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 Examiner acknowledges the amendments to the drawings, to the specification, to claims 1, 4-6, 10 and 16, the cancelation of claims 15 and 18-20, and the addition of new claims 21-25.
Drawings
The drawings are also objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the plurality of first electrical connectors and plurality of second electrical connectors must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 § 112(a)
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 1-14, 16 and 21-25 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. The claim(s) 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim states “wherein the respective cutting member is configured to generate vibrations when the respective cutting member contacts hair” in lines 5-6 of the claim. This limitation appears to be an attempt to introduce new matter not previously disclosed by the instant disclosure. Specifically, in P. 0024 it states:
“As the user glides the shaver head 1 on the area that is being shaved (e.g., the user’s face), the blade 11 exert a force on the hair that is being cut, which in turn causes the blade 11 to vibrate for a short period of time before they reach the next hair follicle (this is partially due to the force that each hair is applying against the blade before it is cut). Due to the design of the shaver head 1, any vibrations on the blade 11 are directly transferred to the resilient element which in turn may be transduced into the electric signal.”
This discloses that the vibration the cutting member undergoes is generated by the process of cutting. Specifically, the force exerted onto the hair is disclosed as causing or generating the vibration. As such, a function drawn to the cutting member generating vibration has not been previously disclosed. To expedite prosecution the examiner best understands the limitation as requiring the cutting member to undergo some vibration due to a shaving process.
Regarding claims 2-14, 16 and 21-25, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) due to their dependency on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-14, 16 and 21-25 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim states “wherein the respective cutting member is configured to generate vibrations when the respective cutting member contacts hair” in lines 5-6 of the claim. It is unclear how the cutting member is “configured to generate vibrations” when the claim does not disclose any structure for the cutting member capable of performing the claimed function.
Regarding claims 2-14, 16 and 21-25, these claims are rejected as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to their dependency on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-13 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Orloff (US 6,009,623 A).
Regarding claim 1, Orloff discloses 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 a respective cutting member from the one or more cutting members (Orloff, Fig. 4, 21, 22, and 23), wherein the respective cutting member is configured to generate vibrations when the respective cutting member contacts hair (Orloff, Col. 2, lines 50-58), and wherein at least one resilient element of the one or 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 (Orloff, Col. 2, lines 50-58). In other words, as the cutting members are connected to the resilient elements which hold the cutting members in an initial position, due to the forces exerted onto the cutting members during cutting and applied to the hair this displaces the cutting members and once cutting is completed the resilient elements pull the cutting members back toward their initial position causing the cutting member to vibrate as the system seeks to reestablish equilibrium.
Regarding claim 2, Orloff discloses 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 discloses 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
330
665
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
389
662
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Orloff discloses 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 discloses 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 discloses 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 discloses a shaving razor assembly according to claim 8, wherein the razor handle (Orloff, Fig. 7, 40) comprises an electronic circuitry (Orloff, 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) 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 discloses 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) 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 discloses 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 discloses 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. 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 discloses 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 discloses 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), wherein the razor head comprises a plurality of first electrical connectors (Orloff, Fig. 4, 24), wherein the razor handle comprises a plurality of second electrical connectors (Orloff, Fig. 5b, 32), and wherein the plurality of first electrical connectors and the plurality of second electrical connectors are configured to electrically connect the at least one resilient element to electronic circuitry (Orloff, Fig. 4, 24, Col. 3, lines 37-46).
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.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orloff (US 6,009,623 A) in view of Du et al. (Hybrid printing of wearable piezoelectric sensors).
Regarding claim 3, Orloff 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 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 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. 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 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 Davis (GB 2055069 A).
Regarding claim 6, Orloff discloses 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 does not teach a cutting member comprising a radiused bend. The cutting member taught by Orloff is 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 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 Good et al. (US 2022/0001556 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Orloff teaches a shaving razor assembly according to claim 9.
Orloff 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 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 Bourilkov et al. (US 2005/0268472 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Orloff teaches a shaving razor assembly according to claim 8.
Orloff 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 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 King (US 2017/0232624 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Orloff teaches the shaving razor according to claim 21.
Orloff 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.
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 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.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orloff (US 6,009,623 A) in view of King (US 2017/0232624 A1) as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Good et al. (US 2022/0001556 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Orloff in view of King teaches the shaving razor according to claim 22, 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).
Orloff in view of King does not teach a processor configured to process the digitized electrical signal.
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 King 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.
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orloff (US 6,009,623 A) in view of King (US 2017/0232624 A1) and Good (US 2022/0001556 A1) as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Perez Lopez et al. (US 2018/0085953 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Orloff in view of King and Good teaches the shaving razor according to claim 23.
Orloff in view of 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), 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 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.
Regarding claim 25, Orloff in view of King, Good and Perez teaches the shaving razor according to claim 24, wherein the touch sensor (Perez, Fig. 1 and 5-6, 7 and 16) comprises a proximity sensor (Perez, P. 0039).
Response to Arguments
The applicant asserts that the replacement drawing of Fig. 5 overcome the drawing objection of record regarding reference characters 10a and 10b. The Examiner agrees and withdraws the drawing objection of record regarding reference characters 10a and 10b.
The applicant asserts that the cancellation of claims 15 and 17 overcomes the drawing objection of record regarding the computer system, razor blade holder, plurality of razor blade heads, and charging system. The Examiner agrees and withdraws the drawing objection of record regarding the computer system, razor blade holder, plurality of razor blade heads, and charging system.
The applicant asserts that the amendments to claims 6 and 16 and the cancelation of claim 17 overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) indefiniteness type rejections of record. The Examiner agrees and withdraws the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) indefiniteness type rejections of record.
The applicant asserts that the amendment to claim 1 overcomes the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) anticipation type rejection of record for claim 1 and thus renders claim 1 and all dependent claims allowable. The Examiner disagrees. First, the amended limitation appears to be new matter. The instant disclosure does not disclose the cutting member generating a vibration and instead discloses the process of cutting a hair follicle due to force exerted onto the cutting member as generating the vibration (P. 0024). Second, the instant disclosure lacks structure for a generation of vibration for the cutting members. While the piezoelectric elements of the resilient elements are known to be capable of vibrating there is no disclosure of these elements generating a vibration. The only disclosures for generating a vibration are the feedback generator (P. 0032) and the process of shaving (P. 0024). However, it should be appreciated that the prior art of Orloff discloses a vibration being generated by the application of force onto the cutting members during cutting which once released after cutting has been completed causes the cutting member to undergo vibration which would at least meet the new limitation. As such, the applicant’s assertion is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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