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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s submission filed on October 17, 2025 has been entered. Claim 1 was amended. Claims 15-16 and 19 are canceled. Claims 1-14, 17-18, and 20 are pending. No objections or 112 rejections were previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on July 17, 2025. Claims 1-14, 17-18, and 20 are examined in this action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 9-10, 13, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 212241140 U by Yu in view of CN 111000625 A by Yang.
Regarding claim 1, Yu discloses a personal care product (see Yu English Machine Translated Document, hereinafter “YEMTD”; Description, para. 32, “hair trimming device, specifically a shaver”) comprising a treatment sheet (Yu, Fig. 3, cutter net 21) having a lower surface (see Examiner annotated Yu Figure 10, hereinafter “EAYF10”; Fig. 3, lower surface); a housing (see Examiner annotated Yu Figure 11, hereinafter “EAYF11”; housing) comprising a floor surface (EAYF11, floor surface) and a plurality of columns (EAYF11, columns); a cavity (EAYF11, cavity) formed by a volume extending from said lower surface to said floor surface (EAYF10, lower surface; EAYF11, floor surface; see Yu Fig. 2 for assembly); one or more tabs (Yu, Fig. 5, water outlet guide member 4) in a frame member (Yu, Fig. 5, opening and closing member 3), the tabs extending around the housing into the cavity (Yu, Fig. 3, water outlet guide member); wherein the personal care product further comprises one or more windows (Yu, Fig. 11, cleaning groove 12) disposed between said plurality of columns (EAYF11, columns), wherein said treatment sheet is proximal to one or more windows (see Yu Figs. 2 & 3, cutter head assembly 2 & cleaning groove 12); and wherein the one or more windows form a portion of an outer surface of the personal care product (see Yu Fig. 2, cleaning groove 12). Yu does not explicitly disclose tabs in a frame member disposed over the treatment sheet.
PNG
media_image1.png
462
348
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
447
431
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Yang, however, does teach one or more tabs (see Examiner annotated Yang Figure 10, hereinafter “EAYF10”; tab) in a frame member (Yang, Fig. 3, mounting cover 11) disposed over the treatment sheet (Yang, Fig. 3, coarse and fine grinding head 2) extending around the housing into the cavity (see Yang Figure 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the frame member of Yu to include tabs that are disposed over the treatment sheet to properly retain the treatment sheet during usage (see Yang English Machine Translated Document, pg. 7, para. 3, “the mounting cover 11 the inner wall is fixedly connected with the lifting ring 6 and the mounting cover 11 relative to the fixed collar… so as to rotate to make the coarse and fine grinding head 2 change by the rotating cylinder 3”).
PNG
media_image3.png
452
505
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Yu discloses said volume (EAYF10, volume) extends from an inner column wall (EAYF10, inner column wall) of said housing.
Regarding claim 3, Yu discloses said plurality of columns (EAYF11, columns) is formed in a side wall (EAYF11, side wall) of said housing.
Regarding claim 9, Yu discloses said plurality of columns (EAYF11, columns) extends upward from said floor surface (EAYF11, floor surface) of said housing.
Regarding claim 10, Yu discloses said plurality of columns (EAYF11, columns) extends to a lower ledge of a carrier (Yu, Fig. 11, positioning bosses 13) of said housing.
Regarding claim 13, Yu discloses said floor surface is flat or shaped (EAYF11, floor surface).
Regarding claim 17, Yu discloses said treatment sheet (Yu, Fig. 3, cutter net 21) is visible from one or more windows (Yu, Fig. 11, cleaning groove 12; YEMTD, Description, para. 16, “The cleaning water enters the installation groove from the knife net”).
Regarding claim 18, Yu discloses said housing is substantially cylindrical (EAYF11, housing).
Regarding claim 20, Yu discloses the personal care product is configured to allow fluid to flow into and out of said one or more windows (YEMTD, Description, para. 16, “when flushing with water, the opening and closing member is in the second position and does not block the cleaning groove. The cleaning water enters the installation groove from the knife net and flows out of the cleaning groove with the hair debris”).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 212241140 U by Yu in view of CN 111000625 A by Yang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of GB 2114491 A by Bryan.
Regarding claim 4, Yu does not explicitly disclose an empty cavity.
However, Bryan does teach said cavity is empty (see Examiner annotated Bryan Figure 2, hereinafter “EABF2”; cavity).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the cavity of Yu have the geometry as taught by Bryan in order to better facilitate rinsing (Bryan, Specification, pg. 1, lines 77-82, “The uppermost cartridge 2 additionally has an imperforate foil member or shield 10 which is clipped in the carrier 3, spaced below the blade 4 and is preferably arched upwardly, as shown, so as to direct debris and rinsing water out through the side apertures 8”).
PNG
media_image4.png
754
506
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Yu does not explicitly teach said cavity comprises a height H2 of at least one-fifteenth of a height H1 of said personal care product.
Bryan, however, teaches side walls that have large aperture for clearance of shaving debris and water (Bryan, Specification, pg. 1, lines 62-69). While Bryan does not explicitly teach that said cavity comprises a height H2 of at least one-fifteenth of a height Hl of said personal care product, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize and arrive at a height H2 at least one-fifteenth of a height Hl, recognizing that the height is directly correlated to how well the product can be rinsed to remove debris , since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 6, Yu does not explicitly teach said cavity comprises a height H2 at least about a height H3 of one of said plurality of columns.
Bryan, however, teaches side walls that have large aperture for clearance of shaving debris and water (Bryan, Specification, pg. 1, lines 62-69). While Bryan does not explicitly teach that said cavity comprises a height H2 at least about a height H3 of one of said plurality of columns, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize and arrive at a height H2 at least about a height H3 of one of said plurality of columns, recognizing that the height is directly correlated to how well the product can be rinsed to remove debris, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Claims 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 212241140 U by Yu in view of CN 111000625 A by Yang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 4964214 A by Oglesby et al..
Regarding claim 7, Yu does not explicitly teach that said treatment sheet is flat.
Oglesby et al., however, teaches that said treatment sheet is flat (see Examiner annotated Oglesby Figure 11, hereinafter "EAOF11", treatment sheet).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify Yu to use a treatment sheet that is flat as taught by Oglesby as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield a predictable result (in this case, Yu’s personal care product having Oglesby's flat treatment sheet).
PNG
media_image5.png
516
563
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Yu does not explicitly teach that said floor surface is parallel relative to a plane C1 defined by said lower surface.
Oglesby et al., however, teaches that said floor surface is parallel relative to a plane C1 defined by said lower surface (EAOF11, floor surface and plane C1 defined by said lower surface).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify Yu to use a floor surface that is parallel to plane C1 as taught by Oglesby as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield a predictable result (in this case, Yu’s personal care product having Oglesby's parallel configuration of the floor surface).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 212241140 U by Yu in view of CN 111000625 A by Yang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20130031794 Al by Duff, JR. et al. (hereinafter “Duff”).
Regarding claim 8, Yu does not explicitly teach that said treatment sheet is brittle.
Duff, however, does teach that said treatment sheet is brittle (Duff, Abstract, lines 1-4).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify Yu to use a brittle material such as a ceramic as taught by Duff in order to increase wear-resistance of the treatment (Duff, para. 25, “BAM (AlMgB14) is a chemical compound… is a ceramic alloy that is generally highly resistive to wear with a low coefficient of friction”).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 212241140 U by Yu in view of CN 111000625 A by Yang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of EP 1306173 A1 by Oldroyd.
Regarding claim 12, Yu does not explicitly disclose that said floor surface is angled relative to a plane Cl defined by said lower surface.
Oldroyd, however, does teach that said floor surface is angled relative to a plane C1 defined by a said lower surface (see Examiner annotated Oldroyd Figure 1, hereinafter "EAOFl", floor surface and plane Cl defined by lower surface).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify Yu to use a floor surface that is angled relative to plane C1 as taught by Oldroyd as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield a predictable result (in this case, Yu’s personal care product having Oldroyd's angled configuration of the floor surface).
PNG
media_image6.png
455
654
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 212241140 U by Yu in view of CN 111000625 A by Yang as described in claim 1 above, and further in view of US 0918126 A by Clark.
Regarding claim 14, Yu does not explicitly teach that said floor surface comprises a dome or a cone shape.
Clark, however, does teach that said shaped floor surface comprises a dome or a cone shape (Clark, Fig. 2, arms 16).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify Yu to have a floor surface that is dome-shaped as taught by Clark as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield a predictable result (in this case, Yu’s flat floor surface having Clark's dome shape).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed on October 17, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under header Rejection Under 35 USC 102(a)(1) (AIA ) Over Yang beginning on page 1 have been considered. Applicant argues that with the newly introduced claim limitation “… one or more tabs in a frame member disposed over the treatment sheet…,” the combination of prior art presented in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on July 17, 2025 does not teach all the claim limitations. However, as necessitated by the claim amendments, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of CN 111000625 A by Yang. Therefore, claim 1 and all its subsequent claims are rejected as detailed in the rejections above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEBORAH LIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5936. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 7:30am-5:00pm, every other Friday 7:30am-5:00pm.
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 at (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.
/DEBORAH LIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724