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 .
In view of the pre-appeal brief filed on 5/12/2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. A new ground of rejection is set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
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, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuerst (U.S. Publication 2019/0299434) in view of Sato (U.S. Publication 2009/0307909) and Murgida et al. (U.S. Publication 2013/0081290)
Fuerst discloses a personal care device comprising:
an elongated handle (handle 3) for manually moving the personal care device along a body surface;
a working head (working head 2) attached to said handle (handle 3) for effecting a personal care treatment (a shave) to said body surface, said working head (working head 2) being movably supported relative to said handle (handle 3; via biasing element 10b) and/or including a working head element (e.g. short hair cutters 5 and 6) being moveably supported relative to a working head base (working head frame 12 via biasing elements 10a ) to allow adaption of the working head (working head 2) and/or of the working head element (e.g. short hair cutters 5 and 6) to the body surface contour (“a force applied onto one of the hair removal tools 4 may result in pivoting of the working head frame 12 and/or pivoting of the skin contact contour 9 due to diving of the hair removal tools 4”; see paragraphs [0063 and 0064]);
an adjustment device (adjustment actuators AA) for adjusting a movability characteristic (e.g. stiffness) of a suspension of said working head and/or of said working head element (“An adjustment device [AA] may change the pivoting stiffness of the shaver head 2” paragraph [0065]”;
a detector (e.g. accelerometer/ hall sensors 104; paragraph [0068-0069]) 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 (e.g. the electronic control unit 80; paragraph [0069]),
wherein:
the controller (the electronic control unit 80) is communicatively coupled with the detector (e.g. accelerometer/ hall sensors 104; paragraphs [0068-0069]) and the adjustment device (AA; per paragraph [0065]);
said adjustment device (AA) includes at least one adjustment actuator (e.g. electric motors, electric or 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, 0070, 0071])
and is controlled by the controller (the electronic control unit 80) in response to the speed signal from the detector
(“More particularly, the shaver 1 with working head 2 is equipped with pressure sensor 41 and a sensor 43 that detects directions and speed of motion….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.; see paragraphs [0068-0071]);
said at least one 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;
and 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.
Fuerst does not expressly disclose that the functional relationship between moving resistance and moving speed is non-linear over a range of moving speeds such that the rate of change of moving speed increases in the positive or negative direction as highlighted above.
Fuerst already teaches an electronically controlled adaptive feedback system in which the control unit continuously varies the pivoting stiffness of the shaving head in real time based upon detected operating conditions, including increasing and decreasing skin contact pressure (claims 4-5 and paragraph [0035, 0065-0067]). Because Fuerst already relies upon a programmable control algorithm that continuously adjusts movement resistance based upon sensed operating conditions, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the particular functional relationship implemented by the control algorithm, including the shape of the response curve over a selected operating range, constitutes a programmable control parameter rather than a fixed mechanical characteristic. Thus, the claimed functional relationship merely defines how the controller maps sensed operating conditions to shaving head movement resistance rather than requiring any particular structure.
Sato further demonstrates that response relationships between operating parameters and cutting resistance were recognized design tools for controlling shaving performance. In particular Sato experimentally evaluates and selects different relationships between cutting resistance and the radius of curvature of the cutting edge for different operating configurations (paragraphs [0028-0030; fig. 6). These experimental results demonstrate that engineers routinely selected among different response curves to achieve desired performance, thereby evidencing that the particular shape of a response relationship constituted a selectable design parameter rather than a fixed structural characteristic.
This understanding is further reinforced by Murgida, which explains that the dynamic response of an adaptive shaving head depends upon multiple interacting operating parameters including rotational speed, angular position, damping, stiffness, and inertia (paragraphs [0077-0079]). Murgida further explains that while simplified linear models may be used for convenience, the actual system dynamics are more accurately represented by non-linear differential equations having varying coefficients. Thus, Murgida demonstrates that non-linear mathematical relationships were a recognized engineering tool for modeling and designing the dynamic response of adaptive shaving systems.
Accordingly, because Fuerst already employs a programmable control algorithm to continuously adjust shaving head movement resistance based on sensed operating conditions, Sato demonstrates that the shape of the response relationship itself was a recognized design parameter, and Murgida demonstrates that non-linear response profiles were a recognized engineering approach for representing such dynamic behavior, it would have been obvious to configure the programmable control algorithm of Fuerst to implement the claimed non-linear functional relationship over the claimed operating range as a matter of routine control system design in order to obtain the desired balance between shaving head mobility, contour following and user comfort. Selection of a particular non-linear response curve, including one in which the rate of change of movement resistance increases as movement speed increases over a selected operating range, would have been a matter of routine optimization of the programmable control algorithm to obtain the desired dynamic response, because the precise shape of the response curve constitutes a programmable design parameter rather than a structural limitation. Moreover, the claim does not require that the entirety of the control system or the complete operating envelope exhibit the claimed functional relationship, but only that the relationship be implemented over a recited range of moving speeds.
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 (U.S. Publication 2019/0299434) in view of Sato (U.S. Publication 2009/0307909) and Murgida et al. (U.S. Publication 2013/0081290) 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. Although Oberheim is directed to a reciprocating saw and Fuert is directed to a motorized shaver, both references address the same engineering problem of actively controlling vibration and movement resistance between relatively moveable components of a powered hand tool. Accordingly, Oberheim is considered analogous art.
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 explains that conventional spring-based systems are generally less effective at controlling random vibrations (paragraph [0004]). Obergeim therefore teaches a vibration dampening system employing a magnetorheological fluid whose viscosity is selectively increased by a controller through the application of an electrical current or magnetic field. Increasing the viscosity of the magnetorheological fluid correspondingly increases the damping force applied between the relatively movable components, thereby reducing vibration while biasing the footpad away from the hosing (paragraph [0036]).
Fuerst already traches that the adjustment actuator is not limited springs, but may instead comprise electric motors, magnetic actuators or other electrically controlled actuators for actively controlling the movement resistance of the shaving head (paragraph [0065]). Oberheim demonstrates that a magnetorheological fluid damper is a known electrically actuated mechanism for varying damping force by changing the viscosity of a fluid in response to controller signals. Because the magnetorheological fluid is disposed during relative movement of the movable components while its viscosity is actively adjusted by the controller, Oberheim reaches the claimed arrangement in which movement of the working head acts upon a viscous fluid whose movement resistance is electrically controlled.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute Oberheim’s known magnetorheological fluid damping mechanism for the spring biased damping arrangement of Fuerst in order to provided electronically controllable movement resistance with improved control over shaving head movement. Such substitution merely employs one known electronically controlled damping mechanism in place of another to obtain the predictable results of adjustable movement resistance, vibration control and improved dynamic response.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Fuerst fails to disclose the disputed limitations requiring a non-linear functional relationship between moving resistance and moving speed in which the rate of change of moving resistance increases as moving speed increases in either direction. The Office agrees the Fuerst does not expressly disclose this particular non-linear response profile. For that reason, claim 1 is rejection under 35 USC 103 in over Fuerst in view of Sato and Murgida.
The Applicant further argues that Fuerst merely discloses an adaptive control system employing mathematical functions or stored curves and that such curves may be linear. The rejection does not rely upon Fuerst for expressly teaching the claimed non-linear response profile. Rather, Fuerst traches an electrically controlled actuator that continuously adjusts movement resistance in response to sensed operating conditions using programmable control logic. Because the response profile is implemented by software, the particular mathematical relationship, including whether the response is linear or non-linear over the selected range, constitutes a programmed control parameter rather than a fixed mechanical characteristic.
Applicant argues that Sato does not disclose the claimed functional relationship between movement resistance and movement speed. This argument is not persuasive. The rejection does not rely upon Sato for teaching the precise claimed mathematical relationship. Rather, Sato is relied upon as evidence that engineers experimentally evaluate and select among different response relationships to achieve desired system performance. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument that Sato does not disclose the exact claimed mathematical relationship is not persuasive because Sato is not relied upon for that teaching. As shown in paragraphs [0028-0030] and Figure 6, Sato experimentally evaluates multiple response curves relating cutting resistance to the radius of curvature the cutting edge under different operating configurations. These experimental results demonstrate that engineers routinely selected among different response curves to achieve desired performance, thereby evidencing that the particular shape of a response relationship constituted a selectable design parameter rather than a fixed structural characteristic.
Applicant also argues that Murgida is directed to a passive razor lacking an actuator and therefore cannot remedy the alleged deficiencies of Fuerst. The rejection does not rely upon Murgida for its actuator. Instead Murgida is relied upon for its teaching that the dynamic response for adaptive shaving heads is move accurately represented by non-linear mathematical models having varying coefficients dependent upon operating conditions. Murgida therefore demonstrates that employing non-linear response profiles for adaptive shaving systems was a recognized engineering design technique.
Finally, Applicant argues that the claimed relationship requires an increasing rate of change rather than merely a non-linear relationship. The Office agrees that Fuerst does not expressly disclose the particular response profile. However, once Fuerst provides the programmable controller and Sato demonstrates that the response profile constitutes a selectable design parameter, selection of a particular non-linear response curve, including one exhibiting an increasing rate of change over a selected operating range would have been a matter of routine optimization using the programable controller to achieve the desired balance between shaving head mobility, contour following and user comfort. Murgida further evidences that such non-linear response profiles were recognized engineering tools for modeling and designing dynamic shaving system behavior. The claim likewise requires only that the recited functional relationship be implemented over a range of moving speeds and does not require the entire operating envelope exhibit that relationship.
Conclusion
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 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights