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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9, 11-15, and 18-19 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 is objected to because of "a consumer actuated power switch" in line 2. This should be corrected to "consumer-actuated power switch."
Claim 1 is further objected to because of "a first pre-programed threshold stored by the control circuit" in line 17. This should be corrected to "a first pre-programmed threshold stored by the control circuit."
Claim 2 is objected to because of "The hair cutting appliance of claim 1 wherein the…" in line 1. This should be corrected to "The hair cutting appliance of claim 1, wherein the…"
Claim 2 is further objected to because of "the first pre-programed threshold stored by the control circuit" in line 3. This should be corrected to "the first pre-programmed threshold stored by the control circuit."
Claim 3 is objected to because of "The hair cutting appliance of claim 1 further…" in line 1. This should be corrected to because of "The hair cutting appliance of claim 1, further…"
Claim 4 is objected to because of "The hair cutting appliance of claim 3 wherein a…" in line 1. This should be corrected to because of "The hair cutting appliance of claim 3, wherein a…"
Claim 4 is further objected to because of “ranging from about 400nm to about 1000 nm” in line 2. This should be corrected to “ranging from about 400 nm to about 1000 nm.”
Claim 5 is objected to because of "The hair cutting appliance of claim 1 further…" in line 1. This should be corrected to "The hair cutting appliance of claim 1, further…"
Claim 6 is objected to because of "The hair cutting appliance of claim 1 wherein the…" in line 1. This should be corrected to "The hair cutting appliance of claim 1, wherein the…"
Claim 7 is objected to because of "The hair cutting appliance of claim 1 wherein the…" in line 1. This should be corrected to "The hair cutting appliance of claim 1, wherein the…"
Claim 8 is objected to because of "The hair cutting appliance of claim 1 wherein first pre-programed threshold…" in line 1. This should be corrected to "The hair cutting appliance of claim 1, wherein the first pre-programmed threshold…"
Claim 8 is further objected to because of "comprises one or more of hair length, hair density, hair color, individual hair thickness and hair straightness" in lines 1-2. This should be corrected to "comprises one or more of hair length, hair density, hair color, individual hair thickness, or hair straightness."
Claim 9 is objected to because of "The hair cutting appliance of claim 1 wherein the first pre-programed threshold…" in line 1. This should be corrected to "The hair cutting appliance of claim 1, wherein the first pre-programmed threshold…"
Claim 11 is objected to because of "the consumer actuated power switch comprises one of a push button actuator, a motion sensor or a touch sensor" in lines 1-2. This should be corrected to "the consumer-actuated power switch comprises one of a push button actuator, a motion sensor, or a touch sensor."
Claim 12 is objected to because of "comprises one of reciprocating blades, rotating blades or linear blades" in lines 1-2. This should be corrected to "comprises one of reciprocating blades, rotating blades, or linear blades."
Claim 13 is objected to because of "receive, at the control circuit, first image data" in line 5. This should be corrected to "receive, at the control circuit, a first image data."
Claim 14 is objected to because of "receive, at the control circuit, second image data" in line 3. This should be corrected to "receive, at the control circuit, a second image data."
Claim 14 is further objected to because of "including the value of the parameter is equal to or less than" in lines 7-8. Examiner suggests "including the value of the parameter of hair is equal to or less than" for linguistic consistency.
Claim 15 is objected to because of "from the timer indicated that an elapsed time since a most recent use of the hair cutting appliance" in lines 3-4. This should be corrected to "from the timer indicated an elapsed time since a most recent use of the hair cutting appliance."
Claim 15 is further objected to because of "one or more of the elapsed time and a time frequency of use" in line 5. Examiner suggests "one or more of the elapsed time or a
Claim 18 is objected to because of "the first-programmed threshold is based on an average growth rate of human hair and a predetermined amount of time" in lines 1-2. Examiner suggests "the first-programmed threshold is determined based on an average growth rate of human hair and a predetermined amount of time" for better clarity.
Claim 19 is objected to because of "the hair cutting appliance comprising a body having a consumer actuated power switch" in lines 1-2. This should be corrected to "the hair cutting appliance comprising: a body having a consumer-actuated power switch."
Appropriate correction is required.
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 is: “A power transform module” in claims 19-20 and because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. In this case, the corresponding structure of a power transform module is described on pages 15 of the Specification, lines 1-6, “the optical sensor and optical source are enclosed within a power transform module that is removably attached to the body… the power transform module 131 houses the optical sensor 112 (e.g., NIR camera 112’, as shown in FIG. 6B) and the one or more optical sources 120.” Other than detailing that the power transform module houses an optical sensor and an optical source, no other structure is given to the power transform module.
Therefore, examiner is interpreting “a power transform module” as any structure that has an optical sensor and an optical source housed within it.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 5-9, 11-17, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160263754 A1 by Lauritsen in view of US 11007659 B2 by Goldfarb et al. (hereinafter “Goldfarb”).
Regarding claim 1, Lauritsen discloses a hair cutting appliance (Lauritsen, Fig. 1, trimming device 2) comprising: a body (Lauritsen, Fig. 2, user grip area 24) having a consumer actuated power switch (Lauritsen, para. 65, "The user can optionally confirm the placement by pressing a button (not shown) on the hair trimming device(2)"); a power source (Lauritsen, para. 37, "The source element (3) is powered by a battery (not shown)") in electrical communication with the power switch (Lauritsen, para. 65, "The user can optionally confirm the placement by pressing a button (not shown) on the hair trimming device (2)"; Lauritsen, para. 70, "Following this initial adjustment the trimming motor (16) starts automatically"); a drive system (Lauritsen, Fig. 2, trimming motor 16) positioned within the body (Lauritsen, Fig. 2, user grip area 24) in selective electrical communication with the power source (Lauritsen, para. 73, "If, for whatever reason, the data stream from a receiving element (1) to the embedded computer system is interrupted, and/or the user moves the hair trimming device too fast… then the trimmer motor is automatically shut off"); at least one cutting unit coupled to the drive system (Lauritsen, para. 19, "In a preferred embodiment the cutting unit and the motor driving the cutting unit are moved together in order to simplify the design of the drive train") and comprising an external cutting member (Lauritsen, Fig. 1, touching position 35; Lauritsen, para. 41, "to calculate the position of the hair trimming device's (2) position in relation to the treated person's head (30), more precisely of the touching position (35)"); at least one sensor mounted to the body (Lauritsen, para. 70, "The user places the hair trimming device (2) on the treated person's head (30), with contact detected by a pressure sensitive sensor in the hair trimming device (not shown)") and positioned to sense (Lauritsen, para. 34, "The position and orientation of the trimming device (2) monitored using the electromagnetic fields generated by the source elements (3) and the receiving element (1)") a pre-defined skin-hair edge (Lauritsen, para. 42, "This position information is compared by the embedded computer system to previously generated data about the desired local hair length (21) at any given point on the treated person's head (30)") in an area in front of the external cutting member (Lauritsen, Fig. 1. touching position 35); a control circuit (Lauritsen, Fig. 2, control system 11) positioned within the body (Lauritsen, Fig. 2, user grip area 24) and in electrical communication with the at least one sensor (Lauritsen, para. 70, "The user places the hair trimming device (2) on the treated person's head (30), with contact detected by a pressure sensitive sensor in the hair trimming device (not shown)"); and a switching element in electrical communication with the control circuit (see Examiner note below), the switching element switchable by the control circuit between a conducting state to electrically connect the drive system and the power source and a non-conducting state to electrically isolate the drive system from the power source, wherein the switching element is switched by the control circuit to the non-conducting state when a first sensed condition of the at least one optical sensor exceeds a first pre-programed threshold stored by the control circuit (Lauritsen, para. 73, "If, for whatever reason, the data stream from a receiving element (1) to the embedded computer system is interrupted, and/or the user moves the hair trimming device (2) too fast for the embedded computer system to calculate… "then the trimmer motor (16) is automatically shut off, and/or the length regulation mechanism (18) is set to its maximum trimming length").
Note: Further regarding the switching element switchable between a conducting and a non-conducting state, while Lauritsen does not explicitly detail an element for performing the switching, the appliance of Lauritsen is conditionally switchable between a conducting and a non-conducting state (see Lauritsen para. 73). This means that the appliance of Lauritsen must have some element that is able to perform this task.
Lauritsen does not explicitly disclose that the sensor is optical.
Goldfarb, however, does teach at least one optical sensor (Goldfarb, col. 9, lines 51-55, "position sensor 136 may include other sensors such as a capacitive transducer, a capacitive displacement sensor, an eddy-current sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, a grating sensor, a hall effect sensor, an inductive non-contact sensor, an optical sensor"; Goldfarb, Figs. 1A-1E, camera 163) mounted to the body (see Goldfarb Figs. 1A-1E).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention modify the sensor of Lauritsen to be an optical sensor as taught by Goldfarb in order to provide and capture visual data to be processed by the control circuit (Goldfarb, col. 15, lines 51-57, "microcontroller 160 is configured to instruct image camera to capture frames of the images from camera 163…"; Goldfarb, col. 16, lines 4-19, "One benefit of using camera sensor 163 is to provide a shaving view to the user on external device 505 without the need for a mirror, as well as viewing regions difficult to view with a single mirror… present for display on display 565 on external device 505…").
Regarding claim 2, the Lauritsen/Goldfarb combination is as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Furthermore, Lauritsen discloses the switching element is switched by the control unit (Lauritsen, Fig. 2, control system 11) to the conducting state when a second sensed condition of the at least one optical sensor is equal to or less than the first pre-programed threshold stored by the control circuit (Lauritsen, para. 70, “The user places the hair trimming device (2) on the treated person's head (30), with contact detected by a pressure sensitive sensor in the hair trimming device (not shown). The position of the hair trimming device (2) is detected and the trimming length adjusted according to the HLP for this position. Following this initial adjustment the trimming motor (16) starts automatically”).
Regarding claim 5, the Lauritsen/Goldfarb combination is as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Furthermore, Lauritsen discloses a user interface on the body indicating a status of the switching element (Lauritsen, para. 67, “When sufficient points have been detected by the embedded computer system to verify the compatibility between the head of the treated person (30) and the HLP as well as the placement and orientation of the source elements (3) in relation to the treated person's head (30), the user is informed visually and/or acoustically by the embedded computer system”).
Regarding claim 6, the Lauritsen/Goldfarb combination is as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Furthermore, Goldfarb discloses the control circuit (Goldfarb, microcontroller 160) sends a signal to a user interface on the body indicating a stroke speed (Goldfarb, col. 13, lines 36-39, “microcontroller 160 is configured with a timer that measures the period of time that the proximity sensor detects contact between blade 151 and the skin”; Goldfarb, col. 16, lines 41-48, “external device 505 and wireless communication unit 110 may exchange data back and forth in real time. This is particularly useful to provide a user with feedback with shaving. For example, in some embodiments, microcontroller 160 is configured to provide a real-time quantitative comparison, such as a variable pitch sound or a recorded voice from speaker 164, a visual indicator 510, and the like, on shaving system 100”; Goldfarb, cols. 13-14, lines 54-3, “microcontroller 160 is configured to provide instructions to an external device 505 to incrementally adjust a threshold value (e.g., contact duration threshold) representative of the period of time that the proximity sensor detects contact between blade 151 and the skin based on the user's behavior. For example, a woman shaving her legs may have long contact shaving strokes, whereas a man shaving his face may have short contact shaving strokes…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to further modify the hair cutting appliance of Lauritsen to send a signal to a user interface indicating a stroke speed as taught by Goldfarb in order to provide feedback to improve the shaving experience for a user and help determine the shaving stroke performance (Goldfarb, col. 11, lines 61-64, “can provide feedback to a user (e.g., audible sound, light or message displayed on an external device) to assist in proper shaving techniques”; Goldfarb, col. 13, lines 34-66, “Another parameter that can be used to determine a shaving stroke performance and count is the duration blade 151 is in contact with the skin. In this approach, microcontroller 160 is configured with a timer that measures the period of time that the proximity sensor detects contact between blade 151 and the skin…”).
Regarding claim 7, the Lauritsen/Goldfarb combination is as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Furthermore, Goldfarb discloses the control circuit comprises a timer (Goldfarb, cols. 4-5, lines 65-4, “Microcontroller 160 may include additional embedded components to facilitate aspects of intelligent shaving system 100… a timer, and the like”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the control circuit of Lauritsen to include a timer as taught by Goldfarb in order to be able to measure data over certain periods of time as necessary for improving and tracking shaving performance (Goldfarb, col. 11, lines 59-61, “Likewise, in some instances, force sensor 120 may be configured to indicate contact based on changes in force, F, over a time differential, Δt, which can provide feedback to a user”; Goldfarb, col. 13, lines 36-39, “microcontroller 160 is configured with a timer that measures the period of time that the proximity sensor detects contact between blade 151 and the skin”).
Regarding claim 8, the Lauritsen/Goldfarb combination is as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Furthermore, Lauritsen discloses first pre-programed threshold comprises one or more of hair length (Lauritsen, para. 7, “Based on this determined position the hair trimming system determines the hair cutting length associated with this position in the previously generated hair length profile… The hair trimming device according to the invention can thus be moved over the head of a user while the hair trimming system is automatically and dynamically adjusting the cutting length”), hair density, hair color, individual hair thickness and hair straightness.
Regarding claim 9, the Lauritsen/Goldfarb combination is as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Furthermore, Lauritsen discloses the first pre-programed threshold includes a hair length in a range from about 0.3 mm to about 3.5 mm (Lauritsen, para. 54-56, “A HLP contains a set of position points (20, 26), each with an accompanying hair length between zero mm and a maximum length determined by a hair trimming device's adjustment travel length… The number of calculated steps between the positions (20, 26) can be adjusted by the HLP modification system with due respect for seamless steps, preferably not larger than one mm”).
Regarding claim 11, the Lauritsen/Goldfarb combination is as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Furthermore, Lauritsen discloses the consumer actuated power switch comprises on of a push button actuator (Lauritsen, para. 65, “The user can optionally confirm the placement by pressing a button (not shown) on the hair trimming device (2)”), a motion sensor or a touch sensor.
Regarding claim 12, the Lauritsen/Goldfarb combination is as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Furthermore, Goldfarb discloses the external cutting member comprises one of reciprocating blades, rotating blades, or linear blades (Goldfarb, Fig. 1D, blade 151).
Regarding claim 13, the Lauritsen/Goldfarb combination is as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Furthermore, the Lauritsen/Goldfarb combination discloses the control circuit is a microcontroller (Goldfarb, Fig. 12, microcontroller 160) including a processor (Goldfarb, Fig. 12, processor cores 169) and a memory (Goldfarb, Fig. 12, first memory 161) with the stored first pre-programmed threshold and a stored set of instructions such that when executed by the processor, causes the appliance to perform the following steps: receive, at the control circuit, first image data from the at least one optical sensor of a first area in front of the external cutting member (Goldfarb, col. 18, lines 57-63, “One technique for detecting blade attrition includes capturing a first image (e.g., frame) of a region of skin with hair using camera 163”); determine, with the control circuit, the first sensed condition including a value of a parameter of hair in the first area based on the first image data (Goldfarb, col. 19, lines 10-15, “one or more processors use the captured first and second images in determining a first and second quantitative comparison and providing an attrition comparison based on the difference…”); determine, with the control circuit, that the first sensed condition including the value of the parameter of hair exceeds the first pre-programmed threshold stored in the memory; and transmit, with the control circuit, a first signal to the switching element to cause the switching element to switch to the non-conducting state (Lauritsen, para. 73,” the user moves the hair trimming device (2) too fast for the embedded computer system to calculate and transmit the current length to the hair trimming device's (2) embedded length regulation control system (11), and/or the transmission of trimming length data from the embedded computer system (4) to the hair trimming device (2) is interrupted, and/or the hair trimming device (2) is lifted from the treated person's head (30), then the trimmer motor (16) is automatically shut off”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention for the control circuit of Lauritsen to switch to a non-conducting state as a result of the data collected and calculated by the control unit and sensor of Goldfarb as applying a known technique (in this case, the logic gate of Goldfarb) to a known device (i.e. hair cutting appliances) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (in this case, the logic gate of Goldfarb improving the hair cutting appliance of Lauritsen by adding more operations to Lauritsen’s automatic turn on/shut off action response, which would only require a simple change in the Boolean function, providing more functionality to the user.
Regarding claim 14, the Lauritsen/Goldfarb combination is as detailed in the rejection of claim 13 above. Furthermore, the Lauritsen/Goldfarb combination discloses the stored set of instructions are such that when executed by the processor, causes the appliance to further perform the following steps: receive, at the control circuit, second image data from the at least one optical sensor of a second area in front of the external cutting member (Goldfarb, col. 19, lines 10-15, “one or more processors use the captured first and second images in determining a first and second quantitative comparison and providing an attrition comparison based on the difference…”); determine, with the control circuit, a second sensed condition including a value of a parameter of hair in the second area based on the second image data (Goldfarb, col. 19, lines 10-15, “one or more processors use the captured first and second images in determining a first and second quantitative comparison and providing an attrition comparison based on the difference…”); determine, with the control circuit, that the second sensed condition including the value of the parameter is equal to or less than the first pre-programmed threshold stored in the memory; and transmit, with the control circuit, a second signal to the switching element to cause the switching element to switch to the conducting state (Lauritsen, para. 70, “The user places the hair trimming device (2) on the treated person's head (30), with contact detected by a pressure sensitive sensor in the hair trimming device (not shown). The position of the hair trimming device (2) is detected and the trimming length adjusted according to the HLP for this position. Following this initial adjustment the trimming motor (16) starts automatically”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention for the control circuit of Lauritsen to switch to a conducting state as a result of the data collected and calculated by the control unit and sensor of Goldfarb as applying a known technique (in this case, the logic gate of Goldfarb) to a known device (i.e. hair cutting appliances) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (in this case, the logic gate of Goldfarb improving the hair cutting appliance of Lauritsen by adding more operations to Lauritsen’s automatic turn on/shut off action response, which would only require a simple change in the Boolean function, providing more functionality to the user.
Regarding claim 15, the Lauritsen/Goldfarb combination is as detailed in the rejection of claim 7 above. Furthermore, the Lauritsen/Goldfarb combination discloses a user interface (Goldfarb, Fig. 6, indicator display 510) on the body (Goldfarb, Fig. 6, handle body 520) in communication with the control circuit and wherein upon the control circuit receiving a first signal from the timer (Goldfarb, col. 13, lines 36-39, “microcontroller 160 is configured with a timer that measures the period of time that the proximity sensor detects contact between blade 151 and the skin”) indicating that an elapsed time since a most recent use of the hair cutting appliance (Goldfarb, col. 13, lines 39-48, “For this technique, the contact duration is compared to a contact duration threshold to determine a completed shaving stroke. In some embodiments, the proximity sensor is configured to detect when at least one blade 151 contacts the skin. In some instances, microcontroller 160 may not accurately interpret the occurrence of a shaving stroke when the proximity is too short or too long duration. As such, the contact duration threshold may be adjusted by the user (e.g., using external device 505 via wireless communication unit 110 to wireless module 555)”) (see Examiner note below), the control circuit is configured to transmit a second signal to the user interface to output on the user interface (Goldfarb, col. 16, lines 44-48, “microcontroller 160 is configured to provide a real-time quantitative comparison, such as a variable pitch sound or a recorded voice from speaker 164, a visual indicator 510, and the like, on shaving system 100”; Goldfarb, col. 15, lines 14-25, “To conserve resources, microcontroller 160 may be configured to provide sensory data to external device 505… Likewise, the quantitative comparison and other parameters may be displayed on external device 505”) one or more of the elapsed time and a time frequency of use of the hair cutting appliance over a predetermined time period (Goldfarb, col. 13, lines 36-48, “microcontroller 160 is configured with a timer that measures the period of time that the proximity sensor detects contact between blade 151 and the skin… microcontroller 160 may not accurately interpret the occurrence of a shaving stroke when the proximity is too short or too long duration. As such, the contact duration threshold may be adjusted by the user (e.g., using external device 505 via wireless communication unit 110 to wireless module 555”).
While Goldfarb does not explicitly detail that the elapsed time is a time since the most recent use, because the microcontroller is configured to adjust a threshold value of a period of time that there is contact between the blade and the skin, the timer of the microcontroller automatically is able to track a most recent use of the appliance, since it would just be the period of time from the most recent point of contact between the blade and the skin until the next point of contact.
Regarding claim 16, the Lauritsen/Goldfarb combination is as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Furthermore, Goldfarb discloses that the at least one optical sensor (Goldfarb, Figs. 1A-1E, camera 163) is mounted to the body such that an optical axis of the at least one optical sensor (see Examiner annotated Goldfarb Figure 1C, hereinafter “EAGF1C”; optical axis) is oriented at an angle (Goldfarb, Fig. 3A-3C, angle θ) relative to a normal direction to a cutting plane (EAGF1C, cutting plane) defined by the at least one cutting unit.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have the sensor of Lauritsen be oriented at an angle as taught by Goldfarb because the sensor is oriented with the angle of the body in order to balance the forces acting on appliance during use (Goldfarb, col. 9, lines 18-43, “Tangential force, FT, is part of composite force F… configured to move along an inclined plane at angle θ, with respect to the gripping portion of handle 140. Applying tangential force, FT, to the tip of input arm 138 slides second fulcrum 132 up the inclined plane at angle θ to reposition coupling 137… This variance in the distance from the center of coupling 137 to first fulcrum 131, L.sub.3, and the distance from first fulcrum 131 to plunger 124, L.sub.4, varies the transference ratio”).
PNG
media_image1.png
343
735
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, the Lauritsen/Goldfarb combination is as detailed in the rejection of claim 16 above. Furthermore, while the Lauritsen/Goldfarb combination does not explicitly detail the numerical value of the angle, Goldfarb teaches the sensor is placed at an angle relative to the cutting plane (Goldfarb, Fig. 3A, angle θ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of invention to optimize and arrive at an angle ranging between about 0 degrees and about 60 degrees, recognizing that the angle is directly correlated to how forces and their components act on the hair cutting appliance during use (Goldfarb, col. 9, lines 18-43, “Tangential force, FT, is part of composite force F… configured to move along an inclined plane at angle θ, with respect to the gripping portion of handle 140. Applying tangential force, FT, to the tip of input arm 138 slides second fulcrum 132 up the inclined plane at angle θ to reposition coupling 137… This variance in the distance from the center of coupling 137 to first fulcrum 131, L.sub.3, and the distance from first fulcrum 131 to plunger 124, L.sub.4, varies the transference ratio”).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160263754 A1 by Lauritsen in view of US 11007659 B2 by Goldfarb as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20140137883 A1 by Rothschild.
Regarding claim 3, the Lauritsen/Goldfarb combination is as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above. The Lauritsen/Goldfarb combination does not explicitly disclose a light source.
Rothschild, however, does teach a light source mounted to the body, the light source projecting a light signal at the area in front of the external cutting member (Rothschild, para. 15, “a light source (not shown), such as a light emitting diode, a liquid crystal display (LCD), a lamp, or other suitable source of light can be coupled to the razor 110 to illuminate areas of the skin 125 for which one or more images 160 is captured”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add a light source to the Lauritsen/Goldfarb combination as taught by Rothschild in order to improve the clarity of the data collected by the optical sensor (Rothschild, para. 15, “An imaging device 135… Further, a light source (not shown), such as a light emitting diode, a liquid crystal display (LCD), a lamp, or other suitable source of light can be coupled to the razor 110 to illuminate areas of the skin 125 for which one or more images 160 is captured”).
Regarding claim 4, the Lauritsen/Goldfarb/Rothschild combination is as detailed in the rejection of claim 3 above. Furthermore, Rothschild teaches a wavelength of the light source is in a range from about 400nm to about 1000nm (Rothschild, para. 15, “a light source (not shown), such as a light emitting diode, a liquid crystal display (LCD), a lamp, or other suitable source of light can be coupled to the razor 110 to illuminate areas of the skin 125 for which one or more images 160 is captured”) (see further Examiner note below).
While Rothschild does not explicitly detail the wavelength from the light source, it is well-understood to any person of ordinary skill in the art that the wavelength of visible light ranges from about 380nm to 700nm. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art could easily arrive at a wavelength ranging from about 400 nm to about 1000 nm for the light source of the Lauritsen/Goldfarb/Rothschild.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160263754 A1 by Lauritsen in view of US 11007659 B2 by Goldfarb as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 114211529 A by An et al. (hereinafter “An”).
Regarding claim 10, the Lauritsen/Goldfarb combination is as detailed in the rejection of claim 7 above. Furthermore, the Lauritsen/Goldfarb combination does not explicitly disclose an elapsed time since a most recent use of the appliance.
An, however, does teach the control circuit (see An English Machine Translated Document, hereinafter “AEMTD”; The invention discloses a control circuit”) is configured to receive a signal from the timer indicating an elapsed time since a most recent use of the hair cutting appliance and wherein the control circuit is configured to switch the switching element to the conducting state when the elapsed time is less than a second pre-programmed threshold stored by the control circuit (AEMTD, Description, para. 6, “When the main control module determines that the motor drive module is no-loaded and/or the no-load duration is greater than a preset time threshold based on the electrical signal collected by the acquisition module, the main control module will update the first drive signal that turns on the switch module to the first drive signal that turns off the switch module, thereby automatically shutting down and the motor drive module stops working”) (see further Examiner note below).
Note: because of how the conditional logic gate works, even though An only describes the control circuit switching to a non-conducting state when the elapsed time is greater than the pre-programmed threshold, it can easily be determined that the matching operation to this logic gate would be the circuit is in a conducting state if the elapsed time is less than or equal to the pre-programmed threshold.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to include a time-dependent logic gate to the control circuit of the Lauritsen/Goldfarb combination as taught by An in order to improve the energy efficiency of the appliance (AEMTD, Description, para. 27, “… thereby controlling automatic shutdown… can also reduce the power consumption of the battery 300, thereby extending the service life of the battery 300”).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160263754 A1 by Lauritsen in view of US 11007659 B2 by Goldfarb as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20200202565 A1 by Kasprzak.
Regarding claim 18, the Lauritsen/Goldfarb combination is as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Furthermore, the Lauritsen/Goldfarb does not explicitly disclose an average growth rate of human hair.
Kasprzak, however, does teach the first pre-programmed threshold is based on an average growth rate of human hair and a predetermined amount of time (Kasprzak, para. 170, “The second videodermoscopy image IM 2 may e.g. be captured 3-5 days after shaving, which give enough time between the capturing of the images for the hair to grow such that a growth rate can be estimated for a reliable and sufficiently accurate estimates of the lengths immediately after shaving”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to base the threshold of the Lauritsen/Goldfarb on an average growth rate of human hair as taught by Kasprzak as simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (in this case, replacing the parameter of Lauritsen/Goldfarb with Kasprzak’s parameter based on rate of hair growth in order for the control circuit to better optimize the shaving performance based on operations from the control circuit).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160263754 A1 by Lauritsen in view of KR 20230081037 A by Cho et al. (hereinafter “Cho).
Regarding claim 19, Lauritsen discloses the hair cutting appliance comprising a body (Lauritsen, Fig. 2, user grip area 24) having a consumer actuated power switch (Lauritsen, para. 65, "The user can optionally confirm the placement by pressing a button (not shown) on the hair trimming device(2)"); a power source (Lauritsen, para. 37, "The source element (3) is powered by a battery (not shown)") in electrical communication with the power switch (Lauritsen, para. 65, "The user can optionally confirm the placement by pressing a button (not shown) on the hair trimming device (2)"; Lauritsen, para. 70, "Following this initial adjustment the trimming motor (16) starts automatically"); a drive system (Lauritsen, Fig. 2, trimming motor 16) positioned within the body (Lauritsen, Fig. 2, user grip area 24) in selective electrical communication with the power source (Lauritsen, para. 73, "If, for whatever reason, the data stream from a receiving element (1) to the embedded computer system is interrupted, and/or the user moves the hair trimming device too fast… then the trimmer motor is automatically shut off"); at least one cutting unit coupled to the drive system (Lauritsen, para. 19, "In a preferred embodiment the cutting unit and the motor driving the cutting unit are moved together in order to simplify the design of the drive train") and comprising an external cutting member (Lauritsen, Fig. 1, touching position 35; Lauritsen, para. 41, "to calculate the position of the hair trimming device's (2) position in relation to the treated person's head (30), more precisely of the touching position (35)"), a control circuit (Lauritsen, Fig. 2, control system 11) positioned within the body (Lauritsen, Fig. 2, user grip area 24), a switching element in electrical communication with the control circuit (see Examiner note below), the switching element switchable by the control circuit between a conducting state to electrically connect the drive system and the power source and a non-conducting state to electrically isolate the drive system from the power source (Lauritsen, para. 73, "If, for whatever reason, the data stream from a receiving element (1) to the embedded computer system is interrupted, and/or the user moves the hair trimming device (2) too fast for the embedded computer system to calculate… "then the trimmer motor (16) is automatically shut off, and/or the length regulation mechanism (18) is set to its maximum trimming length"; Lauritsen, para. 70, “The user places the hair trimming device (2) on the treated person's head (30), with contact detected by a pressure sensitive sensor in the hair trimming device (not shown). The position of the hair trimming device (2) is detected and the trimming length adjusted according to the HLP for this position. Following this initial adjustment the trimming motor (16) starts automatically”); the at least one optical sensor is configured to sense (Lauritsen, para. 34, "The position and orientation of the trimming device (2) monitored using the electromagnetic fields generated by the source elements (3) and the receiving element (1)") a pre-defined skin-hair edge (Lauritsen, para. 42, "This position information is compared by the embedded computer system to previously generated data about the desired local hair length (21) at any given point on the treated person's head (30)") in an area in front of the external cutting member (Lauritsen, Fig. 1. touching position 35); and wherein the switching element is configured to be switched by the control circuit to the non-conducting state when a first sensed condition of the at least one optical sensor exceeds a first-preprogrammed threshold stored by the control circuit (Lauritsen, para. 73, "If, for whatever reason, the data stream from a receiving element (1) to the embedded computer system is interrupted, and/or the user moves the hair trimming device (2) too fast for the embedded computer system to calculate… "then the trimmer motor (16) is automatically shut off, and/or the length regulation mechanism (18) is set to its maximum trimming length").
Note: Further regarding the switching element switchable between a conducting and a non-conducting state, while Lauritsen does not explicitly detail an element for performing the switching, the appliance of Lauritsen is conditionally switchable between a conducting and a non-conducting state (see Lauritsen para. 73). This means that the appliance of Lauritsen must have some element that is able to perform this task.
Lauritsen does not explicitly disclose a power transform module mounted on the body of the hair cutting appliance comprising an optical sensor and an optical source.
Cho, however, does teach a power transform module (Cho, Fig. 4, sensor housing 23) for use with a hair cutting appliance (Cho, Fig. 1, razor 1), the power transform module comprising: at least one optical sensor (Cho, Fig. 4, light receiving unit 27); at least one optical source (Cho, Fig. 4, light emitting unit 26); wherein the power transform module is configured to be mounted to the body such that upon mounting the power transform module to the body (see Cho Figs. 4 & 5); the at least one optical sensor and the at least one optical source are in communication with the power source (see Cho English Machine Translated Document, hereinafter “CEMTD”; Description, para. 43, “The battery (24) provides power to the control unit (25), light emitting unit (26), light receiving unit (27), operation unit (28), communication unit (29), and output unit (30)”); the at least one optical sensor is in electrical communication with the control circuit (CEMTD, Description, para. 43, “The battery (24) provides power to the control unit (25), light emitting unit (26), light receiving (27), operation unit (28), communication unit (29), and output unit (30)”; the at least one optical source is configured to project an optical signal at an area in front of the external cutting member (CEMTD, Claim 4, “the light source emits light toward the blade, and the sensor receives light emitted from the light source and reflected by the blade”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have an optical sensor and optical source, which aids in the data collection of the optical sensor, mounted on the body of the hair cutting appliance of Lauritsen as taught by Cho as an obvious configuration to try, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (in this case, choosing between a sensor housed in a separate component or a sensor integrated into the appliance for data usage) (CEMTD, Description, para. 27, “Also, although FIG. 1 illustrates an example in which the sensor housing (23) is formed to protrude from the handle header (22), depending on the embodiment, a separate sensor housing (23) may not be included, and the handle header (22) may be configured to perform the function of the sensor housing (23)”).
Regarding claim 20, the Lauritsen/Cho combination is as detailed in the rejection of claim 19 above. Furthermore, Cho discloses upon mounting the power transform module to the body: an optical axis (see Examiner annotated Cho Figure 4, hereinafter “EACF4”; optical axis) of the at least one optical sensor (Cho, Fig. 4, light receiving 27) is oriented at an angle (EACF4, angle) relative to a normal direction to a cutting plane defined by the at least one cutting unit (Cho, Fig. 4, razor cartridge 10); wherein the angle is in a range between about 0 degrees and about 60 degrees (CEMTD, Description, para. 56, “the state of FIG. 5 may be a state (pivot state) in which the razor cartridge (10) is in close contact with the skin and pivoted relative to the handle (20) accordin