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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
communication module (see at least claim 1)
the position sensor and/or speed sensor (see at least claim 1)
the camera (see at least claim 3)
the pressure sensor (see at least claim 5)
the plurality of electrically operated devices for depilation or epilation (see at least claim 7)
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: at line 3, “the body hair” should be amended to read “body hair”
Claim 2: at lines 2-3, “the detected positions” should be amended to read “the detected positions of the head unit”
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:
• “electrically operated device for depilation or epilation of the body hair” as recited in at least claim 1 (first, “electrically operated device” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “for depilation or epilation of the body hair”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “for depilation or epilation of the body hair” following the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the electrically operated device)
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 2 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation “wherein the control unit is a component of or is a smartphone or a tablet”, and the claim also recites “wherein the smartphone or the tablet is set up to output the detected positions on a display of the smartphone or tablet” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 2 recites two options regarding the control unit: either the control unit is a component of a smartphone or tablet, or the control unit is a smartphone or tablet. If the control unit is a component of a smartphone or tablet, is the smartphone or tablet still required? If not, then it is not clear how detected positions of the head unit can be displayed to a user. It is therefore interpreted that if the control unit is a component of a smartphone or tablet, then limitations requiring a smartphone or tablet are optional, and has been treated as such for purposes of examination.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, if the control unit is a component of a smartphone or a tablet and the smartphone and the tablet are not required, then it is unclear how the camera and display are integrated into the system. Claim 3 requires that the smartphone or tablet comprise a camera, but claim 2 makes the smartphone or tablet optional. Claim 4 requires that depilation or epilation progress is output on the display of the smartphone or tablet, but claim 2 makes the smartphone or tablet optional. Thus, it is unclear how the camera and display are included in the system to accomplish their respective functions.
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 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niles (US 20200130206) in view of Kustra (US 20160262521).
Regarding claim 1, Niles discloses a system to remove body hair in hard-to-reach places, the system comprising: a head unit (hair cutting part 16; see figs. 10-11) that comprises a bearing surface for bearing against a skin (hair cutting end 90; see paragraph [0045] and figs. 12-13); at least one electrically operated device (ring cutters 16J; see paragraph [0045] and fig. 1A) for depilation or epilation of the body hair being arranged on the bearing surface (ring cutters 16J define cutting end 90 to permit a user to cut hair; see paragraphs [0045-0046]); an electrical storage for the electrical supply of the device for depilation or epilation (hair cutting part 16 has components for motorizing the blade, such as power source 104, which can be a battery; see paragraph [0043]).
Niles does not explicitly disclose a communication module; and a position sensor and/or a speed sensor integrated in the head unit, wherein the communication module establishes a communication link with a further communication module of a control unit and to transmit data of the position sensor and/or of the speed sensor to the control unit, and wherein the control unit detects the position of the head unit using the data of the position sensor and/or of the speed sensor and evaluates the points at which depilation or epilation has already taken place.
Kustra discloses a communication module (hair cutting device 20 comprises communication module 26; see paragraph [0045] and fig. 2); and a position sensor and/or a speed sensor (IMU 150 is configured to generate information indicative of the position, or alternatively, motion of hair cutting device 20; see paragraphs [0064-0066] and fig. 3) integrated in the head unit (as modified, IMU 150 can be included in the head unit), wherein the communication module establishes a communication link with a further communication module of a control unit (communication module 26 of hair cutting device 20 is configured to wirelessly communicate with communication module 52 of base unit 50; see paragraph [0045] and figs. 1-2) and to transmit data of the position sensor and/or of the speed sensor to the control unit (information generated by IMU 150 is provided to controller 40 of base unit 50; see paragraph [0064] and fig. 3), and wherein the control unit detects the position of the head unit using the data of the position sensor and/or of the speed sensor (controller 40 of base unit 50 detects the position of hair cutting device 20 based on information provided by IMU 150; see paragraph [0064]) and evaluates the points at which depilation or epilation has already taken place (controller 40 is capable of displaying and evaluating what areas have already been treated based on images generated by image sensor 30; see paragraph [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Niles in view of Kustra to include a communication module and a position sensor and/or speed sensor. Kustra discloses a communication module (communication module 26) and a position/speed sensor (IMU 150). These elements, in conjunction with other elements disclosed by Kustra, result in a system which guides a user during the shaving procedure (see paragraphs [0009-0011]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that performing a shaving operation in areas which are difficult to see often requires the assistance of another person or tool (such as a mirror) – inclusion of a built-in guidance system would allow a user to perform a shaving operation without the need for extra assistance. Therefore, in order to reduce or eliminate the need for assistance during a shaving operation, such a modification would be obvious.
Regarding claim 2, Niles as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Kustra further discloses wherein the control unit is a component of or is a smartphone or a tablet (controller 40 is part of base unit 50, which may be a tablet, laptop, or smartphone; see paragraph [0042] and fig. 3), and wherein the smartphone or the tablet is set up to output the detected positions on a display of the smartphone or the tablet (base unit 50 includes display 130 to produce visual indicators to the user; see paragraph [0061] and fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Niles in view of Kustra to include a display on the smartphone or tablet. Kustra discloses that the display (display 130) located on the smartphone or tablet (base unit 50) acts as a feedback system. For this purpose, the display is configured to produce visual indicators that provide guiding instructions to a user (see paragraph [0061]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that in order for a user to easily see these indicators during operation, the display is most effectively located on the smartphone or tablet. Therefore, in order to provide guiding instructions to a user that are easily viewed during operation, such a modification would be obvious.
Regarding claim 3, Niles as modified discloses the limitations of claim 2 as described in the rejection above.
Kustra further discloses wherein the smartphone or the tablet comprises a camera (image sensor 30; see paragraph [0073] and fig. 4), and wherein the control unit is arranged to output detected positions of the head unit superimposed over an image of the user's back captured by the camera (image sensor 30 may be configured to generate information indicating the position of elements and controller 40 is able to produce visual indicators to a user – further, since the device can create a map of hair orientation, it is understood that the position of system elements can be superimposed on the image in a similar manner; see paragraphs [0051, 0061, 0073-0074]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Niles in view of Kustra to include a camera in the smartphone or tablet. Kustra discloses that the camera (image sensor 30) allows the controller to determine hair orientation and the position of various elements, among other things (see paragraphs [0051, 0074]). The information provided by the camera allows the controller to accurately determine what guidance to output to a user. Therefore, in order to ensure that a user receives high quality guidance from the controller, it would be obvious to include a camera to provide accurate information to the controller.
Regarding claim 4, Niles as modified discloses the limitations of claim 3 as described in the rejection above.
Kustra further discloses wherein the control unit is arranged to determine a progress of depilation or epilation based on the image and based on the position data (base unit 50 can track the shaving process by monitoring a trajectory of hair cutting device 20; see paragraph [0075]), and wherein the display is arranged to display the progress graphically (display 130 is configured to augment the captured image with graphical information; see paragraph [0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Niles in view of Kustra to make the control unit capable of determining treatment progress based on detected image and position data. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that tracking the progress of hair treatment would be beneficial in that it would provide the user with information such as time remaining, total treatment time, etc. Further, this information can help the user make decisions on when to incorporate the hair removal operation into their schedule. Therefore, in order to provide helpful timing information to a user, such a modification would be obvious.
Regarding claim 6, Niles as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Niles as modified further discloses wherein the head unit with its bearing surface has a shape of a flattened or elongated ellipsoid of revolution (cutting end 90 has a circular shape, while hair cutting part 16 has a substantially flattened ellipsoid shape; see figs. 1A and 10).
Regarding claim 7, Niles as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Niles as modified further discloses wherein a plurality of electrically operated devices for depilation or epilation are integrated into the head unit (ring cutters 16J define cutting end 90 of hair cutting part 16 in order to permit a user to cut hair; see paragraphs [0045-0046]), and wherein the devices are arranged offset to each other (ring cutters 16J may be positioned coaxial or near coaxial to one another; see paragraph [0045]).
Regarding claim 8, Niles as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Niles as modified further discloses wherein two holding straps (sling 12G, with handle ends 12A, 12B – alternatively, sling 12G may be formed as a pair of tethers; see paragraphs [0063, 0066] and figs. 10-11) are attached to the head unit (hair cutting part 16 is attached to sling 12G at an intermediate, central position; see paragraph [0063] and figs. 10-11).
Regarding claim 9, Niles as modified discloses the limitations of claim 8 as described in the rejection above.
Niles as modified further discloses wherein a clamping bracket (collar 32; see fig. 10) is attached to the head unit (collar 32 mates with hair cutting part 16 via a threaded connection; see paragraph [0064] and figs. 10-11), which rigidly connects two ends of the holding straps attached to the head unit (collar 32 and hair cutting part 16 are rigidly connected via threading 16G of hair cutting part 16 and threading 32B of collar 32; see paragraph [0064] and figs. 10-11).
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niles (US 20200130206) in view of Kustra (US 20160262521), and further in view of Lakin (US 8474466).
Regarding claim 5, Niles as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Niles as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein a pressure sensor is assigned to the device for depilation or for epilation, and wherein the control unit evaluates a contact pressure during depilation or epilation.
Lakin discloses wherein a pressure sensor is assigned to the device for depilation or for epilation (a pressure sensor is included to monitor pressure imparted by cutter 34; see col. 3, lines 25-32), and wherein the control unit evaluates a contact pressure during depilation or epilation (PCB 36 controls extension of cutting head 50 based on data from the pressure sensor; see col. 3, lines 25-32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Niles in view of Lakin to include a pressure sensor. Lakin discloses that the controller (PCB 36) controls an extension of the cutting head based on feedback from the pressure sensor. Further, PCB 36 is configured to shut off the device in response to a significant change in pressure so that injury to the user is prevented (see col. 3, lines 25-32). The device of Niles as modified would benefit from a pressure sensor in the same way, therefore such a modification would be obvious.
Regarding claim 10, Niles as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Niles as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the head unit comprises an electric drive that is arranged to adjust the head unit along a rail.
Lakin discloses wherein the head unit comprises an electric drive that is arranged to adjust the head unit along a rail (an electric drive mechanism is used to move cutting device 22 along movable track 20; see col. 3, lines 3-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Niles in view of Lakin to include an electric drive to adjust the head unit along a rail. Lakin discloses that inclusion of a movable cutting device on a track allows for a distinct picture or pattern to be cut into a user’s hair based on a design input into the controller (see col. 1, lines 18-37). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this system provides a precise, accurate design according to a user’s preferences without the need for a skilled barber or external hair cutting guides. Therefore, in order to provide a system that can cut precise designs without requiring a high skill level, such a modification would be obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 20100186234 to Binder, drawn to an electric shaver with imaging capability; US 20150197016 to Krenik, drawn to an automated hair cutting system and method of operation thereof; US 4602542 to Natrasevschi, drawn to an automatic hair cutting apparatus; US 9789619 to Eljaouhari, drawn to a facial hair shaver with built-in facial hair pattern guides.
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