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 .
Detailed Action
Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
1. 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.
2. Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
(1) The scope of claims 1 and 10 is vague. While the preamble of the claims calls for “a hair removal device”, however, there is no means of any sort cited in the main body of the clams for performing the function of removing hair.
(2) In claims 3 and 19, it appears the claimed stiffness range should be ranging from 0.05 N/mm and 5 N/mm rather than from 0.05 N/m and 5 N/mm. Note line 31 on page 12 of the specification.
Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)
1. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
2. Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 10, 12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Trotta et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,875,288, hereinafter “Trotta”).
Regarding clam 1, Trotta discloses a hair removal device (see Figs.4-5, note Fig.5 is a top view of Fig.4) comprising:
a base (51, see Fig.4 as annotated below);
PNG
media_image1.png
512
858
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a multi-angle deflector (42) coupled to the base (51);
an applicator head (24) coupled to the multi-angle deflector (42),
wherein the base (51), the multi-angle deflector (42), and the applicator head (24) are aligned along an alignment axis (A),
wherein, in a relaxed state, the multi-angle deflector (42) comprises at least one thickness (T) measured parallel to the alignment axis (A), and
wherein the at least one thickness (T) is reduced or maintained by a load applied to the multi-angle deflector (42) via the applicator head (24).
Regarding claim 2, Trotta’s multi-angle deflector (42) does not comprise any thickness that is increased by the load applied to the multi-angle deflector (42) via the applicator head (24).
Regarding claim 4, Trotta’s multi-angle deflector (42) comprises a deformable substrate (e.g., a foam member, see column 5, lines 27-30).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Trotta’s applicator head (24) comprises a hair removal surface (41).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Trotta’s hair removal surface (41) comprises enclosed non-linear cutting edges (e.g., concentric blade edges of inner blades 33 and outer blades 32 as seen in Fig.4).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Trotta’s enclosed non-linear cutting edges surround apertures within the hair removal surface (41).
Regarding claim 10, Trotta discloses a hair removal device (see Figs.4-5, note Fig.5 is a top view of Fig.4) comprising:
a base (51);
a multi-angle deflector (42) coupled to the base (51);
an applicator head (24) coupled to the multi-angle deflector (42),
wherein the base (51), the multi-angle deflector (41), and the applicator head (24) are aligned along an alignment axis (A, see the annotated Fig.4),
wherein, in a relaxed state, the multi-angle deflector (42) comprises a thickness (T) measured parallel to the alignment axis (A), and
wherein, when the multi-angle deflector (42) is under load or compressed, the thickness (T) of the multi-angle deflector (42) is modified by being decreased at any location, wherein the modified thickness of the multi-angle deflector (42) does not reach a zero value.
Regarding claim 12, Trotta’s multi-angle deflector (42) comprises one or more springs (e.g., “elastomeric spring” see column 5, lines 11-12).
3. Claims 1, 9-13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hashimoto et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0314471, hereinafter “Hashimoto”).
Regarding clam 1, Hashimoto discloses a hair removal device (100) comprising:
a base (10, see Fig.4 as annotated below);
a multi-angle deflector (52) coupled to the base (10);
an applicator head (20) coupled to the multi-angle deflector (52),
wherein the base (10), the multi-angle deflector (52), and the applicator head (20) are aligned along an alignment axis (A, see Fig.2 as annotated below),
PNG
media_image2.png
720
778
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein, in a relaxed state, the multi-angle deflector (52) comprises at least one thickness measured parallel to the alignment axis (A), and
wherein the at least one thickness is reduced or maintained by a load applied to the multi-angle deflector (52) via the applicator head (20).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Hashimoto’s angle deflector (52) provides a multidirectional deflection connection of the applicator head (20) relative to the base (10).
Regarding claim 10, Hashimoto discloses a hair removal device (100) comprising:
a base (10);
a multi-angle deflector (52) coupled to the base (10);
an applicator head (20) coupled to the multi-angle deflector (52),
wherein the base (10), the multi-angle deflector (52), and the applicator head (20) are aligned along an alignment axis (A, see the annotated Fig.4),
wherein, in a relaxed state, the multi-angle deflector (42) comprises a thickness measured parallel to the alignment axis (A), and
wherein, when the multi-angle deflector (52) is under load or compressed, the thickness of the multi-angle deflector (52) is modified by being decreased at any location, wherein the modified thickness of the multi-angle deflector (52) does not reach a zero value.
Regarding claim 11, Hashimoto’s modified thickness is capable of being increased at one or more locations of the multi-angle deflector (52) due to non-uniform forces applied to a hair removal surface of the applicator head (20) to compress the multi-angle deflector (52 in the form of a spring) resulting in a pivoting or see-sawing force at a side of the applicator head (20) opposite the side the forces are applied.
Regarding claim 12, Hashimoto’s multi-angle deflector (52) comprises one or more springs (see paragraph [0016], line 8).
Regarding claim 13, Hashimoto’s at or more springs (52) are selected from the group consisting of leaf springs, coil springs, torsion springs, and combinations thereof (see Fig.2).
Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C. 103
1. 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.
2. Claims 3 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trotta et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,875,288, hereinafter “Trotta”) in view of WO 98/36877 (cited in the 10/16/2025 IDS) .
Regarding claims 3 and 19, Trotta’s hair removal device as set forth shows all the claimed limitations except it is silent about the stiffness of the multi-angle deflector (42).
WO ‘877 teaches a spring stiffness of 0.1 to 0.2 N/mm (see page 6, lines 30-31) that is appropriate for a hair removal device.
Thus, to select an appropriate stiffness, such as in the range of 0.1 to 0.2 N/mm, for Trotta’s deflector (42) would have been obvious to one skilled in the art for its suitability in responding to shaving forces as taught by WO ‘877.
3. Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trotta et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,875,288, hereinafter “Trotta”) in view of Ackerman (U.S. Patent No. 2,614,321).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Trotta’s hair removal device as set forth shows all the claimed structure, and further the hair removal surface (41) is formed, in part, as a treatment sheet (e.g., a top member 24 as seen Fig.6) substantially as claimed except Trotta’s enclosed non-linear cutting edges (e.g., concentric blade edges of inner blades 33 and outer blades 32 as seen in Fig.4) are not “on” the treatment sheet (24) but is movable within apertures (25,26) of the treatment sheet (24, Fig.6).
Ackerman shows a hair removal device comprising a treatment sheet (2) having enclosed non-linear cutting edges (e.g., sharpened edges, see column 1, line 30) disposed thereon (see Fig.2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Trotta by forming non-linear cutting edges directly on the treatment element as one single piece to simplify manufacture process thus more cost effective as taught by Ackerman.
Prior Art Citations
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent No. 5,604,983 shows a treatment sheet (16, see Fig.6) having enclosed non-linear cutting edges (41, see Fig.9s) disposed on the treatment sheet (16).
U.S. Patent No. 6,584,690 is cited to show a resilient element in the form of a coil spring (381, see Fig.9A), a leaf spring (381’, see Fig.9C) or a compressible foam (481, see Fig.10A).
U.S. Patent No. 11,052,268 teaches resilient members can be in the form of a flexible web (156), a coil spring or a leaf spring (see column 8, lines 33-35).
U.S. Patent No. 11,867,247 shows a wave spring (2, see Fig.1).
Point of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HWEI-SIU PAYER whose telephone number is (571)272-4511. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday from 6:00 AM to 2:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashley, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/HWEI-SIU C PAYER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724