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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/5/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 7, 11-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li (US11998413).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses an electric toothbrush device (combination of all elements shown in Figs. 1 and 8) with a built-in shrapnel assembly (Fig. 1 element 30), comprising:
a toothbrush head (Fig. 1 elements 10 and 20), a brush assembly (Fig. 1 element 21) and an electric motor (Fig. 8 element 40, 4:50-61); wherein a bottom of the toothbrush head defines an installation hole (Fig. 3 element 11, 5:29-33), the toothbrush head defines a cavity therein (Fig. 2, where the space beyond the installation hole in the longitudinal direction toward the toothbrush head which houses the shrapnel assembly corresponds to a cavity), the cavity extends along a direction from the installation hole to the brush assembly (Fig. 2, where the longitudinal direction of the toothbrush head corresponds to a direction), the electric motor comprises a drive shaft (Fig. 8 element 41 and see annotated Fig. 8 below for clarity on the delineation between the drive shaft and the motor), and the drive shaft is disposed to pass through the installation hole and is disposed in the cavity (Fig. 2, 4:38-41);
wherein the built-in shrapnel assembly is disposed in the cavity (Fig. 2), and the built-in shrapnel assembly is disposed to abut against the drive shaft (4:45-49 and 5:55-60);
wherein the built-in shrapnel assembly comprises: a limiting groove portion (see annotated Fig. 2 below, where the limiting groove portion also corresponds to elements 33, 331, 332, and 333 in Figs. 5-6), an arch-shaped protrusion (Fig. 2 element 3311) arched towards the drive shaft (Fig. 2, 5:55-60), and a guide groove portion (see annotated Fig. 2 below, where the guide groove portion also corresponds to elements 31, 32, 35, 311, and 321 in Fig. 5) disposed on a bottom side of the limiting groove portion facing away from the arch-shaped protrusion (see annotated Fig. 2 below, where the line which separates the limiting groove portion and the guide groove portion is the plane of connection between the top of the guide groove portion and the bottom of the limiting groove portion, where the bottom of the limiting groove portion is facing away from the arch-shaped protrusion); the limiting groove portion comprises a left limiting wall (Fig. 6 element 333) and a right limiting wall (Fig. 6 element 332) protruding towards the drive shaft (both the left and right limiting walls have a thickness and therefore both the left and right limiting walls can be considered to be protruding towards the drive shaft), and the arch-shaped protrusion is disposed between the left limiting wall and the right limiting wall (Fig. 6) to prevent the drive shaft from shifting relative to the arch-shaped protrusion (Figs. 2 and 6, where the left and right limiting walls are capable of preventing the drive shaft from shifting relative to the arch-shaped protrusion in a direction out of the built-in shrapnel assembly (i.e. the left and right limiting walls cover up the openings (see 5:65-6:4) and therefore keep the drive shaft from going through the openings)); and a bottom of the guide groove portion extends towards the installation hole (see annotated Fig. 2 below)
wherein a side of the drive shaft facing towards the built-in shrapnel assembly defines a tooth groove matching the arch-shaped protrusion (5:55-60, where a groove corresponds to a tooth groove, and where the arch-shaped protrusion creating a frictional force between the arch-shaped protrusion and the groove means that the tooth groove matches the arch-shaped protrusion), and the drive shaft is disposed to press against the arch-shaped protrusion to cause the arch-shaped protrusion to undergo an elastic deformation, to thereby securely fix the drive shaft in the cavity (5:55-60, where the arch shaped protrusion and the drive shaft are considered to press against each other, the arch-shaped protrusion being elastic means that the arch-shaped protrusion will undergo elastic deformation under from the pressing of the drive shaft, and preventing the toothbrush head from pulling out of the drive shaft corresponds to securely fixing the drive shaft in the cavity); and
the guide groove portion comprises: a left guide wall, a right guide wall, and a first surface (see annotated Fig. 2' below), the left guide wall and the right guide wall both protrude towards the drive shaft (see annotated Fig. 2' below), and the first surface is disposed between the left guide wall and the right guide wall (see annotated Fig. 2' below); and wherein the first surface faces towards the drive shaft and defines a stepped groove (see annotated Fig. 2' below), and the stepped groove corresponds to a shaft center seat disposed on the drive shaft (see annotated Fig. 8 below, where the shapes of the stepped groove and the portion of shaft center seat which corresponds to the stepped groove correspond with each other).
PNG
media_image1.png
728
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
592
584
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
568
480
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Li discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the arch-shaped protrusion comprises: an arch-shaped recess (see annotated Fig. 5 below) facing away from the drive shaft (see annotated Fig. 5 below, where the arch-shaped recess faces in the opposite direction than the arch-shaped protrusion).
PNG
media_image4.png
724
668
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Li discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the guide groove portion comprises a second surface facing towards an inner wall of the cavity (Fig. 5, where the outermost surface of element 31 corresponds to a second surface which faces and inner wall of the cavity), the second surface defines a guide recess groove (Fig. 5 element 311), and the guide recess groove is configured to enhance an elastic deformation capability of the guide groove portion (the guide recess groove is capable of enhancing an elastic deformation capability of the guide groove portion).
Regarding claim 11, Li discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses a surface of the drive shaft facing away from the tooth groove is provided with a convex rib (see annotated Fig. 8 above), and the convex rib is axially disposed on the shaft center seat (see annotated Fig. 8 above).
Regarding claim 12, Li discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses a width of the guide groove portion is greater than a width of the limiting groove portion (Figs. 2, 5, and 6).
Regarding claim 14, Li discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses a top of the tooth brush head (Fig. 1 element 20) defines an installation groove (Fig. 3 element 201), and the brush assembly is disposed in the installation groove (Fig. 1, 4:65-5:4).
Regarding claim 15, Li discloses the limitations of claim 14, as described above, and further discloses the brush assembly comprises: a connection part (Fig. 4, where the connection part corresponds to the portion of element 21 which includes the structure which the holes (212) are formed into and which does not include elements 22 and 211) disposed in the installation groove (Fig. 1, 4:65-5:4), and sets of bristles (Fig. 4 element 22) disposed on the connection part (Fig. 4); the sets of bristles are configured to clean teeth (4:58-61 and 5:8-10), and the connection part extends outward and covers the installation groove (Figs. 1 and 4, 4:65-5:4, where Fig. 4 shows the connection part extending outward beyond the base of the connection part where the holes (212) are formed and "a size and a shape of the brush installation groove 201 correspond to that of the brush assembly 21, and the brush assembly 21 is disposed in the brush installation groove 201" corresponds to the connection part covers the installation groove).
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, 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 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US11998413) in view of Wallace (US20160245315).
Regarding claim 8, Li discloses the limitations of claim 7, as described above, but fails to disclose at least one of the left guide wall, the right guide wall and the second surface is provided with at least one protruding conical portion, and the at least one protruding conical portion is configured to make the guide groove portion to be stably held within the cavity.
Wallace is also concerned with solving the problem of coupling two elements together and teaches a second part (0055) provided with at least one protruding conical portion (Fig. 12 elements 426), and the at least one portion is configured to make the second part to be stably held against the first part (Abstract, 0055-0056, and 0065, where the projections creating a friction fit corresponds to being capable of making the guide groove portion (e.g. the second part) to be stably held within the cavity (e.g. the first part) and 0065 discloses that the projections (750) behave similarly to the projections (40) from the embodiment shown in Fig. 2). It 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 to modify the electric toothbrush device of Li to include at least one protruding conical portion on any of the left guide wall, the right guide wall and the second surface (e.g. on surfaces which make direct contact with the cavity), as taught by Wallace, because Wallace teaches that providing at least one protruding conical portion on a first surface which makes direct contact and engages with a second surface allows the two surfaces to be biased together, which causes the two surfaces to be coupled together (0035, 0060), which would further secure the guide groove portion to the cavity.
Regarding claim 9, Li, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 8, as described above, and further discloses each of the at least one protruding conical portion is in a form of dots, strips, or bands (Wallace, Fig. 12, where the at least one protruding conical portion (246) are each in the shape of strips).
Regarding claim 10, Li, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 9, as described above, but fails to disclose the at least one protruding conical portion is arranged along the left guide wall and/or the right guide wall, and the at least one protruding conical portion is parallel to the guide recess groove. However, it has been held that an “obvious to try” rationale when choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is a support for a conclusion of obviousness which is consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham, if the following findings can be established: (1) a finding that at the time of the invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve a problem; (2) a finding that there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem; (3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success; and (4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143(I)(E).
In the instant case, and as per (1), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there is a need in the art to provide at least one protruding conical portion to improve a coupling between structures (based at least on the teachings of Wallace; see at least paragraphs 0031 and 0035). As per (2), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there is a finite number of identifiable, predictable potential solutions for the relative arrangement of the at least one protruding conical portion, namely that the at least one protruding conical portion must be positioned on a surface of the guide groove portion which directly contacts the cavity. As per (3), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the particular positioning and orientation of the at least one protruding conical portion could have been pursued with a reasonable expectation of success, since said finite number of potential arrangements would have not yielded unpredictable results, nor would have rendered the prior art inoperable for its intended purpose. That is, the position and orientation of the at least one protruding conical portion would have still expectedly have resulted in coupling the guide groove portion and the cavity together. As per (4), based on the above analysis, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken the teachings of Li, as modified, and to have modified them by positioning the at least one protruding conical portion along the left guide wall and/or the right guide wall and orienting the at least one protruding conical portion to be parallel to the guide recess groove, as a matter of trying a set of obvious, finite and predictable solutions, in order to obtain the best structural arrangement of components that best suits a coupling between the guide groove portion and the cavity, without yielding unpredictable results.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US11998413) in view of Sauer et al. (US20130134062), hereinafter Sauer.
Regarding claim 13, Li discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the toothbrush is made of bamboo (4:36-37).
Li fails to disclose the built-in shrapnel assembly is a plastic shrapnel assembly.
Sauer is also concerned with an electric toothbrush device and teaches the built-in shrapnel assembly (Fig. 4A element 101) is a plastic shrapnel assembly (0029). It 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 to modify the electric toothbrush device of Li to make the built-in shrapnel assembly a plastic shrapnel assembly, as taught by Sauer, because Sauer teaches that making the built-in shrapnel assembly out of plastic provides "a watertight material bond at the connection surfaces" (0029).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2 and 7-15 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4-8 of U.S. Patent No. US12,419,411. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. US12,419,411 contains all of the elements of claim 1 of the instant application and claims 5-8 of U.S. Patent No. US12,419,411 contain all of the elements of claims 7-10, respectively, of the instant application.
Claims 2 and 11-15 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Li fails to disclose “a guide groove portion is disposed on a bottom side of the limiting groove portion” because Li teaches “an integrated structure, rather than two separated structures similar as the limiting groove portion and the guide groove portion”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that Applicant has recited the final rejection, filed 10/8/2025, where examiner stated that the Applicant has support for “the limiting groove portion and guide groove portion being completely separate portions with separate sidewalls, which are connected along a plane” for the reasoning that the limiting and guide groove portions are completely separate structures. Examiner finds that the interpretation provided by examiner that the limiting and guide groove portions are completely separate portions is different than Applicant’s interpretation that the limiting and guide groove portions are completely separate portions. Examiner finds that the inclusion of “connected along a plane” means that there is no physical structure which separates the limiting and guide groove portions and that instead the limiting and guide groove portions cooperate to form a monolithic structure which has two completely separate portions. Examiner finds that “portion” is a broad term which under BRI is being interpreted as something which is a part of a whole, which means that one monolithic structure can have two completely separate portions, where each of those portions make up a part of the whole monolithic structure. Under this interpretation, examiner finds that Li does disclose “a guide groove portion is disposed on a bottom side of the limiting groove portion” as the line shown in annotated Fig. 2 above which separates the limiting groove portion and the guide groove portion is the plane of connection between the top of the guide groove portion and the bottom of the limiting groove portion. See rejection of claim 1 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CALEB A HOLIZNA whose telephone number is (571)272-5659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-4:30.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
/C.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3723 /MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723