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 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:
“an aerosol generating device” in claim 1, which is disclosed as a reservoir and piezo-electric device;
“an operating parameter sensor” in claim 1, which is disclosed as an optical sensor; and
“a flow stream generating element” in claim 2, which is disclosed as a blower or suction fan.
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.
Claim 14 is 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.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the control unit " in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the flow stream generating element" in line 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 5,121,541 (Patrakis).
1. Patrakis discloses a skin treatment device (razor 10), comprising:
a head (portion of shaver 10 near top 28);
an aerosol generating device (misting mechanism 14 which is at least equivalent to the disclosed reservoir and piezo-electric device) and disposed on the head and parallel to a longitudinal axis A-A of the skin treatment device (FIG. 2; col. 2, lns. 31-33);
an operating parameter sensor (sensor 36 which is at least equivalent to the disclosed optical sensor)(FIG. 2; col. 3, lns. 21-36);
wherein, the aerosol generating device is arranged to generate and channelize an aerosol through a flow channel (mist conduit 20) of the skin treatment device, based on an operating parameter measured by the operating parameter sensor (FIG. 2; col. 3, lns. 21-36).
2. The skin treatment device has a flow stream generating element (ultrasonic vibrator 18), configured to generate a flow to further channelize the aerosol through the flow channel (FIG. 2; col. 3, lns. 3-8).
4. The flow channel is defined by spacings in a skin treatment tool of the skin treatment device (FIG. 2-3).
5. The flow channel is a passage defined in or coupled to the skin treatment device (FIG. 2-3).
6. The aerosol generating device is coupled to the head of the skin treatment device (FIG. 2).
8. The operating parameter sensor is configured to measure at least one of a skin treatment device parameter (e.g., lubricating agent level at col. 3, lns. 21-36).
9. Examiner notes that the limitations of claim 9 are met since Patrakis teaches measuring a skin treatment device parameter such that the skin parameter is not required by the claimed language.
13. The skin treatment device has a control unit (e.g., unit controlling warning light 38 at col. 3, lns. 21-36) communicatively coupled to the operating parameter sensor and the aerosol generating device (FIG. 2; col. 3, lns. 21-36). The control unit is configured to selectively control operation of a skin treatment tool (warning light 38) of the skin treatment device based on the operating parameter measured by the operating parameter sensor (col. 3, lns. 21-36).
15. The skin treatment device has an indication unit (warning light 38) communicatively coupled to a control unit (col. 3, lns. 21-36), wherein the control unit is configured to generate an alert signal through the indication unit based on signals from the operating parameter sensor (col. 3, lns. 21-36), and/or wherein the alert signal is at least one of a visual signal.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,121,541 (Patrakis), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US 2011/0004128 (Uchida).
Patrakis discloses the invention substantially as claimed as discussed above but does not disclose the flow stream generating element is a blower. Uchida teaches a skin treatment device in the same field of endeavor having a flow stream generating element as a blower (pump 17) for the purpose of guiding mist with air current (FIG. 2; P0024). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flow stream generating element of Patrakis to be a blower as taught by Uchida in order to guide mist with air current.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,121,541 (Patrakis), as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of US 2019/0299434 (Fuerst).
Patrakis discloses the invention substantially as claimed as discussed above but does not disclose the operating parameter sensor being an optical sensor. Fuerst teaches an operating parameter sensor in the same field of endeavor being an optical sensor (P0048) for the purpose of visually detecting skin moisture or oiliness (P0048). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor of Patrakis to be an optical sensor as taught by Fuerst in order to visually detect skin moisture or oiliness.
Claim(s) 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,121,541 (Patrakis), as applied above, and further in view of US 2010/0198134 (Eckhouse).
Patrakis discloses the invention substantially as claimed as discussed above but does not disclose the skin treatment device parameter being displacement of a skin treatment tool. Eckhouse teaches a sensor having a skin treatment device parameter in the same field of endeavor being displacement of a skin treatment tool (see direction sensor 232 at P0028 and P0036) for the purpose of sensing device movement (P0028 and P0036). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the skin treatment device parameter of the sensor of Patrakis to be a displacement of a skin treatment tool as taught by Eckhouse in order to sense device movement.
Patrakis discloses the invention substantially as claimed as discussed above but does not disclose the skin treatment device has a plurality of operating parameter sensors. Eckhouse teaches a skin treatment device in the same field of endeavor having a plurality of operating parameter sensors (e.g., direction sensor 232, pressure sensors at P0036, and temperature sensor at P0046) for the purpose of monitoring a plurality of operating parameter (P0028; P0036, and P0046). Each of the plurality of operating parameter sensors are disposed on opposite sides relative to a longitudinal axis (B-B) of the skin treatment tool (FIG. 2A; P0036). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the skin treatment device of Patrakis to include a plurality of operating parameter sensors as taught by Eckhouse in order to monitor a plurality of operating parameters.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,121,541 (Patrakis), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2010/0280528 (Huisinga).
Patrakis discloses the invention substantially as claimed as discussed above but does not disclose the aerosol generating device being a piezo-electric device. Huisinga teaches a vibrating device in the same field of endeavor being a piezo-electric vibrator (P0025) for the purpose of generating electricity via vibrations (P0025). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vibrator of Patrakis to be a piezo-electric vibrator as taught by Huisinga in order to generate electricity via vibrations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TODD J SCHERBEL whose telephone number is (571)270-7085. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00-6:00.
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, Jackie Ho can be reached at 571-272-4696. 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.
TJ SCHERBEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3771
/TODD J SCHERBEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights