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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
It is unclear how the battery axis extends orthogonally to the first direction since the battery is arranged in the horizontal direction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-8, 16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jepson et al. (3,518,465), hereinafter Jepson.
Regarding claim 1, Yamasaki teaches a depilatory device comprising:
a main body 22;
a blade part 19 that is provided at the main body, the blade part being configured to remove hair; and
a motor 27 that is built in the main body, and drives the blade part,
wherein a first space 29 for accommodating a battery 26 configured to supply electric power to the motor is disposed is provided in the main body,
the first space has a shape elongated in a first direction extending in a horizontal direction in a state where the blade part and the main body are lined up in an up-down direction, and a length of the first space in the horizontal direction is greater than a length of the first space in the up-down direction, and
the motor is built in the main body in a state of being elongated in a direction extending in the horizontal direction.
See Figs. 1 and 3.
Regarding claim 2, the motor 4 elongating in the first direction and in the main body is best seen in Fig. 3.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, a battery space is best seen in Fig. 3.
Regarding claim 6, the central axis of the battery extending perpendicular to the horizontal direction is best seen in Fig. 3.
Regarding claim 7, the length of the blade part in the up-down direction is shorter than the total high of the main body. See Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 8, the battery space is a three dimensional space and thus there are 3 perpendicular axes.
Regarding claim 16, a charging unit (102a) on a main body for charging rechargeable battery is best seen in Fig. 3.
Regarding claim 19, the battery 26 in the first space is best seen in Fig. 3.
Regarding claim 20, a charging terminal (102a) is best seen in Fig. 3.
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 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jepson et al. (3,518,465), hereinafter Jepson, in view of Sawaga (2006/0265880) and Krumke et al. (2021/0008746), hereinafter Krumke.
Regarding claim 9, Jepson teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the device having a cap attached to the main body by magnetic.
Sawaga teaches a trimming device comprising a cap 19 for covering a trimming head for safety purpose and protecting the trimming head. See Fig. 12.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide the depilatory device of Jepson a cap as taught by Sawaga for safety purpose and protecting the trimming head.
The modified depilatory device of Jepson does not teach the cap and the trimming head attached by magnetic force.
Krumke teaches a shaving device having a cartridge 40 attached to a base plate 90 by a magnetic force. See Fig. 21.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide a magnetic force as taught by Krumke between the trimming head and the cap in the depilatory device of Jepson for attaching the trimming head and the cap together.
Regarding claim 10, the modified depilatory device of Yamasaki teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for a protective-cap-side waterproof space in the cap.
Sagawa teaches the use of waterproof elements (14, 29) for waterproofing desired components. See Figs. 2 and 8.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide a waterproof element between the cap and the trimming head to keep the trimming head dried.
The magnet and the waterproof element are provided between the inner space of the cap and the trimming head.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jepson et al. (3,518,465), hereinafter Jepson, in view of Yoshitake (JP2013-070809).
Regarding claim 11, a switch 93 is best seen in Fig. 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to position the switch at the bottom side, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, the bottom of the device defines a second space and it is opened. See Fig. 3.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jepson et al. (3,518,465), hereinafter Jepson, in view of Sawaga (2006/0265880).
Regarding claim 14, Jepson teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for a waterproof space in a battery compartment and a motor compartment.
Sagawa teaches the use of waterproof elements (14, 19) for waterproofing desired components. See Figs. 2 and 8.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide a waterproof element in a battery compartment and a motor compartment for keeping the battery and the motor dried.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jepson et al. (3,518,465), hereinafter Jepson, in view of Sawaga (2006/0265880) as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Matsuoka et al. (WO2013/015034), hereinafter Matsuoka.
The modified depilatory device of Jepson teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the main body being waterproofed and a discharge port at a lower end of the main body.
Matsuoka teaches a depilatory device comprising a main body being waterproofed at S1 and a discharge port 53. See Fig. 7.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the modified body of the depilatory device being waterproofed and provide a water discharge port as taught by Masuoka for preventing the battery and electrical circuit getting wet.
As to providing the discharge port at the lower end of the body, the water runs from a high location to a low location. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to position the water discharge at a lower end of the main body since it is where the water is collected.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jepson et al. (3,518,465), hereinafter Jepson.
Regarding claim 17, Jepson teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for a cap covering the charging unit. Official notice is taken that to provide a cap to cover the charging unit is within the knowledge of one skilled in the art.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jepson et al. (3,518,465), hereinafter Jepson, in view of Yoshitake (JP2013-070809).
Regarding claim 18, Jepson teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for a display on the main body.
Yoshitake teaches a shaving device having a display 6 for displaying an operation state and a charging state of the device. See Fig. 3.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide the depilatory device of Jepson a display as taught by Yoshitake for displaying an operation state and a charging state of the device.
Claims 1-8, 11-13, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamasaki et al. (2007/0261249), hereinafter Yamasaki, in view of Jepson et al. (3,518,465), hereinafter Jepson.
Regarding claim 1, Yamasaki teaches a depilatory device substantially as claimed except for the limitations in the bolded texts comprising:
a main body (1, 2);
a blade part (5, 10) that is provided at the main body, the blade part being configured to remove hair; and
a motor 4 that is built in the main body, and drives the blade part,
wherein a first space 26 for accommodating a battery 27 configured to supply electric power to the motor is disposed is provided in the main body,
the first space has a shape elongated in a first direction extending in a horizontal direction in a state where the blade part and the main body are lined up in an up-down direction, and a length of the first space in the horizontal direction is greater than a length of the first space in the up-down direction, and
the motor is built in the main body in a state of being elongated in a direction extending in the horizontal direction.
See Figs. 1-3.
Yamasaki does not teach “the first space has a shape elongated in a first direction extending in a horizontal direction in a state where the blade part and the main body are lined up in an up-down direction, and a length of the first space in the horizontal direction is greater than a length of the first space in the up-down direction.”
Jepson teaches a hair trimmer having “the first space 29 has a shape elongated in a first direction extending in a horizontal direction in a state where the blade part and the main body are lined up in an up-down direction, and a length of the first space in the horizontal direction is greater than a length of the first space in the up-down direction” for shortening the height of the hair trimmer so that a user could grasp the rear end of the hair trimmer in his palm. See Fig. 3.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the first space in Yamasaki extending longer in the horizontal direction as taught by Jepson to shorten the height of the hair trimmer for users who prefers grasping the rear end of the hair trimmer in his palm.
Regarding claim 2, the motor 4 elongating in the first direction and in the main body is best seen in Fig. 2 in Yamasaki.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, a battery space is best seen in Figs. 1-2 in Yamasaki.
Regarding claim 5, outer blades 10, inner blades 5, and linear motor 4 are best seen in Fig. 3 in Yamasaki.
Regarding claim 6, the central axis of the battery extending perpendicular to the horizontal direction is best seen in Fig. 2 in Yamasaki.
Regarding claim 7, the length of the blade part (10, 5) in the up-down direction is shorter than the total high of the main body. See Figs. 1 and 3 in Yamasaki.
Regarding claim 8, the battery space is a three dimensional space and thus there are 3 perpendicular axes.
Regarding claim 11, a switch 28 is best seen in Fig. 1. It is at a bottom position when the device is tilted to the left. See Fig. 1 in Yamasaki.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, the bottom of the device defines a second space and it is opened. See Fig. 1 in Yamasaki.
Regarding claim 19, the battery 26 in the first space is best seen in Fig. 3.
Regarding claim 20, Yamasaki teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for a charging terminal.
Jepson teaches a hair trimer having a charging terminal (102a). See Fig. 3.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide the depilatory device of Yamasaki a charging terminal for charging a rechargeable battery to reduce the chances of buying new batteries.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamasaki et al. (2007/0261249), hereinafter Yamasaki, in view of Jepson et al. (3,518,465), hereinafter Jepson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sawaga (2006/0265880) and Krumke et al. (2021/0008746), hereinafter Krumke.
Regarding claim 9, the modified depilatory device of Yamasaki teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the device having a cap attached to the main body by magnetic.
Sawaga teaches a trimming device comprising a cap 19 for covering a trimming head for safety purpose and protecting the trimming head. See Fig. 12.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide the depilatory device of Yamasaki a cap as taught by Sawaga for safety purpose and protecting the trimming head.
The modified depilatory device of Yamasaki does not teach the cap and the trimming head attached by magnetic force.
Krumke teaches a shaving device having a cartridge 40 attached to a base plate 90 by a magnetic force. See Fig. 21.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide a magnetic force as taught by Krumke between the trimming head and the cap in the depilatory device of Yamasaki for attaching the trimming head and the cap together.
Regarding claim 10, the modified depilatory device of Yamasaki teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for a protective-cap-side waterproof space in the cap.
Sagawa teaches the use of waterproof elements (14, 29) for waterproofing desired components. See Figs. 2 and 8.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide a waterproof element between the cap and the trimming head to keep the trimming head dried.
The magnet and the waterproof element are provided between the inner space of the cap and the trimming head.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamasaki et al. (2007/0261249), hereinafter Yamasaki, in view of Jepson et al. (3,518,465), hereinafter Jepson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sawaga (2006/0265880).
Regarding claim 14, the modified depilatory device of Yamasaki teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for a waterproof space in a battery compartment and a motor compartment.
Sagawa teaches the use of waterproof elements (14, 19) for waterproofing desired components. See Figs. 2 and 8.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide a waterproof element in a battery compartment and a motor compartment for keeping the battery and the motor dried.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamasaki et al. (2007/0261249), hereinafter Yamasaki, in view of Jepson et al. (3,518,465), hereinafter Jepson and Sawaga (2006/0265880) as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Matsuoka et al. (WO2013/015034), hereinafter Matsuoka.
The modified depilatory device of Yamasaki teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the main body being waterproofed and a discharge port at a lower end of the main body.
Matsuoka teaches a depilatory device comprising a main body being waterproofed at S1 and a discharge port 53. See Fig. 7.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the modified body of the depilatory device being waterproofed and provide a water discharge port as taught by Masuoka for preventing the battery and electrical circuit getting wet.
As to providing the discharge port at the lower end of the body, the water runs from a high location to a low location. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to position the water discharge at a lower end of the main body since it is where the water is collected.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamasaki et al. (2007/0261249), hereinafter Yamasaki, in view of Jepson et al. (3,518,465), hereinafter Jepson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cheng (2009/0199412).
Regarding claim 16, the modified depilatory device of Yamasaki teaches invention substantially as claimed except for a charging unit on the main body.
Cheng teaches a hair trimmer comprising a charging unit 42 on a main body for charging rechargeable battery 54. See Fig. 2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide the depilatory device of Yamasaki a charging unit on a main body as taught by Cheng for charging rechargeable battery to reduce changing new battery.
Regarding claim 17, official notice is taken that to provide a cap to cover the charging unit is within the knowledge of one skilled in the art.
Jepson also teaches a charging unit (102a) and a rechargeable battery 26.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamasaki et al. (2007/0261249), hereinafter Yamasaki, in view of Jepson et al. (3,518,465), hereinafter Jepson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoshitake (JP2013-070809).
Regarding claim 18, the modified depilatory device of Yamasaki teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for a display on the main body.
Yoshitake teaches a shaving device having a display 6 for displaying an operation state and a charging state of the device. See Fig. 3.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide the depilatory device of Yamasaki a display as taught by Yoshitake for displaying an operation state and a charging state of the device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHONG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4510. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5.
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.
/PHONG H NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
