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
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 29 August 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 5 at line 2 recites, “; (b);”. The second semi-colon in this recitation should be deleted.
Claim 9 recites, “the computer readable medium”. This recitation should refer to “memory” rather than “medium” for consistency with claim 1.
Claim 14 at line 2 recites, “; (b);”. The second semi-colon in this recitation should be deleted.
Claim 14 recites, “the one or more processors”. This recitation should read – the processor – for consistency with claim 10.
Claim 17 twice recites, “the one or more processors”. Each of these recitations should read – the processor – for consistency with claim 10.
Claim 18 recites, “the computer readable medium”. This recitation should refer to “memory” rather than “medium” for consistency with claim 10.
Claim 19 recites one or more processors in the preamble, and then re-introduces the one or more processors without reciting “the” or “said” in the body of the claim. The body of the claims should be amended refer to the one or more processors introduced in the preamble using “the” or “said”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/468,262 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1 of the present application, claim 1 of the reference application anticipates present claim 1. The “predetermined threshold value” as recited in present claim 1 corresponds to the “predetermined duration threshold value” of claim 1 of the reference application. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 2 of the present application, claim 2 of the reference application anticipates present claim 2.
Regarding claim 3 of the present application, claim 3 of the reference application anticipates present claim 3.
Regarding claim 4 of the present application, claim 4 of the reference application anticipates present claim 4.
Regarding claim 5 of the present application, claim 5 of the reference application anticipates present claim 5.
Regarding claim 6 of the present application, claim 6 of the reference application anticipates present claim 6.
Regarding claim 7 of the present application, claim 7 of the reference application anticipates present claim 7.
Regarding claim 8 of the present application, claim 8 of the reference application anticipates present claim 8.
Regarding claim 9 of the present application, claim 9 of the reference application anticipates present claim 9.
Regarding claim 10 of the present application, claim 10 of the reference application anticipates present claim 10. The “predetermined threshold value” as recited in present claim 10 corresponds to the “predetermined duration threshold value” of claim 10 of the reference application. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 11 of the present application, claim 11 of the reference application anticipates present claim 11.
Regarding claim 12 of the present application, claim 12 of the reference application anticipates present claim 12.
Regarding claim 13 of the present application, claim 13 of the reference application anticipates present claim 13.
Regarding claim 14 of the present application, claim 14 of the reference application anticipates present claim 14.
Regarding claim 15 of the present application, claim 15 of the reference application anticipates present claim 15.
Regarding claim 16 of the present application, claim 16 of the reference application anticipates present claim 16.
Regarding claim 17 of the present application, claim 17 of the reference application anticipates present claim 17.
Regarding claim 18 of the present application, claim 18 of the reference application anticipates present claim 18.
Regarding claim 19 of the present application, claim 19 of the reference application anticipates present claim 19. The “predetermined threshold value” as recited in present claim 19 corresponds to the “predetermined duration threshold value” of claim 19 of the reference application. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 20 of the present application, claim 20 of the reference application anticipates present claim 20.
Each of present claims 1-20 is provisionally nonstatutory double patenting rejected because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2007/0050982 A1 to Freund et al. in view of US Pub. No. 2009/0119923 A1 to Hart et al., as evidenced by US Pub. No. 2024/0293945 A1 to Van De Schootbrugge et al. (hereinafter “VDS”).
Regarding claim 1, Freund discloses a sensor-based method of analyzing shaving usage based on time duration (see in particular Fig. 15D and paragraphs 157-161) comprising:
defining a predetermined threshold value (see paragraphs 157-158 and 160-161, along with Fig. 15D; in paragraph 160, the ‘predetermined threshold value’ is the value used to determine that the count reaches “a state indicative of a worn blade”; in paragraph 161, an alternative ‘predetermined threshold value’ is the value of the “expected lifetime” to which the count is compared);
collecting, by one or more processors (the counter 102 collects sensor data per paragraph 158, and the counter 102 is part of a microprocessor per paragraph 144 disclosing that the counter 102 is implemented in the control logic 105 and paragraph 102 disclosing that control logic 105 can be implemented in a microprocessor), sensor data from a sensor 108 of a shaving device having a blade (see paragraphs 142-143), the sensor data collected while a user is shaving (see paragraph 158; the timer 106 is started and stopped at the beginning and end, respectively, of a shaving stroke);
determining, based on the sensor data, user-specific pressure data defining one or more shaving strokes based on pressure applied to the user's skin (see paragraphs 155-158; per paragraph 156, one example of the sensor 108 detects a change in motor load that is associated with skin contact, and in this situation a light pressing force produces a small change in motor load whereas a high pressing force products a large change in motor load, such that the sensor 108 detecting a change in motor load is a sensor that detects ‘user-specific pressure data’; the user-specific pressure data include an increase in pressure indicating a start of a shaving stroke and a decrease in pressure indicating an end of the shaving stroke per paragraph 158, which is ‘user-specific’ because different users having different lengths of shaving strokes per paragraph 157; VDS at paragraph 46 provides evidence that a sensor that detects a change in motor load detects user-specific pressure data);
tracking, based on a timer 106, one or more intervals of time values for each of the one or more shaving strokes (see Fig. 15D and paragraph 158);
calculating, based on the one or more interval of time values, a total duration of the one or more shaving strokes (see Fig. 15D and paragraph 158);
determining that the total duration meets or exceeds the predetermined threshold value (see Fig. 15D and paragraphs 158 and 160; the counter 102 determines that the total duration, referred to in paragraph 160 as the ‘count’, reaches the state indicative of a worn blade; see also paragraph 161), and;
generating an output associated with the shaving device based on the determining that the total duration meets or exceeds the predetermined threshold value (the counter 102 generates the output as a replacement signal sent to the replacement indicator 110; alternatively, the output is generated by the indicator 110 in response to receiving the replacement signal from the counter 102, in which case the output is the visual, audible, or tactile cue of paragraph 160; alternatively still, see paragraph 161), the output comprising an indication that the total duration meets or exceeds the predetermined threshold value (see paragraph 160 and/or paragraph 161).
Regarding claim 3, Freund discloses that the total duration of the one or more shaving strokes is configured to be reset (see paragraph 147; also, there is no particular feature required of a duration in order for the duration to be ‘configured to be rest’ – the examiner notes that claim 3 does not recite, “where the one or more processors is configured to reset a value of the total duration” or otherwise structurally describe the one or more processors).
Regarding claim 7, Freund discloses that the indication comprises at least one of: (a) a visual indicator; (b) an audible indicator; (c) a vibration indicator; (d) a mechanical indicator; or (e) a message transmission indicator (see paragraph 160, where the indication comprises a visual indicator in the form of an Led, a vibration indicator such as the stutter in the operation of the motor, an audible indicator in the form of the buzzer, or a mechanical indicator in the form of the stutter in the operation of the motor).
Freund is silent regarding where the value of the state indicative of the blade being worn as disclosed at paragraph 160 and the value of the expected lifetime of paragraph 161 are store. As such, at least for purposes of this rejection, Freund is considered as failing to disclose that the predetermined threshold value is defined in a computer readable memory as required by claim 1. Freund is also silent regarding the origin of the value of the state indicative of the blade being worn. As a result, Freund fails to disclose that the predetermined threshold value is adaptable as required by claim 4 and that the predetermined threshold value is at least one of: (a) set during manufacture of the shaving device; (b) modifiable by the user; or (c) set by the one or more processors based on the sensor data as required by claim 5. Freund is also considered as failing to disclose that the computer readable medium [sic, memory] comprises an onboard memory stored on the shaving device, and wherein predetermined threshold value is stored in the onboard memory as required by claim 9.
Hart teaches defining a predetermined threshold value in a computer readable memory 110 (see paragraph 46, where the ‘predetermined threshold value’ is the expected shaving utility). [Claim 1] Hart further teaches that the predetermined threshold value is adaptable (see paragraph 48, in particular that the user is able to adjust the excepted shaving utility, or that the counter is able to adjust the expected shaving utility) [claim 4] and that the predetermined threshold value is at least one of: (a) set during manufacture of the shaving device; (b) modifiable by the user; or (c) set by a counter based on the sensor data (see paragraph 48, which each of options (a), (b), and (c) is disclosed, with option (c) being satisfied when the counter sets the expected shaving utility by averaging five prior value) [claim 5]. Finally, Hart teaches that the computer readable memory 110 comprises an onboard memory stored on a shaving device 1 (see paragraph 44 and Fig. 7; note also that Fig. 1B illustrates controller 40 as being onboard a handle 10 of the shaving device 1, and the controller 40 includes the memory 110 as shown in Fig. 7), and wherein predetermined threshold value is stored in the onboard memory (see paragraph 46). [Claim 9]
Noting that Freund already requires that its counter (which is implemented by the microprocessor of paragraph 102 per paragraph 144) has access to the predetermined threshold value in order to make the blade wear determination of paragraph 160 and/or in order to make the determination of paragraph 161, but that Freund is silent regarding exactly where the predetermined threshold value is stored, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to define the predetermined threshold value of Freund on an onboard computer readable memory in view of the teachings of Hart. This modification is advantageous because it provides a location for storing the predetermined threshold value that is accessible by the microprocessor of Freund. An onboard computer readable memory is an obvious location to define a value that is accessed by a microprocessor because a microprocessor accesses data stored on a memory in order to performing control operations. Moreover, providing an onboard computer readable memory is advantageous to avoid the need for a communication device to communicate with an external memory. This modification is further obvious under KSR Rationale A – combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Freund and Hart, together, include each element claimed as noted above. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (such as defining the threshold value of Freund on an onboard computer readable memory as taught by Hart; storing data on a computer readable memory, where the data is accessed by a microprocessor, is well-known), and in combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately (the microprocessor of Freund continues to compare a current count to a threshold value to determine whether a blade is worn, and the onboard computer readable memory continues to store data for use in a blade-wear determination system). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of this combination were predictable since providing a memory to store data that is accessed by a microprocessor is common place.
Moreover, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the predetermined threshold value of Freund adaptable by the user as taught by Hart. This modification is advantageous because it provides the user with more options for customization of the shaving experience, where the user is able to tailor the threshold value to the user’s particular needs. For example, a user with very sensitive skin is able to elect a shorter blade replacement span than a user with tough skin. As another example, a user that primarily shaves his or her face is able to elect a shorter blade replacement span than a user that primarily shaves his or her legs, in view of a user’s face typically having a greater need for a fresh razor blade than the user’s legs in view of the user’s face typically being more sensitive than the user’s legs. Moreover, this option is further advantageous to enhance versatility of the blade wear system, where a user can elect to use either of a factory pre-programmed blade wear value or a personally set value. By providing users with different options, the manufacturer of the razor is able to appeal to a larger group of potential customers, such that market forces incentive offering users with different options to appeal to the largest number of users possible.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freund as modified by Hart as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2024/0293945 A1 to VDS.
Regarding claim 2, Freund, as modified, discloses defining, in the computer readable memory, the predetermined threshold value (see the modification of Freund in view of Hart applied to claim 1 above); determining that the total duration meets or exceeds the predetermined threshold value (see Freund at paragraphs 160 and 161); and generating the output associated with the shaving device, the output comprising the indication that the total duration meets or exceeds the predetermined threshold value (see Freund at paragraphs 160 and 161).
Freund is considered as only disclosing a single predetermined threshold value (notwithstanding the disclosure of Freund at paragraphs 160 and 161). As a result, Freund, as modified, fails to disclose defining a second predetermined threshold value in the memory, determining that the total duration meets or exceeds the second predetermined threshold value, generating a second output that comprises a second indication that the total duration meets or exceeds the second predetermined threshold value, as required by claim 2.
VDS, though, teaches that when providing a threshold value to determine a blade-wear level, it is advantageous to define multiple threshold values, including at least first and second threshold values (see paragraph 44). VDS further teaches generating a second output that the comprises a second indication that the total duration meets or exceeds the second predetermined threshold (see paragraph 44; where an alert signal is generated to inform the use that the blade is near the end of its useful life is one example of the second indication, and the indication that the user is applying too much pressure is another example of the second indication). VDS teaches that defining multiple threshold values, including at least first and second threshold values, is advantageous for a variety of reasons. First, a user can receive a first warning that a blade has 50% of its cutting life remaining. This warning is advantageous to give a user time to obtain new blades (e.g., order a replacement razer cartridge, or pick up a new cartridge on the user’s next shopping trip). Second, a user can receive a second warning that the blade has used 95% of its cutting life, which is an indication that the user should imminently replace the blade. Third, by selecting a threshold value of approximately 30%, the user can receive a warning as to whether or not the user is applying too much pressure during use.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to define in the computer readable memory of Freund, as modified, at least first and second predetermined threshold values, to determine whether the total duration meets or exceeds the second predetermined threshold values, and to generate a second output comprising a second indication that the total duration meets or exceeds the second predetermined threshold value in view of the teachings of VDS. This modification is advantageous because the modification allows the user to receive additional information regarding the wear status of the blade. For example, this modification allows a user to receive an indication that the blade is 50% worn, which allows the user time to obtain a replacement blade or blade cartridge for future use, while also providing the user with an indication that the blade is 95% worn, which tells the user to more imminently replace the blade. As another advantage, the user can be apprised relatively early in the life of the blade that the wear rate is too great, indicating that the user should adjust his or her shaving to use less pressure (while still obtaining the ability to provide the user with an indication that the blade is ready to be replaced when the threshold indicates an end of blade life indication).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freund as modified by Hart as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2023/0211515 A1 to Blatter et al.
Freund, as modified, fails to disclose initiating, based on the indication, a replacement blade for shipment to the user as required by claim 6.
Blatter, though, teaches initiating, based on an indication related to blade wear (see paragraph 81), a replacement blade for shipment to a user (see paragraphs 82 and 165). [Claim 6] Blatter teaches that this feature allows for automatically replenishing a disposable component of the shaving device (see paragraph 82).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Freund, as modified, with initiating, based on the indication, a replacement blade for shipment to a user in view of the teachings of Blatter in order to automatically replenish a disposable portion of the shaving device, which in turn simplifies the user experience because a replacement blade or blade cartridge is automatically order when needed, such that the effort required of the user is reduced.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freund as modified by Hart as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2008/0111685 A1 to Olson.
Regarding claim 8, Freund, as modified, discloses that the output comprising the indication is detected by the one or more processors (see Freund at paragraph 160 and paragraph 161; note that the broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘detect’ in this context includes the one or more processors detecting the indication by making a determination to generate the output).
Freund, as modified, fails to disclose that the one or more processors prevent feedback to the user as required by claim 8.
Olson is in the field of endeavor of razors and shaving devices (see paragraph 69). Olson teaches a processor 322 that is configured to prevent feedback to a user (see paragraphs 51 and 52; the processor 322 is configured to prevent feedback to a user when the user has actuated a silencing control device 332 per paragraph 52, whereas in paragraph 51 the processor is configured to provide the feedback upon actuation of a touch sensor 325; see also paragraph 19). Olson teaches that configuring the processor to be able selectively prevent feedback to the user is advantageous in order to provide a silence option to the user (see paragraph 52), such that the user has the option to avoid noise or other interruption.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the one or more processors of Freund, as modified, with the ability to prevent feedback to the user in view of the teachings of Olson. This modification can include providing Freund, as modified, with a silencing control device, which, when actuated, instructs the processor to prevent feedback to the user as taught by Olson. This modification is advantageous because it provides a user with the ability to silence the shaving device of Freund, as modified. Silencing the shaving device is advantageous if the user desires to maintain a quiet environment (e.g., if the user is shaving in a bedroom with another sleeping person present, such as a hotel room or a studio apartment).
Claim(s) 10, 12-14, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2007/0050982 A1 to Freund et al. in view of US Pub. No. 2009/0119923 A1 to Hart et al. and US Pub. No. 2024/0293945 A1 to VDS.
Regarding claim 10, Freund discloses a sensor-based shaving system configured to analyze shaving usage based on time duration (see Fig. 15D and paragraphs 157-161), the system comprising:
a shaving device comprising a blade (see, e.g., paragraph 155);
a sensor 108 coupled to the shaving device and configured collect sensor data while a user is shaving with the shaving device (see paragraphs 156 and 158; the timer 106 is started and stopped at the beginning and end, respectively, of a shaving stroke); and
a processor (of counter 102; see paragraphs 102 and 144), configured onboard or offboard the shaving device (see paragraphs 15 and 102, disclosing that the processor is configured onboard the shaving device; regardless, the recitation ‘onboard or offboard’ encompasses all potential configurations of the processor), and communicatively coupled to the sensor 108 (see Fig. 15D),
wherein the processor is configured to execute computing instructions (see paragraphs 102 and 144; the processor executes instructions that define control logic 105), the instructions, when executed, configured to cause the processor to:
define a predetermined threshold value (see paragraphs 157-158 and 160-161, along with Fig. 15D; in paragraph 160, the ‘predetermined threshold value’ is the value used to determine that the count reaches “a state indicative of a worn blade”; in paragraph 161, an alternative ‘predetermined threshold value’ is the value of the “expected lifetime” to which the count is compared);
collect sensor data from the sensor 108 while the user is shaving (see paragraph 158; the timer 106 is started and stopped at the beginning and end, respectively, of a shaving stroke);
determine, based on the sensor data, user-specific pressure data defining one or more shaving strokes based on pressure applied to the user's skin (see paragraphs 155-158; per paragraph 156, one example of the sensor 108 detects a change in motor load that is associated with skin contact, and in this situation a light pressing force produces a small change in motor load whereas a high pressing force products a large change in motor load, such that the sensor 108 detecting a change in motor load is a sensor that detects ‘user-specific pressure data’; the user-specific pressure data include an increase in pressure indicating a start of a shaving stroke and a decrease in pressure indicating an end of the shaving stroke per paragraph 158, which is ‘user-specific’ because different users having different lengths of shaving strokes per paragraph 157; VDS at paragraph 46 provides evidence that a sensor that detects a change in motor load detects user-specific pressure data);
track, based on a timer 106, one or more intervals of time values for each of the one or more shaving strokes (see Fig. 15D and paragraph 158);
calculate, based on the one or more interval of time values, a total duration of the one or more shaving strokes (see Fig. 15D and paragraph 158);
determine that the total duration meets or exceeds the predetermined threshold value (see Fig. 15D and paragraphs 158 and 160; the counter 102 determines that the total duration, referred to in paragraph 160 as the ‘count’, reaches the state indicative of a worn blade; see also paragraph 161), and;
generate an output associated with the shaving device based on the determining that the total duration meets or exceeds the predetermined threshold value (the counter 102 generates the output as a replacement signal sent to the replacement indicator 110; alternatively, the output is generated by the indicator 110 in response to receiving the replacement signal from the counter 102, in which case the output is the visual, audible, or tactile cue of paragraph 160; alternatively still, see paragraph 161), the output comprising an indication that the total duration meets or exceeds the predetermined threshold value (see paragraph 160 and/or paragraph 161).
Regarding claim 12, Freund discloses that the total duration of the one or more shaving strokes is configured to be reset (see paragraph 147; also, there is no particular feature required of a duration in order for the duration to be ‘configured to be rest’ – the examiner notes that claim 3 does not recite, “where the one or more processors is configured to reset a value of the total duration” or otherwise structurally describe the one or more processors).
Regarding claim 16, Freund discloses that the indication comprises at least one of: (a) a visual indicator; (b) an audible indicator; (c) a vibration indicator; (d) a mechanical indicator; or (e) a message transmission indicator (see paragraph 160, where the indication comprises a visual indicator in the form of an Led, a vibration indicator such as the stutter in the operation of the motor, an audible indicator in the form of the buzzer, or a mechanical indicator in the form of the stutter in the operation of the motor).
Freund is silent regarding where the value of the state indicative of the blade being worn as disclosed at paragraph 160 and the value of the expected lifetime of paragraph 161 are stored, as well as where the computing instructions executed by the processor are stored. As such, at least for purposes of this rejection, Freund is considered as failing to disclose that the computing instructions are stored on a computer readable memory communicatively coupled to the processor and that the predetermined threshold value is defined in the computer readable memory as required by claim 10. Freund is also silent regarding the origin of the value of the state indicative of the blade being worn. As a result, Freund fails to disclose that the predetermined threshold value is adaptable as required by claim 13 and that the predetermined threshold value is at least one of: (a) set during manufacture of the shaving device; (b) modifiable by the user; or (c) set by the one or more processors based on the sensor data as required by claim 14. Freund is also considered as failing to disclose that the computer readable medium [sic, memory] comprises an onboard memory stored on the shaving device, and wherein predetermined threshold value is stored in the onboard memory as required by claim 18.
Hart teaches defining a predetermined threshold value in a computer readable memory 110 (see paragraph 46, where the ‘predetermined threshold value’ is the expected shaving utility), where the memory is communicatively coupled to a processor (see Fig. 7 and paragraph 51). [Claim 10] Hart further teaches that the predetermined threshold value is adaptable (see paragraph 48, in particular that the user is able to adjust the excepted shaving utility, or that the counter is able to adjust the expected shaving utility) [claim 13] and that the predetermined threshold value is at least one of: (a) set during manufacture of the shaving device; (b) modifiable by the user; or (c) set by a counter based on the sensor data (see paragraph 48, which each of options (a), (b), and (c) is disclosed, with option (c) being satisfied when the counter sets the expected shaving utility by averaging five prior value) [claim 14]. Finally, Hart teaches that the computer readable memory 110 comprises an onboard memory stored on a shaving device 1 (see paragraph 44 and Fig. 7; note also that Fig. 1B illustrates controller 40 as being onboard a handle 10 of the shaving device 1, and the controller 40 includes the memory 110 as shown in Fig. 7), and wherein predetermined threshold value is stored in the onboard memory (see paragraph 46). [Claim 18]
Noting that Freund already requires that its counter (which is implemented by the microprocessor of paragraph 102 per paragraph 144) has access to the predetermined threshold value in order to make the blade wear determination of paragraph 160 and/or in order to make the determination of paragraph 161, but that Freund is silent regarding exactly where the predetermined threshold value is stored, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to define the predetermined threshold value of Freund on an onboard computer readable memory that is communicatively coupled to the processor in view of the teachings of Hart. This modification is advantageous because it provides a location for storing the predetermined threshold value that is accessible by the microprocessor of Freund. An onboard computer readable memory is an obvious location to define a value that is accessed by a microprocessor because a microprocessor accesses data stored on a memory in order to performing control operations. Moreover, providing an onboard computer readable memory is advantageous to avoid the need for a communication device to communicate with an external memory. This modification is further obvious under KSR Rationale A – combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Freund and Hart, together, include each element claimed as noted above. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (such as defining the threshold value of Freund on an onboard computer readable memory as taught by Hart; storing data on a computer readable memory, where the data is accessed by a microprocessor, is well-known), and in combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately (the microprocessor of Freund continues to compare a current count to a threshold value to determine whether a blade is worn, and the onboard computer readable memory continues to store data for use in a blade-wear determination system). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of this combination were predictable since providing a memory to store data that is accessed by a microprocessor is common place.
Moreover, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the predetermined threshold value of Freund adaptable by the user as taught by Hart. This modification is advantageous because it provides the user with more options for customization of the shaving experience, where the user is able to tailor the threshold value to the user’s particular needs. For example, a user with very sensitive skin is able to elect a shorter blade replacement span than a user with tough skin. As another example, a user that primarily shaves his or her face is able to elect a shorter blade replacement span than a user that primarily shaves his or her legs, in view of a user’s face typically having a greater need for a fresh razor blade than the user’s legs in view of the user’s face typically being more sensitive than the user’s legs. Moreover, this option is further advantageous to enhance versatility of the blade wear system, where a user can elect to use either of a factory pre-programmed blade wear value or a personally set value. By providing users with different options, the manufacturer of the razor is able to appeal to a larger group of potential customers, such that market forces incentive offering users with different options to appeal to the largest number of users possible.
Still, Freund, as modified, is silent regarding where the computing instructions executed by the processor are stored. As such, at least for purposes of this rejection, Freund, as modified, is considered as failing to disclose that the computing instructions are stored on a computer readable memory communicatively coupled to the processor as required by claim 10.
VDS teaches that computer instructions executed by a processor are stored on a computer readable memory communicatively coupled to the processor (see paragraph 17).
Therefore, in view of the fact that Freund, as modified, is silent regarding where exactly the computing instructions executed by the processor are stored (although Freund, as modified, does disclose a computer readable memory coupled to the processor as explained above in the modification of Freund in view of Hart), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to store the computing instructions on the computer readable memory that is communicatively coupled to the process in view of the teachings of VDS. This modification is advantageous to provide a location to store instructions for operating the processor of Freund, as modified. Further, this modification is obvious under KSR Rationale A – combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Freund, as modified, and VDS, considered together, include each element claimed as noted above. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (such as by storing the computing instructions required by Freund, as modified, on the memory as taught by VDS; storing computing instructions on a computer readable memory is well-known), and in combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately (the microprocessor of Freund, as modified, continues to execute instructions to carry out a blade wear determination, and the instructions being stored on the memory as taught by VDS merely provides the instructions at a location where they are accessible by a processor). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of this combination were predictable since providing a memory to store computing instructions that are accessed by a microprocessor is common place.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freund as modified by Hart and VDS as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of VDS.
Regarding claim 11, Freund, as modified, discloses that the computing instructions are configured, when executed by the processor, to: define, in the computer readable memory, the predetermined threshold value (see the modification of Freund in view of Hart applied to claim 10 above); determine that the total duration meets or exceeds the predetermined threshold value (see Freund at paragraphs 160 and 161); and generating the output associated with the shaving device, the output comprising the indication that the total duration meets or exceeds the predetermined threshold value (see Freund at paragraphs 160 and 161).
Freund is considered as only disclosing a single predetermined threshold value (notwithstanding the disclosure of Freund at paragraphs 160 and 161). As a result, Freund, as modified, fails to disclose that the computer instructions are configured to define a second predetermined threshold value in the memory, determine that the total duration meets or exceeds the second predetermined threshold value, generate a second output that comprises a second indication that the total duration meets or exceeds the second predetermined threshold value, as required by claim 11.
VDS, though, teaches that when providing a threshold value to determine a blade-wear level, it is advantageous to define multiple threshold values, including at least first and second threshold values (see paragraph 44). VDS further teaches generating a second output that the comprises a second indication that the total duration meets or exceeds the second predetermined threshold (see paragraph 44; where an alert signal is generated to inform the use that the blade is near the end of its useful life is one example of the second indication, and the indication that the user is applying too much pressure is another example of the second indication). VDS teaches that defining multiple threshold values, including at least first and second threshold values, is advantageous for a variety of reasons. First, a user can receive a first warning that a blade has 50% of its cutting life remaining. This warning is advantageous to give a user time to obtain new blades (e.g., order a replacement razer cartridge, or pick up a new cartridge on the user’s next shopping trip). Second, a user can receive a second warning that the blade has used 95% of its cutting life, which is an indication that the user should imminently replace the blade. Third, by selecting a threshold value of approximately 30%, the user can receive a warning as to whether or not the user is applying too much pressure during use.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the computing instructions of Freund, as modified, to define at least first and second predetermined threshold values, to determine whether the total duration meets or exceeds the second predetermined threshold values, and to generate a second output comprising a second indication that the total duration meets or exceeds the second predetermined threshold value in view of the teachings of VDS. This modification is advantageous because the modification allows the user to receive additional information regarding the wear status of the blade. For example, this modification allows a user to receive an indication that the blade is 50% worn, which allows the user time to obtain a replacement blade or blade cartridge for future use, while also providing the user with an indication that the blade is 95% worn, which tells the user to more imminently replace the blade. As another advantage, the user can be apprised relatively early in the life of the blade that the wear rate is too great, indicating that the user should adjust his or her shaving to use less pressure (while still obtaining the ability to provide the user with an indication that the blade is ready to be replaced when the threshold indicates an end of blade life indication).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freund as modified by Hart and VDS as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2023/0211515 A1 to Blatter et al.
Freund, as modified, fails to disclose that the computing instructions are further configured to initiate, based on the indication, a replacement blade for shipment to the user as required by claim 15.
Blatter, though, teaches initiating, based on an indication related to blade wear (see paragraph 81), a replacement blade for shipment to a user (see paragraphs 82 and 165). [Claim 15] Blatter teaches that this feature allows for automatically replenishing a disposable component of the shaving device (see paragraph 82).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the computing instructions of Freund, as modified, to include initiating, based on the indication, a replacement blade for shipment to a user in view of the teachings of Blatter in order to automatically replenish a disposable portion of the shaving device, which in turn simplifies the user experience because a replacement blade or blade cartridge is automatically order when needed, such that the effort required of the user is reduced.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freund as modified by Hart and VDS as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2008/0111685 A1 to Olson.
Regarding claim 17, Freund, as modified, discloses that the output comprising the indication is detected by the one or more processors (see Freund at paragraph 160 and paragraph 161; note that the broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘detect’ in this context includes the one or more processors detecting the indication by making a determination to generate the output).
Freund, as modified, fails to disclose that the one or more processors prevent feedback to the user as required by claim 17.
Olson is in the field of endeavor of razors and shaving devices (see paragraph 69). Olson teaches a processor 322 that is configured to prevent feedback to a user (see paragraphs 51 and 52; the processor 322 is configured to prevent feedback to a user when the user has actuated a silencing control device 332 per paragraph 52, whereas in paragraph 51 the processor is configured to provide the feedback upon actuation of a touch sensor 325; see also paragraph 19). Olson teaches that configuring the processor to be able selectively prevent feedback to the user is advantageous in order to provide a silence option to the user (see paragraph 52), such that the user has the option to avoid noise or other interruption.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the one or more processors of Freund, as modified, with the ability to prevent feedback to the user in view of the teachings of Olson. This modification can include providing Freund, as modified, with a silencing control device, which, when actuated, instructs the processor to prevent feedback to the user as taught by Olson. This modification is advantageous because it provides a user with the ability to silence the shaving device of Freund, as modified. Silencing the shaving device is advantageous if the user desires to maintain a quiet environment (e.g., if the user is shaving in a bedroom with another sleeping person present, such as a hotel room or a studio apartment).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2007/0050982 A1 to Freund et al. in view of US Pub. No. 2024/0293945 A1 to VDS and US Pub. No. 2009/0119923 A1 to Hart et al.
Regarding claim 19, Freund discloses computing instructions for analyzing shaving usage based on time duration (see paragraphs 102, 144, and 157-161; the method of paragraphs 157-161 is carried out by computing instructions of control logic 105; the control logic 105 is implemented in a microprocessor per paragraph 102), that when executed by one or more processors cause the one or more processors to:
define a predetermined threshold value (see paragraphs 157-158 and 160-161, along with Fig. 15D; in paragraph 160, the ‘predetermined threshold value’ is the value used to determine that the count reaches “a state indicative of a worn blade”; in paragraph 161, an alternative ‘predetermined threshold value’ is the value of the “expected lifetime” to which the count is compared);
collect, by one or more processors (the counter 102 collects sensor data per paragraph 158, and the counter 102 is part of a microprocessor per paragraph 144 disclosing that the counter 102 is implemented in the control logic 105 and paragraph 102 disclosing that control logic 105 can be implemented in a microprocessor), sensor data from a sensor 108 of a shaving device having a blade (see paragraphs 142-143), the sensor data collected while a user is shaving (see paragraph 158; the timer 106 is started and stopped at the beginning and end, respectively, of a shaving stroke);
determine, based on the sensor data, user-specific pressure data defining one or more shaving strokes based on pressure applied to the user's skin (see paragraphs 155-158; per paragraph 156, one example of the sensor 108 detects a change in motor load that is associated with skin contact, and in this situation a light pressing force produces a small change in motor load whereas a high pressing force products a large change in motor load, such that the sensor 108 detecting a change in motor load is a sensor that detects ‘user-specific pressure data’; the user-specific pressure data include an increase in pressure indicating a start of a shaving stroke and a decrease in pressure indicating an end of the shaving stroke per paragraph 158, which is ‘user-specific’ because different users having different lengths of shaving strokes per paragraph 157; VDS at paragraph 46 provides evidence that a sensor that detects a change in motor load detects user-specific pressure data);
track, based on a timer 106, one or more intervals of time values for each of the one or more shaving strokes (see Fig. 15D and paragraph 158);
calculating, based on the one or more interval of time values, a total duration of the one or more shaving strokes (see Fig. 15D and paragraph 158);
determine that the total duration meets or exceeds the predetermined threshold value (see Fig. 15D and paragraphs 158 and 160; the counter 102 determines that the total duration, referred to in paragraph 160 as the ‘count’, reaches the state indicative of a worn blade; see also paragraph 161), and;
generate an output associated with the shaving device based on the determining that the total duration meets or exceeds the predetermined threshold value (the counter 102 generates the output as a replacement signal sent to the replacement indicator 110; alternatively, the output is generated by the indicator 110 in response to receiving the replacement signal from the counter 102, in which case the output is the visual, audible, or tactile cue of paragraph 160; alternatively still, see paragraph 161), the output comprising an indication that the total duration meets or exceeds the predetermined threshold value (see paragraph 160 and/or paragraph 161).
Freund is silent regarding where the computing instructions executed by the processor are stored, as well as where the value of the state indicative of the blade being worn as disclosed at paragraph 160 and the value of the expected lifetime of paragraph 161 are stored. As such, at least for purposes of this rejection, Freund is considered as failing to disclose a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores the computing instructions, and similarly Freund fails to disclose that the predetermined threshold value is defined in a computer readable medium, as required by claim 19.
First, VDS teaches a tangible, non-transitory computer readable medium that stores computing instructions, that, when executed by a processor, analyze shaving usage (see paragraphs 17, 71, and 72, with the shaving usage analyzation being disclosed in at least the abstract)
Therefore, in view of the fact that Freund is silent regarding where exactly the computing instructions executed by the processor are stored, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to store the computing instructions on a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium in view of the teachings of VDS. This modification is advantageous to provide a location to store instructions for operating the processor of Freund. Further, this modification is obvious under KSR Rationale A – combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Freund and VDS, considered together, include each element claimed as noted above. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (such as by storing the computing instructions required by Freund on the medium as taught by VDS; storing computing instructions on a computer readable medium is well-known), and in combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately (the microprocessor of Freund continues to execute instructions to carry out a blade wear determination, and the instructions being stored on the medium as taught by VDS merely provides the instructions at a location where they are accessible by a processor). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of this combination were predictable since providing a medium to store computing instructions that are accessed by a microprocessor is common place.
Next, Hart teaches defining a predetermined threshold value in a computer readable memory 110 (see paragraph 46, where the ‘predetermined threshold value’ is the expected shaving utility), where the memory is communicatively coupled to a processor (see Fig. 7 and paragraph 51).
Noting that Freund already requires that its counter (which is implemented by the microprocessor of paragraph 102 per paragraph 144) has access to the predetermined threshold value in order to make the blade wear determination of paragraph 160 and/or in order to make the determination of paragraph 161, but that Freund is silent regarding exactly where the predetermined threshold value is stored, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to define the predetermined threshold value of Freund on a computer readable memory in view of the teachings of Hart. This modification is advantageous because it provides a location for storing the predetermined threshold value that is accessible by the microprocessor of Freund. A computer readable memory is an obvious location to define a value that is accessed by a microprocessor because a microprocessor accesses data stored on a memory in order to performing control operations. Moreover, providing a computer readable memory is advantageous to avoid the need for a communication device to communicate with an external memory. This modification is further obvious under KSR Rationale A – combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Freund and Hart, together, include each element claimed as noted above. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (such as defining the threshold value of Freund on an computer readable memory as taught by Hart; storing data on a computer readable memory, where the data is accessed by a microprocessor, is well-known), and in combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately (the microprocessor of Freund continues to compare a current count to a threshold value to determine whether a blade is worn, and the computer readable memory continues to store data for use in a blade-wear determination system). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of this combination were predictable since providing a memory to store data that is accessed by a microprocessor is common place.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freund as modified by VDS and Hart as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of VDS.
Regarding claim 20, Freund, as modified, discloses that the computing instructions are configured, when executed by the processor, to: define, in the computer readable memory, the predetermined threshold value (see the modification of Freund in view of Hart applied to claim 10 above); determine that the total duration meets or exceeds the predetermined threshold value (see Freund at paragraphs 160 and 161); and generating the output associated with the shaving device, the output comprising the indication that the total duration meets or exceeds the predetermined threshold value (see Freund at paragraphs 160 and 161).
Freund is considered as only disclosing a single predetermined threshold value (notwithstanding the disclosure of Freund at paragraphs 160 and 161). As a result, Freund, as modified, fails to disclose that the computer instructions are configured to define a second predetermined threshold value in the memory, determine that the total duration meets or exceeds the second predetermined threshold value, generate a second output that comprises a second indication that the total duration meets or exceeds the second predetermined threshold value, as required by claim 20.
Response to Arguments
Initially, regarding the rejections of claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-20 under 35 USC 101, Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-11 of the Remarks filed 29 August 2025, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The examiner agrees at least with the Applicant’s position that the claims recite additional elements that integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. The examiner agrees with the Applicants position that “the independent claims recite a particular machine, e.g., a shaving device, which is expressly described in the claims”. Indeed, the examiner further notes that the claims require collecting sensor data while a user is shaving – shaving is a practical application of an idea. At least because the claims recite additional elements that integrate an abstract idea into a practical application, the rejections of claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-20 under 35 USC 101 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 being rejected under 35 USC 102 and/or 35 USC 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVAN H MACFARLANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30AM to 4:00PM MT.
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.
/EVAN H MACFARLANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights