2DETAILED 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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 15 May 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5, 7, 9-19, 21, 23-24 remain pending in the application. Claim 24 is new. Applicant’s amendments to Claims 1, 4, 5, 9-11 and 19 have overcome each claim objection and U.S.C. 112 rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 16 January 2026. However, Applicant’s amendments to Claims 1, 4, 5, 9-11 and 19 do not overcome the U.S.C. 103 rejections nor the objections to the Drawings. Further, there are additional objections to the claims as well as U.S.C. 112 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 15 May 2026, with respect to the U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 9-19, 21, 23-24, have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant Remarks
Regarding the objections to the Drawings, Applicant remarks that reference characters “112” and “111” should not have issues presently. Internal assembly should be “112”; handle should be “111”; and optical axis should be “111h”.
Regarding the U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1, Applicant remarks that the amendments contain the following patentable distinctions over the cited prior art references: "and the energy receiving device is separately disposed from the care piece...so that the care piece is disposed outside the predetermined receiving range, and positions along the longitudinal axis of the care piece, wherein a perpendicular distance between the optical axis and a position along the care piece progressively increases as the position along the care piece is further away from the handle; the energy receiving device is configured to acquire human body feature information, wherein the energy receiving device is configured to receive energy reflected from an outer face of a user, and, based on the energy, a position of the care piece in the oral cavity of the user is calculated".
Applicant remarks that Addington is directed to live intraoral video display for direct visual representation of teeth and gingiva. Its camera must face the intraoral cleaning site and cover the brush head within its field of view, and it only displays real-time images without any data calculation. Addington's real-time imaging system inherently displays the position of the oral care device; however, this requires manual interpretation by a user viewing the output on an external display screen, relying exclusively on intraoral images. In contrast, the amended claim 1 determines the intraoral position of the brush head computationally-using external facial images as input-thereby embodying a fundamentally distinct technical principle. Indeed, amended claim 1 does not rely on intraoral images or human eye judgment; instead, it collects external facial feature images-maps the oral area through algorithms-automatically calculates the actual position of the brush head in the mouth. Even after brushing, it can delay and statistically analyze the overall brushing position and provide corrective feedback. Amended claim 1 limits active calculation by machine algorithms, which is different from passive viewing by the human eye of Addington. Addington requires the brush head inside the field of view, while our invention requires the brush head entirely outside the field of view.
Applicant remarks that Examiner’s assertion in the interview that merely closing the mouth can place the brush head outside the camera’s field of view is unreasonable and inconsistent with actual application scenarios and the original intention of prior art. First, during normal brushing, the care piece must be inserted into the oral cavity, and the user inevitably keeps the mouth open. Closing the mouth is not practical or credible working scenario for tooth brushing. Second, Addington is designed for real-time intraoral imaging via an extraoral camera to view the brushing site. The scenario of closing the mouth to move the brush head out of the field of view directly contradicts Addington’s original design.
Applicant remarks that the designs of the present application and Addington are opposite. First, the camera is mounted on the handle and positioned entirely external to the oral cavity. Second, while the brush head is intraorally positioned, the camera captures extra oral facial images and computationally determines the brushing position based on those images. Further, the care piece lies outside the camera's predetermined field of view; consequently, the camera is oriented outward-i.e., angled away from the care piece-to ensure adequate coverage of the user's facial region. This outward inclination significantly reduces obstruction from the handle, allowing the camera to be recessed deeper inside the handle with minimal or no protrusion.
Applicant remarks that Ouyang teaches the camera and the probe integrated into one single intraoral assembly and they cannot be separated. Ouyang does not disclose a progressively increasing distance along the length of the working member.
Applicant remarks that Kooijman only mentions facial positioning generally, but never discloses an inclined optical axis, progressively increasing distance, or the separated arrangement between the energy receiving device and the care piece. The present application requires that the camera and the care piece are fixedly connected to the movement assembly. The positioning between the optical axis and the care piece is predetermined, fixed, and static. The inclined optical axis forms a permanently progressive increasing distance along the length direction of the care piece. This remains unchanged, regardless of how the oral care device is moved or whether occlusion occurs, and the care piece is always kept outside the camera’s field of view.
Applicant remarks Kooijman only discloses a generally inclined camera axis. The distance change in Kooijman is merely a dynamic relative variation caused by movement of the care device, rather than a fixed inherent structural arrangement with progressively increasing distance as recited in the present application. Moreover, Ouyang only discloses a receiving port and that the care piece is disposed outside a predetermined receiving range, which does not teach or suggest the specific inclined optical axis and fixed progressive distance limitation of the claimed invention. The Examiner's comparison logic regarding Ouyang is inaccurate and unsupported.
Applicant remarks Kooijman never discloses, suggests, or structurally designs to intentionally place the care piece outside the camera's predetermined receiving range. The mere fact that the brush head may occasionally fall outside the frame during facial imaging does not amount to an inherent structural arrangement that permanently disposes the care piece outside the receiving range, as strictly recited in claim 1.
Examiner Responses
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Please see Specification [0050] and [0070]. Screenshots with highlighting are below for Applicant’s convenience:
PNG
media_image1.png
555
712
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
405
725
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner agrees with Applicant’s understanding of Addington. However, Addington is not relied on to teach “intraoral position of the brush head computationally-using external facial images as input” nor “external facial feature images-maps the oral area through algorithms-automatically calculates the actual position of the brush head in the mouth”. Please see updated U.S.C. 103 rejections below. Examiner respectfully disagrees that the present application “requires the brush head entirely outside the field of view”. For example, please note that Fig. 6 of the present application does not support the amended claim.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, there is no official or scientific data tracking the exact percentage of people who keep their mouth closed versus open while brushing their teeth. Second, the assertion that merely closing the mouth can place the brush head outside the camera’s field of view is to show that any such limitation is reasonably met when the user is brushing their teeth. It is not to say that the user would have their mouth closed at all points in time. Further, closing the mouth does not break the device of Addington and thus, does not directly contradict any design of Addington. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to assert that a user may close their mouth, which puts the brush head outside the camera’s field of view. Please see updated U.S.C. 103 rejections below.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The designs are not opposite, and in fact, Addington is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. First, the camera of Addington is mounted on the handle and positioned entirely external to the oral cavity. Second, Addington is not relied on to teach “while the brush head is intraorally positioned, the camera captures extra oral facial images and computationally determines the brushing position based on those images”. Further, Addington is also not relied on to teach “the care piece lies outside the camera's predetermined field of view; consequently, the camera is oriented outward-i.e., angled away from the care piece-to ensure adequate coverage of the user's facial region”. Please see updated U.S.C. 103 rejections below.
Examiner respectfully points out that separation capability and progressively increasing distance along the length of the working member is not relied upon by Ouyang.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kooijman teaches the claim as amended regarding the inclined optical axis with progressively increasing distance. Please see updated U.S.C. 103 rejections below. Further, the present application does not require that the camera and the care piece are fixedly connected to the “movement assembly”, as a “movement assembly” is not claimed.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully points out that, regardless of movement taught by Kooijman, the amendments as written are taught by Kooijman. Kooijman fig. 3 shows the inclined optical axis. Please see updated U.S.C. 103 rejections below.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kooijman shares similar intentions with the present application. Kooijman [0013]; “The data and/or metadata may provide information on one or more facial features of the user, such as the size and/or shape and/or position of the nose, eyes, lips, teeth, jawline, cheekbones, facial hair, general face shape, hairline etc. The position of each feature may be determined with respect to the mouth of the user. Any feature of the face or head may be used. The position of an oral care device in the mouth of the user may be determined by using the position of a facial feature relative to the mouth of the user known from the facial characteristics information in conjunction with the facial feature detected using the received reflected energy. For example, the relationship (for example, the distance) between at least two facial features determined using the data and/or metadata may be used to determine the location of the oral care device with respect to one or more facial features of the user detected using the received reflected energy. Using the reflected energy in conjunction with the data and/or metadata and/or facial characteristics information derived from the received reflected energy means that a more accurate positioning of the oral care device in the mouth of the user may be determined. The metadata may be used to estimate, or improve the estimation, of facial features of the user using a predetermined correlation between the size/position of facial features and metadata”. Please see updated U.S.C. 103 rejections below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “112” has been used to designate both “internal assembly” and “movements”. See Specification para. [0050]. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “111” has been used to designate both “optical axis” and “handle”. See Specification para. [0070]. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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
Claims 1 and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(i) as where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 1 lines 23-24, “the camera’s field angle” should be corrected to say –a field of view of the camera--. The term ‘field angle’ lacks antecedent basis. Further, ‘field of view’ makes more sense because it includes the total observable region, not just one angle.
In claim 24 line 2, both iterations of “control unit” should be corrected to say –controller—to match the term in the Specification.
In claim 24 line 3, “the user’s extraoral tooth region” should be corrected to say –a user’s extraoral tooth region” because the term lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 24 line 6, “anartificial” should be corrected to say –an artificial--.
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.
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 limitations are:
“control unit” in claim 24.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 24 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.
Regarding claim24, claim limitations “control unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no way to determine the metes and bounds of this limitation, since there are no limits imposed by structure, material or acts, and can therefore be performed by any means capable of performing the function, both known and unknown. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-19, 21, 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the amendment that does not comply with the written description requirement is “the care piece remains consistently and unconditionally outside the camera's field angle under all operational conditions”. Specification para. [0032] discloses “FIG. 6 is a schematic diagram of a range of a field angle of an energy receiving device according to another embodiment of the present disclosure”. FIG. 6 discloses the field of view of the energy receiving device, i.e. the camera, includes the care piece. However, it does not disclose the care piece remains consistently and unconditionally outside the camera's field angle under all operational conditions. For examination purposes, the limitation is understood to mean the care piece is outside the camera's field of view.
As above, claim 24 is indefinite for failure to disclose adequate structure in the specification. Because there is inadequate disclosure of the claimed invention, the inventor has also not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. Correction is required.
Further, regarding claim 24, the limitation that does not comply with the written description requirement is “wherein the control unit is configured to: map an intraoral tooth region based on facial images reflected from the user's extraoral facial area; calculate a brushing position of the care piece relative to the mapped intraoral tooth region through an artificial intelligence (Al) algorithm; and output a brushing guidance signal according to the brushing position”. The Specification instead teaches that a controller is configured to: collect positions of a user’s extraoral facial area; determine a position of the care piece relative to the positions of the user’s extraoral facial area; and output intraoral tooth position information through an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm. Specification para. [0023] and [0109] speak on the purpose of a controller:
Specification para. [0023] states a controller is configured to “determine a position of the care element in an oral cavity”. However, there is no mention of a map of an intraoral tooth region.
Specification para. [0109] states “the controller is configured to determine a position of the care element 120 in the oral cavity based on the images (i.e., the human body feature images and the images of the care element 120)”. However, there is no mention of a map of an intraoral tooth region.
Specification para. [0055] and [0082] discuss the details of the controller:
Specification para. [0055] states, “By analyzing above information, specific positions of the face, a mouth, a nose, ears, eyes, a neck, etc., of the user are identified, and then corresponding tooth position information is obtained through an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm”. Is this tooth position information considered the “map” by the Applicant? It is unreasonable to interpret tooth position information as a map of an intraoral tooth region because (1) a position is not a map and (2) this tooth position information is obtained through AI rather than a control unit.
Specification [0082] states “For instance, the human body feature information is configured to determine whether the care element 120 is currently in an upper tooth area or a lower tooth area”. This is also not a map of an area, but rather a binary determination yes or no, if the care element is in an area.
Specification [0082] goes on to say “Finally, the determined upper or lower tooth area is combined with determined left tooth area, right tooth area, or middle tooth area to obtain a more accurate current oral care position corresponding to the care element 120”. Is this the map? The determined areas are not described to be determined by anything in the Specification. The only determination is a binary determination yes or no, if the care element is in an area.
For examination purposes, the limitation is understood to mean “wherein the controller unit is configured to: collect positions of a user’s extraoral facial area; determine a position of the care piece relative to the positions of the user’s extraoral facial area; and output intraoral tooth position information through an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm”.
Claims 2-5, 7, 9-19, 21, 23-24 are rejected in view of their dependencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-5, 9-16 and 20, 21, 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Addington (US20160317007A1) in view of Ouyang (US-20200169649-A1), further in view of Kooijman et al. (US 20210059395 A1), hereinafter Kooijman.
As to claim 1, Addington teaches an oral care device (claim 1; video capable electric toothbrush system), comprising:
a handle assembly (claim 1; handle body);
a care piece (fig. 1A-B; claim 1; rotating bristle assembly 50);
and an energy receiving device (claim 1; fig. 11B; camera device 500);
wherein the handle assembly comprises a handle (fig. 3; the handle 12) and an internal assembly (fig. 5A-B; [0067]; the elements internal to the handle body (i.e. the internal assembly), can be moved, for example interchangeable stem 14), the handle defines a mounting cavity (fig. 5A-B; the internal cavity 52), the internal assembly comprises an output shaft (fig. 1A-B, 3 and 5A-B; When the interchangeable stem 14 is attached to the handle body in fig. 1A-B, the drive axel 60 in fig. 5A-B is attached to the complementary splines 44 in fig. 3. In this instance, the internal assembly of the handle body comprises the interchangeable stem 14, i.e. the output shaft), the internal assembly is mounted in the mounting cavity (fig. 1A-B, 3 and 5A-B; [0067]; The elements internal to the handle body, including the interchangeable stem 14, are mounted in the internal cavity 52) and the output shaft extends out of the mounting cavity (fig. 1A-B, 3 and 5A-B; the interchangeable stem 14 extends out of the internal cavity 52 when the interchangeable stem 14 is attached to the handle body in fig. 1A-B);
wherein the care piece is connected to one end of the output shaft extending out of the mounting cavity (fig. 1A-B and 5A-B; rotating bristle assembly 50 is connected to one end of the interchangeable stem 14, extending out of the internal cavity 52 when the interchangeable stem 14 is connected to the handle body);
wherein the energy receiving device is connected to the internal assembly or the handle ([0098]; fig. 11B-C; the camera device 500 is attached into the press fit system 400a and 400b, connected to the handle 12),
and the energy receiving device is separately disposed from the care piece (fig. 11B; the camera device 500 is separately disposed from the rotating bristle assembly 50);
wherein the energy receiving device comprises a camera (claim 4; the camera device 500 comprises a digital camera sensor), and the camera defines an optical axis (fig. 11B; implicitly the axis intersecting the camera device 500);
the energy receiving device is configured to acquire human body feature information (fig. 11B; [0101]; the camera device 500 captures the oral cavity of the user).
PNG
media_image3.png
1439
1048
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Addington Fig. 1A-B
PNG
media_image4.png
2527
1913
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Addington Fig. 3
PNG
media_image5.png
2985
2130
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Addington Fig. 5A-B
PNG
media_image6.png
1377
971
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Addington Fig. 11B
PNG
media_image7.png
807
542
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Addington Fig. 11C
However, Addington does not explicitly disclose a receiving port, the receiving port is connected to the mounting cavity; the energy receiving device is disposed corresponding to the receiving port; and the care piece is disposed outside the predetermined receiving range; wherein the optical axis is inclined outward relative to the care piece, so that the care piece is disposed outside the predetermined receiving range, the care piece remains consistently and unconditionally outside the camera’s field angle under all operational conditions; and positions along the longitudinal axis of the care piece, wherein a perpendicular distance between the optical axis and a position along the care piece progressively increases as the position along the care piece is further away from the handle; the energy receiving device is configured to acquire human body feature information, wherein the energy receiving device is configured to receive energy reflected from an outer face of a user, and, based on the energy, a position of the care piece in the oral cavity of the user is calculated.
Ouyang, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches a receiving port (Ouyang fig. 15; [0114]; the connector 21), the receiving port is connected to the mounting cavity (Ouyang [0122]; fig. 14; the connector 21 connects to the module in the housing 1, establishing communication), the energy receiving device is disposed corresponding to the receiving port (Ouyang fig. 15 and 17; the image acquisition model 3 comprised in the probe part 101 is disposed corresponding to the connector 21);
and the care piece is disposed outside the predetermined receiving range (Ouyang fig. 7 and 17; [0111]; The endoscope head, i.e. the care piece, comprises the probe part 101 in fig. 17, i.e. the energy receiving device. The image acquisition area in fig. 7, i.e. the predetermined receiving range, does not include the endoscope head).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Addington to incorporate the teachings of Ouyang to include a receiving port, the receiving port is connected to the mounting cavity, the energy receiving device is disposed corresponding to the receiving port; the care piece is disposed outside the predetermined receiving range, for the advantage of increased functionality of the device (Ouyang [0093]) and not obstructing the video feed of the user’s gingival margin (Addington [0107]).
PNG
media_image8.png
754
560
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Ouyang Fig. 7
PNG
media_image9.png
457
696
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Ouyang Fig. 14
PNG
media_image10.png
1500
1142
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Ouyang Fig. 15
PNG
media_image11.png
1160
439
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Ouyang Fig. 17
Still lacking the limitations such as wherein the optical axis is inclined outward relative to the care piece, so that the care piece is disposed outside the predetermined receiving range, the care piece remains consistently and unconditionally outside the camera’s field angle under all operational conditions; and positions along the longitudinal axis of the care piece, wherein a perpendicular distance between the optical axis and a position along the care piece progressively increases as the position along the care piece is further away from the handle; and wherein the energy receiving device is configured to receive energy reflected from an outer face of a user, and, based on the energy, a position of the care piece in the oral cavity of the user is calculated.
Kooijman, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the optical axis is inclined outward relative to the care piece, so that the care piece is disposed outside the predetermined receiving range (Kooijman fig. 1; [0066]; annotated fig. 3; [0072]; the optical axis labeled “AXIS” in annotated fig. 3 is inclined outward relative to the head member 14 of the oral care device 10, so that the head member 14 is disposed outside the energy receiving range (which includes the face of the user 300)),
the care piece remains consistently and unconditionally outside the camera’s field angle under all operational conditions (Kooijman annotated fig. 3; [0055]; [0072]; The energy emitted and detected to/from a face of the user does not include the endoscope head, i.e. the care piece. “As is shown in this figure, the energy may be directed to a particular portion of the face of the user 300, in this case the nose of the user 300”. Thus, the care piece can remain outside the camera’s field angle under all operational conditions);
and positions along the longitudinal axis of the care piece, wherein a perpendicular distance between the optical axis and a position along the care piece progressively increases as the position along the care piece is further away from the handle (Kooijman annotated fig. 3; [0068]; [0072]; the distance between the axis (labelled “AXIS” in annotated fig. 3) and the head member 14 of the oral care device 10 progressively increases as the point along the head member 14 is further away from the body portion 12 of the oral care device 10);
and wherein the energy receiving device is configured to receive energy reflected from an outer face of a user, and, based on the energy, a position of the care piece in the oral cavity of the user is calculated (Kooijman fig. 4; steps S102, S104 and S106: “receive reflected energy from the user’s face corresponding to the emitted energy” and “obtain facial characteristics information”; then, “determine the position of an oral care device in the mouth of the user”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Addington in view of Ouyang to incorporate the teachings of Kooijman to include wherein the optical axis is inclined outward relative to the care piece, so that the care piece is disposed outside the predetermined receiving range, the care piece remains consistently and unconditionally outside the camera’s field angle under all operational conditions; and positions along the longitudinal axis of the care piece, wherein a perpendicular distance between the optical axis and a position along the care piece progressively increases as the position along the care piece is further away from the handle; and wherein the energy receiving device is configured to receive energy reflected from an outer face of a user, and, based on the energy, a position of the care piece in the oral cavity of the user is calculated; for the advantage of indicating the dimensions and position of the user to facilitate proper cleaning techniques (Kooijman [0003]; [0072]).
PNG
media_image12.png
419
785
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Kooijman Fig. 1
[AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image13.png
566
619
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Kooijman annotated Fig. 3
PNG
media_image14.png
378
687
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Kooijman Fig. 4
As to claim 2, Addington teaches the oral care device according to claim 1, wherein the oral care device further comprises an energy transmitting device ([0101]; the lighting mechanism), the energy transmitting device is connected to the internal assembly or the handle ([0098]; fig. 11B; The camera device 500 is attached into the press fit system 400a and 400b, connected to the handle 12. Claim 4; The camera device 500 comprises the lighting mechanism. Thus, the lighting mechanism is connected to the handle 12);
wherein the energy transmitting device is configured to transmit energy to a human body (fig. 11B; [0101]; the camera device 500 comprises the lighting mechanism which lights the oral cavity of the user, implicitly human), the energy receiving device at least receives reflected energy of the energy transmitted by the energy transmitting device ([0101]; The lighting mechanism is aimed towards the oral cavity of the user so as to capture intraoral video via the camera device 500. Thus, the light is transmitted by the lighting mechanism, is reflected from the oral cavity of the user, and is received by the camera device 500), the energy transmitting device has a predetermined transmitting range ([0101]; The lighting mechanism can be six individual LED lights surrounding the aperture of the camera device 500. The lighting mechanism is aimed towards the oral cavity of the user).
However, Addington does not explicitly disclose the energy transmitting device is disposed corresponding to the receiving port; and the care piece is disposed outside the predetermined transmitting range.
Ouyang, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches the energy transmitting device is disposed corresponding to the receiving port fig. 15 and 17; the image acquisition model 3 comprised in the probe part 101 is disposed corresponding to the connector 21); and
the care piece is disposed outside the predetermined receiving range (Ouyang fig. 7 and 17; [0111]; The endoscope head, i.e. the care piece, comprises the probe part 101 in fig. 17, i.e. the energy receiving device. The image acquisition area in fig. 7, i.e. the predetermined receiving range, does not include the endoscope head).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Addington to incorporate the teachings of Ouyang to include the energy transmitting device is disposed corresponding to the receiving port; and the care piece is disposed outside the predetermined receiving range; for the advantage of increased functionality of the device (Ouyang [0093]) not obstructing the video feed of the user’s gingival margin (Addington [0107]).
As to claim 3, Addington teaches the oral care device according to claim 2, wherein the predetermined transmitting range is within the predetermined receiving range (Cameras are known in the art to all have a predetermined field of view. [0101]; Claim 4; The lighting mechanism is comprised in the camera device 500 and transmits the light. The camera device 500 receives the light to receive the light. Thus, the predetermined transmitting range is within the predetermined receiving range. The predetermined transmitting range implicitly covers the entirety of the predetermined receiving range, in order to capture the full intraoral video).
As to claim 4, Addington teaches the oral care device according to claim 1.
However, Addington does not explicitly disclose wherein the energy receiving device comprises a photoelectric sensor, a sonic sensor, or an infrared sensor.
Ouyang, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the energy receiving device comprises a photoelectric sensor, a sonic sensor, or an infrared sensor (Ouyang [0092]; “Each camera unit 31 includes two cameras… One of the cameras is an infrared camera… and the other camera is a visible light camera”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Addington to incorporate the teachings of Ouyang to include wherein the energy receiving device comprises a photoelectric sensor, a sonic sensor, or an infrared sensor; for the advantage of a multi-functional camera for illumination and light projection (Ouyang [0092]).
As to claim 5, Addington teaches the oral care device according to claim 1, wherein the output shaft defines an axis (fig 5A-B; implicitly the axis intersecting the interchangeable stem 14),
Addington does not explicitly disclose an included angle between the optical axis and the axis is not less than F degrees and not greater than F +10 degrees, and F is one-half of a field angle of the camera.
However, applicant has not provided criticality for an included angle between the optical axis and the axis is not less than F degrees and not greater than F +10 degrees, and F is one-half of a field angle of the camera. Applicant discloses merely that “an included angle between the optical axis 111 and the axis is not less than F degrees and is not greater than F+10 degrees” and “F is one-half of the field angle of the camera” (Specification [0070]). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include an included angle between the optical axis and the axis is not less than F degrees and not greater than F +10 degrees, and F is one-half of a field angle of the camera, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Addington to incorporate an included angle between the optical axis and the axis is not less than F degrees and not greater than F +10 degrees, and F is one-half of a field angle of the camera; for the advantage of not obstructing the video feed (Addington [0107]).
As to claim 9, Addington teaches the oral care device according to claim 1, wherein the oral care device further comprises a light source (claim 4; The camera device 500 comprises the lighting mechanism);
wherein the light source is disposed on the handle ([0098]; fig. 11B; The camera device 500 is attached into the press fit system 400a and 400b, connected to the handle 12) and is configured to supplement light for the camera, and/or the light source is turned on and off synchronously with the camera (claim 4; The camera device 500 comprises the lighting mechanism and thus, supplies light for the camera device 500 comprising the digital camera sensor).
As to claim 10, Addington teaches the oral care device according to claim 1, wherein the internal assembly comprises: a bracket ([0098]; The press fit system 400a and 400b can be moved via detachably engaging means. Various positions are envisioned), the camera is disposed on the bracket ([0098]; fig. 11B; The camera device 500 is attached into the press fit system 400a and 400b, connected to the handle 12), and a light incident surface of the camera (fig. 11B; [0109]; The oral cavity of the user is the surface where light first makes contact with the subject before reflection towards the camera device 500).
However, Addington does not explicitly disclose the light incident surface of the camera directly faces the receiving port.
Ouyang, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches the light incident surface of the camera directly faces the receiving port (fig. 7 and 15; the light is incident on the oral cavity before reflecting onto the image acquisition module 3. The oral cavity inherently directly faces the image acquisition module 3 and as a result directly faces the connector 21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Addington to incorporate the teachings of Ouyang to include the light incident surface of the camera directly faces the receiving port; for the advantage of optimized functionality (Ouyang [0093]).
As to claim 11, Addington teaches the oral care device according to claim 1, wherein the handle further comprises a mounting opening connected to the mounting cavity ([0097]; fig. 10A; The knurled threaded cap 300, which is connected to the handle body, allows the user to access the battery 56 and/or any other internal components within the internal cavity 52. Thus, the knurled threaded cap 300 is connected to the internal cavity 52).
PNG
media_image15.png
771
412
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Addington Fig. 10A
However, Addington does not explicitly disclose the energy receiving device is disposed on the internal assembly, and the energy receiving device and the internal assembly are mounted in the mounting cavity from the mounting opening.
Ouyang, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches the energy receiving device is disposed on the internal assembly ([0071]; [0098]; fig. 15; The probe part 101 is internal to the housing 1, and comprises the image acquisition module 3. [0129]; The probe part 101 is disposed on the handheld part 102), and the energy receiving device and the internal assembly are mounted in the mounting cavity from the mounting opening (fig. 15; The probe part 101 and the handheld part 102 are mounted in the housing 1. [0098]; The arrangement of the internal devices, including the probe part 101 and the handheld part 102, implicitly includes mounting from a mounting opening, not necessarily accessible by the user).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Addington to incorporate the teachings of Ouyang to include the energy receiving device is disposed on the internal assembly, and the energy receiving device and the internal assembly are mounted in the mounting cavity from the mounting opening; for the advantage of an integrated structure (Ouyang [0097]) for a seamless device.
As to claim 12, Addington teaches the oral care device according to claim 1, wherein the handle comprises a transition section and a holding section (annotated fig. 1A; the transition section and the holding section are highlighted in annotated fig. 1A), the transition section comprises a first connecting end and a second connecting end, the second connecting end of the transition section is closer to the care piece than the first connecting end of the transition section, the holding section is connected to the first connecting end of the transition section, and areas of cross sections, perpendicular to a length direction of the oral care device, of the holding section gradually decrease from the first connecting end of the transition section to the second connecting end of the transition section (annotated fig. 1A; the first connecting end, the second connecting end, and the length direction are labeled in annotated fig. 1A).
[AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image16.png
774
279
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Addington annotated Fig. 1A
However, Addington does not explicitly disclose wherein the receiving port is disposed in the transition section, the receiving port is disposed in the holding section, or the receiving port is disposed at a junction of the transition section and the holding section; wherein the receiving port is spaced apart from the care piece.
Ouyang, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the receiving port is disposed in the transition section, the receiving port is disposed in the holding section, or the receiving port is disposed at a junction of the transition section and the holding section (Ouyang fig. 14 and 15; [0118] The connector 21 is disposed at the end of the housing 1 closest to the handle 22. Thus, the connector 21 is disposed at the handheld part 102 of the housing 1, i.e. the holding section);
wherein the receiving port is spaced apart from the care piece (Ouyang fig. 17; the connector 21 which is disposed in the handheld part 102, is spaced apart from the endoscope head, the top of the housing 1).
PNG
media_image17.png
428
669
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Ouyang Fig. 14
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Addington to incorporate the teachings of Ouyang to include wherein the receiving port is disposed in the transition section, the receiving port is disposed in the holding section, or the receiving port is disposed at a junction of the transition section and the holding section; wherein the receiving port is spaced apart from the care piece; for the advantage of flexible design choice.
As to claim 13, Addington teaches the oral care device according to claim 12.
Addington does not explicitly disclose wherein the receiving port is disposed in the transition section, and the receiving port is flush with an outer surface of the transition section.
However, applicant has not provided criticality for wherein the receiving port is disposed in the transition section, and the receiving port is flush with an outer surface of the transition section. Applicant discloses merely that, in some embodiments, the receiving port is disposed in the transition section, and the receiving port is flush with an outer surface of the transition section (Specification [0010] and [0086]). Furthermore, it has been held that a mere rearranging of parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to Addington to incorporate wherein the receiving port is disposed in the transition section, and the receiving port is flush with an outer surface of the transition section; for the advantage of flexible design choice.
As to claim 14, Addington teaches the oral care device according to claim 12.
Addington does not explicitly disclose wherein the receiving port is disposed in the holding section or the receiving port is disposed at a junction of the transition section and the holding section; and the receiving port protrudes from an outer surface of the handle.
Ouyang, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the receiving port is disposed in the holding section or the receiving port is disposed at a junction of the transition section and the holding section (Ouyang fig. 14 and 15; [0118] The connector 21 is disposed at the end of the housing 1 closest to the handle 22. Thus, the connector 21 is disposed at the handheld part 102 of the housing 1, i.e. the holding section); and the receiving port protrudes from an outer surface of the handle (fig. 14; the connector 21 protrudes from the outer surface of the housing 1, which comprises the handle 22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Addington to incorporate the teachings of Ouyang to include wherein the receiving port is disposed in the holding section or the receiving port is disposed at a junction of the transition section and the holding section; and the receiving port protrudes from an outer surface of the handle; for the advantage of flexible design choice.
As to claim 15, Addington teaches the oral care device according to claim 1, wherein the handle comprises a top end close to the care piece and a bottom end away from the care piece (annotated fig. 1A; the top end and the bottom end are labeled in annotated fig. 1A).
Addington does not explicitly disclose a distance between the receiving port and the top end of the handle is not greater than 40 mm, or a distance between the receiving port and the bottom end of the handle is not greater than 40 mm.
However, applicant has not provided criticality for a distance between the receiving port and the top end of the handle is not greater than 40 mm, or a distance between the receiving port and the bottom end of the handle is not greater than 40 mm. Applicant discloses merely that a distance between the receiving port and the top end of the handle is not greater than 40 mm, or a distance between the receiving port and the bottom end of the handle is not greater than 40 mm (Specification [0012] and [0074]) Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a distance between the receiving port and the top end of the handle is not greater than 40 mm, or a distance between the receiving port and the bottom end of the handle is not greater than 40 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to Addington to incorporate a distance between the receiving port and the top end of the handle is not greater than 40 mm, or a distance between the receiving port and the bottom end of the handle is not greater than 40 mm, for the advantage of size limitation.
As to claim 16, Addington teaches the oral care device according to claim 1, wherein the handle assembly further comprises a protruding structure, the protruding structure protrudes from an outer peripheral wall of the handle along a radial direction of the handle ([0098]; fig. 11B; the press fit system 400a and 400b is a protruding structure from the outer peripheral wall of the handle 12 pictured along a radial direction of the handle 12);
and the energy receiving device is defined in a surface of the protruding structure facing the care piece ([0098]; fig. 11B; the camera device 500 is held by the press fit system 400a and 400b).
However, Addington does not explicitly disclose the energy receiving device is disposed corresponding to the receiving port.
Ouyang, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches the energy receiving device is disposed corresponding to the receiving port (Ouyang fig. 15 and 17; the image acquisition model 3 comprised in the probe part 101 is disposed corresponding to the connector 21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Addington to incorporate the teachings of Ouyang to include the energy receiving device is disposed corresponding to the receiving port; for the advantage of increased functionality of the device (Ouyang [0093]).
As to claim 21, Addington teaches wherein the energy comprises an image of the out face of the user, the image of the out face of the user comprises at least one image of face, the mouth, the nose, the ears, the eyes and the neck (fig. 11B; [0098]; The camera device 500 is mounted on the handle 12, which is not touching the oral of the user, but rather away from the outer face of the user. The means for detachably engaging 400 a and 400 b (configured to tightly receive the camera device 500) is substantially antipodal to the switch means 24; although, various positions about the exterior of the handle body 14 are envisioned. Thus, the camera device 500 can be configured to receive energy, i.e. imaging, from the out face of the user, and will implicitly image the mouth).
As to claim 23, Addington in view of Ouyang does not explicitly disclose wherein a posture of the user is used in conjunction with the image to calibrate a brushing position.
Kooijman, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein a posture of the user is used in conjunction with the image to calibrate a brushing position (Kooijman claims 1 and 3; the position of an oral care device in the mouth of the user is determined using the received reflected energy and facial characteristics information of the user, which are obtained from an image of the user, obtained by processing the received reflected energy).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Addington in view of Ouyang to incorporate the teachings of Kooijman to include wherein a posture of the user is used in conjunction with the image to calibrate a brushing position; for the advantage of facilitating proper cleaning techniques (Kooijman [0003]).
As to claim 24, Addington teaches the oral care device according to claim 1.
However, Addington in view of Ouyang does not explicitly disclose a control unit, wherein the control unit is configured to: map an intraoral tooth region based on facial images reflected from the user's extraoral facial area; calculate a brushing position of the care piece relative to the mapped intraoral tooth region through an artificial intelligence (Al) algorithm; and output a brushing guidance signal according to the brushing position.
Koijman, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches a control unit (Kooijman [0046]; “According to a further aspect there may be provided a computing device comprising the computer program product as described above. The computing device may be a processor, or may comprise a processor”), wherein the control unit is configured to:
map an intraoral tooth region based on facial images reflected from the user's extraoral facial area (Kooijman [0010]; “A representation of a portion of the face of the user, including facial features, may be produced by processing the collected reflected energy. Thus, a three dimensional (3D) map of the user may be created using the reflected energy. Information on the dimensions and relative location of facial features may be provided in the facial characteristics information”);
calculate a brushing position of the care piece relative to the mapped intraoral tooth region (Kooijman [0013]; “Using the reflected energy in conjunction with the data and/or metadata and/or facial characteristics information derived from the received reflected energy means that a more accurate positioning of the oral care device in the mouth of the user may be determined. The metadata may be used to estimate, or improve the estimation, of facial features of the user using a predetermined correlation between the size/position of facial features and metadata”) through an artificial intelligence (Al) algorithm (Kooijman [0021]; “The mapping may be an algorithm which processes data to determine the position of the oral care device. The mapping may be a machine-learned algorithm”. A machine-learned algorithm is a type of artificial intelligence);
and output a brushing guidance signal according to the brushing position (Kooijman [0013]; “The position of an oral care device in the mouth of the user may be determined by using the position of a facial feature relative to the mouth of the user known from the facial characteristics information in conjunction with the facial feature detected using the received reflected energy”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Addington in view of Ouyang to incorporate the teachings of Kooijman to include a control unit, wherein the control unit is configured to: map an intraoral tooth region based on facial images reflected from the user's extraoral facial area; calculate a brushing position of the care piece relative to the mapped intraoral tooth region through an artificial intelligence (Al) algorithm; and output a brushing guidance signal according to the brushing position; for the advantage of improved accuracy (Kooijman [0013]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Addington in view of Ouyang and Kooijman, further in view of Claire-Zimmet et al. (US-20200368003-A1), hereinafter Claire-Zimmet.
As to claim 7, Addington teaches the oral care device according to claim 1.
However, Addington in view of Ouyang and Kooijman does not explicitly disclose wherein the oral care device further comprises a multi-axis sensor, and the multi-axis sensor is configured to obtain attitude information of the oral care device. Note that Kooijman para. [0068] teaches that additional sensors may be included in the oral care device 10 such as an accelerometer.
Claire-Zimmet, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the oral care device further comprises a multi-axis sensor, and the multi-axis sensor is configured to obtain attitude information of the oral care device (Claire-Zimmet [0037]; The electric toothbrush 100 may include one or several sensors, such as multi-axis accelerometers, pressure sensors, gas sensors, vibration sensors, temperature sensors, etc. Attitude information is known in the art to include information light acceleration, direction, rotation, vibration, etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Addington in view of Ouyang and Kooijman to incorporate the teachings of Claire-Zimmet to include wherein the oral care device further comprises a multi-axis sensor, and the multi-axis sensor is configured to obtain attitude information of the oral care device; for the advantage of more data for the user (Claire-Zimmet [0037]).
Claim 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Addington in view of Ouyang and Kooijman, further in view of Timm et al. (WO 2018162112 A1), hereinafter Timm.
As to claim 17, Addington teaches the oral care device according to claim 1, wherein the oral care device comprises a light-transmitting element (claim 4; the lens comprised in the camera device 500),
and the light-transmitting element is inclined to guide liquid or foam to flow off the light-transmitting element (claim 4; [0102]; The lens is comprised in the camera device 500 which can be a waterproof inspection camera. Waterproof devices are known in the art to guide liquid or foam away. Thus, the waterproof inspection camera with lighting mechanism is inclined to guide liquid or foam to flow away from itself, rather than through itself).
However, Addington in view of Ouyang and Kooijman does not explicitly disclose the light-transmitting element covers the receiving port to seal the receiving port.
Timm, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches the light-transmitting element (Timm claim 15; the window 30) covers the receiving port to seal the receiving port (Timm claim 15; the waterproof camera housing 28 comprising a window 30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Addington in view of Ouyang and Kooijman to incorporate the teachings of Timm to include the light-transmitting element covers the receiving port to seal the receiving port; for the advantage of protecting the camera (Timm claim 15) while allowing it to perform its functions.
As to claim 18, Addington teaches the oral care device according to claim 1, wherein the oral care device comprises a light-transmitting element (claim 4; the lens comprised in the camera device 500), and a hydrophobic film is coated on an outer surface of the light-transmitting element (claim 4; [0102]; The lens is comprised in the camera device 500 which can be a waterproof inspection camera. Thus, implicitly, a hydrophobic film is coated on an outer surface of the lighting mechanism).
However, Addington in view of Ouyang and Kooijman does not explicitly disclose the light-transmitting element covers the receiving port to seal the receiving port.
Timm, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches the light-transmitting element (Timm claim 15; the window 30) covers the receiving port to seal the receiving port (Timm claim 15; the waterproof camera housing 28 comprising a window 30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Addington in view of Ouyang and Kooijman to incorporate the teachings of Timm to include the light-transmitting element covers the receiving port to seal the receiving port; for the advantage of protecting the camera (Timm claim 15) while allowing it to perform its functions.
As to claim 19, Addington teaches the oral care device according to claim 17, wherein an inclined angle of the camera is same as an inclined angle of the light-transmitting element (claim 4; The camera device 500 comprises the lens (i.e. the light-transmitting element) and the digital camera sensor (i.e. the camera). They share the same body, the camera device 500, and the same aperture. Thus, the inclined angle of the digital camera sensor is the same as the inclined angle of the lens).
However, Addington in view of Ouyang and Kooijman does not explicitly disclose the camera directly faces the receiving port.
Timm, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches the camera directly faces the receiving port (Timm claim 15; the waterproof camera housing 28, i.e. the receiving port, houses at least the front end of the camera 24 and the window 30. The camera 24 directly faces the window 30. Thus, the camera 24 directly faces the waterproof camera housing 28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Addington in view of Ouyang and Kooijman to incorporate the teachings of Timm to include the camera directly faces the receiving port, for the advantage of protecting the camera (Timm claim 15) while allowing it to perform its functions.
Citation of pertinent prior art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Xu et al. (CN114387295A), hereinafter Xu, teaches limitations of claim 24:
Xu page 20 ln. 1-10; “For example, as shown in fig. 5, after the motion trajectory generating device detects that a feature point one 51A in the previous facial image 51 and a feature point one 52A in the target facial image 52 are the same feature point, a position 51A 'corresponding to the feature point one 51A in the previous facial image 51 may be obtained in the target facial image 52, and then the motion trajectory generating device may determine the motion trajectory of the camera according to the displacement between the feature points 51A' and 52A; similarly, after the motion trajectory generation device detects that the second feature point 51B in the previous face image 51 and the second feature point 52B in the target face image 52 are the same feature point, the motion trajectory generation device may first acquire the position 51B 'corresponding to the second feature point 51B in the previous face image 51 in the target face image 52, and then determine the motion trajectory of the camera according to the displacement between the positions 51B' and 52B”.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEMAYA NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9078. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 am - 5:00pm ET.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on (571) 272-2287. 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.
/KEMAYA NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights