) are offset by an angle that is between 10 and 20 degrees (“two connecting arms 40, 42 first angle outwardly at an angle which is approximately 5-15 degrees, up to an approximately 40 degrees” paragraph [0023], Figure 1). Therefore, combining the angles of the two arms, it gives a range of 10-80 degrees.
The range of individual angles for each arm disclosed by Staplebroek would effectively define an angle between the first and second directions between 10-80 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to configure the angle between the first direction and second direction of Garner’s left portion and right portion of the mouthpiece to be within the range as taught by Stapelbroek of 10-80 degrees, and further adjusted to 10-20 degrees as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range, and since it has been held that “in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”, MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, one of ordinary skill would be able to adjust the angle between the first and second direction to appropriately accommodate user’s mouth.
PNG
media_image6.png
581
582
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 (Stapelbroek)
20. Regarding claim 7, Garner in view of Stapelbroek discloses the personalized toothbrush device of claim 2, however, it does not disclose wherein:
wherein the first direction and the second direction are offset by an angle that is between 15 and 25 degrees.
Stapelbroek further discloses an embodiment in Figure 1, wherein the first direction (direction of arm 40 which engages with left portion 197, Figure 1, 10) and the second direction (direction of arm 42, which engages with left portion 198, Figure 1, 10) are offset by an angle that is between 15 and 25 degrees (“two connecting arms 40, 42 first angle outwardly at an angle which is approximately 5-15 degrees, up to an approximately 40 degrees” paragraph [0023], Figure 1). Therefore, combining the angles of the two arms, it gives a range of 10-80 degrees.
The range of individual angles for each arm disclosed by Staplebroek would effectively define an angle between the first and second directions between 10-80 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to configure the angle between the first direction and second direction of Garner’s left portion and right portion of the mouthpiece to be within the range as taught by Stapelbroek of 10-80 degrees, and further adjusted to 15-25 degrees as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range, and since it has been held that “in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”, MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, one of ordinary skill would be able to adjust the angle between the first and second direction to appropriately accommodate user’s mouth.
21. Regarding claim 8, Garner in view of Stapelbroek discloses the personalized toothbrush device of claim 2, however, it does not disclose wherein:
wherein the first direction and the second direction are offset by an angle that is between 15 and 20 degrees.
Stapelbroek further an embodiment in Figure 1, wherein the first direction (direction of arm 40 which engages with left portion 197, Figure 1, 10) and the second direction (direction of arm 42, which engages with left portion 198, Figure 1, 10) are offset by an angle that is between 15 and 20 degrees (“two connecting arms 40, 42 first angle outwardly at an angle which is approximately 5-15 degrees, up to an approximately 40 degrees” paragraph [0023], Figure 1). Therefore, combining the angles of the two arms, it gives a range of 10-80 degrees.
The range of individual angles for each arm disclosed by Staplebroek would effectively define an angle between the first and second directions between 10-80 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to configure the angle between the first direction and second direction of Garner’s left portion and right portion of the mouthpiece to be within the range as taught by Stapelbroek of 10-80 degrees, and further adjusted to 15-20 degrees as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range, and since it has been held that “in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”, MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, one of ordinary skill would be able to adjust the angle between the first and second direction to appropriately accommodate user’s mouth.
22. Regarding claim 13, Garner discloses the personalized toothbrush device of claim 1, and further discloses wherein:
first region and the second region are configured to move by at most 3 mm, in respective linear directions generally along respective lines connecting centroids of teeth in respective regions of the first region and the second region, when the personalized toothbrush device is in operation.
Stapelbroek is also concerned with a toothbrush device wherein comprises of a mouthpiece which is actuated by motors to clean and brush teeth. Furthermore, Stapelbroek discloses wherein the first region (free end 41, Figure 1) and the second region (free end 43, Figure 1) are configured to move by at most 3 mm, in respective linear directions generally along respective lines connecting centroids of teeth (drive train assembly results in the “movement of the free ends 41, 43 of the connecting arms of 0.1-5 mm, preferably 0.5 mm, towards (against) and away from the respective side regions of the teeth”, paragraph [0023], Figure 1) in respective regions of the first region and the second region (free ends 41 and 43 respectively), when the personalized toothbrush device is in operation (“In operation, the connecting arms 40, 42 will pivot about connecting points 46 and 48, as the two drive arms 32, 34 move in opposing directions, inwardly and outwardly by the action of motor 26”, paragraph [0023], Figure 1).
The range of arm movement disclosed by Stapelbroek would effectively define a range of 0-1.5mm, with a preferred arm movement of 0.5mm, which falls within the claimed range of 0-3mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to configure the movement of the first region and second region of Garner’s mouthpiece to be within 0.1-5 mm as taught by Stapelbroek, and further adjusted to a maximum of 3 mm as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range, and since it has been held that “in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”, MPEP 2144.05. One of ordinary skill would be able to configure the movement range of the first and second region to provide effective brushing on user’s teeth and simultaneously not cause discomfort. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the movement along the respective lines connecting centroids of the teeth, as the toothbrush is supposed to fit user’s teeth and provide a brushing towards and away motion during operation.
23. Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garner (US 2013/0014332) in view of Pai (US 2016/0135581).
24. Regarding claim 11 Garner discloses the personalized toothbrush device of claim 1, however, it does not disclose wherein:
the customized mouthpiece is formed as a single, integrated unit.
Pai is also concerned with a toothbrush device wherein comprises of a mouthpiece which is actuated by motors to clean and brush teeth. Furthermore, Pai teaches wherein the customized mouthpiece (cleaner tray 125, figure 4) is formed from a single integrated unit (formed in “a molding operation from a single mold” paragraph [0077], Figure 4).
Garner teaches an embodiment wherein the mouthpiece is composed of different layers/parts. Pai teaches an embodiment wherein the mouthpiece is a single unit wherein it is formed from a single mold.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have substituted the singular mouthpiece unit of Pai for the mouthpiece of Garner with multiple components as a simple substitution of a known element in the art to produce the predictable result of effective teeth and gum brushing and cleaning.
PNG
media_image7.png
727
676
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 (Pai)
25. Regarding claim 12 Garner discloses the personalized toothbrush device of claim 1, however it does not disclose wherein:
the customized mouthpiece is 3-D printed.
Pai is also concerned with a toothbrush device wherein comprises of a mouthpiece which is actuated by motors to clean and brush teeth. Pai further teaches wherein the customized mouthpiece (cleaner tray 125, Figure 4) is 3-D printed (wherein method discloses “manufacture of the cleaner tray 125 may comprise a 3-D printing operation to the prefabricated bristled sheets based on the above-described 3-D scan” paragraph [0071]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to configure Garner’s mouthpiece to be 3-D printed as taught by Pai. One of ordinary skill would recognize 3-D printing may allow for more customization options, such as printing from a 3-D dental model to further optimize toothbrush to user’s mouth. Additionally, one of ordinary skill would be able to 3-D print the mouthpiece to be structurally functional.
Conclusion
26. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2020/0179091 A1 discloses a toothbrush wherein has two actuators which orient the two sides of a mouthpiece in a first and second direction connected by a third region.
27. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIEGO J NG whose telephone number is (571)270-0802. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Fri 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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 at (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.
/D.J.N./
Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRYAN R MULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723 21 August 2026
Prosecution Insights