ZeroBrush Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 2, 20212020003553 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 2, 2021) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/939,909 11/12/2015 Nidhi Pai 118793-5003-US 1078 24341 7590 07/02/2021 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (PA) 1400 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1124 EXAMINER GUIDOTTI, LAURA COLE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3723 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/02/2021 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): padocketingdepartment@morganlewis.com vskliba@morganlewis.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte NIDHI PAI ___________ Appeal 2020-003553 Application 14/939,909 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before BRETT C. MARTIN, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–5, 12, 13, 23, 24, 27–33, 36, 37, 39, and 40. Claims 2, 6–11, 14–22, 25, 26, 34, 35, and 38 have been canceled. An oral hearing was held on December 15, 2020. A transcript of that hearing is included in the record. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as ZEROBRUSH Inc. Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) 4, filed Nov. 19, 2019. Appeal 2020-003553 Application 14/939,909 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter relates to “devices for personal dental cleaning.” Spec. ¶ 2, Fig. 1. Claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, is representative of the claimed subject matter and recites: 1. A toothbrush device, comprising: a cleaner body that is personalized for a particular user based on a dental model of the particular user’s teeth and that defines a cleaning cavity shaped for receiving the particular user’s teeth, wherein the cleaning cavity defined by the cleaner body is enlarged relative to a size of the particular user’s teeth in the dental model; a plurality of cleaning elements, integrally formed with the cleaner body, to contact the particular user’s teeth during application of the toothbrush device, wherein the plurality of cleaning elements is composed of a same material as the cleaner body, the plurality of cleaning elements being configured such that: (i) a spatial arrangement of the plurality of cleaning elements is personalized for the particular user based on the dental model of the particular user’s teeth, (ii) a distribution density of the plurality of cleaning elements is personalized for the particular user based on the dental model of the particular user’s teeth, and (iii) lengths of the plurality of cleaning elements are personalized for the particular user based on the dental model of the particular user’s teeth; and a powered driving mechanism that is mechanically coupled to the cleaner body and that is configured for imparting vibrational movement to the cleaner body during reception of the particular user’s teeth in the cleaning cavity to cause cleaning of the teeth by the plurality of cleaning elements. Appeal 2020-003553 Application 14/939,909 3 REJECTIONS2 I. Claims 1, 3–5, 23, 24, 30–33, 36, 37, 39, and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lowe (US 2014/0272761 A1, published Sept. 18, 2014) and Cole (US 3,874,084, issued Apr. 1, 1975).3 II. Claims 1, 3–5, 12, 23, 24, 31–33, 37, and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Eppel (WO 2008/016342 A1, published Feb. 7, 2008) and Cole. III. Claims 13 and 27–29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Eppel, Cole, and Wolpo (US 2014/0093836 A1, published Apr. 3, 2014). ANALYSIS Obviousness over Lowe and Cole Claims 1, 3–5, 23, 24, 30–33, 36, 37, 39, and 40 Independent claim 1 is directed to a toothbrush device including a cleaner body and cleaning elements having a special arrangement, distribution density, and lengths that are personalized for a particular user based on the dental model of the particular user’s teeth. Appeal Br. 26 (Claims App.). Citing to paragraphs 49, 54, 69, 70, 93, and 117–119 and Figures 6A– 6D of Lowe, the Examiner finds that Lowe discloses the toothbrush device of claim 1 including the claimed spatial arrangement, distribution density, 2 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claim 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d). See Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) 12, dated Feb. 7. 2020; see also Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) 2, dated July 5, 2019. 3 We note that the Examiner presents the rejection of claim 36 separately. See Final Act. 10–11. Appeal 2020-003553 Application 14/939,909 4 and lengths of the plurality of cleaning elements. Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 13 (The Examiner finding that paragraph 93 of Lowe “notes that the bristles can be lengthened in a particular area to accommodate correctors” and that paragraphs 117 and 118 of Lowe “note that the cleaning element spatial arrangement, distribution density and length in Figures 6A-6D are selected for a particular user depending on their cleaning needs”); id. at 15 (The Examiner finding that “Lowe does teach a cleaner body personalized for a particular user, in that the particular user can choose patterns and bristle plate design, and this choice can be based on the optimization and experimentation done on a particular dental model as discussed in paragraph 0119.”).4 Appellant contends that Lowe does not disclose “a plurality of cleaning elements that are configured such that (a) a spatial arrangement, (b) a distribution density, and (c) lengths of the plurality of cleaning elements are personalized for the particular user based on the dental model of the particular user’s teeth,” as claimed. Reply Br. 10; see also Appeal Br. 16– 18.5 We agree with Appellant’s position for the following reasons. First, we agree with Appellant that Lowe “is directed toward an ‘orthodontic remodeling device’ that is used to overcome specific challenges associated with cleaning orthodontia, such as braces and correctors, and tooth surfaces obstructed by orthodontia.” Appeal Br. 16; Reply Br. 13; see also Lowe 4 The Examiner relies on the teachings of Cole for limitations other than those discussed above. Final Act. 6. 5 Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”), filed Apr. 7, 2020. Appeal 2020-003553 Application 14/939,909 5 ¶¶ 20, 67. Paragraph 93 of Lowe discloses that “the shape of the bite plate can be changed to accommodate correctors, and the fingers or bristles lengthened in this area.” Lowe ¶ 93. We agree with Appellant that “this disclosure says nothing about providing a bite plate that is based on a particular user’s dental model, nor does it say anything about the bristles being lengthened to match a particular user’s dental model.” Reply Br. 10; see also id. at 15. As pointed out by Appellant, “finding the optimal bristle patterns in Lowe through trial and error . . . is in no way equivalent to having a cleaner body and cleaning elements with a certain spatial arrangement, distribution density, and lengths that are personalized for a particular user based on the user’s dental model.” Id. at 14; see also Appeal Br. 17. As further pointed out by Appellant, even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the bristle lengthening described in paragraph 93 of Lowe could be based on the user’s dental model, the spatial arrangement and distribution density limitations of claim 1 would still be lacking, not to mention “the fact that Lowe’s system does not relate to the user’s teeth, but instead to the user’s corrective braces.” Reply Br. 14; see also Appeal Br. 17; Lowe ¶ 93. Second, we agree with Appellant the Examiner’s finding that the bristles illustrated in Figures 6A–6D of Lower “are selected for a particular user depending on their cleaning needs” (see Ans. 13 (citing Lowe ¶¶ 117, 118)) is not supported by Lowe, as “[n]owhere in Lowe is there any discussion as to selecting a bristle pattern based on a particular user’s cleaning needs.” Reply Br. 16; see also Lowe ¶¶ 117, 118. Rather, as pointed out by Appellant, paragraphs 117 and 118 of Lowe “describe[] four alternative embodiments that are each tailored in a particular way to cleaning the braces and gums, and sometimes also the user’s teeth” and “[t]here is Appeal 2020-003553 Application 14/939,909 6 simply no disclosure, teaching, or suggestion in Lowe of selecting between these four alternate embodiments depending on a ‘user’s cleaning needs,’ let alone personalizing these embodiments based on a particular user’s dental model.” Reply Br. 16; see also Lowe ¶¶ 117, 118. Third, we agree with Appellant that “Lowe’s only discussion of ‘dental models’” is found in paragraph 119. Appeal Br. 17; see also id. at 16 n.8 (Appellant noting that “none of [paragraphs 49, 54, 69, 70, 93, 117, and 118 of Lowe] discuss a dental model (or a similar structure) in connection with bristles.”). Paragraph 119 of Lowe discloses that “cleaning tests will elaborate on the optimal bristle pattern. Dental models equipped with braces will be coated with a colored polymeric solution to provide a testable coating for teeth cleaning experiments. Various bristle patterns will be made, and attached to an existing bite plate with adhesive[.]” Lowe ¶ 119. We also agree with Appellant that this disclosure in Lowe is merely referring to “an optimal bristle pattern [that] can be obtained for a generic set of teeth having correctors/braces attached thereto, through trial and error testing, and in no way teaches that a dental model of a particular user is used . . . to personalize the bristle pattern for that particular user.” Reply Br. 14; see also id. at 13. In other words, Lowe “employs a ‘best fit’ approach to finding an suitable bristle pattern, as opposed to the personalized, custom- made approach recited in pending claim 1 (i.e., Lowe does not design the cleaning element in a specific form according to a dental model of a particular user’s teeth).” Appeal Br. 17–18; see also Lowe ¶ 119. Consequently, for the above reasons, we further agree with Appellant that “Lowe fails to disclose any device that has been personalized for a particular user, let alone configuring the cleaner body, and spatial arrangement, Appeal 2020-003553 Application 14/939,909 7 distribution density, and lengths of the cleaning elements, based on the particular user’s dental model.” Reply Br. 14. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3–5, 23, 24, 30–33, 36, 37, 39, and 40 as unpatentable over Lowe and Cole. Obviousness over Eppel and Cole Claims 1, 3–5, 12, 23, 24, 31–33, 37, and 40 Citing to Figures 1–4 of Eppel, the Examiner finds that Eppel discloses the toothbrush device of claim 1 including the claimed spatial arrangement, distribution density, and lengths of the plurality of cleaning elements. Final Act. 6–7; see also Ans. 16–17.6 In particular, the Examiner finds that the user in Eppel “is able to select a spatial arrangement of elements from replaceable bodies the specific cleaner body based on their teeth or a model of their teeth, single full arch embodiment of Figures 1-2 or dual-full arch embodiment of Figures 3-4” and “is able to select from the distribution density of the specific cleaner body based on their teeth or a model of their teeth, single full arch embodiment of Figures 1-2 or dual-full arch embodiment of Figures 3-4.” Final Act. 7. In this case, we agree with Appellant that “such user actions are not supported by Eppel,” in that “Eppel is silent with regards to using a dental model to design and personalize cleaning elements, let alone using a dental model of a particular user’s teeth.” Appeal Br. 22–23; see also Reply Br. 22; Eppel, passim, Figs. 1–4. We also agree with Appellant that “[a]t best, 6 The Examiner relies on the teachings of Cole for limitations other than those discussed above. Final Act. 9. Appeal 2020-003553 Application 14/939,909 8 Eppel discusses four separate toothbrush designs, each of which has a different bristle pattern” and that “[n]othing in Eppel suggests, however, that the different bristle patterns shown in Figures 1-4 were designed and personalized for a particular user. Rather, the different bristle patterns in Eppel appear to be best guesses for cleaning teeth surfaces with no connection to a particular user.” Appeal Br. 22; see also id. at 23 (Appellant points out that “the mere selection of a pre-made toothbrush is not equivalent to a toothbrush having cleaning elements with structural characteristics (e.g., spatial arrangement, distribution density, etc.) that are configured according to a dental model of a particular user’s teeth.”); Reply Br. 22; Eppel, passim, Figs. 1–4. Accordingly, for the above reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3–5, 12, 23, 24, 31–33, 37, and 40 as unpatentable over Eppel and Cole. Obviousness over Eppel, Cole, and Wolpo Claims 13 and 27–29 The Examiner relies on the same unsupported findings in Eppel as those discussed above for claim 1. See Final Act. 9–10. The Examiner does not rely on the teachings of Wolpo to remedy the deficiencies of Eppel and Cole addressed above. Accordingly, for reasons similar to those discussed above for claim 1, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13 and 27–29 as unpatentable over Eppel, Cole, and Wolpo. Appeal 2020-003553 Application 14/939,909 9 CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3–5, 23, 24, 30–33, 36, 37, 39, 40 103 Lowe, Cole 1, 3–5, 23, 24, 30–33, 36, 37, 39, 40 1, 3–5, 12, 23, 24, 31– 33, 37, 40 103 Eppel, Cole 1, 3–5, 12, 23, 24, 31– 33, 37, 40 13, 27–29 103 Eppel, Cole, Wolpo 13, 27–29 Overall Outcome 1, 3–5, 12, 13, 23, 24, 27–33, 36, 37, 39, 40 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation