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 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: it is not clear what is intended by the term “holding part” since this term does not appear in the specification; it is presumed to be intended that “holding part” should read “holding member”, and as been treated as such for purposes of examination
Claim 10: at line 8, “one side in one direction” should be amended to read “the one side in the one direction”
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(s) is/are:
• “biasing member” as recited in at least claim 1 (first, “member” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “biasing”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “biasing” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the member)
• “reception part” as recited in at least claim 1 (first, “part” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “reception”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “reception” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the part)
• “movable mechanism” as recited in at least claim 1 (first, “mechanism” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “movable”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “movable” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the mechanism)
• “holding member” as recited in at least claim 1 (first, “member” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “holding”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “holding” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the member)
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, paragraph [0038] states that “float mechanism 51 floats outer blade pieces 311 (that is, the outer blade)”, however, paragraph [0038] also states that “float mechanism 51 includes outer blade pieces 311 that is, spring 511”. It is not clear how the float mechanism can include the outer blades and perform its function of biasing the plurality of outer blades. Further, it appears that outer blade pieces 311 represent the outer blade, but this paragraph also suggests that outer blade pieces 311 are representative of spring 511. As best understood, outer blade pieces 311 are the outer blades, and spring 511 is the biasing member. Further, it is understood that outer blade pieces 311 are not part of the float mechanism, and the float mechanism includes the biasing member (spring 511) and reception part (spring pedestal 512). These terms have been treated accordingly for purposes of examination.
Regarding claims 4 and 12, the term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what is intended by the claim limitation “substantially the same as each other”. How much deviation is acceptable between the different applied loads before they are no longer considered to be substantially the same?
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, 4-8, 10-12, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuerst (US 20190299434) in view of Brenneman (US 3811188), and further in view of Füllgrabe (EP 3546152).
Regarding claim 1, Fuerst discloses an electric shaver (electric shaver 1; see fig. 1), comprising: a shaver body including a grip part and a head part supported by the grip part (electric shaver 1 comprises handle 3 which supports working head 2; see paragraph [0054]); a blade unit (hair removal tool 4; see fig. 2) including: a plurality of outer blades (hair cutters 5, 6; see fig. 2); a holding member attached to the shaver body in a state of holding the plurality of outer blades (working head frame 12 is pivotably supported to handle 3 while holding hair cutters 5, 6; see paragraph [0056]); and a first load adjustment mechanism configured to adjust a load applied to the plurality of outer blades (the first load adjustment mechanism is made up of biasing device 10 and a reception part, which together respond to forces applied to hair cutters 5, 6; see paragraph [0063] and annotated portion of fig. 4 below), wherein: the blade unit is attached to the head part (working head 2 includes a plurality of hair removal tools 4; see paragraph [0055]), the first load adjustment mechanism comprises: a first float mechanism that comprises a biasing member that biases the plurality of outer blades toward one side in one direction (biasing device 10 comprises biasing elements 10a which urge hair cutters 5, 6 into a neutral position; see paragraph [0064]), and a reception part that receives the biasing member (biasing element 10a is supported by the reception part; see annotated portion of fig. 4 below), and floats the plurality of outer blades in the one direction (biasing elements 10a urge hair cutters 5, 6 into a neutral position; see paragraph [0064]); a first sensor that detects the load applied to the plurality of outer blades (hall sensor 104 detects shaving pressure based on how far hair removal tools 4 are pressed down; see paragraph [0068]); and a first controller that controls a movement amount of the reception part in the one direction based on the load applied to the plurality of outer blades detected by the first sensor (electronic control unit 80 controls adjustment actuator AA, which adjusts biasing device 10, in response to skin contact pressure detected by hall sensor 104; see paragraphs [0066-0067]), and at least two outer blades selected from the plurality of outer blades are configured to be separately and independently adjustable by the first load adjustment mechanism such that the movement amount in the one direction of each of at least two outer blades selected from the plurality of outer blades is separately and independently adjustable by the first load adjustment mechanism (adjustment actuator AA controls the setting of biasing device 10 so that hair cutters 5, 6 can float or dive individually; see paragraphs [0060, 0066-0067]).
PNG
media_image1.png
562
363
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fuerst does not explicitly disclose that the holding member is detachably attached to the shaver body.
Brenneman discloses that the holding member is detachably attached (cutter head 18 may be detachable from shaver 10; see col. 5, lines 7-25) to the shaver body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Fuerst in view of Brenneman to make the holding member detachably attached to the shaver body. Brenneman discloses an electric shaver with a holding member (cutter head 18) that may be detached from the shaver handle (see col. 5, lines 7-25). Brenneman discloses that this is beneficial because it allows a user to clean the head and remove hair clippings (see col. 1, lines 6-8). Therefore, in order to make the device easier for a user to clean and maintain, such a modification would be obvious.
Fuerst as modified does not explicitly disclose a first movable mechanism configured to move the reception part in the one direction; the first movable mechanism includes a first slide motor.
Füllgrabe discloses a first movable mechanism configured to move the reception part in the one direction (actuator 12 provides adjustment of a functional property of the hair removal apparatus – as modified, actuator 12 can be affixed to the reception part to adjust the height/floating force of the cutting element; see paragraphs [0027-0029]); the first movable mechanism includes a first slide motor (actuator 12 may be a servomotor that drives an adjustment mechanism for adjusting various parameters of the hair removal apparatus; see paragraph [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Fuerst in view of Füllgrabe to include a first movable mechanism. Füllgrabe discloses a movable mechanism (actuator 12) which is capable of adjusting a distance between blades, among other characteristics (see paragraphs [0026-0027]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that connecting actuator 12 to the receiving part allows for adjustment of the receiving part, and by extension the blades. Therefore, in order to provide a configuration that allows for adjusting the height/floating force of the blades/non-cutting elements, such a modification would be obvious.
Fuerst as modified further discloses at least the first float mechanism, the first movable mechanism and the first sensor are attached to the holding part of the blade unit (as modified, biasing device 10, the first movable mechanism, and hall sensor 104 are attached to working head frame 12; see fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4, Fuerst as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Fuerst as modified further discloses wherein the first controller controls a movement amount of the reception part in the one direction so that loads applied to the plurality of outer blades are substantially the same as each other (electronic control unit 80 directs adjustment actuator AA to adjust biasing device 10 – as modified to include a first movable mechanism, electronic control unit 80 can be configured to adjust the first movable mechanism (for controlling the height/floating force of a cutting element as taught by Füllgrabe), which would adjust the reception part; see paragraphs [0066-0067]).
Regarding claim 5, Fuerst as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Fuerst as modified further discloses wherein the first controller controls at least one outer blade having a load larger than a predetermined load so that a total of loads applied to the plurality of outer blades becomes a preset load (sensitivity can be automatically adjusted based on measured and/or predefined skin contact force, and/or in response to threshold values at which pivoting stiffness changes – Examiner interprets that electronic control unit 80 can be configured to perform this function; see paragraph [0093]).
Regarding claim 6, Fuerst as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Fuerst as modified further discloses wherein the first controller controls at least one outer blade having a load smaller than a predetermined load so that a total of loads applied to the plurality of outer blades becomes a preset load (sensitivity can be automatically adjusted based on measured and/or predefined skin contact force, and/or in response to threshold values at which pivoting stiffness changes – Examiner interprets that electronic control unit 80 can be configured to perform this function; see paragraph [0093]).
Regarding claim 7, Fuerst as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Fuerst as modified further discloses wherein the first controller controls the plurality of outer blades so that the load applied to plurality of outer blades becomes a preset set load, and is configured to change the set load (sensitivity can be automatically adjusted based on measured and/or predefined skin contact force, and/or in response to threshold values at which pivoting stiffness changes – Examiner interprets that electronic control unit 80 can be configured to perform this function; see paragraph [0093]).
Regarding claim 8, Fuerst as modified discloses the limitations of claim 7 as described in the rejection above.
Fuerst as modified further discloses wherein the electric shaver is configured to change the preset set load remotely (a user can manually change the sensitivity from an external device that is wirelessly connected to the shaver, for example a smartphone; see paragraph [0093]).
Regarding claim 10, Fuerst as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Füllgrabe further discloses a skin guard part (a non-cutting element, such as a guard or comb, may be adjusted by actuator 12; see paragraph [0161]); a second movable mechanism configured to move the second reception part in the one direction (a second actuator 12 provides adjustment of a functional property of the hair removal apparatus – as modified, second actuator 12 can be affixed to the reception part to adjust the height/floating force of the non-cutting element; see paragraphs [0027-0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Fuerst in view of Füllgrabe to include a skin guard part. Füllgrabe discloses an actuator which is capable of adjusting the height/floating force of cutting and/or non-cutting elements (see paragraph [0029]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that adjusting a guard in the same manner as previously described by Fuerst (in relation to the outer blades) provides multiple benefits. For example, including an adjustable guard/comb in the device of Fuerst would yield a device which is capable of protecting a user’s skin in addition to allowing the length of hair cut to be varied. Therefore, in order to provide a more versatile tool that is capable of cutting multiple lengths of hair in a way that protects the user from injury, such a modification would be obvious.
Fuerst as modified further discloses a second load adjustment mechanism configured to adjust a load applied to the skin guard part (as modified to include an additional load adjustment mechanism for adjusting the skin guard part, the second load adjustment mechanism includes a second biasing device 10 and a second reception part, which together respond to forces applied to the non-cutting element; see paragraph [0063] and annotated portion of fig. 4 above), wherein the second load adjustment mechanism comprises: a second float mechanism that comprises a second biasing member that biases the skin guard part toward one side in one direction (as modified, a second biasing device 10 comprises a second biasing element 10a to urge the non-cutting part into a neutral position; see paragraph [0064]) and a second reception part that receives the second biasing member (second biasing element 10a is supported by a second reception part; see annotated portion of fig. 4 above), and floats the skin guard part in the one direction (second biasing element 10a urges the non-cutting element into a neutral position; see paragraph [0064]); a second sensor that detects the load applied to the skin guard part (as modified, a second hall sensor 104 can be configured to detect shaving pressure based on how far the non-cutting element is pressed down; see paragraph [0068]); and a second controller that controls a movement amount of the second reception part in the one direction based on the load applied to the skin guard part detected by the second sensor (electronic control unit 80 controls adjustment actuator AA, which adjusts biasing device 10, in response to skin contact pressure detected by hall sensor 104; see paragraphs [0066-0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Fuerst to include a second load adjustment mechanism and a second movable mechanism since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (see St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8). In the instant case, including a second system for adjusting the skin guard part in the same manner as the cutting elements would allow a user to separately adjust the skin guard part relative to the blades. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that doing so allows for the height of the guard/comb to be variable, such that a user can control the length of hair that is cut. Therefore, in order to provide a configuration that allows for adjusting the height/floating force of the blades/non-cutting elements, such a modification would be obvious.
Regarding claim 11, Fuerst as modified discloses the limitations of claim 10 as described in the rejection above.
Fuerst as modified further discloses wherein the second controller controls a movement amount of the second reception part in the one direction so that the load applied to the skin guard part is different from the load applied to the plurality of outer blades (electronic control unit 80 directs adjustment actuator AA to adjust biasing device 10 – as modified to include a second movable mechanism, electronic control unit 80 can be configured to adjust the second movable mechanism (for controlling the height/floating force of a non-cutting element as taught by Füllgrabe), which would adjust the reception part separately from that of hair cutters 5, 6; see paragraphs [0066-0067]).
Regarding claim 12, Fuerst as modified discloses the limitations of claim 10 as described in the rejection above.
Fuerst as modified further discloses wherein the second controller controls a movement amount of the second reception part in the one direction so that the load applied to the skin guard part and the load applied to the plurality of outer blades are substantially the same as each other (electronic control unit 80 directs adjustment actuator AA to adjust biasing device 10 – as modified to include a second movable mechanism, electronic control unit 80 can be configured to adjust the second movable mechanism (for controlling the height/floating force of a non-cutting element as taught by Füllgrabe), which would adjust the reception part; see paragraphs [0066-0067]).
Regarding claim 15, Fuerst as modified discloses the limitations of claim 10 as described in the rejection above.
Füllgrabe further discloses wherein the second movable mechanism includes a second slide motor (second actuator 12 may be a servomotor that drives an adjustment mechanism for adjusting various parameters of the hair removal apparatus; see paragraph [0026]).
Regarding claim 16, Fuerst as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Fuerst as modified further discloses wherein the plurality of outer blades are arranged in a first direction and extend in a second direction (hair cutters 5, 6 are arranged along a first, side to side direction as shown in fig. 2, and extend in a second, side to side direction as shown in fig. 3), and each of two ends of the plurality of outer blades in the second direction includes the first load adjustment mechanism (as modified, the first load adjustment mechanism is included on an end of hair cutters 5, 6; see annotated portion of fig. 4 above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that none of the cited references disclose that the first float mechanism, first movable mechanism, and first sensor are attached to the holding part of the blade unit, Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, as discussed in the objection to claim 1 above, it is interpreted that “holding part” is intended to read “holding member”. Therefore, as best understood, claim 1 requires that the first float mechanism, first movable mechanism, and first sensor are attached to the holding member. As discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, the first float mechanism (which is made up of biasing device 10 and the reception part) and the first sensor (hall sensor 104) are located within the holding member (working head frame 12). The first movable mechanism (actuator 12 of Füllgrabe) is attached to working head frame 12 of Fuerst since it must connect to the first float mechanism, first sensor, and first controller in order to bias the plurality of outer blades. Therefore, as modified, the first movable mechanism is also attached to the holding member.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 7707726 to Shiba, drawn to a reciprocating electric shaver; and US 8011102 to Sato, drawn to a dry shaver.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HALEIGH N WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3818. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 530AM-330PM 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.
/HALEIGH N WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights