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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. (Even though Claims 2-10 remain withdrawn from consideration, these are addressed with regard to the 35 USC 101 issue in case the claims are attempted to be rejoined later in the prosecution.)
In accordance with MPEP 2106.04, each of Claims 1 and 11-20 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Each of Claims 1 and 11 recites at least one step or instruction for performing a mental process (which is one of the groupings of abstract ideas listed in MPEP 2106.04).
List of abstract ideas in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2):
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I));
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))]]
Accordingly, Claims 1 and 11 recite abstract ideas, in accordance with the guidelines listed in the MPEP.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites a combination of: additional elements (bolded below) and abstract ideas (underlined below):
1. (Previously presented) A computer-implemented method of providing feedback to a user of a shaving device during a plurality of shaving operations, wherein each shaving operation comprises a plurality of movements of the shaving device by the user, the method comprising:
determining values for one or more parameters, the one or more parameters comprising: a shaving frequency value indicating how often the user performs a shaving operation of the plurality of shaving operations using the shaving device; a skin irritation value indicating an amount of skin irritation of skin experienced by the user during and/or following each shaving operation with the shaving device; a shaving closeness value indicating desired shortness of hair from each shaving operation with the shaving device; and a moisture value indicating whether the shaving device is used on wet or dry skin during each shaving operation;
determining a pressure range for the user based on the determined values for the one or more parameters, wherein the pressure range is defined by an upper pressure threshold and a lower pressure threshold;
during each shaving operation using the shaving device, receiving pressure measurements representing an applied pressure with which the shaving device is being pressed onto the skin of the user;
comparing the received pressure measurements to the determined pressure range to determine feedback for the user relating to the applied pressure, wherein the determined feedback comprises first feedback indicating that the applied pressure is correct when the applied pressure is within the determined pressure range, and wherein the determined feedback comprises second feedback indicating that the applied pressure is incorrect when the applied pressure is outside the determined pressure range; and
outputting a feedback control signal to a feedback circuitry associated with the shaving device, wherein the feedback control signal is for controlling the feedback circuitry to provide the determined feedback to the user.
Also, Claim 11 recites a combination of: additional elements (bolded below) and abstract ideas (underlined below):
11. (Previously presented) An apparatus for providing feedback to a user of a shaving device during a plurality of shaving operations, wherein each shaving operation comprises a plurality of movements of the shaving device by the user, the apparatus comprising:
a processor;
a tangible, non-transitory computer readable medium that stores computer executable code, which when executed by the processor, causes the processor to:
determine values for one or more parameters, the one or more parameters comprising: a shaving frequency value indicating how often the user performs a shaving operation of the plurality of shaving operations using the shaving device; a skin irritation value indicating an amount of skin irritation of skin experienced by the user during and/or following each shaving operation with the shaving device; a shaving closeness value indicating desired shortness of hair from each shaving operation with the shaving device; and a moisture value indicating whether the shaving device is used on wet or dry skin during each shaving operation;
determine a pressure range for the user based on the determined values for the one or more parameters, wherein the pressure range is defined by an upper pressure threshold and a lower pressure threshold;
during each shaving operation using the shaving device, receive pressure measurements representing an applied pressure with which the shaving device is being pressed onto the skin of the user;
compare the received pressure measurements to the determined pressure range to determine feedback for the user relating to the applied pressure, wherein the determined feedback comprises first feedback indicating that the applied pressure is correct when the applied pressure is within the determined pressure range, and wherein the determined feedback comprises second feedback indicating that the applied pressure is incorrect when the applied pressure is outside the determined pressure range; and
output a feedback control signal to a feedback circuitry associated with the shaving device, wherein the feedback control signal is for controlling the feedback circuitry to provide the determined feedback to the user.
Each of the above cited abstract ideas of Claim 1 is addressed in greater detail below:
“determining values for one or more parameters, the one or more parameters comprising: a shaving frequency value indicating how often the user performs a shaving operation of the plurality of shaving operations using the shaving device; a skin irritation value indicating an amount of skin irritation of skin experienced by the user during and/or following each shaving operation with the shaving device; a shaving closeness value indicating desired shortness of hair from each shaving operation with the shaving device; and a moisture value indicating whether the shaving device is used on wet or dry skin during each shaving operation”.
This limitation is classified as an observation, judgment and or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
“determining a pressure range for the user based on the determined values for the one or more parameters, wherein the pressure range is defined by an upper pressure threshold and a lower pressure threshold”
This limitation is classified as an observation, judgment and or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
“comparing the received pressure measurements to the determined pressure range to determine feedback for the user relating to the applied pressure, wherein the determined feedback comprises first feedback indicating that the applied pressure is correct when the applied pressure is within the determined pressure range, and wherein the determined feedback comprises second feedback indicating that the applied pressure is incorrect when the applied pressure is outside the determined pressure range”
This limitation is classified as an observation, judgment and or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
Each of the above cited abstract ideas of Claim 11 is addressed in greater detail below:
“determine values for one or more parameters, the one or more parameters comprising: a shaving frequency value indicating how often the user performs a shaving operation of the plurality of shaving operations using the shaving device; a skin irritation value indicating an amount of skin irritation of skin experienced by the user during and/or following each shaving operation with the shaving device; a shaving closeness value indicating desired shortness of hair from each shaving operation with the shaving device; and a moisture value indicating whether the shaving device is used on wet or dry skin during each shaving operation”.
This limitation is classified as an observation, judgment and or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
“determine a pressure range for the user based on the determined values for the one or more parameters, wherein the pressure range is defined by an upper pressure threshold and a lower pressure threshold”.
This limitation is classified as an observation, judgment and or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
“compare the received pressure measurements to the determined pressure range to determine feedback for the user relating to the applied pressure, wherein the determined feedback comprises first feedback indicating that the applied pressure is correct when the applied pressure is within the determined pressure range, and wherein the determined feedback comprises second feedback indicating that the applied pressure is incorrect when the applied pressure is outside the determined pressure range ”.
This limitation is classified as an observation, judgment and or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
Further, dependent Claims 2-10 and 12-20 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the claimed functions/steps are performed.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea as in MPEP 2106.04(a).
Step 2A, Prong 2 per MPEP 2106.04(d)
The above-identified abstract ideas in each of independent Claims 1 and 11 (and their respective dependent Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d) because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 1 and 11 either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use according to MPEP 2106.05(h) or represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g).
More specifically, the additional elements of:
A computer-implemented method of providing feedback to a user of a shaving device during a plurality of shaving operations, wherein each shaving operation comprises a plurality of movements of the shaving device by the user, the method comprising:
during each shaving operation using the shaving device, receiving pressure measurements representing an applied pressure with which the shaving device is being pressed onto the skin of the user
and
outputting a feedback control signal to a feedback circuitry associated with the shaving device, wherein the feedback control signal is for controlling the feedback circuitry to provide the determined feedback to the user.
as recited in independent Claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-10; and
An apparatus for providing feedback to a user of a shaving device during a plurality of shaving operations, wherein each shaving operation comprises a plurality of movements of the shaving device by the user, the apparatus comprising:
a processor;
a tangible, non-transitory computer readable medium that stores computer executable code, which when executed by the processor, causes the processor to:
during each shaving operation using the shaving device, receive pressure measurements representing an applied pressure with which the shaving device is being pressed onto the skin of the user;
and
output a feedback control signal to a feedback circuitry associated with the shaving device, wherein the feedback control signal is for controlling the feedback circuitry to provide the determined feedback to the user.
as recited in independent Claim 11 and its dependent claims 12-20,
are generically recited computer elements which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a).
Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine according to MPEP 2106.05(b), effect a transformation according to MPEP 2106.05(c), provide a particular treatment or prophylaxis according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(f). For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1 and 11 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d).
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d) because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer implemented method as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer according to MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims according to MPEP 2106.05(a). That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1 and 11 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
Accordingly, independent Claims 1 and 11 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B per MPEP 2106.05
None of Claims 1-20 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05 for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of:
A computer-implemented method of providing feedback to a user of a shaving device during a plurality of shaving operations, wherein each shaving operation comprises a plurality of movements of the shaving device by the user, the method comprising:
during each shaving operation using the shaving device, receiving pressure measurements representing an applied pressure with which the shaving device is being pressed onto the skin of the user
and
outputting a feedback control signal to a feedback circuitry associated with the shaving device, wherein the feedback control signal is for controlling the feedback circuitry to provide the determined feedback to the user.
as recited in independent Claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-10; and
An apparatus for providing feedback to a user of a shaving device during a plurality of shaving operations, wherein each shaving operation comprises a plurality of movements of the shaving device by the user, the apparatus comprising:
a processor;
a tangible, non-transitory computer readable medium that stores computer executable code, which when executed by the processor, causes the processor to:
during each shaving operation using the shaving device, receive pressure measurements representing an applied pressure with which the shaving device is being pressed onto the skin of the user;
and
output a feedback control signal to a feedback circuitry associated with the shaving device, wherein the feedback control signal is for controlling the feedback circuitry to provide the determined feedback to the user.
as recited in independent Claim 11 and its dependent claims 12-20.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) along with Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per Applicant’s specification:
“In some embodiments the feedback component is part of the shaving device. According to a second aspect, there is provided a computer program product comprising a computer readable medium. The computer readable medium has computer readable code embodied therein. The computer readable code is configured such that, on execution by a suitable computer or processor, the computer or processor is caused to perform the method according to the first aspect or any embodiment thereof.” (pg. 6)
In some embodiments, the apparatus 6 is in the form of an electronic device, such as a smart phone, a smart watch, a tablet, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a laptop, a desktop computer, a smart mirror, etc., or it can be in the form of a charging station or base station for the shaving device 4.
The processing unit 8 generally controls the operation of the apparatus 6 and may implement one or more of the processing steps provided by the techniques described herein. The processing unit 8 can be implemented in numerous ways, with software and/or hardware, to perform the various functions described below. The processing unit 8 may comprise one or more microprocessors or digital signal processors (DSPs) that may be programmed, using software or computer program code, to perform the required functions and/or to control components of the processing unit 4 to effect the required functions. The processing unit 8 may be implemented as a combination of dedicated hardware to perform some functions (e.g. amplifiers, pre-amplifiers, analog-to-digital convertors (ADCs) and/or digital-to-analog convertors (DACs)) and a processor (e.g., one or more programmed microprocessors, controllers, DSPs and associated circuitry) to perform other functions. Examples of components that may be employed in various embodiments of the present disclosure include, but are not limited to, conventional microprocessors, DSPs, application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), and field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs). The processing unit 8 is connected to memory unit 10 that can store data, information and/or signals for use by the processing unit 8 in controlling the operation of the apparatus and/or in executing or performing the methods described herein. In some implementations the memory unit 10 stores computer-readable code that can be executed by the processing unit 8so that the processing unit 8 performs one or more functions, including
the methods described herein. In particular embodiments, the program code can be in the form of an application for a smart watch, a smart phone, tablet, laptop or computer.
The memory unit 10 can comprise any type of non-transitory machine-readable medium, such as cache or system memory including volatile and non-volatile computer memory such as random access memory (RAM) static RAM (SRAM), dynamic RAM (DRAM), read-only memory (ROM), programmable ROM (PROM), erasable PROM (EPROM) and electrically erasable PROM (EEPROM), implemented in the form of a memory chip, an optical disk (such as a compact disc (CD), a digital versatile disc (DVD) or a Blu-Ray disc), a hard disk, a tape storage solution, or a solid state device, including a memory stick, a solid state drive (SSD), a memory card, etc.
The user interface components 12 include one or more components that enables a user of apparatus 6 to input information, values, data and/or commands into the apparatus 6, for example inputting values of the specific parameter(s) used to determine a
pressure range, and/or enables the apparatus 6 to output information or data to the user of the apparatus 6. The user interface components 12 can comprise any suitable input component(s), including but not limited to a keyboard, keypad, one or mor buttons, switches or dials, a mouse, a track pad, a touchscreen, a stylus, a camera, a microphone, etc., and the user interface components 12 can comprise any suitable output component(s), including but not limited to a display screen, one or more lights or light elements, one or more loudspeakers, one or more haptic feedback components, such as a vibrating element, etc.
Alternatively the feedback component may be in the shaving device 4, as shown by feedback component 28 that is connected to processing unit 18. In either case, the relevant processing unit 8, 18 can output a feedback control signal to the feedback component 26, 28 in order to control the feedback component 26, 28 to provide the required feedback. The feedback can be in any suitable or desired form, including one or more of a visual element, an audible element, a haptic (tactile) element, etc., and the feedback component 26, 28 can be in a form that is able to provide or output those elements. A visual element can comprise the colour of emitted light, letters, numbers, symbols, pictures, etc. and therefore the feedback component 26, 28 can comprise a display element such as a display screen, such as that used on a smart watch, smart phone, tablet, smart mirror or other personal electronic device. Alternatively (or
in addition), the visual element can be provided using one or more lights (e.g. one or more light emitting diodes (LEDs)) having one or more colours (e.g. red, orange, yellow, green, blue etc.). An audible element can comprise a tone or beep, a verbal message, etc., and therefore the feedback component 26, 28 can comprise a loudspeaker for generating the required audio. The haptic element may comprise a vibration of a particular intensity and/or duration, and therefore the feedback component 26, 28 can comprise a component that can generate vibrations, for example a vibration motor. It will be appreciated that the feedback to be provided may comprise multiple types of feedback (e.g. visual and audible), and therefore feedback component 26, 28 can be configured or capable of providing feedback of the appropriate type(s). In a preferred embodiment, the feedback component 28 in the shaving device 4 is a light source that is operable or controllable to emit light of different colours to provide the feedback. (emphasis added) (pages 13-15).
As evident in the above cited sections, Applicant’s specification discusses the computer, processor, and controller/output mechanisms, and these are generically described without structure or detailed drawings, e.g. see Fig’s 1-3 which are simply schematic drawings. Thus, Applicant did not describe the computer, processor, controller, computer device, server, and output elements, well enough to pass a 112a analysis and thus, in describing these elements only generically admits in their own specification that such computer, control and output components are well understood, routine and conventional.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed terms “computer-implemented method of providing feedback to a user of a shaving device”, “shaving device, “feedback circuitry associated with the shaving device”, “feedback control signal” of Claim 1, and “apparatus for providing feedback to a user of a shaving device”, “processor”, “shaving device”, “tangible, non-transitory computer readable medium that stores computer executable code”, “feedback circuitry associated with the shaving device” and “the feedback circuitry” of Claim 11, are reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available technology, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the computer process and apparatus and related hardware. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2) and 2106.07(a)(III)). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications along with MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1 and 11, e.g.:
“providing feedback to a user of a shaving device during a plurality of shaving operations, wherein each shaving operation comprises a plurality of movements of the shaving device by the user, the method comprising:
during each shaving operation using the shaving device, receiving pressure measurements representing an applied pressure with which the shaving device is being pressed onto the skin of the user, and outputting a feedback control signal … wherein the feedback control signal is for controlling the feedback circuitry to provide the determined feedback to the user.
as recited in independent Claim 1; and
“providing feedback to a user of a shaving device during a plurality of shaving operations, wherein each shaving operation comprises a plurality of movements of the shaving device by the user: …
during each shaving operation using the shaving device, receive pressure measurements representing an applied pressure with which the shaving device is being pressed onto the skin of the user;
and
output a feedback control signal … associated with the shaving device, wherein the feedback control signal is for controlling the feedback circuitry to provide the determined feedback to the user
as recited in independent Claim 11
all amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) along with Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(a) along with McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, per MPEP 2106.05(a), the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the apparatuses, systems and methods, e.g. the computer implemented method, the shaving device, the feedback control signal, the feedback circuitry, the apparatus for providing feedback to a user of a shaving device, the processor, the tangible, non-transitory computer readable medium that stores computer executable code, and feedback control signal to a feedback circuitry associated with the shaving device, of Claims 1 and 11 are directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself or providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field according to MPEP 2106.05(a), or (ii) providing meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e).
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 1 and 11 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Moreover, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application as required by MPEP 2106.05.
Therefore, for at least the above reasons, none of the Claims 1-20 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea(s) itself(themselves). Accordingly, Claims 1-20 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 10-28-2025, with respect to previous prior art rejections set forth in the final rejection mailed on 10-28-25 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Thus, the prior art rejections of the claims have been withdrawn. The arguments set forth in the remarks are addressed in detail herein.
The closest prior art of record are USPGPUB 20190299435, Fuellgrabe, USPGPUB 20160256184, and EP 3769921A1, which teach various aspects of a controlled shaving device and computer-implemented method of providing feedback to a user of a shaving device during a plurality of shaving operations having the features as set forth in the claims and noted in the previous Office action mailed on 9/12/2025.
Applicant argues that none of the cited references, alone or in combination, disclose that the shaving device and method of use has the feature of determining values for one or more parameters, the one or more parameters comprising: a shaving frequency value indicating how often the user performs a shaving operation of the plurality of shaving operations using the shaving device; a skin irritation value indicating an amount of skin irritation of skin experienced by the user during and/or following each shaving operation with the shaving device; a shaving closeness value indicating desired shortness of hair from each shaving operation with the shaving device; and a moisture value indicating whether the shaving device is used on wet or dry skin during each shaving operation; determining a pressure range for the user based on the determined values for the one or more parameters, wherein the pressure range is defined by an upper pressure threshold and a lower pressure threshold; during each shaving operation using the shaving device, receiving pressure measurements representing an applied pressure with which the shaving device is being pressed onto the skin of the user; comparing the received pressure measurements to the determined pressure range to determine feedback for the user relating to applied pressure” (required by Claim 1 and 11).
For example, Fuellgrabe discloses: a computer-implemented method of providing feedback to a user of a shaving device during a plurality of shaving operations, wherein each shaving operation comprises a plurality of movements of the shaving device by the user, the method comprising: determining values for one or more parameters, the one or more parameters comprising: (I) a shaving frequency measure indicating how often the user performs a shaving operation of the plurality of shaving operations using the shaving device determining a pressure range for the user based on the determined values for the one or more parameters based on previous usage, wherein the pressure range has an upper pressure threshold and a lower pressure threshold based on the above values; during the shaving operation using the shaving device, receiving pressure measurements representing the pressure with which the shaving device is being applied onto the skin of the user, comparing the received pressure measurements to the determined pressure range to determine feedback for the user relating to the applied pressure, outputting a feedback control signal to a feedback circuitry associated with the shaving device (As noted in the previous action mailed on 9-12-25).
In the remarks/arguments filed 10-28-2025, applicant argues that:
“Fuellgrabe et al. does not teach "a shaving frequency value indicating how often the user performs a shaving operation of the plurality of shaving operations using the shaving device." Para. [0258] provides inter alia ‘The electronic unit 37, which may comprise the control unit 13 and/or the adaptation unit 17, may receive the signals from the pressure sensor 19 and the accelerometer 11. From the accelerometer 11, the electronic unit 37 may determine the frequency and the length of the shaving strokes.’ (Emphasis added). However, frequency of the shaving strokes refers to the frequency of shaving strokes within a single shaving operation, and not the shaving frequency indicating how often the entire shaving operation, i.e., the plurality of movements of the shaving device by the user, is performed, as in claim 1. The preamble of claim 1 clarifies that "each shaving operation comprises a plurality of movements of the shaving device by the user. The movements of the shaving device by the user" as in claim 1 would correspond to the ‘shaving strokes’ taught by Fuellgrabe et al. Thus, the "frequency of the shaving strokes" taught by Feullgrabe et al. would at most be the frequency of "the movements of the shaving device by the user ‘within a single shaving operation’ as defined in claim 1, but would not be a frequency of the ‘shaving operations’ as defined in claim 1, which is the frequency at which the user performs a shaving operation that includes a plurality of movements of the shaving device.
This is consistent with the Specification regarding shaving operations, which provides: ‘The shaving frequency measure indicates how often the user performs a shaving operation using the shaving device 4. Possible values for the shaving frequency measure can include 'every day', 'every 2 days', 'once per week', etc.’ See p. 18, lines 7-9 (emphasis added). The frequency of shaving strokes in one shaving operation as taught by Fuellgrabe et al. does not teach a shaving frequency value indicating how often the user performs a shaving operation as recited in claim 1. Also, the above-mentioned possible values for the shaving frequency mentioned in the Specification are clearly not related to a frequency of shaving strokes as taught by Fuellgrabe et al., where the frequency of shaving strokes would be in the range of a second, part of a second, or a few seconds, for example…as discussed above, frequency of strokes in a single shaving operation does not teach frequency of performing the shaving operation.”
This has been found persuasive. Even though Feullgrabe discloses a "frequency of the shaving strokes" this frequency is most properly interpreted to be the movements of the shaving device by the user within a single shaving operation, but would not be a frequency of the ‘shaving operations’ as claimed in claim 1, which is the frequency at which the user performs a shaving operation that includes a plurality of movements of the shaving device (under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the term based on the specification).
In the previous Action, Shelton et al. was said to provide the feature of a "frequency of usage strokes" of a handheld motorized skin care device which is used to control pressure of said device based on a frequency of usage of the device. However, as persuasively argued by Applicant, the parameter measured in Shelton is the number of times a trigger is actuated, not a frequency value indicating how often a user performs an operation of the device. Also, Shelton clearly does not perform this measurement or control of the device based on measured shaving strokes. As such, Applicant’s arguments that the frequency measure of Shelton is not analogous to the frequency measure as claimed in claims 1 and 11 are persuasive. Thus, the previous rejections have been removed. However, the present action is a non final rejection in order to address the 35 USC 101 rejection now set forth.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FERNANDO A AYALA whose telephone number is (571)270-5336. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Eastern standard.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached on 571-272-4502. 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.
/FERNANDO A AYALA/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights