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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/30/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-8, 10-16 are pending, claim 16 is new, and claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 14 and 15 are currently amended.
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.
Claim 16 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “substantial length” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantial” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In particular, it is unclear how much of the PCB must extend along the motor and battery to constitute a “substantial” length, as no objective boundary or standard is provided.
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haczek et al. (U.S. Patent 8,127,453), herein referred to as Haczek in view of Meier et al. (U.S. Patent 9,126,346) and Shimizu (U.S. Patent 9,649,772) In regards to claim 16, Haczek discloses a hair cutting device comprising an electric shaver or trimmer, the electric shaver of trimmer comprising a handle (housing 2), a head (actuator head 7), and a hair cutting tool (23,24,25) within said head (7), wherein said head (7) is supported on said handle (2) to allow swivel motion (at bearing axis 8) relative to an outer shell (2) of said handle., wherein said hair cutting tool comprises at least three separate hair cutting units (23,24,25), wherein said outer shell encloses a printed circuit board (33), a battery (32) and a motor (14), said outer shell comprising a user interface comprising an on/off button or switch (13) and a display (19/20) that indicates a functional status of the device by at least one of images, text, figures, or symbols, (“system 1, system 2), wherein a part of said display (19/20) and said on/off button or switch (13) are electrically connected to said PCB (33) on a first side of said PCB facing said outer shell (2);
wherein said battery (32) and said motor (14) are electrically connected to said PCB at and positioned on a second side of said PCB opposite to said first side, said second side of said PCB and extending along at least a substantial length of each of said battery and said motor;
wherein said on/off switch (13) is located on a same frontal side of said outer shell as said display (19/20), and wherein said hair cutting tool (23-25) is located at a top end of the hair cutting device (per Figure 4), wherein a distance from said display to the top end of the hair cutting device is less than a distance from said on/off button or switch (13) to the top end of the hair cutting device ( the display 19/20 is closer to the cutting units than the on/off switch 13).
Haczek discloses the claimed invention except for the limitations highlighted above, such that Haczek does not explicitly disclose (i) that the PCB extends along at least a substantial length of the motor, nor (ii) that the user interface including the on/off button or switch and the display is electrically connected to and positioned on a first side of the PCB while the battery and motor are electrically connected to and positioned on a second side of the PCB. Meier teaches mounting an electric motor (32) on a PCB via sprung motor contacts (46 to the back of the PCB), which results in the PCB extending along at least a portion of the motor. Meier further teaches connecting the display unit (38) to the front side of the PCB utilizing at least key elements and snap-on discs (62 and 64; Fig. 9). Thereby Meier suggests arranging electrical components on different sides of the PCB.
Shimizu further discloses a handheld electric shaver including a motor (13) a battery (1@) and a circuit board (14) arranged within the housing such that the motor and battery extend along the length of the device and are positioned adjacent the circuit board. Shimizu therefore evidences that arranging a PCB, motor and battery in a generally longitudinally aligned and overlapping configuration is a known and conventional arrangement in handheld shavers.
It would have been obvious to modify Haczek to mount the motor along the PBC as taught by Meier in order to achieve a compact and space-efficient internal layout and to facilitate assembly of electrical components. It would have further been obvious to distribute components on opposite sides of the PCB, including positioning the user interface on one side and the motor and battery on the opposite side, as a matter of routine component arrangement to optimize internal packaging and reduce device thickness. Additionally, it would have been obvious to reposition the battery relative to the PCB as part of such component arrangement. Rearranging the relative positions of known components to achieve a more compact configuration constitutes a routine design choice within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Further it would have been obvious to arrange the motor and battery in a generally longitudinally aligned and at least partially overlapping configuration with the PCB, as evidenced by Shimizu, as such configurations are commonly employed in handheld electronic devices to efficiently utilize internal space. Such as arrangement inherently results in the PCB extending along at least a portion of the motor and battery.
The resulting device would therefore include a PCB extending along at least a portion of the motor and battery, with the user interface disposed on a first side of the PCB and the motor and battery disposed on a second side opposite the first side, as claimed.
Claim 1-6, 8, 10-12, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haczek et al. (U.S. Patent 8,127,453), herein referred to as Haczek in view of Meier et al. (U.S. Patent 9,126,346) and Shimizu (U.S. Patent 9,649,772).
Claim 1 is rejected in view of the modified device of Haczek as applied to claim 16 above. The modified device of Haczek also does not disclose the additional limitation of claim 1, “wherein the display comprises a central main portion that is recessed or depressed relative to the outer shell to form a thumb rest area over the display”. Meier further discloses a user interface, including the display with a central main portion (28) and control elements is disposed within a recessed portion of the housing, thereby forming a depressed region surrounded by raised housing surfaces. Such a configuration inherently accommodates a user’s thumb and improves ergonomic interaction with the device. It would have been obvious to modify Haczek to include such a recessed portion to improve user ergonomics, provide a thumb placement region and enhance control during operation. The resulting device would therefore include a recessed central main portion (23) around the display configured as a thumb rest area, as claimed.
In regards to claim 2, the modified device of Haczek discloses wherein said outer shell (2) is provided with comprises a display opening (annotated below; as modified by Meier) , wherein said display comprises an outer window part (26; as modified by Meier) that fits in said display opening, wherein said part of said display (as modified by Meier) connected to said PCB (33) includes an electronic display element (LEDs as modified by Meier), and wherein said outer window part (26; as modified by Meier) includes the central main portion (28 as modified by Meier) and a rim portion (annotated below; as modified by Meier) circumscribing the central main portion.
PNG
media_image1.png
634
608
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 3, the modified device of Haczek discloses wherein said outer window part (26 as modified by Meier) is a one-piece part made from plastic and is formed with a depression; and wherein said rim portion (annotated above) is substantially flush mounted with the adjacent outer shell (e.g. 22 Meier / 2) and said central main portion (28 Meier) is recessed or depressed (fig. 19) relative to the rim portion (see Meier; col. 5, lines 1-14).
In regards to claim 4, the modified device of Haczek discloses wherein said outer window part (26 as modified by Meier) is translucent (transparent) and dark colored (see Meier; col. 5, lines 1-14).
In regards to claim 5, the modified device of Haczek discloses said outer window (26) part is a 2-component injection molded part having a transparent central main portion and a non-transparent rim portion (col. 5, lines 1-14 and 46-57)
In regards to claim 6, the modified device of Haczek discloses wherein said on/off button or switch is part of the outer window part.
In regard to claim 8, the modified device of Haczek discloses wherein said display (19/20), said PCB (33) and said motor (14) are positioned next to each other side by side with the PCB (33) being located between said display (19/20) and said motor (14) (as modified by Meier and Shimizu in claim 16).
In regard to claim 10, the modified device of Haczek discloses said display is provided as one of a LCD type display, a TFT type display, a Touch-display, a QLED type display, an OLED type display, multiple LED's (19/20; each possess a separate lighting source), an AMOLED type display, or a Super AMOLED type display.
In regard to claim 11, the modified device of Haczek discloses wherein said display includes a sensory area (28; touch screen Meier) for activating and/ or deactivating a hair cutting device function.
In regard to claim 12, the modified device of Haczek discloses wherein said display (19/20) allows for gesture or finger swipe control of a hair cutting device function
(“The user interface of the toothbrush and the razor can be designed alternatively as a touch screen. The switching elements 42 are directly integrated and also the display unit 38 would be replaced by the touch screen.” Col. 26, lines 11-14).
In regard to claim 14, the modified device of Haczek discloses wherein said display (28) is provided with an electronic display element (LEDs) and wherein the hair cutting device further comprises a water sealed inner shell is provided for accommodation therein of said PCB, the electronic display element, the battery, and the motor
(“In one embodiment the circuit board 36 is provided preferably at the rear end with contact pads 122 which may be accessed through the battery compartment with contact pins 124 establishing contact to the external processor. In this embodiment an end cap 20 is providing the required water-proof seal.” Col, 14, lines 52-58).
In regards to claim 15, the modified device of Haczek discloses wherein the user interface includes said display (28; Meier as modified), said on/off button or switch (e.g. 13/ 42 Meier) and at least one mode button (Meier 42 switching button; between 28 and 42 power button; fig. 1 as modified); wherein said outer shell (2 /22 Meier) has a single display opening (annotated below; as modified by Meier)
PNG
media_image2.png
386
608
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haczek et al. (U.S. Patent 8,127,453), herein referred to as Haczek in view of Meier et al. (U.S. Patent 9,126,346) and Shimizu (U.S. Patent 9,649,772).
In regards to claim 7, the modified device of Haczek discloses said rim portion (annotated above of Meier) comprises a wide top portion which is flush mounted with the outwardly adjacent outer shell and is provided with an inwardly adjacent inclined portion, wherein said inclined portion that connects the central main portion (28) with the top portion (see Meier Fig. 16). However, the combined references do not explicitly disclose that the rim comprises a top portion having of width of at least 0.5 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the width of the rim to be at least 0.5mm, as thus would constitute a mere change in size of a known component. Such dimensional modification would have been a matter of routine design choice to achieve structural robustness, manufacturability, or aesthetic considerations, and would not affect the fundamental operation of the device. A change in size of components, absent a new or unexpected results is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haczek et al. (U.S. Patent 8,127,453), herein referred to as Haczek in view of Meier et al. (U.S. Patent 9,126,346) and Shimizu (U.S. Patent 9,649,772).
In regard to claim 13, the modified device of Haczek discloses the claimed inventio but is silent as to the material of the outer shell and does not explicitly disclose wherein said outer shell is made of metal. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have formed the outer shell from metal, as the section of a suitable material for a known component is a matter of routine design choice. Metals and plastics are well known alternative materials for razor housing, each offering predictable advantages such as strength, durability and manufacturability. Selecting metal as the material for the outer shell would have been an obvious substitution of one known material for another to obtain predictable results, and would not have altered the fundamental operation of the device. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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