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 .
Reissue Applications
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which Patent No. 11,896,116 (hereinafter the ‘116 patent) is or was involved. These proceedings would include any trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, interferences, reissues, reexaminations, supplemental examinations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Information Disclosure Statement
No information disclosure statement (IDS) has been received in this reissue application. The examiner has considered the references cited during the original prosecution of the patent. Any reference again cited/applied in this reissue application is listed on the PTO-892 form included herewith. Should applicant wish to ensure that all of the references cited in the original patent are considered and cited in the reissue application, an IDS in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98 should be filed in this reissue application. See MPEP §§ 609 and 1406.
Objections to the Amendments - Formalities
The claim amendments filed February 8, 2025, are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)(2) and (d). Amended claims must show all changes made relative to the patent claims, with omitted text enclosed in single brackets and added text underlined. See MPEP § 1453. The claim amendments are improper because omitted text is shown in double brackets rather than single brackets.
Reissue Oath/Declaration
The reissue oath/declaration filed with this application is defective because it fails to clearly identify at least one specific error which is relied upon to support the reissue application. See 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414. The error statement must specifically identify at least “a single word, phrase or expression in the specification or in an original claim, and how it renders the original patent wholly or partly inoperative or invalid.” MPEP § 1414, subsection II.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251 - Reissue Declaration
35 U.S.C. 251 states:
(a) IN GENERAL.—Whenever any patent is, through error, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Director shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue.
Claims 1-20 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175.
The nature of the defect in the declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251 - Original Patent
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 251:
(a) IN GENERAL.— Whenever any patent is, through error, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Director shall, on the surrender of the patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 for not claiming subject matter directed to the invention disclosed in the original patent. MPEP § 1412.01 explains that “[t]he reissue claims must be for the same invention as that disclosed as being the invention of the original patent.” This section of the MPEP provides the following guidelines for determining whether the reissue claims are “for the invention disclosed in the original patent”:
(A) the claims presented in the reissue application are described in the original patent specification and enabled by the original patent specification such that 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph is satisfied;
(B) nothing in the original patent specification indicates an intent not to claim the subject matter of the claims presented in the reissue application; and
(C) the newly claimed invention is clearly and unequivocally disclosed in the specification as a separate invention with the claimed combination of features.
Further, the Federal Circuit addressed the “original patent” requirement of 35 U.S.C. 251 in Antares Pharma, Inc. v. Medac Pharma Inc. and Medac GMBH, 771 F.3d 1354, 112 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The Federal Circuit adopted the Supreme Court’s explanation from U.S.S. Industrial Chemicals, Inc. v. Carbide & Carbon Chemicals Corp.1 that “a reissue claim is for the ‘same invention’ if the original patent specification fully describes the claimed inventions, but not if the broader claims ‘are [] merely suggested or indicated in the original specification.’ [U.S.S. Industrial Chemicals, 315 U.S.] at 676. ‘[I]t is not enough that an invention might have been claimed in the original patent because it was suggested or indicated in the specification.’ Id.” Antares at 1359; see also id. at 1362. The Federal Circuit further stated that although wording in section 251 was changed from “same invention” to “original patent” no change in substance was intended. Id. at 1360.
The reissue claims in this application are directed to an electric toothbrush rotating replacement head device comprising, inter alia, a toothbrush replacement head body, an elastic connecting rod, a spring limiting disc, and a compression spring. Independent reissue claims 1, 19, and 20 have each been amended to omit a first pin hole defined in a top of the elastic connecting rod, a pin disposed in the first pin hole, and a convex block of the toothbrush head, which were recited in all of the patented claims and consistently described throughout the patent disclosure as functionally significant parts of the disclosed invention.
At col. 1:58-2:16, the original patent specification disclosed that the main purpose of the disclosed invention is achieved by providing an electric toothbrush rotating replacement head device that includes “a top of the elastic connecting rod defining a first pin hole; … a pin disposed in the first pin hole, and a diameter of the first pin hole being greater than a diameter of the pin; … and the toothbrush head includes a convex block, the convex block defines a second pin hole, and the elastic connecting rod is inserted into the second pin hole through the pin and connected to the toothbrush head.”
As now amended, the reissue claims do not describe a structural connection between the elastic connecting rod and the toothbrush head which the original patent disclosure disclosed as being the invention. Therefore, the original patent disclosure does not support the broader claim scope of the amended reissue claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) - Indefiniteness
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.
Claims 3, 8-14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the pin” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. (Claim 1 has been amended to delete “a pin.”)
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the convex block” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. (Claim 1 has been amended to delete “a convex block.”) Claims 9-14 are rejected in view of their dependency from claim 8.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “the compression spring is configured to drive the toothbrush head through the elastic connecting rod and the pin” (see Claims at top of pg. 7) renders the claim indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim for “the pin.” Because the pin is not clearly claimed, it is unclear how the spring is configured to perform the functional limitation “to drive the toothbrush head through the elastic connecting rod and the pin.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 8-9, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 114557788 A to Ruan, or under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Pub. 2023/0301423 A1 to Ruan2 (hereinafter Ruan).
Regarding claim 1, Ruan discloses an electric toothbrush rotating replacement head device (Figs. 1-2; ¶ 29) comprising:
a toothbrush replacement head body including a toothbrush handle (housing 6, Fig. 2) and a toothbrush head (5), the toothbrush handle (6) defining a cavity (see Fig. 1), and the toothbrush head (5) being disposed on a top of the cavity (Fig. 1);
an elastic connecting rod (“transmission rod 30” of transmission shaft 3, ¶ 29) disposed in the cavity (Fig. 1);
a spring limiting disc (tail end of transmission shaft 3, ¶ 30) disposed on a bottom of the elastic rod;
first and second spring limiting blocks (spring limiting ribs 62, Fig. 1, ¶ 29; see also Fig. 10, showing two such ribs) disposed on two sides of the elastic rod, respectively; and
a compression spring (damping spring 4) disposed on the spring limiting disc, the elastic connecting rod being disposed in the compression spring (see Figs. 1 and 10).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Ruan further discloses the elastic connecting rod (30) defines an installation groove (cross guide groove 31, Figs. 1 and 3) disposed above the first and second spring limiting blocks (see Fig. 10, showing that the wider portion of the rod 30 which contains the cross guide groove 31 extends above the spring limiting ribs 62) (claim 2); wherein a part of the elastic connecting rod (30) from the installation groove to a pin (transmission column 32) is in a bent shape (see Fig. 3) (claim 3).
Regarding claim 8, Ruan further discloses the toothbrush head (5, Fig. 8) comprises a positioning step (see Fig. 9, showing lower step of limiting groove) and a convex block (the convex part with holes 51, 52, Fig. 8), wherein the convex block is connected to the toothbrush head (5) through the positioning step (see Figs. 9).
Regarding claim 9, Ruan further discloses an inner cylinder (cylindrical wall defining central hole 51 or transmission hole 52, Fig. 8) disposed in the convex block and a rotating shaft (positioning column 63, Fig. 7, or transmission column 32, Fig. 3; ¶ 31) disposed on the inner cylinder (51 or 52).
Regarding claims 16-18, Ruan further discloses a bottom of the cavity (at tail cover 1; see Figs. 1-2, 5-6, and 10) is provided with an opening (see annotated Fig. 6 below), first and second elastic sheets (elastic damping arms 13, Fig. 6) are disposed in the opening, an installation clamping groove (shown between arms 13 in Fig. 6) between the first and second elastic sheets (13), and an avoid groove (see annotated Fig. 6 below) is provided between a side wall of the opening (and the second elastic sheet (13) (claim 16); wherein the first and second elastic sheets (13) respectively define first and second clamping grooves (see annotated Fig. 6 below) (claim 17); and wherein the first and second elastic sheets (13) comprise reinforcing blocks respectively (see annotated Fig. 6 below) (claim 18).
PNG
media_image1.png
413
639
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Ruan discloses an electric toothbrush rotating replacement head device (Figs. 1-2; ¶ 29) comprising:
a toothbrush replacement head body including a toothbrush handle (housing 6, Fig. 2) and a toothbrush head (5), the toothbrush handle (6) defining a cavity (see Fig. 1), and the toothbrush head (5) being disposed on a top of the cavity (Fig. 1);
an elastic connecting rod (“transmission rod 30” of transmission shaft 3, ¶ 29) disposed in the cavity (Fig. 1);
a spring limiting disc (circular tail end of transmission shaft 3, ¶ 30) disposed on a bottom of the elastic rod; and
a compression spring (damping spring 4) disposed on the spring limiting disc, the elastic connecting rod being disposed in the compression spring (see Figs. 1 and 10);
wherein the spring limiting disc defines a vent groove (plane limiter 36, Fig. 4; compare to Applicant’s vent groove 113, Fig. 4).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruan in view of Wang (U.S. Patent Pub. 2007/0294847, hereinafter Wang ‘847).
Regarding claim 4, Ruan teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Ruan further teaches the spring limiting disc defines a vent groove (plane limiter 36, Fig. 4; compare to Applicant’s vent groove 113, Fig. 4). Ruan does not teach a cross bone (interpreted in view of Applicant’s disclosure to mean a rigid cross-shaped structure) disposed under the spring limiting disc. However, Wang ‘847 teaches an electric toothbrush replacement head (Figs. 3-4) comprising a cross bone (“outer end 29 which is cross-shaped in transverse section,” ¶ 28) for connecting the replacement head to a motorized toothbrush body (¶ 35). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ruan to include a cross bone as taught by Wang ‘847 under the spring limiting disc, in order to facilitate connection of the replacement head to a motorized body for driving movement of the connecting rod.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruan in view of Huy (U.S. Patent Pub. 2020/0281704, hereinafter Huy).
Regarding claim 5, Ruan teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Ruan does not teach a spring sleeve, with the compression spring sandwiched between the spring sleeve and the elastic connecting rod. However, Huy teaches an electrical toothbrush rotating replacement head device (18, Fig. 3) comprising a spring sleeve (hollow housing 66; ¶ 63), with a compression spring (68) sandwiched between the spring sleeve (66) and an elastic connecting rod (drive rod 54; “hollow housing 66 … may be arranged so that the drive rod extends through the housing. The housing may be sized and dimensioned to contain a return mechanism arrangement such as, for example, a spring 68,” ¶ 63). Huy teaches that this arrangement facilitates reliable engagement of connection features of the toothbrush head device with a main body of the toothbrush (¶ 63). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ruan to include a spring sleeve as taught by Huy, with the compression spring sandwiched between the spring sleeve and the elastic connecting rod, in order to facilitate reliable engagement of the replacement head device to a main body of the toothbrush.
Claims 5-7 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruan in view of Meng (CN 109106461 A, hereinafter Meng).
Regarding claim 5, Ruan teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Ruan does not teach a spring sleeve, with the compression spring sandwiched between the spring sleeve and the elastic connecting rod. However, Meng teaches a toothbrush head (Figs. 1-4) comprising a spring sleeve (fastener 70, Figs. 2-4) with a compression spring (60) sandwiched between the spring sleeve (70) and an elastic connecting rod (transmission shaft 30 with waterproof ring 50). Meng teaches that the spring sleeve facilitates a more stable and watertight connection of the toothbrush head. See Meng, pg. 3, third complete paragraph. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ruan to include a spring sleeve as taught by Meng, with the compression spring sandwiched between the spring sleeve and the elastic connecting rod, in order to facilitate a watertight connection.
Regarding claim 6, the modified Ruan teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 5. Meng further teaches a top of the spring sleeve (70, Figs. 3-4) defines limiting grooves (circumferential grooves, shown in Fig. 3-4).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Ruan teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 6. The term “buckle” is interpreted to mean “a kink, bulge, or other distortion.” Collins English Dictionary - Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition. Meng further discloses a buckle (i.e., a bulge or distortion) disposed at a side of the spring sleeve (70). See Figs. 3-4, showing bulges defined in the side wall of the spring sleeve (70).
Regarding claim 10, Ruan teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 9. Ruan further discloses the inner cylinder defines a rotating shaft hole (in this case, transmission hole 52, Fig. 8), and the rotating shaft (in this case, transmission column 32, Fig. 3; ¶ 31) is connected to the inner cylinder through a secure fit between the rotating shaft hole (52) and the rotating shaft (32). While Ruan does not specifically disclose that the fit is an interference fit, Meng teaches that an interference fit was known in the toothbrush art to be suitable for fixedly joining toothbrush components (Meng, pg. 4, first paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the rotating shaft to the inner cylinder through an interference fit as suggested by Meng, in order to ensure a reliable connection between these components for efficiently driving the toothbrush head.
Regarding claim 11, the modified Ruan teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 10. Ruan further teaches the toothbrush head comprises first and second connecting bones (vertical surfaces within groove 53, Fig. 9), and the convex block is connected to the inner cylinder through the first and second connecting bones (Fig. 9). The term “bone” is interpreted in this context as referring to a rigid part.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruan in view of Liu (CN 110575004 A, hereinafter Liu).
Regarding claim 15, Ruan teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Ruan further teaches the toothbrush head (5) comprises a bristle top cover defining bristle holes (see Fig. 10). Ruan does not explicitly teach a bristle bottom cover defining a glue-overflow groove. However, Liu teaches a toothbrush head (Fig. 3) comprising a bristle bottom cover (enclosure 3) defining a glue-overflow groove (121; “liquid glue will flow into the groove 121, and after solidification, it will be integrated with the glue injection located outside the groove 121 to increase the binding force between the glue injection and the inner wall of the installation hole, so that it will not fall off easily,” pg. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ruan to include a bristle bottom cover defining a glue-overflow groove, as taught by Liu, in order to facilitate a secure attachment of the bristles.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huy (U.S. Patent Pub. 2020/0281704, hereinafter Huy) in view of Schaefer (U.S. Patent Pub. 2023/0240823, hereinafter Schaefer).
Regarding claim 19, Huy discloses an electric toothbrush rotating replacement head device (18, Figs. 1-3; ¶ 56) comprising:
a toothbrush head (first or second oscillation head with bristle tufts 44, 48; ¶¶ 53-54);
a toothbrush handle (neck section 24);
an elastic connecting rod (drive rod 54);
a compression spring (spring 68, ¶ 63); and
a spring sleeve (hollow housing 66, ¶ 63);
wherein the toothbrush handle (24) defines a cavity (see Fig. 3), and the toothbrush head is disposed on a top of the cavity (Figs. 1-3);
the spring sleeve (66), the compression spring (68), and the elastic connecting rod (54) are arranged in the cavity of the toothbrush handle (Fig. 3);
the compression spring (68) is sandwiched between the spring sleeve (66) and the elastic connecting rod (“hollow housing 66 … may be arranged so that the drive rod extends through the housing. The housing may be sized and dimensioned to contain a return mechanism arrangement such as, for example, a spring 68,” ¶ 63);
the compression spring (68) is configured to drive the toothbrush head through the elastic connecting rod (54) and a pin (e.g., any one of the fasteners coupling the drive rod 54 to the oscillating heads; ¶¶ 65-67), as this limitation is best understood by the examiner in view of the issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) discussed above; and
a spring limiting disc (at end 64 of drive rod 54; see Fig. 3) disposed on a bottom of the elastic connecting rod (54), the spring sleeve (66) defining a spring installation hole (i.e., the hollow interior of the housing 66 which is “sized and dimensioned to contain … a spring 68,” ¶ 63).
Huy does not explicitly disclose that the circumferential surface of the spring limiting disc fits with the spring installation hole. However, Schaefer teaches an electric toothbrush rotating replacement head device (Fig. 6A; ¶¶ 66-67) comprising a compression spring (250B) installed in a spring installation hole (cylindrical inner section 113B), and a spring limiting disc (plate 210B) having a circumferential surface that fits with the spring installation hole (see Fig. 6A). This arrangement is understood to facilitate biasing the rod (140B) toward a coupling end of the replacement head device (¶¶ 37, 49, 66-67) and permitting linear movement of an elastic connecting rod (140B) to drive oscillating rotation of the toothbrush head (see, e.g., ¶ 37). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Huy by configuring the circumferential surface of the spring limiting disc to fit with the spring installation hole, as taught by Schaefer, in order to facilitate the intended functions of biasing the rod toward a coupling end of the replacement head device and permitting linear movement of the elastic connecting rod to drive oscillating rotation of the toothbrush head.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Laura L. Davison whose telephone number is (571)270-0189. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. 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, Eileen Lillis can be reached at (571)272-6928. 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.
/Laura Davison/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
Conferees:
/SARAH B MCPARTLIN/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
/EILEEN D LILLIS/SPRS, Art Unit 3993
1 315 U.S. 668 (1942).
2 U.S. Patent Pub. 2023/0301423 A1 is the English language equivalent of CN 11455778 A. All citations in the rejections refer to the U.S. patent publication, as the English-language equivalent of the Chinese patent document. The Chinese patent document is prior art under 35 USC 102(a)(1) based on its publication date of May 31, 2022. The U.S. patent publication is prior art under 35 USC 102(a)(2) based on its effectively filed date of March 22, 2022.
Prosecution Insights