DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12 – 17 - 25 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
the “haptic technology” in Claims 8, and 18.
the “haptic feedback component” in Claims 2, 8, 12 and 18.
With regard to the term “haptic technology”:
first, the term “technology” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “haptic ”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “haptic” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the haptic technology.
With regard to the term “haptic feedback component”:
first, the term “haptic feedback” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “haptic feedback”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “haptic feedback” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the haptic feedback component.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the haptic feedback component” " in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because a the haptic feedback component has not been previously delimited in the claim it is unclear if this refers to some other previously claimed structure, or whether this is a newly introduced structure. If this is newly introduced structure than the limitation should be preceded by the pronoun “a” instead of “the”. It is noted that Claim 2 claims a haptic feedback component. If this is what is being referenced in Claim 8, then Claim 8 should be corrected to depend from Claim 2. Currently Claim 8 depends from Claim 6 which has been cancelled (and is also thus subject to a rejection under 35 USC 112d, see below).
Claim 21 recites the limitation “the hypnotic feedback component” " in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because a hypnotic feedback component has not been previously delimited in the claim it is unclear if this refers to some other previously claimed structure, or whether this is a newly introduced structure. If this is newly introduced structure than the limitation should be preceded by the pronoun “a” instead of “the”. It is noted that Claim 2 claims a haptic feedback component. If this is what is being referenced in Claim 21, than Claim 21 should be corrected to depend from Claim 2, and should be amended to claim the haptic feedback component as opposed to the unclaimed hypnotic feedback component.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 8 depends from Claim 6 which has been cancelled. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 of this title, 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, 5, 8, 11-13, 15-18, and 22, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 2731720 Henard, in view of USPGPUB 20170305020 Darwinkwel, and USPGPUB 20190232510, Zandsteeg, and also as evidenced by EP1482401A2, Proctor.
Regarding Claim 1, Henard discloses an electronic hair clipper (col. 1 60-65) comprising: a housing 10;
a pair of clipper blades (25, 14) disposed on a top portion of the housing (top portion being the portion on left of fig 1, where the blades are placed); and
a taper adjustment device (combination of pivotable lever 41 and arc shaped plate 42) disposed along an upper side portion of the housing near the pair of clipper blades (see fig. 1) for controlling a taper height of the pair of clipper blades (co. 2 40-55), and includes an arcuate plate 42 in the shape of an arc shape having an inward curve along a portion of the arc (fig 1), wherein the inward curve of the arc shape is oriented in an upward direction facing the pair of clipper blades (fig 1), and wherein the taper height is adjusted by a swiping action (of the lever) along the arc shape pattern of the guide plate by a user (col 2, 38-55).
Regarding Claim 2, in Henard, the device further comprises internal components (29, 37, 34, 35) disposed inside an interior of the housing (fig 2), wherein the internal components include an actuator (37) assembly disposed underneath the pair of clipper blades (See fig 2).
Regarding Claim 11, Henard discloses a method of cutting hair with an electronic hair clipper (col 2 55-70, and col 1 lines 60-67), wherein the electronic hair clipper includes a housing having a handle portion (housing 10, which is gripped when adjusting and during use, claim 2, of Henard, and col 2, 60-70);
a pair of clipper blades (14,25) disposed on a top portion of the housing (top portion being the portion on left of fig 1, where the blades are placed);
and a taper adjustment device (combination of pivotable lever 41 and arc shaped plate 42) disposed along an upper side portion of the housing near the pair of clipper blades (fig 1) for controlling a taper height of the pair of clipper blades (col 2 50-70), wherein the taper adjustment device includes a guiding portion having (42) arc shape pattern that has an inward curve along a portion of the arc shape pattern, and wherein the inward curve of the arc shape pattern is oriented in an upward direction facing the pair of clipper blades (fig 1), the method comprising: gripping the handle portion of the housing by a hand of a user (col 3, 1-20); moving the lever along the arc shape pattern (of the plate 42) to increase or decrease a taper height setting of the taper adjustment device (col 2, 40-57).
Henard lacks feature (I): the taper adjustment device being a touch sensor; and wherein the touch sensor has an arc shape, the taper height is adjusted by a swiping action along the arc shape of the touch sensor by a thumb of a user (Claim 1), wherein the taper adjustment device is a touch sensor, for electronically controlling the taper height of the pair of clipper blades, wherein the taper adjustment device includes a touch sensor having the method comprising: applying a thumb of the user over the touch sensor; pressing the thumb firmly against the touch sensor making contact thereon; and swiping the thumb along the arc shape pattern of the touch sensor to increase or decrease a tape height setting of the device (claim 11).
And Features (II) a haptic feedback component disposed alongside the digital taper lever, a printed board circuit electrically coupled to the actuator assembly and the haptic feedback component via wiring members, and a battery coupled to printed board circuit via the wiring members for providing power to the electronic hair clipper (Claim 2 and 12), further comprising a main power button and an LED/LCD screen disposed along an external portion of the housing and electrically coupled to the printed board circuit via the wiring members (Claims 3 and 13), wherein the touch sensor includes an electronic touchscreen panel (claims 5 and 15) wherein the electronic touchscreen panel is configured to display graphical indicators which represent a taper height setting of the pair of clipper blades (claim 16) wherein the graphical indicators include bars, dots, lines, symbols, or alpha-numeric characters (claim 17) wherein the haptic feedback component includes a vibrating element using haptic technology that provides the user a tactile feedback response by introducing vibrations in response to changes to the taper height setting on the touch sensor (claims 8 and 18).
And feature III, an actuator assembly, including a position sensor configured to communicate a position of the pair of clipper blades to a controller, for calibrating an adjustment setting of the touch sensor (Claims 1 and 11).
Regarding Features (I) Darwinkel discloses an adjustment drive for a hair cutting appliance, in the same field of endeavor as the adjustment device for hair clipper of the present device and discloses that such a system includes: a user guidance element (88); wherein the user guidance element includes a touch sensor (64) wherein the a height of a taper guide portion 40 is adjusted by a swiping action along the touch sensor (fig 8, par 0085; Even though the digital control assembly in Darwinkel is used to control a comb level therein, the adjustment of this comb in turn adjusts a taper/height level of the clipper assembly by adjusting the length of hair that is cut by the assembly) by a thumb of a user (par. 0023) (Claim 1), wherein the user guidance element is a touch sensor 88, par 0082, for electronically controlling the taper height of the pair of clipper blades (par 0085 and par 0088), wherein the method comprising: applying a thumb of the user over the user guidance element (par 0024, 0036 and 0085); pressing the thumb firmly against the touch sensor making contact thereon (par 0036 and par 0083 and par 0085, since a touchscreen generally requires contact on the touchscreen and in use the contact may be firm); and swiping the thumb along the arc shape pattern of the touch sensor to increase or decrease a taper height setting of the device (par 0036 and 0085) (claim 11), in order to provide for a precise adjustment of a hair contacting element in a time efficient and accurate manner, (par 0008 and 0010; For instance, in par. 0008 it is disclosed that control levers ( such as that used in the Henard clipper ) to control the hair cutting length therein, are cumbersome and suffer from only allowing a user to adjust the spacing elements to a defined distance. It is further noted in par 0010 that these disadvantages of typical lever control assemblies are overcome by the digital touchscreen slide assembly used in Darwinkel).
As noted above, the digital control assembly in Darwinkel is used to control a comb level therein, the adjustment of this comb in turn adjusts a taper level of the assembly. The main benefit of the digital taper control in Darwinkel is to ensure a precise adjustment of a hair contacting element (e.g. the spacing comb), in a time efficient and accurate manner. Such a benefit would be equally applicable to an adjustment of the hair contacting blade element of Henard, since an artisan of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to have the adjustment of the hair contacting element in Henard also be performed with enhanced accuracy and efficiency, as provided by the digital control of Darwinkel.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Henard by replacing the taper adjustment device, being a combination of pivotable lever 41 and arc shaped plate 42, with a touch sensor placed along the arc shaped plate of Henard, thus having the touch sensor be a single arc shaped touch sensor as provided in the height of the taper is adjusted by a swiping action along the touch sensor by a thumb of a user (Claim 1 and claim 11), in order to provide for a precise adjustment of a hair contacting element in a time efficient and accurate manner as taught by Darwinkel and in order to provide simulated feedback to a user of the user adjustments being implemented, also taught in Darwinkel.
Further, regarding the proposed modification of replacing the lever/arc plate adjustment device of Henard with a touch sensor being within the arc shaped plate 42 of Henard, Proctor discloses that in a user controlled touch sensor device, such as the portable media device disclosed in Proctor that a touch sensor device is beneficially arc shaped in order to allow an adjustment of the device via a natural movement of a finger of a user (abstract). This teaching adds further evidence of a user would be motivated to make the touch sensor of the Henard device as modified by Darwinkel of an arc shape in order to allow for adjustment of the device via a user’s natural finger movement.
Regarding Features (II) Darwinkel also discloses: a haptic feedback component disposed alongside the touch sensor thereof (par 0042, “haptic response system”, which is on the feedback unit 74, that is adjacent the touch sensor 88, as shown in fig 6), a printed board circuit electrically coupled to the actuator assembly and the haptic feedback component (par 0037) (Claims 2 and 12), further comprising a main power button 20 and an LED/LCD screen (78) disposed along an external portion of the housing and electrically coupled to the printed board circuit (par 0037 and 0079 - 0080) (Claims 3 and 13) wherein the touch sensor includes an electronic touchscreen panel (claims 5 and 15) wherein the electronic touchscreen panel 86 is configured to display graphical indicators 82 which represent a taper height setting of the pair of clipper blades (par 0082) (claim 6 and 16) wherein the graphical indicators include bars (82, fig 6 and par. 0081-0082), (claim 7 and 17), and wherein the haptic feedback component includes a vibrating element (par 0042) using haptic technology that provides the user a tactile feedback response by introducing vibrations in response to changes to the taper height setting on the touch sensor (par 0042 where it is noted that the feedback elements may include haptic vibrators and par 0081, where it is disclosed that the feedback elements are activated in a response to a hair length setting) (Claims 8 and 18), in order to provide simulated feedback to a user of the user adjustments being implemented (par 0082).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Henard by including a haptic feedback component disposed alongside the digital taper lever, a printed board circuit electrically coupled to the actuator assembly and the haptic feedback (Claim 2 and 12), further comprising a main power button and an LED/LCD screen disposed along an external portion of the housing and electrically coupled to the printed board circuit (Claims 3 and 13) wherein the touch sensor includes an electronic touchscreen panel (claims 5 and 15) wherein the electronic touchscreen panel is configured to display graphical indicators which represent a taper height setting of the pair of clipper blades (claim 6 and 16) wherein the graphical indicators include bars, dots, lines, symbols, or alpha-numeric characters (claim 7 and 17), wherein the haptic feedback component includes a vibrating element using haptic technology that provides the user a tactile feedback response by introducing vibrations in response to changes to the taper height setting on the touch sensor (claims 8 and 18) in order to provide simulated feedback to a user of the user adjustments being implemented, as taught by Darwinkel.
With regard to the claim 2 and 3 limitations of the haptic component being coupled to the circuit board via wiring and a battery coupled to the circuit board and the actuator to power the clipper, and the circuit board being coupled to the LED screen with wiring, in par 0002 of Darwinkel it is disclosed that electric hair cutting appliances may be powered by electric supply mains (e.g. wiring) and/or by energy storages, such as batteries. Thus, it would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Henard by making the haptic component be coupled to the circuit board via wiring and a battery coupled to the circuit board and the actuator to power the clipper, and the circuit board being coupled to the LED screen via a wiring, in order to power these components that the clipper in general via a well known manner in the applicable art, as taught in par 0002 of the Darwinkel disclosure.
With regard to feature III, of an actuator assembly, including a position sensor configured to communicate a position of the pair of clipper blades to a controller, for calibrating an adjustment setting of the touch sensor (Claims 1 and 11), Zandsteeg discloses an adjustment device for a hair cutting appliance, in the same field of endeavor as the adjustment device for hair clipper of the present device and discloses that such a system includes: an actuator assembly (combination of adjustment unit 28, controller 66, transmitter 34 and sensors 32, par 0094), including a position sensor 32 configured to communicate a position of the pair of clipper blades (since the sensors 32 detect a position of the device which includes the blades) to a controller (54, par 0094-0095), for calibrating an adjustment setting component (adjustment unit 28, par 0094; said to be controlled dependent on the detected position of the appliance/blades in a continuous/quasi continuous fashion; thus being calibrated bases on the position sensor reading) of said device, in order to alert a user to a misorientation state between the user and the device and to signal to a user that a calibration of the setting device is necessary (par 0021 and 0094-0095).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Henard by including an actuator assembly, including a position sensor configured to communicate a position of the pair of clipper blades to a controller, for calibrating the adjustment setter of the device (Claims 1 and 11), in order to alert a user to a misorientation state between the user and the device and to signal to a user that a calibration of the setting device is necessary as taught by Zandsteeg. Also, already modified in view of Darwinkel, the setting device of Henard is a touch sensor. Thus, in making the modification in view of Zandsteeg the calibration of the setting device is a calibration of the adjustment setting touch sensor.
Regarding Claim 22, as modified in view of Darwinkel the Henard device includes the controller configured to identify one or more gesture inputs, wherein the gesture inputs include: a swiping function to move the pair of clipper blades to a specific position. See modification above where the adjustment of the blades includes a swiping on a touch screen, the swiping being a user gesture.
Claims 4 and 14, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henard in view of Darwinkwel and Zandsteeg, as applied to claims 2 and 12 above, and further in view of WO 2017182872 A1, Zak.
Regarding Claims 4 and 14, Modified Henard, lacks wherein the printed board circuit includes a microprocessor, a memory component, an I/O system, and a system bus for executing and processing a plurality of algorithms for controlling the taper height in response to changes in adjustment settings to the taper height adjustor.
Zak discloses a powered trimmer device which uses user inputs to control the device via a microprocessor in the same field of endeavor as the powered and user controlled trimmer of the present invention and discloses that the device is controlled by a user (par. 0051) via in part, a printed board circuit including a microprocessor, a memory component, an I/O system, and a system bus for executing and processing a plurality of algorithms (code/computer program instructions) for controlling said trimming device in response to user inputs (par. 0051).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Henard by having the circuit board thereof and the device in general be controlled via the processor and microprocessor assembly disclosed in Zak comprising the printed board circuit including: a microprocessor, a memory component, an I/O system, and a system bus for executing and processing a plurality of algorithms for controlling the taper height adjustor device in response to changes in adjustment settings to the digital touch sensor, in order to execute the user input commands of Henard as modified by Darwinkel in a well known manner known in the art to perform such controls.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henard, in view of Darwinkwel and Zandsteeg as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and in view of USPGPUB 20230036461, Axelrod.
Modified Henard lacks, wherein a touch sensor is disposed on a right side of the electronic hair clipper and a second touch sensor is disposed on a left side of the electronic hair clipper.
Axelrod discloses an electric trimmer device, in the same field of endeavor as the electric trimmer device of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes two digital actuator buttons 13 and 13’ which each change the position of a component of the device in response to a user input, and discloses that it is beneficial to have the buttons on both sides of the device in order to allow for the buttons to be easily accessed in either of a right or left handed operation of the trimmer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: further modify Henard by having the digital taper level adjustment device thereof be a first touch sensor disposed on a right side of the electronic hair clipper and to also have a second touch sensor be disposed on a left side of the electronic hair clipper in order to allow for the digital controls to be easily accessed in either of a right or left handed operation of the trimmer, as disclose by Axelrod.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henard, in view of Darwinkwel and Zandsteeg as applied to Claims 1 and 11, as discussed above, and further in view of USPGPUB 20150205279 Simeth.
Modified Henard lacks wherein a trigger sensor is disposed along a portion of the housing for activating the touch sensor when a hand of the user is detected by the trigger sensor (claims 10 and 20).
Simeth discloses a handheld and digitally controlled grooming device, in the same field of endeavor as the handheld user-controlled grooming device of the present invention and discloses that in such a tool the system includes a trigger sensor 340 (par 0034) disposed along a portion of a housing 20 for activating an active mode of the device, when a hand of the user is detected by the trigger sensor (Par. 0034).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Henard by having the device include a trigger sensor disposed along a portion of a housing for activating an active mode of the device, when a hand of the user is detected by the trigger sensor in order to automatically have the device be ready for use when it is detected that a user grips the device, thus making it quicker for a user to begin use of the device in an expedient manner, e.g. without having to manually power the device on and off. Also, in making this modification it would have been obvious to such an artisan to include the active mode to include activating the touch sensor of modified Henard since this touch sensor is one of the main features of the Henard device in view of the modification over the Darwinkel device.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henard, in view of Darwinkwel and Zandsteeg as applied to Claim 1, as discussed above, and further in view of USPGPUB 20090320227 Cohen.
Regarding Claim 21, Modified Henard lacks wherein the hypnotic feedback component includes an eccentric rotating mass (ERM) actuator.
Cohen discloses a handheld grooming device with a haptic actuator thereon, in the same field of endeavor as the handheld grooming device with a haptic actuator thereon of the present invention and includes the haptic feedback component (haptic output) including an eccentric rotating mass (ERM) actuator, par 0041.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Henard by having haptic feedback component include an eccentric rotating mass (ERM) actuator thereon in order to have the haptic feedback component for a handheld device function to provide feedback users via a known mechanism in the art for allowing this feedback, as taught by Cohen.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 12/17/25, with respect to the prior art rejections under 35 USC 103, as the claims have now been amended, have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon a now updated search, a new rejection is made in view of Heard over Darwinkel and Zandsteeg.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPN and USPGPUB: 20050028371, 3831683 and 20150040934, disclose state of the art touch sensors and calibrating methods, and thus disclose elements of the present invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FERNANDO A AYALA whose telephone number is (571)270-5336. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Eastern standard.
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 on 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.
/FERNANDO A AYALA/
Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724