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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6-16-26.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 6-16-26 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the first motion” in line 9, however a plurality of first motions are previously recited as “a plurality of cleaning motions, each of the plurality of cleaning motions comprise a first motion” which establishes a plurality of first motions. It is unclear which of the previously established plurality of first motions is intended. It is unclear whether “the first motion” refers to every firs motion of the plurality, such that all first motions share a single first angle, first direction, and initial position, or any arbitrary first motion of the plurality, or alternatively a particular, specific first motion of the plurality. Each reading yields a different claim scope, and the claim provides no basis for selecting among them. Further, the limitations introduced within these recitations are additionally ambiguous for the same reasons including, “a first angle”, “a first direction”, “an initial position” and “a first axis” are each introduced as attributes of “the first motion”. Additionally, since “the first motion” and “a first angle” are recited in singular while the claim has already established a plurality of cleaning motions each having its own first motion, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot tell whether the claim requires for instance one first angle shared by all the cleaning motions or a separate first angle for each. Additionally, claim 1 recites “a second motion” which is unclear for the same reasons as “the first motion”.
Claims 2-8 further have the same clarity issues with regard to “the cleaning motion”, “the first motion” and “the second motion”.
Claim 1 additionally recites “the first angle of at least one cleaning motion is greater than that of an adjacent cleaning motion, and the second angle of the at least one cleaning motion is smaller than that of the adjacent cleaning motion”. It is unclear what “adjacent” refers to. The ordinary meaning of “adjacent” is spatial – physically next to or adjoining. A cleaning motion, however is not a physical object having a location but rather a movement that occurs over an interval of time. Two cleaning motions cannot therefore be physically “adjacent” to one another.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the output sequence” in line 1 of claim 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation " the user operations” “the sensed data” and “the historical usage data" in line 2-3 of claim 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation " the frequency of the actuation assembly” in line 1 of claim 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation " the first preset threshold does exceed 12 degrees, 16 degrees, or 20 degrees”. However, applicants’ specification recites “the first preset threshold may be an angle value smaller than 20 degrees, 16 degrees, or 12 degrees”, see para. 45-46 of applicants filed specification. Therefore, it is unclear if the thresholds must exceed the recites ranges or must not exceed the recited ranges.
The remaining claims are rejected as being dependent on an indefinite claim.
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)(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) 1-3, 5 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by WO 2025002972 (WO’972).
Regarding claim 1, WO’972 teaches an oral nursing device (hand-held personal care device including toothbrush, see fig. 1 page 7), comprising:
a cleaning portion at least provided with a cleaning unit (driven brush head 12, see fig. 1 page 7);
a grip portion connected with the cleaning portion (handle 14, see fig. 1, page 7);
an actuation assembly at least partially accommodated in the grip portion (motor 16, see fig. 1, page 7),
the actuation assembly comprising an output shaft engaged with the cleaning portion (the actuator in one example is a motor and the head is driven at least to rotate, and this generates a vibration which is transmitted to the device body, driven brush 12, see fig. 1, page 7); and
a control assembly generating a driving signal to drive the output shaft of the actuation assembly to output a periodic cleaning motion and thus drive the cleaning unit (A power toothbrush motor is often controlled by a microcontroller via pulse width modulation and so-called H-bridge, see fig. 1-2, page 10),
wherein the periodic cleaning motion comprises a plurality of cleaning motions, each of the plural cleaning motions comprises a first motion and a second motion, and as the first motion, the output shaft rotates by a first angle along a first direction and then rotates back to an initial position with a first axis as a rotation center line, and as the second motion, the output shaft rotates by a second angle along a second direction and then rotates back to the initial position with the first axis as the rotation center line; the first direction and the second direction are opposite; the first angle of at least one cleaning motion is greater than that of an adjacent cleaning motion, and the second angle of the at least one cleaning motion is smaller than that of the adjacent cleaning motion (the driving of the actuator is able to generate an asymmetric motion such that a net force results, in a selected direction or set of directions. By controlling the actuator drive signal, the direction and optionally magnitude of this net force can be selected, and it is used to provide a resistance to the tremor vibrations, wherein the processor is configured to adapt the actuator drive signal to provide asymmetry in the speed and/or distance of rocking of the rotation axis on opposite sides of a default axis, page 3, claim 3).
Regarding claim 2, WO’972 teaches the oral nursing device of claim 1, WO’972 further teaches wherein an amplitude of the cleaning motion is a sum of the first angle and the second angle of the cleaning motion: the cleaning motion has the same amplitude as the adjacent cleaning motion; or, the amplitudes of the plurality of cleaning motions are the same (see fig. 9, cleaning motions in sequence have the same amplitude, pages 10-11).
Regarding claim 3, WO’972 teaches the oral nursing device of claim 1, WO’972 further teaches wherein in an output sequence: the control assembly generates the driving signal to make the first angle of a current cleaning motion not smaller than the first angle of a previous cleaning motion, and the second angle of the current cleaning motion not larger than the second angle of the previous cleaning motion, until the first angle of the cleaning motion reaches a first preset threshold (The invention requires the detection of tremor, and then provides an adaptation to the actuator drive signal in order to provide compensation, i.e., partial cancellation, of the tremor motion, The compensation must be within the stroke and speed limits of the system, page 7-9, therefore the compensation driving motion is kept contestant unless it exceed a threshold value).
Regarding claim 5, WO’972 teaches the oral nursing device of claim 1, WO’972 further teaches wherein the control assembly controls a direction of a current flowing into the actuation assembly to determine a rotation direction of the output shaft (A power toothbrush motor is often controlled by a microcontroller via pulse width modulation and so-called H-bridge motor steering as shown in Fig. 2. The H-bridge comprises a set of switches 94 controlled by a PWM controller 96. The controller controls the direction and speed of the motor by selectively turning the series of switches on and off, page 9-10); and/or the driving signal is a pulse width modulation signal, the control assembly generates a pulse width modulation signal with a first duty cycle to allow the output shaft to correspondingly output the first motion, and the control assembly generates a pulse width modulation signal with a second duty cycle to allow the output shaft to correspondingly output the second motion (Fig. 3 shows a typical pulse width modulation signal for a bidirectional control signal. In this example, it can be seen that the control signal is balanced, evenly divided between the positive and negative values, resulting in a sinusoidal shape and hence motion. The width of each pulse is proportional to the signal level of the equivalent sinusoidal analog waveform. The analogue equivalent waveform is basically a low pass filtered version of the PWM signal, thus removing the frequencies of the PWM modulation. The PWM controller varies the pulse width of the signal to produce the desired output signal, which may be balanced or unbalanced, page 10)
Regarding claims 9-10, WO’972 teaches the oral nursing device of claim 1, WO’972 further teaches wherein the control assembly determines the amplitude, the first angle and/or the second angle according to user operations, and/or sensed data, with regard to claim 9 and wherein the control assembly determines the output quantity, the first duty cycle and/or the second duty cycle according to the user operations and/or the sensed data, with regard to claim 10 (A sensor 20 generates a sensor signal which depends on the motion (e.g., vibration or vibration pattern) of the toothbrush, processing arrangement, schematically shown as processor 22, detects tremor vibrations from the sensor signal and thereby detects tremor. The detection of the tremor is used to control the drive signals applied to the actuator 16 and hence control the driven motion of the brush head 12, page 7, see fig. 1)
Regarding claim 11-12, WO’972 teaches the oral nursing device of claim 1, WO’972 further teaches wherein a frequency of the actuation assembly is more than 100Hz, with regard to claim 11 and wherein the frequency of the actuation assembly is substantially constant, with regard to claim 12 (the brush motion is controlled at 260Hz, page 10).
Regarding claim 13, WO’972 teaches the oral nursing device of claim 3, WO’972 further teaches wherein the first preset threshold does exceed 12 degrees, 16 degrees, or 20 degrees (One example of known motion provides a 7-degree rotation (i.e., rocking), page 11, which is within applicants rage of not exceeding the 12 degrees as discussed above with regard to the 112 clarity issue with claim 13.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 6-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
CN 118058863, cited in the corresponding EU search report, teaches differing swing angles by moving the rotors home position, however the rotor then returns to the moved home rather than the original one. Claim 1 requires as discussed above, the shaft to return to the same initial position while the angles differ. Therefore, CN 118058863 does not teach or render obvious “each of the plural cleaning motions comprises a first motion and a second motion, and as the first motion, the output shaft rotates by a first angle along a first direction and then rotates back to an initial position with a first axis as a rotation center line, and as the second motion, the output shaft rotates by a second angle along a second direction and then rotates back to the initial position with the first axis as the rotation center line; the first direction and the second direction are opposite; the first angle of at least one cleaning motion is greater than that of an adjacent cleaning motion, and the second angle of the at least one cleaning motion is smaller than that of the adjacent cleaning motion” as interpreted and supported by applicant specification.
CN 118304032, cited in the corresponding EU search report, teaches generating a sweeping effect by letting a reference position oscillate back and forth within a swing range, while the rotor vibrates through a constant amplitude. Therefore, the rotor returns to a moving reference position rather than a fix one and it’s two swing angles remail equal to each other. Therefore, CN 118304032 does not teach or render obvious “each of the plural cleaning motions comprises a first motion and a second motion, and as the first motion, the output shaft rotates by a first angle along a first direction and then rotates back to an initial position with a first axis as a rotation center line, and as the second motion, the output shaft rotates by a second angle along a second direction and then rotates back to the initial position with the first axis as the rotation center line; the first direction and the second direction are opposite; the first angle of at least one cleaning motion is greater than that of an adjacent cleaning motion, and the second angle of the at least one cleaning motion is smaller than that of the adjacent cleaning motion” as interpreted and supported by applicant specification.
CN 118217039, cited in the corresponding PCT application, teaches a rotor which swings about a reference position between two symmetrical positions and then rotates to a new reference position about which the rotor swings between two new symmetrical positions. Therefore, any difference in angles occurs after the reference position has been displaced. Therefore, CN 118217039 does not teach or render obvious “each of the plural cleaning motions comprises a first motion and a second motion, and as the first motion, the output shaft rotates by a first angle along a first direction and then rotates back to an initial position with a first axis as a rotation center line, and as the second motion, the output shaft rotates by a second angle along a second direction and then rotates back to the initial position with the first axis as the rotation center line; the first direction and the second direction are opposite; the first angle of at least one cleaning motion is greater than that of an adjacent cleaning motion, and the second angle of the at least one cleaning motion is smaller than that of the adjacent cleaning motion” as interpreted and supported by applicant specification
US2026/0121556 teaches the rotor 401 rotates in one direction under a control of the drive signal and then reverses in an opposite direction, thereby completing the single, when the angles are inconsistent for the forward and reverse motion the rotor is over-reversed, after rotating from the starting position for α degrees, the rotor fails to reverse to the starting position. Therefore, US2026/0121556 does not teach or render obvious “each of the plural cleaning motions comprises a first motion and a second motion, and as the first motion, the output shaft rotates by a first angle along a first direction and then rotates back to an initial position with a first axis as a rotation center line, and as the second motion, the output shaft rotates by a second angle along a second direction and then rotates back to the initial position with the first axis as the rotation center line; the first direction and the second direction are opposite; the first angle of at least one cleaning motion is greater than that of an adjacent cleaning motion, and the second angle of the at least one cleaning motion is smaller than that of the adjacent cleaning motion” as interpreted and supported by applicant specification.
Therefore, the combination of WO’972 with either CN 118058863, CN 118304032, CN 118217039 or US2026/0121556 would not render obvious the particular control assembly operations of claims 4 and 6-8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN FLANAGAN BERGNER whose telephone number is (571)270-1133. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
/ERIN F BERGNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights