Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/10/2026 has been entered.
The notice of allowance on 04/15/2026 is withdrawn since Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 05/10/2026 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Upon amendments of the claim set in the notice of allowance, claims 1, 3-9 are unpatentable over the references in the IDS, 05/10/2026. See the rejections below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/10/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the notice of allowance on 04/15/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Good (US 2022/0001556) in view of Hart (US 8122606 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Good teaches a sensor-based method of analyzing shaving usage (see abstract and the preamble of Good’s claim 1) comprising:
providing a shaving device (100, Figure 1) that includes a blade (150i), a computer readable memory (106), one or more processors (156), and sensor (154);
defining, in the computer readable memory, a predetermined threshold value (Para. 7 “…the processor based computing device to determine a unique threshold value of the use”);
collecting, by the one or more processors, sensor data from a sensor of a shaving device having a blade, the sensor data collected while a user is shaving (Para. 7 “The communication device may transmit shaving data and/or datasets from the sensor to a processor based computing device”);
determining, by the one or more processors based on the sensor data, user-specific pressure data defining one or more shaving strokes based on pressure applied to the user’s skin (Para. 7 “as implemented by a grooming device as described herein, may be generated to provide corresponding specific users with unique, specific, and/or personalized indications of stroke count, stroke direction or stroke pressure (load)”);
detecting, by the one or more processors based on the one or more shaving strokes, that a shaving event occurred (Para. 31 “The first dataset may comprise shave data defining a shave event. … the first dataset may comprise data defining one or more shaving strokes”).
However, Good fails to discuss steps of:
incrementing, by the one or more processors in the computer readable memory and based on detection of the shaving event, a shave event count value:
determining that the shave event count value meets or exceeds the predetermined threshold value by the one or more processors; and
generating, by the one or more processors, an output associated with the shaving device, based on the determining that the shave event count value meets or exceeds the predetermined threshold value, the output comprising an indication that the shave event count value meets or exceeds the predetermined threshold value.
Hart discusses incrementing, by the one or more processors in the computer readable memory and based on detection of the shaving event, a shave event count value (Col. 1, lines 36-41 “Some electronic shave counters count discrete shaving uses (e.g., activation of a vibration source) while others count time that the razor is active (e.g., vibrating) or the time that the razor spends shaving (e.g., detecting skin contact or cartridge movement). Some wet shaving razors estimate a remaining cartridge life based on the tracked shaving use”)
determining that the shave event count value meets or exceeds the predetermined threshold value by the one or more processors; and generating, by the one or more processors, an output associated with the shaving device, based on the determining that the shave event count value meets or exceeds the predetermined threshold value, the output comprising an indication that the shave event count value meets or exceeds the predetermined threshold value (Col. 1, lines 42-45 “Some wet shaving razors have an indicator to inform a user that the cartridge should be replaced. Some indicators are numeric displays, either mechanical or electronic, showing a count of accumulated shaving uses” and see Col. 2, lines 48-49 “The electrical arrangement tracks an accumulating time period that the cartridge contacts the shaving surface”, and Col. 8, lines 28-31 “As more shaving utilities are accumulated, output light 113 eventually becomes entirely white, at which time cartridge 18 should be replaced” that means the shaving uses has been met its threshold and time to replace the cartridge).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have had steps of incrementing, by the one or more processors in the computer readable memory and based on detection of the shaving event, a shave event count value; determining that the shave event count value meets or exceeds the predetermined threshold value by the one or more processors; and generating, by the one or more processors, an output associated with the shaving device, based on the determining that the shave event count value meets or exceeds the predetermined threshold value, the output comprising an indication that the shave event count value meets or exceeds the predetermined threshold value, as taught by Hart to the method of Good, in order to allow the user know when the shaving cartridge used that needs to replace.
Regarding claim 3, the modified method of Good teaches that the shave event count value is configured to be reset (Para. 67 “As shown in dataset 452, there are thirty-two (32) total strokes across time 458” and later “a stroke count threshold may be set to a value of thirty (30)) that means the shave event count value is reset. Also, see Hart’s summary, the last paragraph “The electrical arrangement is reset by attaching/detaching the cartridge to/from the connecting structure or by continually depressing the power switch for at least 1 second”.
Regarding claim 4, the modified method of Good teaches that the predetermined threshold value is adaptable (see the discussion in claim 3 above).
Regarding claim 5, the modified method of Good teaches that the predetermined threshold value is set by the one or more processors based on the sensor data (see the discussion in claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 6, the modified method Good teaches initiating, based on the indication, a replacement blade for shipment to the user (see the blade replacement in claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 7, the modified method of Good teaches 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 (Good’s Para. 55 “…FIG. 1 illustrates one type of indication, an indication may comprise any one or more of a visual indicator, a light emitting diode (LED), a vibrator, or an audio indicator” and also see the indication of Hart in claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 8, the modified method of Good teaches that the output comprising the indication is detected by the one or more processors, and wherein the one or more processors prevent feedback to the user (as this is written, it is unclear what feedback that the processors prevent the feedback to the user. See Good’s Para. 68 “there is no load feedback (e.g., green/red lights) during this shave. Instead, for example, grooming device (e.g., grooming device 150) may simply show a neutral color (e.g., blue) to indicate that the grooming device (e.g., grooming device 150) is active and/or learning” that means the green/red lights is not shown to the user).
Regarding claim 9, the modified method of Good teaches that the computer readable memory comprises an onboard memory stored on the shaving device, and wherein predetermined threshold value is stored in the onboard memory (Para. 9 of Good).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Good in view of Hart and Tsegenidis (US 11504866).
Regarding claim 6, this is an alternative rejection, Good teaches all of the limitations as stated above including indicating a blade age and a blade wear in paragraph 113, however, Good silently discusses initiating, based on the indication, a replacement blade for shipment to the user.
Tsegenidis teaches a processor may be configured to determine a length of each shaving stroke based on an amount of time that the two electrical contacts are spaced apart from one another during a given shaving stroke. The processor may be configured to generate an alert or to automatically place an order for at least one new razor cartridge when the determined number of shaving strokes exceeds a threshold as discussed Col. 2, lines 63-67 to Col. 3, lines 1-10.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have had a step of initiating to order a replacement blade for the user, as taught by Tsegenidis, in order to allow the user to have a spare blade and ready to replace if it is needed (replace the old blade age or the worn blade).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claim 2 is free prior art because the prior art does not teaches or suggests to have steps of
defining, in the computer readable memory, a second predetermined threshold value;
determining that the shave event count value meets or exceeds the second predetermined threshold value; and
generating a second output associated with the shaving device, the second output comprising a second indication that the shave event count value meets or exceeds the second predetermined threshold value.
Response to Arguments
With regards to “incrementing, in the computer readable memory and based on detection of the shaving event, a shave event count value …and determining that the shave event count value meets or exceeds the predetermined threshold value …”, see Hart’s reference above.
However, if Applicant still believes that the claimed invention’s apparatus/method different from the prior art’s apparatus/method or needs to discuss the rejections above or suggestion amendments, “a second predetermined threshold value…” as stated in claim 2 that can be overcome the current rejections, Applicant should feel free to call the Examiner to schedule an interview.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM EST.
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.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 5/15/2026
Prosecution Insights