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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 8, 2026 has been entered.
This Office action is responsive to an amendment filed June 8, 2026. Claims 16-30 are pending. Claims 1-15 have been canceled. No claim has been amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 16 & 19-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsegenidis et al. (WO 2019/001894) in view of Rothschild (US 2014/0137883) further in view of Van Hal et al. (EP 1 895 929) (“Van Hal” hereinafter).
In regards to claim 16, Tsegenidis discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
obtaining an indication comprising:
a skin parameter of a user, wherein the indication of the skin parameter comprises an indication of skin irritation (i.e., as measured by the temperature sensor) determined by a measurement of temperature data (see at least par 033 & 039 & 042),
PNG
media_image1.png
595
565
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and,
an interaction (i.e., sufficiency or adequacy of shaving) between skin of the user and a hair removal unit 100 (see at least par 030, 041-042, 047 & 051-052);
determining a position (see at least par 041) and/or orientation (see at least par 032, 036 & 038) of the hair removal unit 100 relative to the user's skin (see at least par 038, 041, 045-046 & 050);
determining a hair removal instruction (i.e., guidance, feedback and/or suggestions to a user regarding shaving habits, and/or to help guide a user’s shave) for the user based on the indication and the position (see at least par 041) and/or orientation (see at least par 032, 036 & 038), wherein the hair removal instruction comprises a corrective cue indicating at least one of an increase or decrease of applied pressure, an increase or decrease in motion direction, a motion pattern, or an increase or decrease in motion speed (see at least par 030, 052-056 & 0080); and
causing a user interface (i.e., for providing auditory, tactile and/or visual feedback, see par 052-054) to provide the hair removal instruction (i.e., feedback and/or suggestions to a user regarding shaving habits, and/or to help guide a user’s shave) for the user (see at last par 030 & 055-057).
Tsegenidis discloses a method, as described above, that fails to explicitly teach a method wherein the indication of the skin parameter comprises an indication of skin irritation determined by a measurement of imaging data.
However, Rothschild teaches that it is known to provide a method wherein the indication of the skin parameter comprises an indication of skin irritation determined by a measurement of imaging data (see at least par 0012, 0021, 0033 & 0041).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the method of Tsegenidis wherein the indication of the skin parameter comprises an indication of skin irritation determined by a measurement of imaging data as taught by Rothschild since such a modification would amount to a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., an indication of skin irritation determined by a measurement of temperature data as taught by Tsegenidis) for another (i.e., an indication of skin irritation determined by a measurement of imaging data as taught by Rothschild) to obtain predictable results such as identifying areas of the skin that are sensitive to shaving such as areas that show signs of skin disease or other skin condition (see at least par 0012 of Rothschild)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
Tsegenidis as modified by Rothschild discloses a method, as described above, that fails to explicitly teach a method wherein determining, using a series of images captured by a camera of user equipment, and using a facial recognition algorithm in combination with a tracking algorithm to track the hair removal unit and/or a hand of the user within the series of images.
However, Van Hal teaches that it is known to provide a method wherein determining, using a series of images captured by a camera 29 of user equipment, and using a facial recognition algorithm 31 in combination with a tracking algorithm to track the hair removal unit within the series of images (see at least fig. 1 and par 0021-0023 & 0048).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the method of Tsegenidis as modified by Rothschild wherein determining, using a series of images captured by a camera of user equipment, and using a facial recognition algorithm in combination with a tracking algorithm to track the hair removal unit within the series of image as taught by Van Hal since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., as taught by Van Hal) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Tsegenidis) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as allowing easier automation of the device (see at least par 0023 of Van Hal)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 19, Tsegenidis discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the interaction (i.e., sufficiency or adequacy of shaving) between the user's skin and the hair removal unit 100 is pressure applied between the hair removal unit 100 and the user's skin (see at least par 031-032, 042 & 056).
In regards to claim 20, Tsegenidis discloses the method of claim 16, further comprising causing an imaging device to acquire the imaging data prior to a user hair removal session, to determine pre-hair removal skin parameter data (see at least par 044, 048-051 & 059-060).
In regards to claim 21, Tsegenidis discloses the method of claim 20, further comprising:
causing the imaging device to acquire the imaging data during and/or after the user hair removal session, to determine present and/or post-hair removal skin parameter data (see at least par 044 & 048-049);
generating the skin parameter data based on the imaging data (see at least par 044-045 & 048-049); and
determining a skin parameter map for the user based on a comparison between the pre-hair removal skin parameter data and the present and/or post-hair removal skin parameter data (see at least par 032, 044 & 046-048).
In regards to claim 22, Tsegenidis discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the skin parameter comprises a visible skin irritation indicator and is based on whether or not the comparison identifies any change in the visible skin irritation indicator between the pre-hair removal skin parameter data and the present and/or post-hair removal skin parameter data (see at least par 003, 033, 039, 042, 052-053, 055, 078 & 080).
In regards to claim 23, Tsegenidis discloses the method of claim 16, wherein determining the hair removal instruction (i.e., feedback and/or suggestions to a user regarding shaving habits, and/or to help guide a user’s shave) comprises:
accessing an optimal hair removal map of the user's skin, wherein a spatial location of the optimal hair removal map is associated with an optimal hair removal technique that is determined based on at least one of:
pre-hair removal skin parameter data;
historical data for the user; and
predetermined knowledge regarding hair removal; and
determining the hair removal instruction (i.e., feedback and/or suggestions to a user regarding shaving habits, and/or to help guide a user’s shave) for the spatial location based on the optimal hair removal map (see at least par 032 & 044-052).
In regards to claim 24, Tsegenidis discloses the method of claim 16, further comprising at least one of:
determining, in real-time, the position of the hair removal unit 100 relative to the user's skin (see at least par 032, 036-037 & 041);
determining, in real-time, the interaction (i.e., sufficiency or adequacy of shaving) between the user's skin and the hair removal unit 100 (see at least par 030, 041-042, 047 & 051-052);
determining, in real-time, the skin parameter (i.e., skin irritation) (see at least par 003, 033 & 039); and
determining a real-time hair removal instruction (i.e., feedback and/or suggestions to a user regarding shaving habits, and/or to help guide a user’s shave) for the user based on at least one of:
the position (see at least par 032, 038 & 041);
the interaction (i.e., sufficiency or adequacy of shaving);
the skin parameter (i.e., skin irritation) (see at least par 003, 033 & 039);
historical hair removal performance data for the user (see at least par 043, 058 & 0126); and
pre-determined hair removal performance data (see at least par 032 & 044-052).
In regards to claim 25, Tsegenidis discloses the method of claim 24, further comprising causing the user interface to provide, in real-time, the hair removal instruction (i.e., feedback and/or suggestions to a user regarding shaving habits, and/or to help guide a user’s shave) for the user (see at last par 030 & 055-057).
In regards to claim 26, Tsegenidis discloses the method of claim 24, wherein the historical hair removal performance data for the user comprises at least one of:
user skin type (i.e., normal, dry, or sensitive);
user skin condition (see at least par 003, 033, 039, 042, 055, 058, 078 & 080);
pressure applied between the hair removal unit 100 and the user's skin (see at least par 031-032, 042 & 056);
user hair removal behavior (see at least par 098);
hair removal results;
hair removal unit motion and hair removal unit operational performance, as determined from at least one previous user hair removal session (see at least par 045 & 0124), and wherein the pre-determined hair removal performance data comprises knowledge acquired from other users and/or clinical data regarding at least one of:
skin type (i.e., normal, dry, or sensitive);
skin condition (see at least par 003, 033, 039, 042, 055, 058, 078 & 080);
pressure applied between the hair removal unit 100 and the other user's skin (see at least par 031-032, 042 & 056);
hair removal behavior (see at least par 098);
hair removal results;
hair removal unit motion and hair removal unit operational performance, from which a recommended hair removal instruction (i.e., feedback and/or suggestions to a user regarding shaving habits, and/or to help guide a user’s shave) for the user can be determined in order to provide improved hair removal experience as compared to a previous user hair removal session (see at least par 043, 058, 078 & 0125-0126).
In regards to claim 27, Tsegenidis discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the hair removal instruction (i.e., feedback and/or suggestions to a user regarding shaving habits, and/or to help guide a user’s shave) is configured to provide a personalized recommendation for the user regarding at least one of:
pressure to apply between the hair removal unit 100 and the user's skin (see at least par 031-032, 042 & 056);
hair removal unit positioning relative to the user's skin (see at least par 032, 038 & 041); and
hair removal unit motion (i.e., speed and/or length of shave stroke) (see at least par 031-032, 036, 041, 056, 065 & 076),
Wherein the method further comprises causing the user interface to provide the hair removal instruction (i.e., feedback and/or suggestions to a user regarding shaving habits, and/or to help guide a user’s shave) for the user based on whether or not the user has deviated from a previously-recommended hair removal instruction (i.e., feedback and/or suggestions to a user regarding shaving habits, and/or to help guide a user’s shave) (see at least par 043, 058, 078 & 0125-0126).
In regards to claim 28, Tsegenidis discloses the method of claim 16,
wherein determining the position of the hair removal unit 100 relative to the user's skin comprises acquiring at least one of:
imaging data of the user's skin and the hair removal unit 100 (see at least par 044-045, 048-051 & 059, 062, 074 & 0106); and
motion data from a sensor on-board the hair removal unit 100 (see at least par 006, 032 & 036-037), and
wherein the position of the hair removal unit 100 relative to the user's skin comprises at least one of:
a position of a hair removal device 100 of the hair removal unit 100 on the user's skin (see at least par 032, 038, 041, 046 & 050); and
an orientation of the hair removal device relative to the user's skin (see at least par 031-032, 036, 038 & 041).
In regards to claim 29, Tsegenidis discloses an apparatus comprising processing circuitry, the processing circuitry comprising:
an obtaining module configured to obtain an indication comprising:
a skin parameter of a user, wherein the indication of the skin parameter comprises an indication of skin irritation determined by a measurement of temperature data (i.e., as measured by the temperature sensor) (see at least par 033 & 039 & 042);
PNG
media_image1.png
595
565
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and
an interaction (i.e., sufficiency or adequacy of shaving) between skin of the user and a hair removal unit 100 (see at least par 030, 041-042, 047 & 051-052);
a determining module configured to:
determine a position (see at least par 041) and/or orientation (see at least par 032, 036 & 038) of the hair removal unit 100 relative to the user's skin (see at least par 038, 041, 045-046 & 050);
a hair removal instruction (i.e., feedback and/or suggestions to a user regarding shaving habits, and/or to help guide a user’s shave) for the user based on the indication and the position and/or orientation (see at least par 032, 036 & 038), wherein the hair removal instruction comprises a corrective cue indicating at least one of an increase or decrease of applied pressure, an increase or decrease in motion direction, a motion pattern, or an increase or decrease in motion speed (see at least par 030, 052-056 & 0080); and
a user instruction module (i.e., for providing auditory, tactile and/or visual feedback, see par 052-054) configured to cause a user interface to provide the hair removal instruction (i.e., feedback and/or suggestions to a user regarding shaving habits, and/or to help guide a user’s shave) for the user (see at last par 030 & 055-057).
Tsegenidis discloses an apparatus, as described above, that fails to explicitly teach an apparatus wherein the indication of the skin parameter comprises an indication of skin irritation determined by a measurement of imaging data.
However, Rothschild teaches that it is known to provide a method wherein the indication of the skin parameter comprises an indication of skin irritation determined by a measurement of imaging data (see at least par 0012, 0021, 0033 & 0041).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the apparatus of Tsegenidis wherein the indication of the skin parameter comprises an indication of skin irritation determined by a measurement of imaging data as taught by Rothschild since such a modification would amount to a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., an indication of skin irritation determined by a measurement of temperature data as taught by Tsegenidis) for another (i.e., an indication of skin irritation determined by a measurement of imaging data as taught by Rothschild) to obtain predictable results such as identifying areas of the skin that are sensitive to shaving such as areas that show signs of skin disease or other skin condition (see at least par 0012 of Rothschild)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
Tsegenidis as modified by Rothschild discloses an apparatus, as described above, that fails to explicitly teach an apparatus wherein determining, using a series of images captured by a camera of user equipment, and using a facial recognition algorithm in combination with a tracking algorithm to track the hair removal unit and/or a hand of the user within the series of images.
However, Van Hal teaches that it is known to provide an apparatus wherein determining, using a series of images captured by a camera 29 of user equipment, and using a facial recognition algorithm 31 in combination with a tracking algorithm to track the hair removal unit within the series of images (see at least fig. 1 and par 0021-0023 & 0048).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the apparatus of Tsegenidis as modified by Rothschild wherein determining, using a series of images captured by a camera of user equipment, and using a facial recognition algorithm in combination with a tracking algorithm to track the hair removal unit within the series of image as taught by Van Hal since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., as taught by Van Hal) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Tsegenidis) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as allowing easier automation of the device (see at least par 0023 of Van Hal)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 30, Tsegenidis discloses a tangible machine-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:
obtain an indication comprising:
a skin parameter of a user, wherein the indication of the skin parameter comprises an indication of skin irritation determined by a measurement of temperature and
an interaction (i.e., sufficiency or adequacy of shaving) between skin of the user and a hair removal unit 100 (see at least par 030, 041-042, 047 & 051-052);
determine a position (see at least par 041) and/or orientation (see at least par 032, 036 & 038) of the hair removal unit 100 relative to the user's skin (see at least par 038, 041, 045-046 & 050);
determine a hair removal instruction (i.e., feedback and/or suggestions to a user regarding shaving habits, and/or to help guide a user’s shave) for the user based on the indication and the position and/or orientation (see at least par 032, 036 & 038), wherein the hair removal instruction comprises a corrective cue indicating at least one of an increase or decrease of applied pressure, an increase or decrease in motion direction, a motion pattern, or an increase or decrease in motion speed (see at least par 030, 052-056 & 0080); and
data (i.e., as measured by the temperature sensor) (see at least par 033 & 039 & 042);
PNG
media_image1.png
595
565
media_image1.png
Greyscale
cause a user interface to provide the hair removal instruction (i.e., feedback and/or suggestions to a user regarding shaving habits, and/or to help guide a user’s shave) for the user (see at last par 030 & 055-057).
Tsegenidis discloses a tangible machine-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by at least one processor, fails to explicitly teach cause the processor to carry a step wherein the indication of the skin parameter comprises an indication of skin irritation determined by a measurement of imaging data.
However, Rothschild teaches that it is known to provide a method wherein the indication of the skin parameter comprises an indication of skin irritation determined by a measurement of imaging data (see at least par 0012, 0021, 0033 & 0041).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the tangible machine-readable medium of Tsegenidis storing instructions which, when executed by at least one processor causes the at least one processor to carry out a step wherein the indication of the skin parameter comprises an indication of skin irritation determined by a measurement of imaging data as taught by Rothschild since such a modification would amount to a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., an indication of skin irritation determined by a measurement of temperature data as taught by Tsegenidis) for another (i.e., an indication of skin irritation determined by a measurement of imaging data as taught by Rothschild) to obtain predictable results such as identifying areas of the skin that are sensitive to shaving such as areas that show signs of skin disease or other skin condition (see at least par 0012 of Rothschild)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
Tsegenidis as modified by Rothschild discloses a tangible machine-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by at least one processor, fails to explicitly teach cause the processor to carry a step wherein determining, using a series of images captured by a camera of user equipment, and using a facial recognition algorithm in combination with a tracking algorithm to track the hair removal unit and/or a hand of the user within the series of images.
However, Van Hal teaches that it is known to provide an apparatus wherein determining, using a series of images captured by a camera 29 of user equipment, and using a facial recognition algorithm 31 in combination with a tracking algorithm to track the hair removal unit within the series of images (see at least fig. 1 and par 0021-0023 & 0048).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the tangible machine-readable medium of Tsegenidis as modified by Rothchild storing instructions which, when executed by at least one processor causes the at least one processor to carry out a step wherein determining, using a series of images captured by a camera of user equipment, and using a facial recognition algorithm in combination with a tracking algorithm to track the hair removal unit within the series of image as taught by Van Hal since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., as taught by Van Hal) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Tsegenidis) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as allowing easier automation of the device (see at least par 0023 of Van Hal)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsegenidis et al. (WO 2019/001894) in view of Rothschild (US 2014/0137883), Van Hal et al. (EP 1 895 929) (“Van Hal” hereinafter) further in view of Rubinstenn et al. (US 2003/0063801) (“Rubinstenn” hereinafter).
In regards to claim 17, Tsegenidis as modified by Rothschild and Van Hal discloses the method of claim 16, that fails to explicitly teach a method wherein the skin parameter comprises a user skin condition determined, using a machine-learning model trained to identify and/or classify skin parameters, from the imaging data of the user's skin. However, Rubinstenn teaches that it is known to provide a method wherein the skin parameter comprises a user skin condition determined (see at least par 0006, 0034 & 0037), using a machine-learning model (i.e., image recognition or artificial intelligence such as fuzzy logic, neural networks, genetic programming and decision tree programming, see at least fig. 7 and par 0037, 0041, 0075 & 0090-0093) trained to identify and/or classify skin parameters, from the imaging data of the user's skin (see at least fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the method of Tsegenidis as modified by Rothschild and Van Hal wherein the skin parameter comprises a user skin condition determined, using a machine-learning model trained to identify and/or classify skin parameters, from the imaging data of the user's skin as taught by Rubinstenn since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., as taught by Rubinsteen) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Tsegenidis) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as training a neural network to identify features in an image so as to determine or more skin conditions through an image processing techniques (see at least par 0037 of Rubinstenn)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 18, Tsegenidis as modified by Rothschild and Van Hal discloses the method of claim 17, that fails to explicitly teach a method wherein the indication further comprises a hair parameter of the user, wherein the hair parameter comprises a user hair condition determined, using the machine-learning model, from the imaging data of the user's skin. However, Rubinstenn teaches that it is known to provide a method wherein the indication further comprises a hair parameter of the user, wherein the hair parameter comprises a user hair condition determined (see at least par 0002, 0006, 0010, 0034, 0037 & 0078), using the machine-learning model (i.e., image recognition or artificial intelligence such as fuzzy logic, neural networks, genetic programming and decision tree programming, see at least fig. 7 and par 0037, 0041, 0075 & 0090-0093), from the imaging data of the user's skin (see at least fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the method of Tsegenidis as modified by Rothschild and Van Hal wherein the indication further comprises a hair parameter of the user, wherein the hair parameter comprises a user hair condition determined, using the machine-learning model, from the imaging data of the user's skin as taught by Rubinstenn since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., as taught by Rubinsteen) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Tsegenidis) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as training a neural network to identify features in an image so as to determine or more skin conditions through an image processing techniques (see at least par 0037 of Rubinstenn)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 16-30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RENE T TOWA whose telephone number is (313)446-6655. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Jason M. Sims can be reached at 571-272-7540. 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.
/RENE T TOWA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights