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. The I.D.S. received 5-3-24 has NPL documents that have been lined through. It is unclear how the objection/rejection/allowance of claims with a different combination of limitations is relevant to the instant application. Without any reasoning provided by Applicant, these NPL documents have not been 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 1-9 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.
With regards to claim 1 line 1, the phrase “a plurality of leaf springs” is unclear. As written, the leaf springs are separate structures which does not appear to be supported. The springs appear to all be engaged to define a single structure. Claim 1 needs to at least broadly acknowledge that the leaf springs are all engaged with one another.
With regards to claims 2 and 6, claim 1 discloses separate leaf spring structure since claim 1 does not require the leaf springs to engage. It is unclear how separate items can now be connected in claims 2 and 6. Claim 1 needs to first disclose the leaf springs are engaged and then claims 2 and 6 can further limit the engagement.
With regards to claim 3, the phrase “the wave spring comprises a stack of wave shaped washers” is unclear. It is unclear what structure represents the washers as they disclosed as part of the wave spring in addition to the leaf springs. As written, the leaf spring form a wave spring in claim 2 while claim 3 introduces the wave spring has washers. It is unclear if the leaf springs and the washers represent the same or different structures.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the same" on line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-8 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto et al. (2022/0314471) in view of Zwart et al. (2025/0017348) with [evidence 10 Tips for Engineers about Wave Springs from Engineering.com (hereinafter “Engineering.com”)].
See Figures below for Examiner added reference labels to Figures 10 and 20 of Zwart et al. Hereafter, annotated Figure 10 will be called EAZF10 and annotated Figure 11 will be called EAZF20
With regards to claims 1, 10, and 11, Hashimoto et al. disclose a hair removal device (100) having a spring means (52) joined to an applicator head (20, Fig. 2), the applicator head having a hair removal surface (30), and the spring means (52) is configured to provide multi-direction deflection (float head 20 in paragraph [0016]) of the applicator head (20) relative to a base (10) of the device (100).
However, with regards to claims 1-4, 6-8, and 10-14, Hashimoto et al. fail to disclose the spring means is a plurality of leaf springs, the plurality of leaf springs are connected to form a wave spring, the wave spring comprises a stack of wave shaped washers, the plurality of leaf springs extend radially from a center of the hair removal surface, the plurality of leaf springs extends circumferentially around a perimeter of the hair removal surface, the plurality of leaf springs are connected to each other, the plurality of leaf springs each have the same dimensions, the plurality of leaf springs each have different dimensions, the wave spring has a thickness, and the wave spring is circular.
Zwart et al. teach it is known in the art of springs to incorporate the spring means being a plurality of leaf springs (EAZF20, leaf springs), the plurality of leaf springs are connected to form a wave spring (paragraph [0100], Fig. 20), the wave spring comprises a stack of wave shaped washers (EAZF20, washers), the plurality of leaf springs (EAZF20, leaf springs) are connected to each other, the plurality of leaf springs each have the same dimensions (EAZF20, leaf springs), the plurality of leaf springs (61, 62) each have different dimensions (EAZF20, dimension 1 and dimension 2), the wave spring has a thickness (Fig. 20), and the wave spring is circular (Fig. 20). Modified Hashimoto et al. has replaced the spring means 52 with the leaf/wave spring of Zwart et al. Modified Hashimoto et al. incorporates the plurality of leaf springs extends radially from a center of the hair removal surface (Fig. 2 in Hashimoto et al.) and the plurality of leaf springs extends circumferentially (EAZF20, circumferential arrows) around a perimeter of the hair removal surface (Fig. 2 in Hashimoto et al.). It would have been well within one’s technical skill to have utilized any known and reasonable spring means including the leaf/wave spring as taught by Zwart et al.
With regards to claim 13, Modified Hashimoto et al. fails 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 thickness any reasonable range including 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 Modified Hashimoto et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 13. 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
534
722
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
498
718
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 15, Modified Hashimoto et al. does disclose a wave spring thickness (Fig. 20) but remains silent with the thickness specifics and therefore fails to disclose a specific thickness.
However, Zwart et al. do teach a significant relationship between the stack size and the spring thickness (paragraph [0114] “the optimal coil percentage of the outer coil is dependent on several factors including total amount of coils in the coil spring, wire thickness, wire material properties and play of the inside of the coils towards the central shaft 21…”). [This is furthered evidenced by Engineering.com (see Examiner provided Engineering.com Excerpt, hereinafter “EPEE”; “What the wire size is and into what diameter you’re coiling it will effect the degree to which that keystone phenomenon happens. We know what sort of tolerances and dimensions customers need…”).] Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize the springs of Modified Hashimoto et al. and arrive at a diameter to thickness ratio ranging from 1 to 10 as evidenced by Engineering.com, recognizing that the diameter and thickness of a spring directly correlates to the spring constant which affects how the spring performs under the shaving force.
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto et al. (2022/0314471) in view of Zwart et al. (2025/0017348) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of WO 98/36877 (hereinafter called Douven).
With regards to claims 9 and 16, Modified Hashimoto et al. has a deflection stiffness.
However, Modified Hashimoto et al. fail to disclose the stiffness range.
Douven teaches it is known in the art of springs to incorporate a deflection stiffness ranging from 0.05 N/mm and 5N/mm (page 6, lines 30-31, “a spring stiffness of 0.1 to 0.2 N/mm is appropriate”). Douven discloses on page 4, lines 27-31, “The force on the skin at the location of the hair-entry apertures. This is an important parameter to control, since some skin bulging is desirable for a close shave, whereas excessive bulging will result in discomfort or irritation to the skin and on page 6, lines 24-31, “A shaving force of approximately 0.5N is required to obtain the ideal level of bulging into the hair-entry apertures. A low spring stiffness is desired so that the cutter assembly retracts quickly once the ideal level of bulging has been obtained… stiffness of 0.1 to 0.2 N/mm is appropriate”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have provided Modified Hashimoto et al. with the stiffness range, as taught by Douven, 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.
04 September 2026
/Jason Daniel Prone/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights