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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/03/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-16 are pending, claim 16 is new, claims 4-10, 12-13 are withdrawn, and claims 1, 3 and 11 are currently amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 3, 11, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Fuerst et al. (U.S. Publication 2019/0299434), herein referred to as Fuerst in view of Sato et al. (U.S. Publication 2009/0307909), herein referred to as Sato and Murgida et al. (U.S. Publication (2013/0081290), herein referred to as Murgida.
In regards to claim 1, Fuerst discloses a personal care device comprising an elongated handle (3) for manually moving the personal care device along a body surface;
a working head (2) attached to said handle (3) for effecting a personal care treatment to said body surface (e.g. shaving), said working head (2) being movably supported relative to said handle (3) and/or including a working head element (5) being movably supported relative to a working head base (12) to allows adaption of the working head and/or of the working head element to the body surface contour;
an adjustment device (adjustment actuators AA) is provided for adjusting a movability characteristic of a suspension of said working head and/or of said working head element (see paragraphs [0012,0014, 0016, 0032]);
a detector (e.g. accelerometer/ hall sensors 104) configured to detect a moving speed of the working head and/or the working head element relative to the handle and to send a speed signal to a controller (electronic control unit 80);
(Mounted on the PCB may be an accelerometer to detect acceleration of preferably all three axes or at least one or more axes of the device.
[0069] The electronic control unit 80 receives the signals of the hall sensors 104 and the accelerometer. A mathematic function translates the signals into pressure and movement data. E.g. the consumer starts to apply higher shaving pressure than typical the cutting elements 4 are moving deeper into the shaving head 3. Or the movements are faster and shorter. The electronic control unit 80 receives these signals from the hall sensors 104 and the accelerometer and translates it to pressure and movement values. These values are compared with a given matrix of values in real time within the control unit 80 and evaluated to generate the assigned signal for the actuator AA.; paragraphs [0068-0069].)
Wherein the controller (electronic control unit 80) is communicatively coupled with the detector (104) and the adjustment device (AA),
Said adjustment device (AA) includes at least one adjustment actuator (Such adjustment device may include one or more adjustment actuators AA such as electric motors or electric actors or actors of other types using other forms of energy such as magnetic actors” paragraph [0065] ) configured to adjust a moving resistance of the working head and/or of the working head element (“An adjustment device may change the pivoting stiffness of the shaver head 2” paragraph [0065])
and is controlled by the controller (80) in response to the speed signal from the detector (paragraphs [0068-0069])
said adjustment actuator (AA) is configured to provide for a moving resistance of substantially zero resistance (“non-resistance” paragraph [0014]) when the moving speed is zero;
(“This may also include a zero stiffness or maximum swivel or movability of the working head which may be achieved by e.g. inactivating the biasing device. Said biasing device or pivot resistance controller may e.g. also include a brake or damper or other device that causes a resistance to rotation/pivoting/movement of the working tool and/or working head.” Paragraph [0016]);
And said at least one adjustment actuator (AA) is configured to define a functional relationship between the moving resistance and the moving speed which is non-linear over a range of moving speeds such that a change of the moving resistance with respect to a change of the moving speed in a positive direction or a negative direction increases as the moving speed increases in the positive direction or the negative direction.
(“More particularly, a control algorithm of the control unit 80 may set the control output signals to control the adjustment actuators AA in accordance with a calculation rule and/or on the basis of a curve and/or a map implemented in said electronic control unit 80, for example in a memory device to which a micro-controller has access” (paragraph [0065]).
(“The electronic control unit 80 receives the signals of the hall sensors 104 and the accelerometer. A mathematic function translates the signals into pressure and movement data. E.g. the consumer starts to apply higher shaving pressure than typical the cutting elements 4 are moving deeper into the shaving head 3. Or the movements are faster and shorter. The electronic control unit 80 receives these signals from the hall sensors 104 and the accelerometer and translates it to pressure and movement values. These values are compared with a given matrix of values in real time within the control unit 80 and evaluated to generate the assigned signal for the actuator AA.” Paragraph [0069]).
“Claim 4…wherein the control unit is configured to actuate the adjustment actuator such that pivoting stiffness of at least part of the working head is increased when the detector's signal indicates increasing skin contact pressure and pivoting stiffness is decreased when the detector's signal indicates decreasing skin contact pressure.”
To the extent that it can be argued that Fuesrt does not explicitly state the highlighted recitations in which “a change of the moving resistance with respect to a change of the moving speed in a positive direction or a negative direction increases as the moving speed increases in the positive direction or the negative direction”, it is noted that Fuerst discloses that the pivoting stiffness can be controlled on the basis of a curve such that signals of faster/shorter movement of the cutting head are translated into increased pressure, thereby increased stiffness of the working head. It is also understood that the limitation “curve” to define the algorithm demonstrates a non-linear relationship between the moving resistance and the moving speed. As Claim 4 sets forth that increased contact pressure causes increases pivoting stiffness and decreased contact pressure decreases the pivoting stiffness, it would imply that the limitation “curve” would impart an increased rate. However, to the extent that the Fuerst does not positively set forth the increased rate, attention is further directed to both the Sato and Murgida references that are not being cited in combination but rather to set forth the state of the art at the time of the invention. Sato discloses an electric shaver with an inner and outer foil blade. Figures 6 and 7 of Sato set forth various relations between the cutting resistance of a beard and the radius of curvature of the cutting edge and the angle of cut face respectively. Figure 6 demonstrated an increased rate of cutting resistance as the radius of curvature of the cutting edge was increased and Figure 7 demonstrated a decreased rate of cutting resistance with a decrease in the angle theta of cut face of the beard. In both instances, the relationships were non-linear with an increased or decreased rate of change by varying the different cutting variables.
Alternatively, Murgida sets forth a razor that is rotatable about several axis. Murgida also sets forth a relationship between dependence of the moment of resistance on the angle of rotation of the handle (fig. 21). Murdiga discloses that:
“In one embodiment, the torque results in a desired and useful dynamic motion of the pod relative to the handle in response to the shape of the shaver's face and the motion of the shaving stroke. This torque response dictates the dynamic behavior of the pod such as the speed and amount the deflection of the pod from its initial position in response to changes in facial contour or handle position.
Without intending to be bound by theory, it is believed that this torque response can be impacted by multiple factors, including but not limited to the stiffness of the cantilever tail, the damping/frictional effects on the pod's rotation, the distribution of mass in the pod and cartridge (inertia), and the shortest distance from the axis of rotation of the pod to the pivot axis of the cartridge or, for a fixed pivot cartridge, the point of resultant equivalent torque-force system at the center of mass of the cartridge. It is believed that this dynamic response may be described by differential equations that are slightly non-linear and that have coefficients of the differential equations that depend on relative angular position and rotational speed between the pod and the grip portions of the handle and on environmental conditions such as shaving speed, axle load, or temperature.
Although the actual differential equations are non-linear and have varying coefficients, various aspects of the dynamic response related to shaving can be understood using a simplified equation showed in Equation A that has linear differential equations with constant coefficients for stiffness, damping, and inertia” (paragraphs [0077-0079].)
Thereby Murdiga also sets forth an increased rate of change in static stiffness as the amount of torque imparted to the shaving head increases. Although Murdiga sets forth that the relationship could be modeled by a linear equation, the different equation that best models the relationship is non-linear. It is therefore understood between the teachings of Sato and Murdiga that both linear, non-linear/exponential relationships between stiffness or moving resistance and cutting speed would be appreciated by one having ordinary skill in the art and that it would be appreciated that the description of “curve” to describe the output signal with which a control algorithm of the control unit 80 in used to control the adjustment actuator of Fuerst would impart a non-linear increased rate relationship such as modeled by the graphs of Sato or Murdiga; especially as claim 4 of Fuerst details that the “pivoting stiffness of at least part of the working head is increased when the detector's signal indicates increasing skin contact pressure and pivoting stiffness is decreased when the detector's signal indicates decreasing skin contact pressure”. Moreover, as both linear and exponential equations to describe the relationship between moving resistance and moving speed are known in the art it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the output of the Fuerst actuator to have provided for a non-linear, exponential relationship wherein the rate of change varies with the increase or decrease in moving speed, to better control the movement of the razor at the practical ends of the moving resistance.
In regards to claim 3, Fuerst discloses wherein said adjustment actuator (AA) is configured to provide for an amount of a moving resistance larger than zero resistance when the working head and/or the working head element is moving.
(“The adjustment actuator may change the setting of one of said biasing elements or of both biasing elements so as to adjust biasing forces and biasing torque and/or resisting force/torque onto the working head frame relative to the handle and onto the working tool relative to said working frame so as to increase and decrease pivoting stiffness of the working head frame and floating stiffness of the working tool, thereby adjusting pivoting stiffness of the skin contact contour.” Paragraph [0043])
In regards to claim 11, the modified device of Fuerst discloses wherein the detector comprises a speed detector (accelerometer; paragraph [0068]) , said adjustment actuator (AA) is controlled by a controller (control unit 80) in response to a speed signal of the speed detector for detecting moving speed of contour adaption movements of said working head and/or said working head element (see paragraphs [0068-0069]).
In regards to claim 14, the modified device of Fuerst discloses wherein the adjustment device (AA) (comprises a friction device, a breaking device and/or a dampening device
(“ Said biasing device or pivot resistance controller may e.g. also include a brake or damper or other device that causes a resistance to rotation/pivoting/movement of the working tool and/or working head.” Paragraph [0016,0019,0037].
In regards to claim 15, the modified device of Fuerst discloses wherein the adjustment device comprises a braking device (“brake or damper” Paragraph [0016,0019,0037].
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Fuerst et al. (U.S. Publication 2019/0299434), herein referred to as Fuerst in view of Sato et al. (U.S. Publication 2009/0307909), herein referred to as Sato and Murgida et al. (U.S. Publication (2013/0081290), herein referred to as Murgida and in further view of Oberheim (U.S. Publication 2013/0092408).
In regards to claim 16, the modified device of Fuerst discloses the claimed invention but does not disclose wherein: the adjustment actuator comprises a fluid pusher connected to the working head and/or the working head element and configured to push away a viscose fluid when the working head and/or the working head element is moving; and said adjustment device is configured to change a viscosity of the viscose fluid and/or a moving resistance of said fluid pusher in response to the moving speed of said working head of said working head element.
Fuerst discloses that “biasing device may include at least one spring element applying a spring force onto the working head and/or the working tool against which spring force the working tool may move to allow for pivoting of the skin contact contour, wherein the adjustment actuator may increase and decrease the pretentioning of such spring so as to adjust the stiffness of the working head structure. In addition or in the alternative to such spring device, the working head may include at least one damper or braking device to dampen or brake movements of the working head relative to the handle and/or of the working tool relative to a working head frame, wherein such damper or braking device may be adjusted by the adjustment actuator to provide for less dampening/braking action or more dampening/braking action to decrease and increase stiffness of the working head (paragraphs [0036-0037]. Fuerst discloses that the adjustment actuators for changing the pivoting stiffness of the shaver head, may be “electric motors or electric actors or actors of other types using other forms of energy such as magnetic actors” (see paragraph [0065]). Attention is also directed to the Oberheim reference. It is considered that although Fuerst is directed to a motorized shaver, and Obherheim is directed to a reciprocating saw, that they are analogous art in the field of controlling vibration between the moving parts of the motorized tools.
Oberheim discloses a reciprocating saw with a footpad 108 that is connected to the saw 100 with a semi-active vibrational dampening system 117. Oberheim sets forth that some tools use springs to reduce the level of vibration, but that the springs are generally not effective against random vibrations (paragraph [0004]). Obergeim thereby teaches a vibration dampening system that includes a magnetorheological fluid in which a controller selectively activates with an electrical current or electromagnetic field to increase the rigidity and viscosity of the magnetorheological fluid to dampen random vibrations detected by the controller. Thereby the vibrational dampening system reduces a magnitude of vibrations between the footpad and the saw housing, and also biases the footpad into a position away from the housing (paragraph [0036]).
As Fuerst discloses that the actuators other than springs such as magnetic actors can be utilizes to control a damper to dampen or brake movements of the working head and handle and as demonstrated by Oberheim to be known to utilize signals from a controller to generate electromagnetic fields in magnetorheological fluids for similar dampening operations, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have replaced the springs of Fuerst with a dampening system as shown by Oberheim that was actuatable by an electric current to provide greater control over the movement of the shaver head or shaver head element. It would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art that applying the known dampening technique as taught by Oberheim to the shaver of Fuerst would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system, namely a system that would have greater control over the dampening movements of the shaver head.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicants do not agree that the teachings of Fuerst set forth a non-linear relationship between the moving resistance and the moving speed. The Applicant’s argue that Fuerst’s mention of the control algorithm being based on a “curve” in paragraph [0065] does not impart a non-linear relationship. They suggest that the equation for the slope intercept of a line is also a curve, although they acknowledge that it is displayed as a line. This argument is not persuasive. It is not clear why that equation would be considered to have a curve, such that the understanding of a curve as mentioned by Fuerst could not be inherently understood as not linear. The slope intercept equation has a slope, but it is not curved, it is always linear. One would not look to the equation y=mx + b as to teach a curve, or a curved relationship.
Furthermore, to the limitations that describe the relationship between the change in moving resistance to the change in moving speed in either a positive or negative direction as increasing. The Applicant sets forth in their specification that:
“[m]ore particularly, the adjustment actuator for varying the moving resistance depending on moving speed may be configured to adjust and/or vary the shape of the graph defining moving resistance over moving speed of the working head and/or working head element, wherein for example, the adjustment actuator may be configured to vary the curvature of such graph and/or to vary the shape of such graph from linear to non-linear and/or to vary the ratio of linear portions to non-linear portions and/or to vary the steepness of certain portions.”
As both linear and non-linear relationships between the moving resistance and speed are contemplated without concern for either, it appears that neither relationship is essential or critical for achieving an unexpected result or benefit. Rather as there is no structure set forth that would only allow for a non-linear relationship, the difference amounts to changes in the parameters of an algorithm, such that changes could be easily rendered according to the user’s preference to provide for either relationship. Even if Fuest only taught a linear relationship, a curved, or exponential relationship would be an obvious variation, especially as both linear and exponential changes are both well established in the art such was demonstrated by both Murigda and Sato and there is no structure set forth that would only allow for a non-linear relationship and the particular relationship between resistance and speed does not appear to be critical to the invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA M LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-8339. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a.m.- 5p.m..
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.
/LAURA M LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724