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
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/25/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
3. Applicant has incorporated Claim 9 into the independent claims and has recited two or more usage or performance parameters yet these do not change the fundamental concern that the independent claims remain a purely mental process coupled with extra-solution data gathering and output presentation (Remarks 6-9 filed 8/25/2026). Applicant's amendment that the breadth of the claim has been increased, by increasing the number of parameters from as few as one to two (Remarks 7 filed 5/26/2026), is not persuasive as the claim can reasonably be performed mentally with as few as two parameters. Thus, the rejection under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
4. For the rejections under 35 USC § 102 and 103, Applicant's arguments (Remarks 9-12) are to the claims as amended with the incorporation of Claim 9 into the independent claims which have been rejected based on Burghardt, Panagiotopoulou and Ondrusz, and is still maintained. Ondrusz is relied upon to modify Burghardt to generate a user input request when a usage or performance parameter corresponds to the one having the largest determined difference in order to provide a user specific information to improve performance (Final 14).
5. Applicant's opposition to Ondrusz is premised on "concerns a training regime in a computerized training system, not generating a user input request for a personal care device usage instance" which may be suggesting that Ondrusz is non-analogous art (Remarks 12). Examiner contends that Ondrusz's focus on improving personal performance in fitness is in the same field of endeavor as Applicant's invention as pertains to the proper use of equipment or devices that have an effect on personal appearance and performance. Separately, Ondrusz's mathematical approach is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor i.e., to improve personal performance, where Ondrusz targets parameters which will have the greatest impact on improvement by prioritizing categories showing the greatest differences.
6. Applicant also argues improper hindsight reasoning (Remarks 12). 103 rejections inherently involve some measure of hindsight reasoning which is mitigated when the Examiner provides a motivation to combine the references which Examiner has done. "One of skill in the art would readily recognize that in the analysis of multiple parameters, a determination can be made as to which parameters may have the greatest impact on changing the behavior of a user desiring to improve their performance. Here, it would require only routine skill in the art to modify to determination of Burghardt with the determination among multiple variables which ones yield the greatest difference to baseline data of Ondrusz to achieve the predictable result of improving a user's physical shaving performance." (Final 14).
7. For the above reasons, the rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-8 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process without significantly more under USPTO 2019 guidance on 35 USC 101 (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
10. In independent Claim 1, and similarly for Claims 11, 14, and 15, the claim recites receiving device usage data and performance data (extra-solution data gathering), determining if there is a difference in the data relative to a threshold (mental process), and seeking user input based on the determination among two or more parameters (additional extra-solution data gathering). The determining step is a process that can be performed in the human mind. One can review the received usage and performance data, see how each may differ from respective stored reference data, and if so, reach out to the user for additional input. Claim 14 recites a computing environment of sensors to acquire the information, a storage module, a comparison module, and a user interface which are used as tools to apply the abstract mental process to a computing environment. According to Applicant's specification the sensors may be any sensor capable of measuring data relating to usage of the personal care device (Spec. 5); and wherein the sensor may be located in "located in or on, or may form part of, another device, such as a smartphone, a wearable device, a tablet computer, a laptop computer, or an interactive mirror." (Spec. 7); the processor and storage can be a suitable computer or processor (Spec. 3) and the carrier of the computer program may be
any entity or device capable of carrying the program (Spec. 19).
11. According to the 2019 PEG, an additional consideration indicative of an inventive concept (aka "significantly more") is the addition of a specific limitation other than what is well- understood, routine, conventional activity in the field (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Conversely, an additional consideration not indicative of an inventive concept is simply appending well- understood, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo, April 20, 2018). Thus, the additional elements evaluated are re-evaluated to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
12. Those elements of extra-solution activity are recited at a high level of generality to include receiving usage, performance data, and seeking user input were held to be well-known activities (See receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)) and storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)) Claim 14 recites a computing environment of sensors to acquire the information, a storage module, a comparison module, and a user interface which as used as tools to apply the abstract mental process and are deemed to be extra-solution activity as Applicant discloses conventional and generic uses at a high level of generality to establish the computing environment using these devices merely as tools. Thus, Claims 1, and similarly, Claims 11, 14, and 15 are ineligible.
13. The dependent claims recite particular data gathering of the sensors (Claims 2-4) and more abstract threshold adjusting (Claim 2); Claim 5 recites a field of use of an extra-solution shaving device; Claims 6 and 7 recite abstract usage and outcome parameters; Claim 8 recites more data gathering indicative of the user environment and soliciting user input; Claim 9 recites abstract determining; Claim 10 recites extra-solution data storing and data gathering of a previous usage; and Claims 11-13 - recite extra-solution tools of processors, storage devices, and sensors. None of which provides a practical application. Thus, the dependent claims are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
14. 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 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.
15. 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.
16. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham V. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
17. Claim(s) 1-8 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2019/0306259 to Burghardt in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0146562 to Panagiotopoulou and U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2004/0241629 to Ondrusz.
In Reference to Claims 1, 5, 6, and 7
Burghardt discloses a computer-implemented method for interacting with a user of a personal care device (Titl., see also Fig. 1 electric shaver 1, and Fig. 2 shaving algorithm), the method comprising:
receiving device usage data indicative of a manner in which the personal care device is used by the user during a usage instance of the personal care device, the device usage data relating to one or more of a defined set of device usage parameters (collecting relevant parameters [0148] of: detecting a force with which the working head is pressed onto the body surface [0149], see also speed/velocity of the device [0153], and linear or rotational displacement {direction} [0164]);
receiving performance data indicative of an outcome of the usage instance, the performance data relating to one or more of a defined set of performance parameters (the user is able to enter data [0206] to include closeness, no redness of skin {perceived irritation/perceived comfort following the usage instance [0207]); and
responsive to a determination that one or more of the received device usage data or the received performance data differ from stored reference device usage data and stored reference performance data, respectively, by more than a defined threshold amount (Fig. 2 shows that stored sensor data (S1) is compared {for differences} (S3) to stored data from the user and stored historical shave data (S2A, S2B) where optional feedback to a user is generated (S7) in response to differences that exceed a defined threshold represented as differing from average values (S2D) and also manifested in other ways. For example, "when the behavior determination algorithm may analyze the real-time data of the behavioral parameter in terms of, e.g., value, changes in the signal, increasing and/or decreasing tendency, maximum and minimum values, amplitude, mean value or signal pattern and/or data pattern such as data values over time, and may compare such real-time data and analysis thereof to stored historical data to identify the closest historical set of data to determine natural or non-natural behavior on the basis of the classifier associated with the closest set of data." [0096]. Examiner interprets the determination of non-natural behavior of Fig. 2 to occur when the values or other manifestations being assessed deviate from average values for natural shaving behaviors (S2D). As such, resulting in an assessment of increased strokes [0048], longer shaving [0062], and higher or lower stroke speed [0074] relative to normal behavior. See also, average levels and a change away from initial measured values [0121-0122]),
generating a user input request to be presented to the user (Fig. 2 S8 there may be also a user response that based on a modification of the shaver, the user may or may not change behavior [0185]. Also, the user may be requested to provide feedback about his shave over time so the algorithm can assess which of the modifications it made to the shaver were successful and further optimize how it reacts [0212] and provide feedback for either natural or non-natural behavior ([0104]). Burghardt also discloses in Fig. 2 step S5, the algorithm also tries to narrow down the likely reason for the non-natural behavior.
However, if Applicant disagrees with Examiner's interpretation of Burghardt to disclose generating a user request to be presented to the user to inform the algorithm to explain any non-natural behavior, Applicant is directed to the teachings of Panagiotopoulou.
Panagiotopoulou teaches of methods for measuring skin characteristics and enhancing shaving experiences (Titl.) wherein shaving events are monitored and conductivity, skin irritation, skin elasticity (Figs. 10-12) are collected, identified and/or quantified and results are communicated to users. In addition, "[t]he base 18 may solicit or otherwise request input or feedback from a user via, e.g., the display 30. For example, information may be displayed during, before, or after a shave session, or in response to a user input, in the form of prompts. An input 32 may allow a user to respond to prompts displayed on the display 30. Though only one input 32 is depicted, the base 18 may include more than one input 32. Input 32 may be touch sensitive and/or may include voice-activation technology SO that a user may speak commands to the base 18." [0031], see also [0035]). Panagiotopoulou invents this approach to enhance the shaving experience and to make proper recommendations to a user based on the collected data. ([0002]).
The Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; and
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Here, it would require only routine skill in the art to modify the algorithm at S5 and user input of Burghardt with the generation of one of more prompts of Panagiotopoulou in order to achieve the predictable result of better narrowing down any determined non-natural behavior for a shaving instance. The Courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to be indicia of obviousness.
Applicant has further amended to recite the user input request is in respect of the device usage parameter or performance parameter corresponding to the largest determined difference.
Burghardt discloses the invention substantially as claimed to include, however, the reference is silent in respect of two or more device usage parameters or performance parameters, generating a user input request to be presented to the user, the user input request being in respect of the device usage parameter or performance parameter corresponding to the largest determined difference. One of skill in the art would be aware of the computerized system of Ondrusz.
According to Ondrusz, in a traiing system for traiing people to increase a skill or some other physical attribute (Anstr.) the system allows a user to enter in information regarding his fitness and the system can specify an exercise program for the user. The system suggests ways for how a user can improve his performance (Abstr. [0083]). According to Ondrusz, "wherein the difference information comprises fitness category difference information regarding the differences between i) the actual fitness of the user in two or more fitness categories and ii) the target fitness of the user in two or more fitness categories, wherein the server is operable to compare the fitness category difference information to determine for which of the two or more fitness categories there is the greatest difference between the actual fitness of the user and the target fitness of the user, and wherein the server is operable to prioritize the suggested training regime for the fitness category in which there is the greatest difference between the actual fitness of the user and the actual fitness of the user." (Claim 15). Ondrusz invents this method of training to determines the suitability of the diet to the user and psychologically motivate the user by providing a goal orientated method to facilitate the user to understand ways in which he can improve his performance. (Abstr.)
One of skill in the art would readily recognize that in the analysis of multiple parameters, a determination can be made as to which parameters may have the greatest impact on changing the behavior of a user desiring to improve their performance. Here, it would require only routine skill in the art to modify to determination of Burghardt with the determination among multiple variables which ones yield the greatest difference to baseline data of Ondrusz to achieve the predictable result of improving a user's physical shaving performance. The Courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to be indicia of obviousness.
In Reference to Claim 2
Both Burghardt and Panagiotopoulou receive a user input relating to the usage instance of the personal care device as explained above and Burghardt adjusts the defined threshold amount according to the received user input, for example, "[u]pon determination of natural behavior or non-natural behavior, the personal care device may react in different ways. As indicated by FIG. 2, in particular block S6, the aforementioned adjustment mechanism 6 may be activated to modify or adjust a working parameter of the shaver." ([0183]). For example, Burghardt discloses that a pivoting stiffness is increased ([0185[). The stiffness is a threshold amount such that when adjusted it may be assessed when it is observed that "the user no longer needs to hold his hand/arm in an unergonomic way (as he was doing before in order to prevent the shaver head from swiveling) of if he receives feedback that he is pressing too hard, then he may press less hard ([0185]).
In Reference to Claims 3 and 4
Examiner deems wherein the user input request comprises a request for confirmation of one or more of the received device usage data and the received performance data, and wherein the user input request comprises a request for an indication of the user's perceived outcome of the usage instance relating to one or more of a defined set of perceived performance parameters, as non-functional descriptive matter as the content of the user input is not claimed to affect any particular or have an effect on any part of the resulting claim limitations. Nonetheless, Burghardt and Panagiotopoulou both solicit user input which are forms of confirmation, and, in the case of the user changing or not changing his unergonomic way of shaving ([0185]) provides an indication of a user's perceived outcome of the usage instance relating to a change to a working parameter ([0183]).
In Reference to Claim 8
Burghardt discloses receiving context data indicative of the environment of the user of the personal care device during the usage instance (Fig. 2 S4 environmental data); and generating a user input request responsive to determining that the context data differs from stored reference context data by more than a defined threshold amount (Fig. 2 S4 to S5, See
also rejection of Claim 1 as to generating a user prompt on any parameter to narrow down the likely reason for non-natural behavior of step S5).
In Reference to Claim 10
Burghardt discloses one previous device usage instance of the personal care device by the user (Fig. 2 S2C historical shaves).
In Reference to Claims 11. 12, and 13
Burghardt discloses a processor 80 ([0144]), a storage device (memory [0144]), and one or more sensors ([0042]).
In Reference to Claims 14 and 15
See rejection of Claims 1, 11 (processor {comparison module}), 12 (memory), and 13 (one or more sensors). See also known user interfaces ([0013]) and the soliciting of user input and deliver of feedback ([0105, 0114, 0115, 0142]).
Conclusion
18. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
19. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul A. D’Agostino whose telephone number is (571) 270-1992.
20. 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.
21. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kang Hu can be reached on (571) 270-1344. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-2992.
/PAUL A D'AGOSTINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights