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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 21, 22 and 24, the addition of new claims 26 and 27, and the cancelation of claims 23 and 25.
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:
(A) 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;
(B) 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
(C) 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:
• A “resilient element” as recited in claim 1 (first, “element” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “configured to transduce vibrations”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., there is no language defining the structure of the resilient element in claim 1). As a “resilient” structure would tend to resist vibrations and may not “transduce vibrations”. The specification discloses the resilient element may be a spring, beam or slab or may comprise a piezoelectric element or tellurium nanowires.
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.
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 § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-13, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orloff (US 6,009,623 A) in view of Sagol et al. (US 5,165,170 A).
Regarding claim 1, Orloff teaches a razor head (Orloff, Fig. 1-9, 10, 20, 35, 52, 63, 74), comprising:
one or more cutting members (Orloff, Figs. 3-4, 21 and 22);
one or more resilient elements (Orloff, Figs. 3-4, 23), wherein a resilient element of the one or more resilient elements is connected with and supports a respective cutting member from the one or more cutting members (Orloff, Fig. 4, 21, 22, and 23), the resilient elements disclosed by Orloff provide support for the cutting members as the elements provide some support to at least a portion of the cutting elements as shown in Fig. 2 and as disclosed in Col. 3 lines 19-22, the respective cutting member being supported on the resilient element such that vibrations of the respective cutting member are transmitted to the resilient element during hair cutting with the razor head (Orloff, Fig. 2, 21, 22 and 23, Col. 2, lines 50-58), and wherein at least one resilient element of the one or more resilient elements is configured to transduce the forces from the respective cutting member of the one or more cutting members into an electrical signal corresponding to the forces when the razor head is used by a user (Orloff, Col. 2, lines 50-58).
Orloff does not teach wherein at least one resilient element of the one of more resilient elements is configured to transduce the vibrations into an electrical signal corresponding to the vibrations when the razor head is used by a user.
Sagol teaches a razor head (Sagol, Fig. 2, 11) comprising one or more resilient members (Sagol, Fig. 2, 12), wherein at least one resilient element of the one of more resilient elements is configured to transduce the vibrations from the respective cutting member of the one or more cutting members into an electrical signal corresponding to the vibrations when the razor head is used by a user (Sagol, Col. 2, lines 38-41). Such an arrangement allows for the user to monitor skin condition during use (Sagol, Col. 1, lines 26-29).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the resilient element such that is configured to transduce the vibrations into an electrical signal corresponding to the vibrations when the razor head is used by a user like the resilient element taught by Sagol as such an arrangement allows for the user to monitor skin condition during use.
Regarding claim 2, Orloff in view of Sagol teaches a razor head according to claim 1, wherein the at least one resilient element of the one or more resilient elements (Orloff, Figs. 3-4, 23) comprises a piezoelectric element (Orloff, Col. 3, lines 15-27).
Regarding claim 4, Orloff in view of Sagol teaches a razor head according to claim 1, wherein the razor head extends longitudinally along a longitudinal axis (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (Orloff) below) and the resilient element is disposed on a first side of a longitudinal extension along the longitudinal axis of the razor head (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (Orloff) below) and extends from the first side towards the respective cutting member from the one or more cutting members along a first direction (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Orloff) below) wherein the longitudinal axis forms a predetermined angle with respect to the first direction see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 and annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Orloff) below).
PNG
media_image1.png
331
665
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
389
662
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Orloff in view of Sagol teaches a razor head according to claim 4, wherein a number of resilient elements of the one or more resilient elements is at least two (Orloff, Col. 2, lines 34-37), and wherein a second resilient element of the one or more resilient elements (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (Orloff) above) is disposed on a second side of the longitudinal extension along the longitudinal axis of the razor head that is opposite the first side (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (Orloff) above).
Regarding claim 7, Orloff in view of Sagol teaches a razor head according to claim 1, further comprising:
a housing (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Orloff) above) extending longitudinally along a longitudinal axis,
wherein the housing comprises a leading longitudinal side, a trailing longitudinal side, and a recess in between the leading and trailing longitudinal sides for accommodating the one or more cutting members (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Orloff) above),
wherein the one or more cutting members are disposed at least partially in the recess (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Orloff) above),
wherein a cutting member of the one or more cutting members is arranged between a leading longitudinal side and a trailing longitudinal side of the recess in a shaving direction of the razor head (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Orloff) above).
Regarding claim 8, Orloff in view of Sagol teaches a shaving razor assembly, comprising:
a razor head according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above),
a razor handle (Orloff, Fig. 7, 40),
wherein the razor head is either releasably attached to the razor handle or integrally formed with the razor handle (Orloff, Col. 3, lines 37-46).
Regarding claim 9, Orloff in view of Sagol teaches a shaving razor assembly according to claim 8, wherein the razor handle (Orloff, Fig. 7, 40) comprises an electronic circuitry (Orloff, Fig. 4, 24, Col. 4, lines 14-20), and the at least one resilient element of the one or more resilient elements (Orloff, Figs. 3-4, 23) that is configured to transduce vibrations from the one or more cutting members into an electrical signal corresponding to the vibrations from the one or more cutting members (Orloff, Col. 2, lines 50-58 and Sagol, Col. 2, lines 38-41) is electrically connected to the electronic circuitry (Orloff, Fig. 4, 24), wherein the electronic circuitry is configured to receive the electrical signal (Orloff, Col. 3, lines 24-26).
Regarding claim 10, Orloff in view of Sagol teaches a shaving razor assembly according to claim 9, further comprising a feedback generator (Orloff, Col. 4, lines 35-40) configured to receive a feedback signal (Orloff, Col. 4, lines 22-26) based on the electrical signal corresponding to the vibrations of the at least one resilient element of the one or more resilient elements (Orloff, Figs. 3-4, 23, Orloff, Col. 2, lines 50-58 and Sagol, Col. 2, lines 38-41) from the electronic circuitry (Orloff, Fig. 4, 24) and configured to transduce the electrical energy of the feedback signal into mechanical energy configured to be sensed by the user (Orloff, Col. 4, lines 14-45).
Regarding claim 11, Orloff in view of Sagol teaches a shaving razor assembly according to claim 10, wherein the feedback generator (Orloff, Col. 4, lines 35-40) comprises one or more transducer elements, wherein the one or more transducer elements comprises one of an ultrasonic transducer, a rotary motor with an eccentric weight, a linear vibration motor, or a piezoelectric vibration motor, the feedback generator disclosed by Orloff may be a light, a piezoelectric transducer to vibration (piezoelectric vibration motor), or vibration motor (Orloff, Col. 4, lines 14-45) or a combination of passive and active systems (Orloff, Col. 3 line 55 – Col. 4 line 13 and Col. 4, lines 14-45).
Regarding claim 12, Orloff in view of Sagol teaches a shaving razor assembly according to claim 11, wherein at least one transducer element (Orloff, Figs. 2 and 4, 14, 15 and 23) of the one or more transducer elements of the feedback generator corresponds to one cutting member (Orloff, Figs. 2 and 4, 11, 12, 21 and 22) of the one or more cutting members and receives an individual feedback signal (Orloff, Col. 4, lines 22-26) based on the electrical signal corresponding to the vibrations of the at least one resilient element connected to the respective cutting member (Sagol, Col. 2, lines 38-41). As disclosed, the razor of Orloff can have a single blade (Orloff, Col. 2, lines 61-64) and a single transducer element (Orloff, Figs. 2 and 4, 14, 15 and 23) which would produce an individual feedback signal as there is a single element for one or two blades.
Regarding claim 13, Orloff in view of Sagol teaches a shaving razor assembly according to claim 9, the razor handle (Orloff, Fig. 7, 40) further comprising a user interface (Orloff, Fig. 7, 41) electrically connected to the electronic circuitry (Orloff, Col. 4, lines 14-20) and configured to display an operating state of the razor assembly (Orloff, Col. 4, lines 20-35).
Regarding claim 21, Orloff in view of Sagol teaches a shaving razor, comprising: a razor head (Orloff, Fig. 1-9, 10, 20, 35, 52, 63, 74) according to claim 1, and a razor handle (Orloff, Fig. 5b, 30) having electronic circuitry (Orloff, Fig. 4, 24, Col. 4, lines 14-20) electrically connected to the at least one resilient element (Orloff, Col. 3, lines 14-27).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orloff (US 6,009,623 A) in view of Sagol (US 5,165,170 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Du et al. (Hybrid printing of wearable piezoelectric sensors).
Regarding claim 3, Orloff in view of Sagol teaches a razor head according to claim 1, wherein the at least one resilient element of the one or more resilient elements (Orloff, Figs. 3-4, 23) comprises a piezoelectric element (Orloff, Col. 3, lines 15-27).
Orloff in view of Sagol does not teach wherein the at least one resilient element of the one or more resilient elements comprises tellurium nanowires.
Du teaches tellurium nanowires as piezoelectric elements or sensors (Du, Introduction, Para. 4) that are capable of transducing movement into electrical signals (Du, Conclusion, Para. 1). The teachings of Du show that it is known in the art of piezoelectric sensors to use tellurium nanowires as a piezoelectric sensor and teaches that such sensors containing tellurium nanowires are known in the art of piezoelectric sensors to be used to transduce movement into an electrical system while the teachings of Orloff show that it is known in the art to use a piezoelectric element to perform the required function of transducing movement into an electrical signal. As such, modifying the razor head taught by Orloff in view of Sagol such that the piezoelectric element was instead an element of tellurium nanowires as taught by Du would produce predictable results as Du teaches the tellurium nanowires being capable of the same function as the piezoelectric elements of Orloff in view of Sagol. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the piezoelectric element of the razor head taught by Orloff in view of Sagol with an element made of tellurium nanowires as Du teaches that tellurium nanowires are a known alternative to a piezoelectric element.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orloff (US 6,009,623 A) in view of Sagol (US 5,165,170 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Davis (GB 2055069 A).
Regarding claim 6, Orloff in view of Sagol teaches the razor head according to claim 1, wherein the cutting member (Orloff, Figs. 3-4, 21 and 22) of the one or more cutting members is an integrally formed cutting member (Orloff, Figs. 3-4, 21 and 22), and a cutting edge (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Orloff) above) is formed at a distal end of the cutting member.
Orloff in view of Sagol does not teach a cutting member comprising a radiused bend. The cutting member taught by Orloff in view of Sagol are instead a flat cutting member.
Davis teaches a cutting member (Davis, Fig. 6, 31 and 32) that is an integrally formed cutting member (Davis, Fig. 6, 31 and 32) comprising a radiused bend (Davis, Pg. 1, lines 98-109) and a cutting edge (Davis, Fig. 6, 31a and 32a) is formed at a distal end of the radiused end (Davis, Pg. 2, lines 13-18). Such a radiused curvature helps to improve the rigidity of the cutting member (Davis, Pg. 1, lines 78-82).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the cutting member taught by Orloff in view of Sagol to feature a radiused bend like that taught by Davis as such radiused bends help to improve the rigidity of a cutting member.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orloff (US 6,009,623 A) in view of Sagol (US 5,165,170 A) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Good et al. (US 2022/0001556 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Orloff in view of Sagol teaches a shaving razor assembly according to claim 9.
Orloff in view of Sagol does not teach the electronic circuitry further comprising a computational system comprising at least one processor and a memory.
Good teaches a shaving razor assembly (Good, Fig. 1, 100) comprising an electronic circuitry (Good, Fig. 1, 154 and 156) comprising a computational system (Good, Fig. 1, 156) comprising at least one processor (Good, Fig. 1, 156) and a memory (Good, P. 0031). Such an arrangement allows shaving data to be collected and processed by the device (Good, P. 0031).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the electronic circuitry taught by Orloff in view of Sagol to include a computational system including at least one processor and a memory as taught by Good as such an arrangement allows the device to collect and process shaving data.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orloff (US 6,009,623 A) in view of Sagol (US 5,165,170 A) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Bourilkov et al. (US 2005/0268472 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Orloff in view of Sagol teaches a shaving razor assembly according to claim 8.
Orloff in view of Sagol does not teach the razor handle further comprising an energy storage device configured to provide electrical energy to the electronic circuitry.
Bourilkov teaches a razor handle assembly (Bourilkov, Fig. 1, 28) comprising an energy storage device (Bourilkov, Fig. 7, 34) configured to provide electrical energy to an electronic circuitry (Bourilkov, Fig. 7, P. 0056). This allows the energy storage device to provide power to other devices in the handle like a motor (Bourilkov, P. 0056).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the handle of the shaving razor taught by Orloff in view of Sagol to include an energy storage device to provide electrical energy to an electronic circuity like that taught by Bourilkov as such an arrangement allows the energy storage device to provide power for a motor or other electrical device contained in the handle and connected to the electronic circuity.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orloff (US 6,009,623 A) in view of Sagol (US 5,165,170 A) as applied to claim21 above, and further in view of King (US 2017/0232624 A1) and Good et al. (US 2022/0001556 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Orloff in view of Sagol teaches the shaving razor according to claim 21, wherein the electronic circuitry (Orloff, Fig. 4, 24) further comprises a processing circuit (Orloff, Col 3 line 55 – Col. 4 line 45) configured to process the signal, and wherein the processor is configured to generate a feedback signal based on the signal, the feedback signal corresponding to the vibrations of the at least one resilient element (Orloff, Col 3 line 55 – Col. 4 line 45 and Sagol, Col. 2, lines 38-41).
Orloff in view of Sagol does not teach wherein the electronic circuitry comprises analog signal capture electronics configured to receive the electrical signal corresponding to the vibrations from the at least one resilient element, digitize the electrical signal, and output a digitized electrical signal and a processor configured to process the digitized electrical signal.
King teaches a shaving razor (King, Fig. 1, 1) wherein the electronic circuitry (King, Fig. 2) comprises analog signal capture electronics (King, Fig. 2, 48) configured to receive an electrical signal from a sensor (King, Fig. 1, 26), digitize the electrical signal (King, P. 0033), and output a digitized electrical signal (King, P. 0034). This allows the analog signal to be converted into digital data that can be analyzed for improved control of the device (King, P. 0034, 0067 and 0069).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the electronic circuitry taught by Orloff in view of Sagol to include analog signal capture electronics like the capture electronics taught by King as such capture electronics allow for better control of the device using the data converted by the capture electronics.
Good teaches a shaving razor assembly (Good, Fig. 1, 100) comprising an electronic circuitry (Good, Fig. 1, 154 and 156) comprising a computational system (Good, Fig. 1, 156) comprising at least one processor (Good, Fig. 1, 156) and a memory (Good, P. 0031) for processing digital data (Good, P. 0044). Such an arrangement allows shaving data to be collected and processed by the device (Good, P. 0031).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the electronic circuitry taught by Orloff in view of Sagol to include a computational system including at least one processor and a memory as taught by Good as such an arrangement allows the device to collect and process shaving data.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orloff (US 6,009,623 A) in view of Sagol (US 5,165,170 A), King (US 2017/0232624 A1) and Good (US 2022/0001556 A1) as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Perez Lopez et al. (US 2018/0085953 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Orloff in view of Sagol, King and Good teaches the shaving razor according to claim 22.
Orloff in view of Sagol, King and Good does not teach wherein the razor handle further comprises a touch sensor configured to detect a touch of a user and further to output a detection signal to the electronic circuitry corresponding to the touch on the razor handle, and wherein the electronic circuitry is configured to decrease an amplitude of the feedback signal when the detection signal indicates that the user is not touching the touch sensor.
Perez teaches a shaving device (Perez, Fig. 1 and 5-6, 1) wherein the handle (Perez, Fig. 1 and 5-6, 2) comprises a touch sensor (Perez, Fig. 1 and 5-6, 7 and 16) configured to detect a touch of a user (Perez, P. 0036) and further output a detection signal (Perez, P. 0065) to electronic circuitry (Perez, Fig. 3, 6 and 21) corresponding to the touch of the handle (Perez, P. 0059), wherein the touch sensor comprises at least one of a capacitive sensor a proximity sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, an ultrasonic proximity sensor, or a time of flight sensor (Perez, P. 0039), and wherein the electronic circuitry is configured to decrease an amplitude of the feedback signal when the detection signal indicates that the user is not touching the touch sensor (Perez, P. 0013). While Perez does not specifically teach decreasing the feedback signal when the detection signal indicates that a user is not touching the touch sensor, Perez, taken as a whole, teaches using a touch sensor to control various elements of a shaving device such as powering off or putting the device into a sleep mode which would also decrease an amplitude of the feedback signal as the device would no longer be actively powered (Perez, P. 0013). Further, Perez teaches a brief touch of a touch sensor (Perez, P. 0036) to change modes which would include powering off the device (Perez, P. 0013). Such touch sensors allow for space to be saved on the handle (Perez, P. 0013).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the handle taught by Orloff in view of Sagol, King and Good to include a touch sensor like the sensor taught by Perez as touch sensors allow for space to be saved on the handle.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orloff (US 6,009,623 A) in view of Sagol (US 5,165,170 A) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Christensen (US 2018/0345513 A1) and Fuellgrabe et al. (US 2019/0299435 A1).
Regarding claim 26, Orloff in view of Sagol teaches the shaving razor assembly according to claim 10.
Orloff in view of Sagol does not teach wherein the electronic circuitry is configured to analyze the electrical signal corresponding to the vibrations, and wherein, when the electrical signal indicates the vibrations are below a predetermined threshold, the feedback generator is configured to notify the user.
Christensen teaches a handheld cutting device (Christensen, Fig. 1), wherein the electronic circuitry (Christensen, Fig. 1, 5, P. 0107) is configured to analyze the electrical signal corresponding to the vibrations (Christensen, P. 0146), and wherein, when the electrical signal indicates the vibrations are within a spectrum (Christensen, P. 0146), the feedback generator is configured to notify the user (Christensen, P. 0146). The allows the device to inform the user of the status of the device (Christensen, P. 0146).
Fuellgrabe teaches a shaving razor (Fuellgrabe, Figs. 1-7), wherein when the electrical signal indicates data below a predetermined threshold (Fuellgrabe, P. 0265-0266).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the electronic circuitry taught by Orloff in view of Sagol such that the circuitry analyzed the electrical signal corresponding to the vibrations and to notify a user like the circuitry taught by Christensen and for this indication to happen when the vibrations are below a predetermine threshold like that evidenced by Fuellgrabe as such a modification allows the device to inform the user of the status of the device.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orloff (US 6,009,623 A) in view of Sagol (US 5,165,170 A) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Fuellgrabe (US 2019/0299435 A1).
Regarding claim 27, Orloff in view of Sagol teaches the shaving razor assembly according to claim 10, wherein the one or more resilient elements (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (Orloff) above) include a first resilient element (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (Orloff) above) connected to a first cutting member (Orloff, Figs. 3-4, 21 and 22) and a second resilient element (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (Orloff) above) connected to a second cutting member (Orloff, Figs. 3-4, 21 and 22), wherein the electronic circuitry (Orloff, Fig. 4, 24, Col. 4, lines 14-45, “circuit”) is configured to compare a first electrical signal transduced from the first resilient element to a second electrical signal transduced from the second resilient element (Orloff, Col. 4, lines 26-30) and the feedback generator is configured to notify the user when the data is above a predetermined value (Orloff, Col. 4, lines 26-30)
Orloff in view of Sagol does not teach wherein when the first electrical signal indicates vibrations of the first cutting member are smaller than vibrations of the second cutting member by a predetermined value the feedback generator is configured to notify the user.
Fuellgrabe teaches a shaving razor (Fuellgrabe, Figs. 1-7), wherein when the electrical signal indicates data below a predetermined threshold (Fuellgrabe, P. 0265-0266) to perform some function.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the electronic circuitry taught by Orloff in view of Sagol to indicate to the feedback generator when the electrical signal is below a predetermined threshold as evidenced by Fuellgrabe instead of when the signal is above a predetermined threshold as the result of changing such a variable yields a predicable result. Here instead of the device indicating when the device senses when the cutting members are above a desired variable as the desired range is equal to or less than that variable the device would instead indicate when the device is below the desired range.
Response to Arguments
The applicant asserts that the amendments to claim 1 overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) written description type and indefiniteness type, respectively, rejections of record for claims 1-14, 16 and 21-25. The Examiner agrees and withdraws the written description type and indefiniteness type rejections of record.
The applicant asserts that the amendment to claim 1 to recite “the respective cutting member being supported on the resilient element” overcome the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) anticipation type rejection of record. The Examiner disagrees. Here the resilient element is located between the cutting members and is shown to be in contact with the members. Orloff also discloses the elements as being “a spacer to hold the two blades away from each other” (Orloff, Col. 3, lines 19-22). This discloses a support relationship between the elements and the members. Further, it should be understood when the device is held in the position shown in Fig. 2 of Orloff the elements would provide support for at least one blade against the effects of gravity and when rotated 180 degrees support the other member against the effects of gravity. As such, the applicant’s assertion is unpersuasive.
The applicant further asserts that Orloff does not teach the resilient elements transducing vibrations. The Examiner disagrees, however, while the Examiner believes that the disclosure of Orloff disclosing the transduction of forces and changes in forces reads on vibrations the Examiner recognizes that Orloff does not specifically mention transducing vibrations. Claim 1 is now rejected as obvious over Orloff in view of Sagol which specifically teaches transducing vibrations, caused by shaving, into an electrical signal by a resilient element. While Sagol lacks a teaching of data processing the electrical signal and instead directly amplifies the signal into an audible sound to give an indication to a user, the teaching of Sagol show that it is known in the art to use such resilient elements to transduce vibrations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert D Cornett whose telephone number is (571) 270-0182. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am-5:30 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 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.
/ROBERT D CORNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights