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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
All of the I.D.S.’s have been considered. One of the I.D.S. has NPL documents that have been lined through. It is unclear how the objection/rejection/allowance of claims with different combination of limitations is relevant to the instant application. Without any reasoning provided by Applicant, these NPL documents have not be considered.
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 1 and 4-14 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the at least one substantially planar treatment sheet" on lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 has been amended to include “one or more sponges”, “one or more deflection arms”, and “any combination” all of which does not correspond with the ranges of claims 4 and 5. The combination of the sponges, deflection arms, and/or any combination can be considered new matter in combination with the ranges of claims 4 and 5 as it is not supported by the original specification. Claims 4 and 5 disclose ranges that only appear to be associated with one of the spring options. Claims 4 and 5 need to be amended to further define the deflector as one of the options that are associated with the ranges. Claims 4, 5, 8, 10, and 11 all claim the deflector and need to be reviewed in light of claim 1’s disclosure of all the different deflectors. Claims 4, 5, 8, 10, and 11 will need to be amended to include the specific deflector if their limitations are only associated with a specific deflector.
With regards to claim 10, the phrase “the handheld portion, the multi-angle deflector, and the hair removal surface define perimeters having substantially the same size” is unclear. It is unclear what can and cannot be perimeters that have the same size. It is also unclear what is meant by “substantially the same size” as two items that are substantially the same size are not the same size. Each of the portions and deflectors have an infinite number of perimeters with an infinite number of dimensions, some of which are not the same size. Further definition of the perimeters is needed so it is clear what structures have substantially the same size. It is noted that further definition of all of the deflector options now claimed in claim 1 need to be included.
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, 4, 6-12, and 14 are rejected (claim 10 as best understood) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110802639 in view of Chaun (2,677,885) and Zwart et al. (2025/0017348). See Examiner annotated Liu Figure (hereinafter EALF1) below.
With regards to claims 1, 6-12, and 14, CN 110802639 discloses the invention including a hair removal device (Fig. 1) having a handheld portion (220, 221), an applicator head (100) having a hair removal surface (130), the hair removal surface having at least one substantially planar two-dimensional treatment sheet (131), the at least one treatment sheet comprising a plurality of enclosed cutting edges (131, Fig. 5), and a multi-angle deflector spring (190) joined to the applicator head (Figs. 3 and 6), the handheld portion having a base (Fig. 1), the hair removal surface is disposed on the applicator head (Fig. 1), the deflector provides a multi-directional deflection connection of the applicator head relative to the handheld portion (Fig. 3), the handheld portion has a circular shape (220, 221, Fig. 1), the handheld portion, the deflector, and the hair removal surface define perimeters having substantially the same size (Fig. 3, items must have perimeters that are substantially the same size to allow for them all to fit together), the handheld portion, the deflector, and the hair removal surface are aligned along an alignment axis (“alignment axis” in EALF1), the handheld portion has a handle (201), and the handle is disposed at an angle relative to the handheld portion (Fig. 1).
However, with regards to claim 1, CN 110802639 fails to disclose the cutting edges are non-linear.
Chaun teaches it is known in the art of enclosed cutting edges of a hair removal device to be non-linear (26, 27, Fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have provided CN 110802639 with the non-linear cutting edges, as taught by Chaun, because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results and all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
However, with regards to claims 1 and 4, CN 110802639 fails to disclose the deflector spring is a wave spring with a thickness.
Zwart et al. teach it is known in the art of devices using springs to incorporate a wave spring option with a thickness (Fig. 20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have provided CN 110802639 with the wave spring, as taught by Zwart et al., because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results and all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
However, with regards to claim 4, CN 110802639 in view of Zwart et al. fail to disclose the thickness range.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the wave spring thickness within any reasonable range including within the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the device of CN 110802639 in view of Zwart et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4. The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
PNG
media_image1.png
809
403
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110802639 in view of Chaun (2,677,885) and Zwart et al. (2025/0017348) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Weschta et al. (2021/0268674).
With regards to claim 5, CN 110802639 in view of Chaun and Zwart et al. disclose a deflection stiffness (Fig. 20 in Zwart et al.).
However, CN 110802639 in view of Chaun and Zwart et al. fail to disclose the stiffness range.
Weschta et al. teach it is known in the art of personal care products with a multi-angle deflector to incorporate a stiffness ranging from 0.05 N/mm and 5 N/mm (paragraph [0013], “the spring constant of the spring element may be in a range of between 0.05 N/mm and 1.0 N/mm… where the cam element can move, and the pin head can only pivot”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have provided CN 110802639 in view of Chaun and Zwart et al. with the stiffness, as taught by Weschta et al., because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results and all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110802639 in view of Chaun (2,677,885) and Zwart et al. (2025/0017348) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Leventhal (7,103,980).
CN 110802639 in view of Chaun and Zwart et al. disclose the invention but fail to disclose the handle is extendable.
Leventhal teaches it is known in the art of trimmer to incorporate an extendable handle (613, Fig. 6A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have provided CN 110802639 in view of Chaun and Zwart et al. with the extendable handle, as taught by Leventhal, because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results and all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection is not specifically challenged in the argument.
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 JASON DANIEL PRONE whose telephone number is (571)272-4513. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:00 am-3:00 pm.
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 D 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.
09 September 2026
/Jason Daniel Prone/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights