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
The amendment and terminal disclaimer filed on 12/10/2025 have been entered and approved, respectively.
Claim Objection
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
(1) In claim 8, line 4, “base on” should read --based on--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
1. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
2. Claims 1, 5-12 and 17 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) In claims 1 and 5-12, “the one or more electronic razors” has no clear antecedent basis.
(2) In claim 5, lines 5-6, “the razor blade motor” lacks antecedent basis.
(3) In claim 11, line 4, the phrase “a hair collection compartment” is vague. Is it in addition to the one cited at line 4 of claim 1? It appears the phrase should read --the hair collection compartment--.
(4) In claim 17, line 6, “the razor blade motor speed” lacks clear antecedent basis. Note “a razor blade motor speed” is cited claim 15. It appears claim 17 should dependent from claim15.
Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C. 103
1. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
2. Claims 1, 10, 13-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson (U.S. Patent No. 2,716,279) in view of Mikula et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0277012, hereinafter “Mikula”), Marcus et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0090710, hereinafter “Marcus”) and Kraus (U.S. Patent No. 8,667,692).
Regarding claims 13, 14 and 15, Peterson discloses a razor comprising:
a frame (10);
one or more blades (16) detachable from the frame (10, i.e. by removing screw and holder 15, see column 2, lines 55-63);
a motor (12) to drive the one or more razor blades (34);
a suctioning mechanism (76,78,82) positioned below the one or more razor blades (34), comprising:
a suction fan (82); and
a hair collection compartment (76,78) substantially as claimed except Peterson’s motor (12) drives the one or more razor blades (34) as well as the suction fan (82), the razor lacks a sensor and a processor, and Peterson fails to show the razor is capable of machine learning.
Mikula shows a hair trimmer (1, see Fig.1) comprising a first motor (20) for driving one or more blades (23) of the trimmer (1), and a second motor (30) for driving a suction fan (32) of the trimmer (1, as required by claim 13).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Peterson by equipping the razor with two different motors, one for the one or more blades (16) and one for the suction fan (82) to allow a user to choose different driving modes (i.e. a lower suction force and a higher suction force) for the suction fan (82) independently from the operation of the one or more blades (16) as taught by Mikula (see paragraph [0033], lines 1-4).
Marcus teaches it is desirable to be able to determine a level of debris by providing a processor (38) that uses data from at least one sensor (34,36) to determine one or more fill levels of a debris collection compartment (28, as required by claims 13 and 14).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art to further modify Peterson by providing the razor with one or more sensor and a processor to allow a user to detect levels of debris accumulation in the debris collection compartment as taught by Marcus.
Kraus shows it is desirable to provide an electronic razor (1) with a processor (12) that learns one or more electronic razor settings including a motor speed based on usage history (e.g., user’s behavior by means of a memory function, see column 6, lines 2-4) of the electronic razor (1), and the one or more electronic razor settings including a razor blade motor speed (which controls the speed of an undercutter 6 of the razor, see column 6, lines 12-15, as required by claim 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to further modify Peterson by having the processor learn one or more razor settings based on usage history of the razor for the advantage of quick setting for the motor as taught by Kraus.
While Kraus teaches the one or more electronic razor settings comprising a blade motor speed, however, the exact type of setting (such as the claimed suction fan motor speed as required by claim 13) depends more upon an obvious matter of a manufacturer’s choice than on any inventive concept. Thus, to further modify Peterson by including the suction fan motor speed in the one or more electronic razor settings would have been obvious to one skilled in the art.
Method claim 1 is a parallel claim with product claim 13 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 18, office notice is taken of the fact that it is notorious old and well-known in the art to provide a hand-held device that is capable of being activated when a user picks up the device such as iPhone (a registered trademark of Apple Inc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to further modify Peterson by having the electronic razor capable of automatically activated when a user picks up the razor without the need for manually turning on the razor.
Method claim 10 is a parallel claim with product claim 18 and is similarly rejected.
3. Claims 5, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson (U.S. Patent No. 2,716,279) in view of Mikula et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0277012), Marcus et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0090710) and Kraus (U.S. Patent No. 8,667,692) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Damstra (U.S. Patent No. 6,612,034) and Van Der Borst et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,671,535, hereinafter “Borst”).
Regarding claim 16, Peterson’s razor as modified above shows all the claimed limitations except it lacks an additional sensor to sense the contact between the razor and a user.
Damstra teaches it is desirable to provide a razor (1) with a sensor (9,20) and a processor (21,26) for controlling at least one operational parameter (such as motor speed) of the razor (1) in response to the sensor signal (see the abstract) from the sensor.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to further modify Peterson by providing an additional sensor cooperating with the processor for influencing the razor blade motor’s speed as taught by Damstra. It is noted Peterson as modified has the one or more sensors detect contact between the razor’s housing and a user as taught by Damstra (see the sensor 9 on the housing 2 in Damstra’s Fig.2 and lines 1-5 of the abstract) rather than contact between the razor blade and the user as claimed.
Borst shows a razor having a sensor (111) that is arranged to detect contact between a user’s skin and a blade of the razor.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to further modify Peterson by arranging the force sensor in an alternative location so that the sensor senses/detects the contact between the blade unit and a user for the predictable result of producing sensor signal.
Method claim 5 is a parallel claim with product claim 16 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 9, Peterson as modified lacks one or more compartments for storing shaving fluid.
Damstra teaches it is desirable to provide a razor with a fluid compartment (28) for holding a shaving fluid (see column 3, line 66 to column 4, line 2).
Therefore, to further modify Peterson by providing the razor with a shaving fluid compartment for storing shaving fluid to be used during shaving for improving comfort would have been obvious to one skilled in the art as taught by Damstra.
4. Claims 6-8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson (U.S. Patent No. 2,716,279) in view of Mikula et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0277012), Marcus et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0090710) and Kraus (U.S. Patent No. 8,667,692) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Damstra (U.S. Patent No. 6,612,034).
Regarding claim 17, Peterson’s razor as modified shows all the claimed limitations except it lacks one or more sensors cooperating with the processor for controlling at least one operational parameter of the razor.
Damstra teaches it is desirable to provide a razor (1) with one or more sensors (9,20) and a processor (21,26) for controlling at least one operational parameter of the razor (1) in response to the sensor signal (see the abstract). The at least one operational parameter includes a list of options relating to the operation of the razor (see Damstra’s claim 3). Thus, to further modify Peterson by having the processor determine any parameter, including the length of hair of a user, relating to the operation of the razor would have been obvious to one skilled depending upon one’s particular needs than on any inventive concept. Since Damstra teaches control means (i.e. microprocessor 26) for controlling at least one operational parameter of the shaver (i.e. motor speed, see the abstract) in response to sensor signal, Peterson as modified above would have the motor speed for the fan or the blade adjusted based on the length of hair detected by the sensor.
Method claims 6-8 are parallel claims with product claim 17 and are similarly rejected.
5. Claims 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson (U.S. Patent No. 2,716,279) in view of Mikula et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0277012), Marcus et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0090710) and Kraus (U.S. Patent No. 8,667,692) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Goldfarb et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0167241, hereinafter “Goldfarb”).
Regarding claim 20, Peterson’s razor as modified shows all the claimed limitations except it does not teach the razor to be used with a communication device.
Goldfarb shows a razor (100) having a processor (160) wirelessly connected with an application (550/560) of a communication device (505), and the processor (160) receives one or more electronic razor settings provided by a user using the application (550/560) of the communication device (505) and the processor (160) sends information to the application (550/560) of the communication device (505, see Fig.12 and paragraphs [0046]-[0048]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to further modify Peterson by having the processor wirelessly connected with a communication device to improve shaving experience and quality of shave as taught by Goldfarb (see paragraph [00003]).
Method claim 12 is a parallel claim with product claim 20 and is similarly rejected.
Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
1. Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
2. Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Remarks
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, at pages 10-11 of the amendment, Marcus is erected exclusively to a floor-cleaning vacuum cleaner with a debris collection bin, which operates in an environment and whose functional context is wholly distinct from that of an electronic razor. Marcus is non-analogous art and does not qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103 and cannot support an obviousness rejection.
In response, it has been held that the determination that a reference is from a non-analogous art is twofold. First, we must decide if the reference is within the field of the inventor’s endeavor. If it is not, we proceed to determine whether the reference is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was involved. In re Wood, 202 USPQ 171, 174. In the present case, the Marcus reference relating to determining a level of debris in a debris collection compartment (28) by providing a process (38) that uses data from at least one sensor (34,36) to determine one or more fill levels of the debris collection compartment (28) for informing a user the degree of fullness of the collection compartment (28) is clearly pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was involved.
Action Made Final
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.
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