DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the first four words of said abstract are unnecessary. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, 11-13, 18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102b as being anticipated by Kwon (US 4,275,433).
Regarding claim 1, Kwon teaches a toothbrush comprising: a handle (3, Fig 1-5); a drive assembly (11, Col 3, Ln 57-68) configured to generate an oscillating motion (Col 3, Ln 57-68 to Col 4, Ln 1-18); a shaft (26 & 37) coupled to the drive assembly defining a lumen (25 to end of 37) and extending from the handle (as shown in Fig 2, the end of shaft extends into brush tip 2); and a brush tip (2), including a brush head (41) and an outlet nozzle (43), releasably connected to the shaft (Col 4, Ln 13-15, 19-20) and defining a conduit (42) in fluid communication with the lumen (as shown in Fig 2), wherein the shaft transfers motion from the drive assembly to the brush head (Col 4, Ln 7-9).
Kwon further teaches in claim 2 wherein a handle flow path is defined through a portion of the drive assembly, and at least in part by the lumen of the shaft (Col 5, Ln 24-28);
in claim 3 wherein the handle flow path is defined along a substantial length of the handle (Col 6, Ln 24-28);
in claim 5 wherein the handle flow path includes a fluid tube (58) fluidically coupled to the shaft at an interior of the handle;
in claim 6 an engagement structure (39) that releasably secures the shaft to the brush tip and comprising a keyed interface (40) between the brush tip and the shaft that transfers the motion of the shaft to the brush head; and
in claim 8 a clip (39) releasably connecting the brush tip to the shaft, the clip defining a detent (40), and wherein a portion of the shaft exterior to the handle defines a recess (38) for releasably coupling with the clip at a distal end of the shaft.
Regarding claim 11, Kwon teaches an oral cleansing device comprising: a handle (3. Fig 1-5); a drive assembly (11, Col 3, Ln 57-62) positioned within the handle (as shown in Fig 2); a shaft (26 & 37) operatively coupled to the drive assembly, the shaft including: a proximal end (near 25) positioned within the handle, a distal end (near 39) positioned external to the handle (as shown in Fig 2, distal end is extending into brush tip 2), and a fluid lumen (25 to 39) extending from the proximal end to the distal end; a brush tip (2) releasably fluidly coupled to the shaft (Col 4, Ln 13-15, 19-20) and comprising: a plurality of bristles (41), a fluid outlet (43), and a fluid channel (42) in fluid communication with the fluid lumen and the water nozzle (as shown in Fig 2); wherein the shaft transfers motion and fluid to the brush tip (Col 5, Ln 39-53; since claim does not require the shaft to transfer motion and fluid to the brush tip at the same time, Kwon’s device meets the claim requirements).
Kwon further teaches in claim 12 wherein the brush tip comprises a brush head (41) including the plurality of bristles (inherent) and a water nozzle (43; the reduced diameter produces the effects of a nozzle) fluidly coupled to the fluid outlet (near 43);
in claim 13 a clip (39) releasably connecting the brush tip to the shaft, the clip defining a detent (40) releasably received at the distal end of the hollow shaft; and
in claim 18 wherein a handle flow path is defined through a portion of the drive assembly and at least in part by the fluid lumen of the shaft (as shown in Fig 2), and the handle flow path extends is fluidically coupled to a reservoir for holding a fluid (Col 4, Ln 60-62; therefore reservoir is inherent).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 4, 9-10, 15 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kwon, in view of Oda et al (US 4,365,376), hereinafter Oda.
Regarding claims 4, 9, Kwon is silent regarding a pump in fluid communication with a fluid reservoir and the handle flow path, and the handle comprising a switch in electrical communication with the drive assembly.
Attention is directed to Oda that teaches in claim 4 a pump (67, Fig 23) in fluid communication with a fluid reservoir (85) and the handle flow path (46, Fig 2); and wherein the pump withdraws fluid from the reservoir to operatively expel fluid through the outlet nozzle (55); and in claim 9 the handle comprising: a switch (29) in electrical communication with the drive assembly, wherein the switch is configured to activate, deactivate, or vary an operational speed of the drive assembly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a reservoir and pump to supply fluid to the toothbrush and a switch to activate the pump, in view of Oda's teaching. Pumps are often associated with reservoirs to transfer fluids from one place to another, and switches are often used to activate pumps.
Claim 10 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the modified device of Kwon, as applied in claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, the modified device of Kwon is silent regarding a control button covering the switch, a faceplate surrounding the control button and including a transparent portion, and a light source positioned within the handle that generates light transmissive through the transparent portion indicative of a status of the toothbrush.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to add a control button covering the switch, a faceplate, a transparent portion, and a light source to indicate status of the toothbrush as a matter or design choice, since it was known in the art that control buttons, faceplates, transparent bodies, or light indicators are old and well known and widely used in all industries. Applicant also has not disclosed that any of those above parts has achieved any unexpected result other than an already known results. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to further modify Kwon to arrive at the claimed invention as specified in claim 10 because such a modification would have been a mere design consideration. (See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A)).
Claim 15 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kwon.
Regarding claim 15, the modified device of Kwon is silent regarding 15 a switch in electrical communication with and to selectively activate or deactivate at least one of the drive assembly or a pump in fluidic communication with the fluid lumen, a control button covering a portion of the switch, and a light source positioned within the handle to generate light transmissive through a transparent portion of the control button indicative of a status of the switch.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to add a switch, a control button covering the switch, a transparent portion, and a light source to indicate status of the toothbrush as a matter or design choice, since it was known in the art that switches, control buttons, transparent bodies, or light indicators are old and well known and widely used in all industries. Applicant also has not disclosed that any of those above parts has achieved any unexpected result other than an already known results. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to further modify Kwon to arrive at the claimed invention as specified in claim 15 because such a modification would have been a mere design consideration. (See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 14, 16-17, 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 4,276,672 to Teague is directed to the state of the art as a relevant teaching of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER C CHIANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5613. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10 AM- 6 PM EST.
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, Paul Durand can be reached at (571) 272-4459. 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.
/JENNIFER C CHIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
