Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant argues that the claims are more than a simple mental comparison of a few numbers but a structured computational process over multiple sensor channels and reference sets (Remarks 6 filed 3/2/2026) which are not something that can practically be carried out in the human mind (Remarks 7). Examiner disagrees. The claims provide no parameters that limit the amount of usage data or performance data such that there may be as few as a single data value and performance value for comparison to generate the user input. At the other end of the spectrum size doesn’t matter. The Courts have opined on automation in claims that do no more than automate steps needed to be performed where automation is an improvement in a general sense as opposed to performance manually, there is no change to the computers and other technology that are recited in the claim as automating the abstract ideas, and thus claims cannot improve computer functionality or other technology. See, e.g., Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, Inc., 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (using a computer to provide a trader with more information to facilitate market trades improved the business process of market trading, but not the computer) and the cases discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), particularly FairWarning IP, LLC v. Latric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data is not an improvement when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer) and Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (using a generic computer to automate a process of applying to finance a purchase is not an improvement to the computer’s functionality). Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant also argues (Remarks 7) that the claims present a concrete and technological application and are not direct to an abstract idea. Examiner disagrees. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). As to contentions that there is a technical application, this is not the test. There has to be a technological improvement.
Applicant argues that there is no showing that elements of the claim are well-understood, routine, and conventions. Examiner disagrees. Extra-solution activity recited at a high level of generality e.g., receiving usage, performance data, and seeking user input were held to be well-known activities. For these, supporting evidence was provided with reference to the MPEP where “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))” (See Non-Final Rejection filed 9/2/2025). As to Claim 14 which 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. According to Applicant in his disclosure of various sensors, does not improve the sensors but merely uses them as tool. For example, when disclosing inertial movement sensors, Applicant explains “One or more of the sensors 108 may comprise an inertial measurement unit (IMU). An IMU, which will be familiar to those skilled in the art, may use an accelerometer, a gyroscope, and/or a magnetometer to measure various parameters (e.g., specific force, angular rate an /or orientation) of a device in which the IMU is installed.” (Spec. 5, Lines 33-35). Also, Applicant discloses “One or more of the sensors 108 may comprise a force sensor or a pressure sensor to measure a force or pressure being applied by the personal care device 102 onto a surface, such as the skin of the user. For example, a force sensor a measure a force being applied between the treatment element 106 (e.g. a shaving head) and the user’s skin. Various force sensors will be familiar to those skilled in the art, including switch-type sensors and thin-film resistive sensors. Generally, however, any suitable force sensor may be used. Data from such a force sensor may be used to determine whether or not the user is applying appropriate force onto their skin with the personal care device 102. (Spec. 6, Lines 9-16). By Applicant’s own admission, these sensor elements are well-known, routine, and conventional. Despite Applicant allegations that the claim express “specific, non-generic way of using sensors” (Remarks 9), he is to the contrary using known sensors to collect data as the sensors are designed to collect.
For the above reasons, the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Applicant argues that Burghardt does not disclose the claimed structure of device data usage, performance data, and storing data and argues that the reference discloses a quantitatively different approach (Remarks 10). For anticipation, however, an oil can was held to disclose the claimed features of a popcorn dispenser (In re Schreiber). Thus, it is not dispositive that Burghardt has a qualitatively different approach. What stands out from Applicant’s arguments is that the claims remain broad. He argues that the claims recite a determination which is targeted and conditionally-triggered but the claims broadly disclose that responsive to usage data different from performance data by a defined threshold there be a generated user input request. Burghardt modifies the parameters of the shaver based on usage and performance data and compares the values to stored historical data and from this elicits user feedback based on real-time data and data values over time to assess, for example, increased strokes, stroke speed, and longer shaving time (Non-Final Rejection 5-6). Examiner disagrees that Burghardt is disclosing only long-term behavior nor does Applicant’s claim positively recite limitations that limit the response to the determination to any particular timeframe. Thus, Burghardt is deemed to anticipate the recited claims.
Applicant argues that Panagiotopoulou does not compare usage data, detect thresholds, and generate a prompt (Remarks 11) yet this argument exceeds the the Examiner’s scope of reliance on Panagiotopoulou to merely teach generating a user request to be presented to the user (See Non-Final Rejection 6 “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).
As to Claim 9, Applicant’s argument as to the teachings of Ondrusz are also not persuasive. Applicant refers to his own specification to support a largest-deviation selection behavior and further alleges that there is a contrast to Ondrusz because the claims concern specific device usage or performance parameters which are the subject of a real-time user query during a single usage instance of a personal care device. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the rejection is based on the combination of the references, the arguments recite particulars which are both not expressed in the claims and far more narrow than the present claims, and Ondrusz is relied upon by Examiner to teach how one of skill in the art would rely on the teachings of Ondrusz’s multiple parameters to include a largest determined difference when deciding on generating a user input request. Finally, Applicant has not persuasively argued why one of skill in the art would not 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 and that it would not require 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 (See Non-Final Rejection 10).
At the end of the day, it is clear that Applicant believes his claimed invention is distinct from the references that have been provided. However, the claims are broad and fail to be limited to the characteristics contended by Applicant. While Applicant clearly has support for his positions, it is not the office practice to import the specification into the claim language but instead construe the claims reasonably in light of the disclosure. For these reasons, the rejection of the claims is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
11. Claims 1-15 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).
12. 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 relative to a threshold (mental process), and seeking user input based on the determination (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 they differ from 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).
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.
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.
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 §§ 102/103
13. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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. 102(a1, a2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, 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.
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 and 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.
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 an 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]).
18. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Burghardt, Panagiotopoulou, further in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2004/0241629 to Ondrusz.
Burghardt discloses the invention substantially as claimed to include responsive to a determination that usage data and performance data differ from stored reference data by more than a defined threshold amount. 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.
Conclusion
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Lewis can be reached on (571) 272-7673. 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