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 .
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(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. [US 2022/0175611 A1, hereinafter “Lee,” newly cited] in view of Giraud et al. [US 2014/0142472 A1, hereinafter "Giraud"] and Krauss et al. [US 2018/0085949 A1, hereinafter "Krauss"].
Re. claim 17, Lee discloses:
A first attachment for a skin treatment [Fig. 3B, with the structure shown in Figs. 4A-B], the first attachment configured to be releasably connectable to a head base (“of an electric hair removal device” is not a positively recited par to the claim. The attachment is attachable to device 100, as shown in Fig. 1B), the first attachment comprising:
a base part ["inner frame" 302, Fig. 3B] having a recess or indentation defined in an outer top surface of said base part [Annotated Fig. 3B. Note that "top" is not limited by the claims and so the surface facing out in Fig. 3B may reasonably be considered a top surface];
PNG
media_image1.png
361
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a skin treatment part ["cup region" 300, Figs. 3B and 4A-B] overlying at least a portion of said base part [Fig. 3B],
said skin treatment part having a skin contact side [Fig. 4B] facing away from said base part; and
a magnetic part [Annotated Fig. 3B, which cooperates with “magnetic connector” 114, Par. 0025] in said recess or indentation
wherein:
said first attachment is tub or pot shaped and comprises
said skin treatment part comprises ring-shaped projections [410 and 100] projecting from said skin contact side [Fig 4B].
The invention of Lee differs from the claimed invention in that Lee teaches a magnetic attachment part but does not necessarily disclose said part being a magnet, and fails to teach said magnet sandwiched between the base and skin treatment parts; and fails to teach specifically a snap fit.
Regarding the magnetic part being a magnet: Lee teaches a magnetic connection but fails to disclose the details. However, Giraud teaches, in a handle device with various interchangeable heads, at least one of the heads has a magnet [Par. 0007 and Par. 0075]. Replacing a magnetic connector of unspecified type with a magnet sandwiched between two parts, here a base part and skin treatment part, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention because this allows the head and base to connect with the additional benefit that the controller can recognize the type of attachment [Giraud Par. 0007].
Regarding the releasable connection being a snap fit type: Krauss teaches a said first attachment for skin treatment is tub or pot shaped [Fig. 9] having snap fit connections [Par. 0069] for releasably connecting the attachment to the base. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Lee by configuring the connection to be a snap fit connection as taught by Krauss because this allows for quick joining/release which is secure and provides audible/tactile feedback to the user that the head is secured.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Giraud and Krauss, as applied to claim 17, and further in view of Tang et al. [US 20220168175 A1, hereinafter “Tang” newly cited]
Re. claim 18. Lee discloses said base part is made from plastic [Par. 0006] but fails to teach the skin treatment part being metal. However, Tang teaches a skin treatment part is made from metal [Par. 0051]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Lee by configuring the skin treatment part to be metal as taught by Tang because this allows the device to readily perform additional functions such as cooling and heating [Tang Par. 0051].
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Giraud and Krauss, as applied to claim 17, and further in view of Tirrell et al. [US 20170106809 A1, hereinafter “Tirrell” newly cited].
Re. claim 19. Lee is silent regarding the glue ring. However, Tirrell teaches a magnetic attachment wherein a magnet [40, Figs. 1-2] is at least partly surrounded by a glue ring [at least around its perimeter, Par. 0033], and wherein said glue ring is sandwiched between a first part [100] and a base part [60]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of the modified Lee to add a glue ring as claimed because this secures the magnet in between the skin treatment part and base.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 17-19 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14, 16, 20-21 are allowed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN MCGRATH whose telephone number is (571)270-0674. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 3 pm ET.
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, JACKIE HO can be reached at (571) 272-4696. 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.
/ERIN MCGRATH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights