Notice of 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 .
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
Species I. Fig. I;
Species II. Fig. 3A;
Species III. Fig. 3B;
Species IV. Fig. 4;
Species V. Fig. 5A;
Species VI. Fig. 5B; and
Species VII. Fig. 5C.
The species are independent or distinct as seen in their respective figures. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, each of the independent claims are generic to multiple species.
2. There is a search and/or examination burden for each patentably distinct species due to the divergent searches involved, and the resultant divergent examination processes.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election from amongst species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (iii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election and/or species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected
invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
A telephone call was made to David Schreiber (Reg. No. 35,672) on
12/16/2025 to request an oral election to the above restriction requirement, but did not result in an election being made.
However, in response to this Office action, applicant must elect one Species from those set forth above for further prosecution of the application. Such an election will provide the Examiner an opportunity to focus on a single species during prosecution, as the Examiner is under time constraints and cannot examine all the species within a single application.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains more than
150 words. 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).
Claim Objections
Claims 2-15 are objected to because of the following informalities: “An electric
shaver according to claim” should be –The electric shaver according to claim--. In claim 15, “10 Volts, V, to 100 V” should be –10 V to 100 V-- or 10 volts to 100 volts--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. 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 1-15 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, the phrase “the first skin-contacting area is arranged, in use, to contact skin” is unclear. Specifically, the scope of the term “in use” is not reasonably certain. It is unclear whether “in use” refers to operation of the electric shaver by a user during shaving, or whether it refers to some other operational condition. Further, the claim does not make clear whether the first skin-contacting area is structurally arranged to contact skin at all times, or only during certain operational states of the electric shaver. Similarly, claim 1 recites “a second skin-contacting area arranged, in use, to contact the skin.” For the same reasons discussed above, the meaning and scope of “in use” as applied to the second skin-contacting area is unclear, rendering the scope of the claim uncertain.
Regarding claim 11, the phrases “the third skin-contacting area is arranged, in use, to contact skin” and “a fourth skin-contacting area arranged, in use, to contact the skin” are unclear for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1. In addition, claim 11 does not clearly indicate whether the recited “skin” is the same skin referenced in claim 1 or whether it refers to a different skin, further contributing to the indefiniteness of the claim.
Regarding claim 1, “the first skin-contacting area is arranged, in use, to contact skin” is confusing. It is not clear what the term “in use” means. Is it when the electric shaver is in use by a user. Is that means when the electric shaver is not in use the first skin-contacting area is not arranged in a way to contact a skin?
Regarding claim 1, “a second skin-contacting area arranged, in use, to contact the skin” also is not clear for the reasons set forth above.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase “the first skin-contacting area is arranged, in use, to contact skin” is unclear. Specifically, the scope of the term “in use” is not reasonably certain. It is unclear whether “in use” refers to operation of the electric shaver by a user during shaving, or whether it refers to some other operational condition. Further, the claim does not make clear whether the first skin-contacting area is structurally arranged to contact skin at all times, or only during certain operational states of the electric shaver.
Regarding claim 2, the recitation “further comprising a second hair-cutting unit comprising: a second internal cutting member … wherein the second external cutting member comprises the second skin-contacting area” is unclear and inconsistent with claim 1. Claim 1 recites that the electric shaver further comprises a second skin-contacting area as a component distinct from the first hair-cutting unit and other components of the electric shaver recited in claim 1. Claim 2 then recites that the electric shaver further comprises a second hair-cutting unit, indicating that the second hair-cutting unit is an additional component beyond the second skin-contacting area already recited in claim 1. However, claim 2 simultaneously requires the second external cutting member of the second hair-cutting unit (a component distinct from the structures recited in claim 1) to comprise the second skin-contacting area. This creates an inconsistency as to whether the second skin-contacting area is a separate element of the electric shaver or is part of the second hair-cutting unit.
Regarding claim 6, “the third external cutting member” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 8, the recitation that “the first hair-cutting unit further comprises a first covering element that comprises the second skin-contacting area” is unclear and inconsistent with claim 1. Claim 8 appears to require that the first covering element—and thus the second skin-contacting area—be part of both the first hair-cutting unit and the second skin-contacting unit. However, claim 1 does not recite that the first hair-cutting unit includes a second skin-contacting area. To the contrary, claim 1 recites “a first hair-cutting unit comprising: a first internal cutting member … wherein the electric shaver further comprises a second skin-contacting area arranged, in use, to contact the skin.” This language clearly distinguishes the first hair-cutting unit from the second skin-contacting area, indicating that the second skin-contacting area is a separate element and not part of the first hair-cutting unit. If it is intended that the second skin-contacting area be part of the first hair-cutting unit, then claim 1 must be amended to expressly recite that the first hair-cutting unit comprises the second skin-contacting area.
Regarding claim 11, the phrases “the third skin-contacting area is arranged, in use, to contact skin” and “a fourth skin-contacting area arranged, in use, to contact the skin” are unclear for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1. In addition, claim 11 does not clearly indicate whether the recited “skin” is the same skin referenced in claim 1 or whether it refers to a different skin, further contributing to the indefiniteness of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. Claims 1-3, 5, 7 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steele et al. (2007/0074400 A1), hereinafter Steele, in view of Flyash et al. (2012/0233864 A1), hereinafter Flyash, and Schwerin (8,838,232 B1), provided with the IDS filed on 07/12/2024. Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Steele teaches an electric shaver (14; 114) comprising: a first hair-cutting unit (20; 120, 132) comprising: a first internal cutting member (32; 132); and a first external cutting member (36; 120) arranged to cover the first internal cutting member (32; 132) and wherein the first internal cutting member (32; 132) is movable relative to the first external cutting member (36; 120); wherein the first external cutting member (36; 120) comprises a first skin-contacting area comprising a first plurality of hair-entry openings (38; 124), wherein the first skin-contacting area is arranged, in use, to contact skin; and wherein the electric shaver (14; 114) further comprises: a second skin-contacting area (defined by the contacting area of the second cutting heard (20; 120, 132) arranged, in use, to contact the skin. See Figs. 1-9 in Steele.
Steele does not explicitly teach a bi-polar radio frequency (RF) generator unit configured to apply a first-polarity RF voltage to a first external cutting member, wherein the entirety of the first external cutting member conducts the first-polarity RF voltage, nor does Steele teach applying a second-polarity RF voltage to a second skin-contacting area.
However, Flyash teaches a shaver including a bi-polar RF generator unit 114 configured to apply a first-polarity RF voltage to a first external cutting member 124, wherein the entirety of the first external cutting member is configured to conduct the first-polarity RF voltage. Flyash also teaches that the bi-polar RF generator unit applies a second-polarity RF voltage to a second skin-contacting area via a second cutting unit, cutting head, or blade 126. Flyash further teaches, in an alternative embodiment (Fig. 2F), that blades 224 and 226 “may be rotating blades such as those employed by electrically motorized shaving devices, standard blades, reciprocating blades, vibrating blades, etc.” See paragraph [0039]). In this embodiment, Elyash teaches that an electrode 236 is positioned adjacent to or coupled to one of the blades (224, 226) of the cutting head 200. In such a configuration, electrode 236 would inherently be positioned in or adjacent to or coupled to a skin-contacting member (e.g., a foil or stationary blade) of a rotary or oscillating shaving device, such as those taught by Steele. Thus, Flyash teaches applying RF voltage to a blade or to an electrode positioned adjacent to the blade in order to deliver RF energy to skin-contacting cutting components. Although Flyash does not expressly disclose applying RF voltage to the foil or external cutting member of an electric shaver, Schwerin discloses an electric razor 10 including a first hair-cutting unit (12, 12, 12) comprising a first external cutting member (22A-22C, as a screen covering a rotating blade; Fig. 1) and a first internal cutting member (as a rotating blade, not shown, locate behind the screen 22A-22C; col. 5, lines 15-20). Schwerin further teaches a frequency and voltage generator unit to apply a frequency and voltage to a first external cutting member (22A-22C), wherein the entirety of the first external cutting member conducts the voltage; and applying a second frequency and voltage to a second skin-contacting area (defined by the second screen of a second hair-cutting unit 12). In other words, Schwerin teaches that the first external cutting element of both rotary-type and reciprocating-type (col. 1, lines 46-55) cutting units can be used an electrode or conductor to treat the user’s skin. See Figs. 1-9 in Schwerin. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Steele’s shaver to include the bi-polar RF generator of Flyash and to apply RF energy to the first external cutting member or screen as taught by Schwerin, thereby heating the skin-contacting cutting unit to facilitate shaving. Such a modification represents the predictable use of known RF energy delivery techniques to improve shaving performance and user comfort, yielding no more than expected results.
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Steele in view of Flyash teaches everything noted above including a second hair-cutting unit (20; 120, 132) comprising: a second internal cutting member (32; 132); and a second external cutting member (36; 120) arranged to cover the second internal cutting member and wherein the second internal cutting member (32; 132) is movable relative to the second external cutting member (36; 120); and wherein the second external cutting member (36; 120) comprises the second skin-contacting area and comprises a second plurality of hair-entry openings (38; 124) provided in the second skin-contacting area, and wherein an entirety of the second external cutting member (as taught by Flyash which teaches all the blades or cutting units 122 of the cutting head 120 are entirely connected to polarity RF voltage; Figs. 1-2B) is configured to conduct the second polarity RF voltage.
Regarding claim 3, Steele in view of Flyash teaches everything noted above including a third hair-cutting unit 20 comprising: a third internal cutting member 32; a third external cutting member 36 arranged to cover the third internal cutting member and wherein the third internal cutting member is movable relative to the third external cutting member 36; and wherein the third external cutting member 36 comprises a third skin- contacting area comprising a third plurality of hair-entry openings 38; and wherein the bi-polar RF generator unit (114; in Fig. 1 of Flyash) is configured to apply the first polarity voltage to the third external cutting member, and wherein the entirety of the third external cutting member is configured to conduct the first polarity RF voltage.
It should be noted that Flyash teaches that all blades or cutting units 122 of the cutting head 120 are electrically connected to a polarity RF voltage. Flyash discloses that the cutting head may include one or more blades, with two blades (124, 126) illustrated in Figs. 1–2B, and further teaches that at least two blades or cutting units are provided (see claim 2 of Flyash), which encompasses embodiments having more than two blades or cutting units connected to an RF generator unit.
It should also be noted that Flyash’s RF energy could be applied to all foils or external blades of the blade units in Steeles. In different embodiments, as set forth in the present invention, various types of shavers, including rotary and reciprocating blade systems, all of which are well known in the art, may be electrically connected to an RF generator unit. This represents a predictable use of known RF energy delivery techniques applied to shavers having different blade types and numbers of cutting units to improve shaving performance and user comfort, yielding no more than expected results.
Regarding claim 5, Steele teaches everything noted above including that the first external cutting member 120 and the second external cutting member 120 each comprise a shaving foil extending parallel to a longitudinal direction; and the first internal cutting member 132 and the second internal cutting member 132 are configured to linearly reciprocate parallel to the longitudinal direction relative to the first external cutting member 120 and the second external cutting member 120, respectively. See Fig. 9 in Steele.
Regarding claim 7, Steele teaches everything noted above including that the first skin-contacting area is annular shaped, wherein the first internal cutting member 32 is rotatable relative to the first external cutting member 36; and wherein the second skin-contacting area is annular shaped, wherein the second internal cutting member 32 is rotatable relative to the second external cutting member 36. See Figs. 1-3 in Steele.
Regarding claim 14, Steele, as modified by Flyash, teaches everything noted above including that the first and second polarity RF voltages have a frequency in a range from 0.5 MHz to 4 MHz. Flyash teaches that the frequency is between 300 KHz to 10 MHZ which is within the ranged specified in the claim. See paragraph [0033] in Flyash.
Regarding claim 15, Steele, as modified by Flyash, teaches everything noted above except that the first polarity RF voltage and the second polarity RF voltage comprise a peak-to-peak voltage in a range from 10 V to 100 V. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the voltage in eth range as set forth above, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
11. Claims 1-6 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosokawa et al. (5,706,582), hereinafter Hosokawa, in view of Flyash and Schwerin. Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Hosokawa teaches an electric shaver 1 comprising: a first hair-cutting unit 20 comprising: a first internal cutting member 40; and a first external cutting member 31 arranged to cover the first internal cutting member 40 and wherein the first internal cutting member 40 is movable relative to the first external cutting member 31; wherein the first external cutting member 40 comprises a first skin-contacting area inherently comprising a first plurality of hair-entry openings, wherein the first skin-contacting area is arranged, in use, to contact skin; and wherein the electric shaver 1 further comprises: a second skin-contacting area (defined by the contacting area of the second cutting heard 50 arranged, in use, to contact the skin. See Figs. 1-8 in Hosokawa.
Hosakawa does not explicitly teach a bi-polar radio frequency (RF) generator unit configured to apply a first-polarity RF voltage to a first external cutting member, wherein the entirety of the first external cutting member conducts the first-polarity RF voltage, nor does Steele teach applying a second-polarity RF voltage to a second skin-contacting area.
However, Flyash teaches a shaver including a bi-polar RF generator unit 114 configured to apply a first-polarity RF voltage to a first external cutting member 124, wherein the entirety of the first external cutting member is configured to conduct the first-polarity RF voltage. Flyash further teaches that the bi-polar RF generator unit applies a second-polarity RF voltage to a second skin-contacting area via a second cutting unit, cutting head, or blade 126. Flyash further teaches, in an alternative embodiment (Fig. 2F), that blades 224 and 226 “may be rotating blades such as those employed by electrically motorized shaving devices, standard blades, reciprocating blades, vibrating blades, etc.” See paragraph [0039]). In this embodiment, Elyash teaches that an electrode 236 is positioned adjacent to or coupled to one of the blades (224, 226) of the cutting head 200. In such a configuration, electrode 236 would inherently be positioned in or adjacent to or coupled to a skin-contacting member (e.g., a foil or stationary blade) of an oscillating shaving device, such as those taught by Hosakawa. Thus, Flyash teaches applying RF voltage to a blade or to an electrode positioned adjacent to the blade in order to deliver RF energy to skin-contacting cutting components. Although Flyash does not expressly disclose applying RF voltage to the foil or external cutting member of an electric shaver, Schwerin discloses an electric razor 10 including a first hair-cutting unit (12, 12, 12) comprising a first external cutting member (22A-22C, as a screen covering a rotating blade; Fig. 1) and a first internal cutting member (as a rotating blade, not shown, locate behind the screen 22A-22C; col. 5, lines 15-20). Schwerin further teaches a frequency and voltage generator unit to apply a frequency and voltage to a first external cutting member (22A-22C), wherein the entirety of the first external cutting member conducts the voltage; and applying a second frequency and voltage to a second skin-contacting area (defined by the second screen of a second hair-cutting unit 12). In other words, Schwerin teaches that the first external cutting element of both rotary-type and reciprocating-type (col. 1, lines 46-55) cutting units can be used an electrode or conductor to treat the user’s skin. See Figs. 1-9 in Schwerin. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Hosakawa’s shaver to include the bi-polar RF generator of Flyash and to apply RF energy to the first external cutting member or screen as taught by Schwerin, thereby heating the skin-contacting cutting unit to facilitate shaving. Such a modification represents the predictable use of known RF energy delivery techniques to improve shaving performance and user comfort, yielding no more than expected results.
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Hosakawa in view of Flyash teaches everything noted above including a second hair-cutting unit 50 comprising: a second internal cutting member 60; and a second external cutting member 50 arranged to cover the second internal cutting member and wherein the second internal cutting member is movable relative to the second external cutting member 51; and wherein the second external cutting member 51 comprises the second skin-contacting area and comprises a second plurality of hair-entry openings (Fig. 4) provided in the second skin-contacting area, and wherein an entirety of the second external cutting member (as taught by Flyash which teaches all the blades or cutting units 122 of the cutting head 120 are entirely connected to polarity RF voltage; Figs. 1-2B) is configured to conduct the second polarity RF voltage.
Regarding claim 3, Hosakawa in view of Flyash teaches everything noted above including a third hair-cutting unit 30 comprising: a third internal cutting member 40; a third external cutting member 31arranged to cover the third internal cutting member and wherein the third internal cutting member is movable relative to the third external cutting member 31; and wherein the third external cutting member 31 comprises a third skin- contacting area comprising a third plurality of hair-entry openings; and wherein the bi-polar RF generator unit (114; in Fig. 1 of Flyash) is configured to apply the first polarity voltage to the third external cutting member, and wherein the entirety of the third external cutting member is configured to conduct the first polarity RF voltage.
It should be noted that Flyash teaches that all blades or cutting units 122 of the cutting head 120 are electrically connected to a polarity RF voltage. Flyash discloses that the cutting head may include one or more blades, with two blades (124, 126) illustrated in Figs. 1–2B, and further teaches that at least two blades or cutting units are provided (see claim 2 of Flyash), which encompasses embodiments having more than two blades or cutting units connected to an RF generator unit.
It should also be noted that Flyash’s RF energy could be applied to all foils or external blades of the blade units in Hosakawa. In different embodiments, as set forth in the present invention, various types of shavers, including rotary and reciprocating blade systems, all of which are well known in the art, may be electrically connected to an RF generator unit. This represents a predictable use of known RF energy delivery techniques applied to shavers having different blade types and numbers of cutting units to improve shaving performance and user comfort, yielding no more than expected results.
Regarding claim 4, Hosakawa teaches everything noted above including that the second hair-cutting unit 50 is arranged between the first hair-cutting unit 30 and the third hair-cutting unit 30. See Fig. 4 in Hosakawa.
Regarding claim 5, Hosakawa teaches everything noted above including that
the first external cutting member 31 and the second external cutting member 51each comprise a shaving foil extending parallel to a longitudinal direction; and the first internal cutting member 40 and the second internal cutting member 60 are configured to linearly reciprocate parallel to the longitudinal direction relative to the first external cutting member 31 and the second external cutting member 51, respectively. See Fig. 4 in Hosakawa.
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Hosakawa teaches everything noted above including that the third external cutting member 31 comprises a shaving foil extending parallel to the longitudinal direction; and the third internal cutting member 40 is configured to linearly reciprocate parallel to the longitudinal direction relative to the third external cutting member. See Figs. 4-5 in Hosakawa.
Regarding claim 14, Hosakawa, as modified by Flyash, teaches everything noted above including that the first and second polarity RF voltages have a frequency in a range from 0.5 MHz to 4 MHz. Flyash teaches that the frequency is between 300 KHz to 10 MHZ which is within the ranged specified in the claim. See paragraph [0033] in Flyash.
Regarding claim 15, Hosakawa, as modified by Flyash, teaches everything noted above except that the first polarity RF voltage and the second polarity RF voltage comprise a peak-to-peak voltage in a range from 10 V to 100 V. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the voltage in eth range as set forth above, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claims 8-13 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.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Steele teaches everything noted above including that the first skin- contacting area is annular shaped, wherein the first internal cutting member 32 is rotatable relative to the first external cutting member 36; and wherein the first hair-cutting unit 20 further comprises a first covering element (defined by the portion, which is not numbered, located between the slots 38 and the center of the foil 36, and covers the internal cutting member 32; Fig. 2) that comprises the second skin-contacting area, and wherein the first covering element is arranged on the first external cutting member 36 in a central position relative to the first skin-contacting area such that the first skin-contacting area surrounds the second skin-contacting area. However, Steele as modified above, does not teach that the first covering element is electrically isolated from the first external cutting member, as set forth in claim 8.
Conclusion
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant’s disclosure.
Kerindel (8,244,369 B2) and Elzen et al. (EP 3922202) teach a skin care device including bi-polar radio frequency, RF, generator.
Tomassetti et al. (2020/0016781 A1) and Tomassetti et al. (2018/0126572 A1) teach a shaver or razor including a bi-polar radio frequency, RF, generator.
Shiba et al. (8,806,763 B2) teach an electric shaver.
JP 5934211 B2 teaches a bi-polar radio Frequency generator unit apply FR to a skin contacting element.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHASSEM ALIE whose telephone number is (571) 272-4501. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am-5:00 pm 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 Asheley can be reached on (571) 272-5401. 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.
/GHASSEM ALIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
December 17, 2025