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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed December 16th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 6, 7, 11-13, and 19 have been cancelled. Claims 1-5, 8-10, 14-15, 18, and 20 remain pending in the application. New claims 21-27 are also pending in the application.
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:
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;
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
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:
• “magnetic field module” in claims 1 and 2.
• “adjustment module” in claim 1.
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.
The corresponding structure described in the specification for the 112(f) invoked
limitations are as follows:
• “magnetic field module” as described structurally in [0042] of the specification.
• “adjustment module” as described structurally in [0045] of the specification.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claim 21 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 21 defines a first portion and second portion of the magnetic projections which are configured to move in directions opposite to each other. While Fig. 3 of the drawings shows two sets of magnetic positions set in generally opposing positions, it could not be determined by viewing of the figure alone whether this is a stationary position, or movement in an opposite directions between the two sets of projections. Further, the specification does not mention a first portion, a second portion, or movement between any two portions of magnetic projections in opposing directions. Claims 22-27 are rejected as depending on claim 21.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 10, 14, 20-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as
being unpatentable over Gregory Aviza at al. (WO 2005108025 A1 - hereinafter Aviza) in
view of Woo Park et al (WO 2018029992 A1 - hereinafter Park), Sejun Jang et al. (US
20220016794 A1 - hereinafter Jang), and Akram Zitoun et al. (See attached research article
– hereinafter Zitoun).
Regarding claim 1, Aviza teaches a shaving device comprising: a head (Fig. 1, Cartridge
14) extending between a first end (Fig. 1, left end of Cartridge 14) and a second end (Fig. 1, right
end of Cartridge 14), the head being configured to support a blade (Fig. 1, Blade 18), and the
head comprising a base (Fig. 1, Housing 16) extending between the first end of the head and the
second end of the head, the base including one or more projection (Fig. 2, Exfoliation Member
36) extending from a surface of the base being configured to face a shaving surface (Page 4, line
31 and Page 5, line 1); a handle (Fig. 1, Handle 12) being configured to support the head; and a
module (Fig. 1, Motor 32) included by one of the handle or the head, the module being
configured to be transitioned between an inactive state and an active state (Page 5, lines 25 -26);
wherein the module is configured to interact with the one or more projection in the active state to
move the one or more projection (Page 2, lines 9-10); an actuator (Fig. 1, Knob 34) in communication with the magnetic field module, wherein the actuator, when actuated, is configured to transition the magnetic field module from the inactive state to the active state (Page 5, lines 25-26); and an adjustment module (Fig. 1, Control Knob 34) in communication with the module (Page 3, lines 25-26), the adjustment module configured to adjust an output of the module (Page 3, lines 25-26 – revolutions per minute is adjusted) such that a speed of the one or more projections is adjusted (Page 2, lines 12-14 – variable speed control via control of frequency; Page 5, lines 25-26 – use of knob 34 to select desired frequency).
Aviza fails to teach that the one or more projection is magnetic, that the module is a magnetic field module which is configured to generate a magnetic field when in the active state,
and that the adjustment module is configured to adjust a variation of the magnetic field.
However, Zitoun teaches that a member such as the one or more projection can be made
to vibrate if it is magnetic and acted upon by a magnetic field (Zitoun, Abstract). Park teaches a
personal grooming device with multiple magnetic projections (Fig. 4, hexagonal magnetization
zones of Magnetic Element 20), and Jang teaches a magnetic field module located in the handle
which is configured to generate a magnetic field when in the active state (Fig. 2A, Induction Coil
30; [0049]), and an adjustment module (Fig. 2A, Switch Button 27) which is configured to adjust
a variation of the magnetic field ([0034] – Button 27 controls whether 30 is activated (providing
a magnetic field) or deactivated (not providing a magnetic field)). The magnetic projections of
Park serve a similar purpose to the one or more projection used in Aviza – the projections in both
cases serve to massage the skin (Park; [0034] and Aviza; Page 4 Para 3 – exfoliation process
involves the massaging of skin). The module of Aviza and the induction coil of Jang both work
to modify the state of a component located in the shaving head when in an active state (Aviza;
Page 2, lines 9-10 - Motor 32 works to move Exfoliating Member 36 and Jang; [0038] - Coil 30
works to heat a conducting object). Zitoun provides evidence for the functional abilities of the
induction coil of Jang to act upon magnetic projections in Park when in combination with each
other and the device of Aviza.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the shaving device of Aviza such that the one or more projection
is magnetic as taught by Park, and such that the module is a magnetic field module which is
configured to generate a magnetic field when in the active state and the adjustment module is
configured to adjust a variation of the magnetic field as taught by Jang. Doing so would have required only the simple substitution of changing the material of the one or more projection and
switching the motor for a magnetic field module such as an induction coil. It is known that the
magnetic projections of Park work to massage the skin, and that the induction coil of Jang
creates a magnetic field which is capable of imparting movement upon magnetic objects. One
could have substituted the projections of Aviza for the magnetic projections of Park, and the
motor of Aviza with the induction coil of Jang, leading to the predictable result of inducing
movement in magnetic projections used to massage and exfoliate the skin with the use of a
magnetic field generated by the induction coil of Jang. It is clear that this result is predictable, as
Zitoun teaches it was known to cause vibrations using one or more magnetic elements to
move/vibrate when interacting with a magnetic field module.
Regarding claim 2, Aviza further teaches the shaving device according to claim 1,
wherein the magnetic field module is included within the handle of the shaving device (Fig. 1,
Motor 32 is located in Handle 12).
Regarding claim 3, Aviza further teaches the shaving device according to claim 1,
wherein the one or more magnetic projections comprises a flexible stem (Fig. 2, body of
Exfoliation Member 36; Page 4, lines 12-19 - can be composed of terrycloth, which is flexible)
extending from a root (Fig. 2, bottom square surface of Exfoliation Member 36) attached to the
surface of the base of the head to a tip (Fig. 2, top rounded surfaces of Exfoliation Member 36).
Regarding claim 4, the existing combination of Aviza, Park, Jang, and Zitoun fails to
teach the shaving device according to claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the one or more
magnetic projections is comprised of one or more ferromagnetic element suspended in an
elastomeric matrix.
However, Park further teaches wherein at least a portion of the one or more magnetic projections (Fig. hexagonal magnetization zones of Magnetic Element 20) is comprised of one or
more ferromagnetic element suspended in an elastomeric matrix ([0041]- ferrite particles
dispersed in a rubber material).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the one or more magnetic projections of the existing combination
of Aviza, Park, Jang, and Zitoun. Doing so would have required only the simple substitution of
changing the material composition of the one or more magnetic projection. One of ordinary skill
in the art could have made this substitution, and predicted that the one or more magnetic
projection would be relatively comfortable when in contact with a user’s skin when comprises a
matrix of rubber. One of ordinary skill in the art could have also predicted that using a
ferromagnetic material would allow for a stronger and potentially permanent magnet which
would be much more susceptible than other types of magnetic materials to magnetic field
generated by the magnetic field module.
Regarding claim 8, the existing combination of Aviza, Park, Jang, and Zitoun teaches
the shaving device according to claim 1, wherein the magnetic field module comprises one or
more conductor configured to generate a magnetic field (see the rejection of claim 1 above –
induction coils are inherently constructed from conductive material).
Regarding claim 14, Aviza further teaches the shaving device according to claim 13,
wherein the actuator is configured to be actuated manually by a user (Page 5, lines 25 -26).
Regarding claim 20, Aviza further teaches the shaving device according to claim 10,
wherein the one or more projections (Fig. 2, Exfoliation Member 36) are oriented at an angle
within a range of 75 degrees to 100 degrees with respect to the surface of the base (Fig. 1,
Housing 16; it can be seen in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 that when installed, Exfoliation Member 36
extends at a 90 degree angle from the face of Housing 16 to which it is attached). The rejection
of claim 1 above establishes that the one or more projections is a plurality of magnetic
projections.
Regarding claim 21, Aviza further teaches wherein a first portion of the one or more magnetic projections are configured to move in a first direction, wherein a second portion of the one or more magnetic projections are configured to move in a second direction, and wherein the first direction is opposite the second direction (Page 2, Para 1 – two exfoliation members can move in opposite directions).
Regarding claim 22, the existing combination of Aviza, Park, Jang, and Zitoun does not teach the shaving device according to claim 21, wherein the first portion of the one or more magnetic projections and the second portion of the one or more magnetic projections, during movement, are oriented at an angle within a range of 20 degrees to 160 degrees with respect to the surface of the base. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Aviza, Park, Jang, and Zitoun to include the limitation of claim 22 above since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Aviza, Park, Jang, and Zitoun would not operate differently with regards to being able to exfoliate. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the distance “may” be within the claimed ranges (specification pp. [0040]).
Regarding claim 23, the existing combination of Aviza, Park, Jang, and Zitoun already teaches the shaving device according to claim 22, wherein the magnetic field module comprises one or more electromagnetic micro-coils configured to generate the magnetic field (See the rejection of claim 1 above - Induction Coil 30 of Jang).
Regarding claim 24, the existing combination of Aviza, Park, Jang, and Zitoun does not teach the shaving device according to claim 23, wherein a local magnetic field strength generated by the magnetic field module and exerted on the one or more magnetic projections is within a range of 5 mT and 50 mT. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Aviza, Park, Jang, and Zitoun to include the limitation of claim 24 above since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Aviza, Park, Jang, and Zitoun would not operate differently with regards to being able to exfoliate. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the distance “may” be within the claimed ranges (specification pp. [0045]).
Regarding claim 25, Aviza further teaches the shaving device according to claim 24, wherein the one or more magnetic projections (Fig. 2, Exfoliation Member 36) are oriented at a position upstream of the blade (Fig. 2, Blade 18), such that the one or more magnetic projections contact skin of a user prior to contact between the skin of the user and the blade during a shaving action.
Regarding claim 26, the existing combination of Aviza, Park, Jang, and Zitoun fails to
teach the shaving device according to claim 25, wherein at least a portion of the one or more
magnetic projections comprises a plurality of ferromagnetic element suspended in an elastomeric matrix.
However, Park further teaches wherein at least a portion of the one or more magnetic projections (Fig. hexagonal magnetization zones of Magnetic Element 20) is comprised of one or
more ferromagnetic element suspended in an elastomeric matrix ([0041]- ferrite particles
dispersed in a rubber material).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the one or more magnetic projections of the existing combination
of Aviza, Park, Jang, and Zitoun. Doing so would have required only the simple substitution of
changing the material composition of the one or more magnetic projection. One of ordinary skill
in the art could have made this substitution, and predicted that the one or more magnetic
projection would be relatively comfortable when in contact with a user’s skin when comprises a
matrix of rubber. One of ordinary skill in the art could have also predicted that using a
ferromagnetic material would allow for a stronger and potentially permanent magnet which
would be much more susceptible than other types of magnetic materials to magnetic field
generated by the magnetic field module.
The existing combination of Aviza, Park, Jang, and Zitoun does not teach that the plurality of ferromagnetic elements have a mean diameter within a range of 0.00001 mm to 0.1 mm. However it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Aviza, Park, Jang, and Zitoun to include the limitation of claim 26 above since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Aviza, Park, Jang, and Zitoun would not operate differently with regards to being able to exfoliate. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the distance “may” be within the claimed ranges (specification pp. [0040]).
Regarding claim 27, the existing combination of Aviza, Park, Jang, and Zitoun fails to teach the shaving device according to claim 26, wherein the magnetic field module is located at a mean distance within a range of 1 mm and 5 mm from the base of the head, and wherein the magnetic field module is arranged in an orientation that extends parallel or substantially parallel to the base.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Aviza, Park, Jang, and Zitoun to include the limitation of claim 27 above regarding mean distance since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Aviza, Park, Jang, and Zitoun would not operate differently with regards to being able to exfoliate. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the distance “may” be within the claimed ranges (specification pp. [0041]).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the orientation of the contact surface as it has been held that the position of a feature may be in a different location as an obvious matter of design choice as long as it does not modify the operation of the device In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gregory Aviza
at al. (WO 2005108025 A1 - hereinafter Aviza) in view of Woo Park et al (WO 2018029992
A1 - hereinafter Park), Sejun Jang et al. (US 20220016794 A1 - hereinafter Jang), and
Akram Zitoun et al. (See attached research article - hereinafter Zitoun) as applied to claim
1 above, and further in view of Matthew Long et al. (US 20200070374 A1 – hereinafter
Long).
Regarding claim 5, the existing combination of Aviza, Park, Jang, and Zitoun fails to
teach the shaving device according to claim 1, wherein the one or more magnetic projections has
a mean diameter within a range of 0.001 mm and 0.5 mm, and wherein the one or more magnetic projections extends to a mean length within a range of 0.001 mm and 1 mm.
However, Park further teaches that the hexagonal zones may have a point to point
distance bisecting the hexagon of 2 mm to 20 mm ([0043], double the length of a single side;
examiner interprets that this distance is the mean diameter of the hexagonal shape, where a
hexagon is a rough circle which can still be define by a diameter). Additionally, Long teaches one or more projections (Fig. 8D, First Protrusions 150) which extend to a mean length of 0.18 mm ([0043]). It has been held that "[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the diameter of the one or more magnetic projections of the
combination of Aviza, Park, Jang, and Zitoun to be 0.001 mm to 0.5 mm as taught by Park as
applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (specification of the claimed
invention, [0034]) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges
‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16
USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Similarly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the one or more magnetic projections of the combination of Aviza, Park, Jang, and Zitoun to extend to a mean length within a range of 0.001 mm and 1 mm as taught by Long. Doing so is beneficial as the height allows the first protrusions to protrude from the base in a way that increases skin contact (Long, [0042]).
Additionally, Aviza further teaches the shaving device according to claim 1,
wherein the one or more magnetic projections is configured to move at a frequency of 0 Hz to
160 Hz (Page 2, lines 12-14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the frequency of movement of the one or more magnetic
projection of the combination of Aviza, Park, Jang, Zitoun, and Long to be 10 Hz to 200 Hz as
applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (specification of the claimed
invention, [0040]) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges
‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16
USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gregory Aviza
at al. (WO 2005108025 A1 - hereinafter Aviza) in view of Woo Park et al (WO 2018029992
A1 - hereinafter Park), Sejun Jang et al. (US 20220016794 A1 - hereinafter Jang), and
Akram Zitoun et al. (See attached research article - hereinafter Zitoun) as applied to claim
above, and further in view of Da Woon (US 20210170614 A1 – hereinafter Woon) and Neil Lettenberger (US 20210362362 A1 – hereinafter Lettenberger).
Regarding claim 10, the existing combination of Aviza, Park, Jang, and Zitoun teaches
the shaving device according to claim 1, comprising a plurality of magnetic projections
extending from the base of the head (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
The combination of Aviza, Park, Jang, and Zitoun fails to teach wherein the plurality of magnetic projections are included in a plurality of sections of the base of the head, and one or more section of the plurality of sections is included within a recess defined by the base of the head, and wherein each magnetic projections is located at a mean distance within a range of 0.05 mm and 2 mm from an adjacent magnetic projection.
However, Woon teaches a plurality of projections (Fig. 1A, Guard Protrusions 142)
included in a plurality of sections (Fig. 1A, the six sections bottom sections of the guard that are
separated by Channels 144) of the base (Fig. 1, Blade Housing 120) of the head, and one or more
section of the plurality of sections is included within a recess (Fig. 2, Channel 144 defines a
recess in the housing) defined by the base of the head.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the shaving device of the combination of Aviza, Park, Jang, and
Zitoun such that the plurality of projections are included in a plurality of sections, and one or
more section is included within a recess defined by the base of the head as taught by Woon.
Doing so is beneficial as it creates gaps between the sections allowing any shaving aid to easily
pass through and be evenly distributed over the razor cartridge (Woon, [0040]).
Additionally, Lettenberger teaches a multitude of projections located at a mean distance
within a range of 0.15 mm and 0.6 mm from an adjacent projection (Fig. 4B, Elements 44,
[0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the magnetic projections of the combination of Aviza, Park, Jang,
and Zitoun to be located at a mean distance within the range of 0.15 mm and 0.6 mm from an
adjacent projection as taught by Lettenberger. Doing so is beneficial as a gap this size makes the
exfoliation area easier to clean (Lettenberger, [0023]). It would have also been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify this mean distance to be in the
range of 0.05 mm and 2 mm as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed
range (specification of the claimed invention, [0038]) and since it has been held that “[i]n the
case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima
facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In
re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gregory Aviza at al. (WO 2005108025 A1 - hereinafter Aviza) in view of Woo Park et al (WO 2018029992 A1 - hereinafter Park), Sejun Jang et al. (US 20220016794 A1 - hereinafter Jang), and Akram Zitoun et al. (See attached research article – hereinafter Zitoun) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Vasiliki Panagiotopoulou (US 20210146560 A1 – hereinafter Panagiotopoulou).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Aviza, Park, Jang, and Zitoun fails to teach the
shaving device according to claim 14 wherein the actuator is in the form of a sensor and is
configured to detect a shaving action between the head and the skin of a user, and wherein the sensor is one of a pressure sensor, force sensor, accelerometer, gyroscope, magnetometer, proximity sensor.
However, Panagiotopoulou teaches a shaving device wherein an actuator is in the form of
a sensor (Fig. 6c, Proximity Sensor 6111) and is configured to detect a shaving action ([0068])
between the head and the skin of the user, and wherein the sensor is a proximity sensor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the shaving device of the combination of Aviza, Park, Jang, and
Zitoun such that the actuator is a proximity sensor configured to detect a shaving action as taught by Panagiotopoulou. Doing so is beneficial as it allows for the collection of data that can be used to provide analytical insights to the user (Panagiotopoulou, [0066]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gregory Aviza
at al. (WO 2005108025 A1 - hereinafter Aviza) in view of Woo Park et al (WO 2018029992
A1 - hereinafter Park), Sejun Jang et al. (US 20220016794 A1 - hereinafter Jang), and
Akram Zitoun et al. (See attached research article - hereinafter Zitoun) as applied to
claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Raymond Guimont et al. (US 6851190 B2 –
hereinafter Guimont).
Regarding claim 18, The existing combination of Aviza, Park, Jang, and Zitoun fails the
shaving device according to claim 8, wherein the one or more conductors include a first conductor and a second conductor, and to teach where the first conductor and the second
conductor are configured to be activated independently of each other.
However, Jang further teaches wherein the one or more conductors include a first
conductor (Fig. 4A, First Induction Coil 33-1) and a second conductor (Fig. 4A, Second
Induction Coil 33-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the shaving device of the combination of Aviza, Park, Jang, and
Zitoun to include the features of claim 18 above as taught by Jang, as the modification would
consist of a mere duplication of parts, which has no patentable significance unless a new and
unexpected result is produced in re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Additionally, Guimont teaches a shaving device with multiple similar components (Fig.
3C, elements 65a-c) which are configured to be activated independently of each other (Fig. 3C,
Switches 130a-c; Col. 9 lines 62-67 and Col. 10 lines 1-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the shaving device of the combination of Aviza, Park, Jang, and
Zitoun to include the features of claim 18 above as taught by Guimont. Doing so is beneficial as
it provides the user with control over the output of multiple components of the shaving device
(Col. 9, lines 38-52).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Jang does not teach the actuator engaging with a magnetic field module, since the module disclosed in Jang works as an induction coil. While the magnetic field module of Jang does function as an induction coil, it also meets the definition as claimed of a magnetic field module since it generates a magnetic field (See the rejection of claim 1 above). Applicant argues that neither Aviza or Jang teaches production of a magnetic field that affects the speed of the magnetic projections. However, it is demonstrated in the rejection of claim 1 above that the speed of the magnetic projections can be directly set with the use of knob 34 of Aviza. Applicant argues that the induction coil 30 of Jang could not produce a magnetic field, however the induction coil of Jang is already shown in the disclosure of Jang to produce a magnetic field (Jang; [0049]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELLA LORRAINE KEENA whose telephone number is (571)272-1806. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am - 5:00 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, 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.
/ELLA L KEENA/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724