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 . 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 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/21/2024 and 07/25/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement filed 03/21/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 18-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Groups II-III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/15/2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “hair cutting implement comprises a rotary shaver” of claim 15. “the hair cutting implement comprises a foil and an undercutting” of claim 16 and “the hair cutting implement comprises a reciprocating blade” of claim 17 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the legal phraseology comprises in line 1. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, 2, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goldfarb (U.S. Patent No. 2016/0167241).
Regarding claim 1 Goldfarb teaches a smart personal grooming device (100)(Figure 1C) comprising:
a body comprising a handle (140)(Paragraph 0048 and Figure 1C); a head portion connected to the body and a hair cutting implement (150)(Figure 1C);
a camera (163) oriented toward the hair cutting implement and configured to capture images of a skin area and a hair area of a user (See Figure 10A-10B) when operating the smart personal grooming device (Paragraphs 0043-044, 0102-0105);
a processor (160) communicatively coupled to the camera (Paragraph 0043); and a memory (161) communicatively coupled to the processor and storing computing instructions that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to: capture, by the camera, one or more images depicting the skin area of the user and the hair area of the user, detect, based on one or more images, each of the skin area and the hair area, wherein a boundary is defined between the skin area and the hair area; and determine a control state based on the boundary as detected in the one or more images (Paragraphs 0041-0045 and 102-107,109,112),
wherein the control state causes the computing instructions to execute the processor to implement at least one of:(a) activate the hair cutting implement to cause the hair cutting implement to remove hair in the hair area of the user;(b) deactivate the hair cutting implement;(c) activate of a haptic vibrator of the smart personal grooming device; (d) activate an audio device of the smart personal grooming device (Paragraph 0043, 110);(e) initiate a visual indicator of the smart personal grooming device (Paragraph 0043); or (f) changing a cutting speed of the hair cutting implement.
Regarding claim 2, Goldfarb teaches the smart personal grooming device of claim 1 further comprising: a learning model stored in the memory (Paragraph 0079) and trained with a plurality of images of users when operating the smart personal grooming device, wherein the learning model is configured to output at least one classification based on whether hair identified in an image of the plurality of images is depicted as above a hair length threshold or below the hair length threshold, and wherein the control state is based on the at least one classification (Paragraphs 0102-109 and 0128-0131; Noting the threshold as trimmed or not trimmed based on the average hair length remaining before/after trimming).
Regarding claim 5, Goldfarb teaches the smart personal grooming device of claim 2, wherein the learning model is a neural network-based model (Paragraph 0079 noting machine learning eg. Heuristics).
Regarding claim 6, Goldfarb teaches the smart personal grooming device of claim 2, wherein the at least one classification is based on one or more features identifiable with the one or more images, the one or more features comprising: hair color, hair length, skin color, skin tone, or skin texture (Paragraph 0109).
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.
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldfarb (U.S. Patent No. 2016/0167241) in view of Eichhorn (U.S. Patent No. 2011/0209350).
Regarding claim 3, the modified device of Goldfarb teaches the smart personal grooming device of claim 2, and while capable of cutting hairs of various length, does not specifically provide wherein the hair length threshold comprises: (a) a value of approximately 3.5 millimeters (mm); (b) a value selected between 0.3 mm and 3.5mm; (c) a value selected between 0.3 millimeters (mm) and 1.5mm; or (d) a value selected between 0.9 millimeters (mm) and 2.5mm.
Eichhorn teaches it is known in the art of hair cutting to provide cutting implementations for hairs up to a length of 1mm.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make have the hair length threshold between 0.3mm and 3.5mm because discovering a workable cutting range for the workpiece with the specific dimensions would have been a mere design consideration based on the desired haircut to be made. Such a modification would have involved only routine skill in the art to accommodate the aforementioned requirement(s) as Goldfarb and Eichhorn have set forth it is known to cut hair and have a hair length of up to 1mm. Also, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, that discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldfarb (U.S. Patent No. 2016/0167241) in view of Hoexum (U.S. Patent No. 10,596,716).
Regarding claim 4, Goldfarb teaches the smart personal grooming device of claim 2, wherein the at least one classification comprises one or more of: (a) a region to cut classification; (b) a region to stop classification; or (c) an edge region classification.
Hoexum teaches it is known in the art of chair cutting to incorporate a grooming device (100) wherein a boundary for grooming is provided (See Figures 1 and 6a-6e; Col. 12, Lines 56-67 and Col. 12, Lines 1-32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Goldfarb to incorporate the teachings of Hoexum to provide the grooming device with variable classifications for cutting regions. In doing so, it allows for the use to set the desired trim area, while preventing unintentional cutting outside of the identified regions desired.
Claims 7-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldfarb (U.S. Patent No. 2016/0167241).
Regarding claim 7 Goldfarb discloses the invention essentially as claimed as discussed above. Goldfarb further discloses utilizing a variety of image capturing elements includes frames and video.
However, Goldfarb does not expressly disclose wherein the plurality of images for training the learning model comprise images having height of 10 to 1944 pixels and width of 10 to 2592 pixels.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Goldfarb to have a height of 10 to 1944 pixels and width of 10 to 2592 pixels since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
In the instant case, the device of Goldfarb would not operate differently with the claimed image pixels and since the image device intended to capture images of a user’s face/hair the device would function appropriately having the claimed pixel ranges. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the pixels “may” be within the claimed ranges and can be variable (Specification Pages 16-17).
Regarding claim 8 the modified device of Goldfarb teaches the smart personal grooming device of claim 7, wherein the plurality of images for training the learning model comprise images having height of 32 pixels and a width of 32 pixels See claim 7 above).
Regarding claim 9 Goldfarb discloses the invention essentially as claimed as discussed above. Goldfarb further discloses utilizing hair trimmer element and a variety of image capturing elements (frames and video).
However, Goldfarb does not expressly disclose wherein the plurality of images for training the learning model comprise images having at least a width within 10 percent of a width of the hair cutting implement.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Goldfarb to have images having at least a width within 10 percent of a width of the hair cutting implement since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
In the instant case, the device of Goldfarb would not operate differently with the claimed images having at least a width within 10 percent of a width of the hair cutting implement since the image device is intended to capture images of a user’s face/hair during use with the trimmer element, the device would function appropriately having the claimed images having at least a width within 10 percent of a width of the hair cutting implement. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the image size “may” be within the claimed width range and can be variable (Specification Pages 16-17).
Regarding claim 12 Goldfarb discloses the invention essentially as claimed as discussed above. Goldfarb further discloses utilizing a variety of image capturing elements including frames and video (Examiner notes each frame to be a “patch”).
However, Goldfarb does not expressly disclose wherein each patch comprises an image region having a width of 160 pixels and a height of 32 pixels.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Goldfarb to have “wherein each patch comprises an image region having a width of 160 pixels and a height of 32 pixels” since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
In the instant case, the device of Goldfarb would not operate differently with the claimed patch comprising an image region having a width of 160 pixels and a height of 32 pixels and since the image device intended to capture images of a user’s face/hair the device would function appropriately having the claimed pixel ranges for each patch. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the pixels “may” be within the claimed range.
Claims 10, 11 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldfarb (U.S. Patent No. 2016/0167241) in view of Binder (U.S. Patent No. 2010/0186234).
Regarding claim 10, Goldfarb teaches the smart personal grooming device of claim 2 but does not provide further comprising subdividing into a plurality of patches each of the one or more images depicting the skin area of the user and the hair area of the user as captured by the camera, and assigning a patch-based classification to each patch of the plurality of patches based on whether hair identified within a respective patch is depicted as above the hair length threshold or below the hair length threshold, wherein the control state is based on each patch-based classification.
Binder teaches it is known in the art of shaving with imaging to provide a shaving device with a camera wherein the image is processed subdividing into a plurality of patches (170,171,180,181)(Figures 17 and 18) each of the one or more images depicting the skin area of the user and the hair area of the user as captured by the camera, and assigning a patch-based classification (See circles in Figure 17 designating areas to shave or reshave based on hair length (for example too long)) to each patch of the plurality of patches based on whether hair identified within a respective patch is depicted as above the hair length threshold or below the hair length threshold, wherein the control state is based on each patch-based classification. (Paragraphs 120-122).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Goldfarb to incorporate the teachings of Binder to provide the device with further image analysis. In doing so, it allows the user easy identification of places and locations that need to be shaved
Regarding claim 11, Goldfarb teaches the smart personal grooming device of claim 1, wherein the computing instructions are further configured, when executed, to cause the processor to: subdivide into a plurality of patches each of the one or more images depicting the skin area of the user and the hair area of the user as captured by the camera, and assign a patch-based classification to each patch of the plurality of patches based on pixel analysis of each of the plurality of patches, wherein the control state is based on each patch-based classification.
Binder teaches it is known in the art of shaving with imaging to provide a shaving device with a camera wherein the image is processed to subdivide into a plurality of patches (170,171,180,181) each of the one or more images depicting the skin area of the user and the hair area of the user as captured by the camera, and assign a patch-based classification (See circles in Figure 17 designating areas to shave or re-shave based on hair length (for example too long) to each patch of the plurality of patches based on pixel analysis of each of the plurality of patches, wherein the control state is based on each patch-based classification (Paragraphs 120-122).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Goldfarb to incorporate the teachings of Binder to provide the device with further image analysis. In doing so, it allows the user easy identification of places and locations that need to be shaved
Regarding claim 13, the device of Goldfarb teaches the smart personal grooming device of claim 1 but does not provide comprising an infrared light source oriented toward the hair cutting implement and configured to illuminate the skin area and hair area of a user when operating the smart personal grooming device.
Binder teaches it is known in the art of hair cutting to provide a shaving device (120) with a camera (121) and two infrared light sources (Figure 12 and Paragraphs 0104, 109).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Goldfarb to incorporate the teachings of Binder to provide infrared lighting. In doing so, it allows for the imaging to better distinguish between the user’s skin and hair.
Regarding claim 14, the modified device of Goldfarb teaches the smart personal grooming device of claim 11 but does not provide comprising a second infrared light source oriented toward the hair cutting implement and configured to illuminate the skin area and hair area of a user when operating the smart personal grooming device.
Binder teaches it is known in the art of hair cutting to provide a shaving device (120) with a camera (121) and two infrared light sources (Figure 12 and Paragraphs 0104, 109).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Goldfarb to incorporate the teachings of Binder to provide infrared lighting. In doing so, it allows for the imaging to better distinguish between the user’s skin and hair.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldfarb (U.S. Patent No. 2016/0167241) in view of Krenik (U.S. Patent No. 2015/0197016).
Regarding claim 15, the modified device of Goldfarb teaches the smart personal grooming device of claim 1, but does not provide wherein the hair cutting implement comprises a rotary shaver.
Regarding claim 16, the modified device of Goldfarb teaches the smart personal grooming device of claim 1, but does not provide wherein the hair cutting implement comprises a foil and an undercutter.
Regarding claim 17, the modified device of Goldfarb teaches the smart personal grooming device of claim 1, but does not provide wherein the hair cutting implement comprises a reciprocating blade.
Krenik teaches it is known in the art of automated hair cutting systems to incorporate a variety of cutting heads capable of use with a smart grooming device system (100)(Paragraph 0083; Examiner notes a variety of cutter heads including back and forth, laser and rotary).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Goldfarb to incorporate the teachings of Krenik to provide the grooming device with different cutting heads. In doing so, it allows for the hair cutting to be cut as desired, by the desired trimming head.
Related Prior Art
Below is an analysis of the relevance of references cited but not used
- "892 cited references D-M on page 1 and A-L on Page 2 establish the state of the art with a variety of shaving devices and with different cutting elements/blades
using a variety of driving mechanisms/control systems for the cutting elements and blades.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD D CROSBY JR whose telephone number is (571)272-8034. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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.
/RICHARD D CROSBY JR/ 01/20/2026Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724