DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: at the last line, “which” should be deleted
Claim 3: at line 8, “which” should be deleted
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2, 4-5, 17-18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muraguchi (US 6430813) in view of Yang (US 20130029507).
Regarding claim 1, Muraguchi discloses a system comprising a personal care device (electric shaver; see fig. 1), said personal care device being provided with an elongated housing (inner case 2 and outer casing 1; see figs. 1 and 2) receiving an electric motor and/or an electric power source (motor 4 and battery 3 are secured within inner case 2; see col. 5, lines 17-19 and fig. 2), a working head attached to said housing (inner blades 6 and outer blades 7; see fig. 1), wherein a power socket for receiving an electric power supply plug is provided at said housing (chamber 45 is configured to admit plug pins 32 and receive a power source plug; see col. 7, lines 55-61 and figs. 7, 8, and 10).
Muraguchi does not explicitly disclose a hanger, said hanger being provided with an attachment plug and a loop portion, wherein said power socket is provided with a snap-fit contour for engaging a projection on a flexible carrier element of said attachment plug in the power socket, wherein said attachment plug is made from a hard material.
Yang discloses a hanger (protecting plug 100; see fig. 3), said hanger being provided with an attachment plug (plug member 1; see fig. 3) and a loop portion (chain 25; see fig. 3), wherein said power socket is provided with a snap-fit contour (plug portion 11 of plug member 1 is shown to have multiple ridges – the socket that receives it would likewise need to include corresponding ridges to match; see paragraph [0027] and fig. 3) for engaging a projection on a flexible carrier element of said attachment plug in the power socket (plug portion 11 comprises ridges which are configured to match with the corresponding socket; see paragraph [0027] and fig. 3), wherein said attachment plug is made from a hard material (plug portion 11 may be made from a plastic such as ABS or a metal material; see paragraph [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Muraguchi in view of Yang to include a hanger. Yang discloses that audio jacks are usually formed on an outer surface of a device, which makes them susceptible to contamination from dust or water – such contaminants are known to cause damage to the electrical elements (see paragraph [0003]). Further, providing a hanger (chain 25) allows a user to conveniently carry the device (see paragraph [0034]). In the instant case, this teaching could be applied to the device of Muraguchi so that contact with the working head (inner blades 6 and outer blades 7) is prevented when the device is not in use, which would keep the blades clean and free of damage. A person of ordinary skill in the art would thus reasonably apply the known technique and structure of Yang into the similar device of Muraguchi in order to provide the same improvements.
Examiner notes that although Yang discloses a device designed to protect an audio jack, a power socket as described above is susceptible to the same problems and thus would benefit from the same solutions.
Muraguchi as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein said loop portion is made from a soft material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Muraguchi in view of Yang to make the attachment plug out of a hard material and the loop portion from a soft material. Yang discloses that a plastic such as ABS or a metal material are suitable for sealing the audio jack (see paragraph [0041]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the attachment plug should be made from a hard material to facilitate a secure connection into the power socket. While Yang does not explicitly disclose the material used in the loop portion (chain 25), a soft material would be an obvious choice since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416). Using a soft material would provide more flexibility when hanging or carrying the device, which would put less stress on the connection between the attachment plug and the power socket.
Examiner further notes that regarding the limitation “a flexible carrier element”, it is Examiner’s interpretation that plug portion 11 being made from ABS fulfills this limitation, since plastics are known to have some level of flexibility. However, Yang additionally discloses in another embodiment that a portion of the attachment plug (joint portion 14) is made from a flexible material (see paragraph [0040]).
Regarding claim 2, Muraguchi as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Yang further discloses wherein said snap-fit contour is formed by an undercut at an inner circumferential wall of the power socket (as modified to include a snap-fit contour in the power socket, the power socket must include undercuts on an inner wall to accommodate and match the outwardly extending ridges of plug portion 11; see paragraph [0027] and fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Muraguchi as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Muraguchi as modified further discloses wherein a controller for controlling a function of the personal care device (microprocessor 16 is configured to control on and off states of switching device Q1; see col. 4, lines 28-31 and fig. 4) is responsive to short circuiting or contacting of connector pins of the power socket by said attachment plug of said hanger to modify a function of the personal care device upon insertion of the attachment plug of the hanger into the power socket (microprocessor 16 is configured to display the amount of charge the device has via LEDs, calculate the time needed to fully charge battery 3, and turn off switching device Q1 when battery 3 is fully charged – as modified to include a hanger, microprocessor 16 can be further configured to indicate attachment of the hanger via LEDs in the same manner; see col. 4, lines 49-62).
Regarding claim 5, Muraguchi as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Muraguchi as modified further discloses wherein said housing includes an inner housing receiving said motor (motor 4 is received within inner case 2; see col. 5, lines 17-19 and fig. 3) and an outer housing surrounding said inner housing (outer casing 1 is configured to surround inner case 2; see col. 2, lines 35-39 and figs. 1, 2), wherein said inner housing is provided with an opening for a charging connection on an end portion of said inner housing (plug pins 32 protrude through an opening at an end of inner case 2; see fig. 8), said opening being provided with said power socket for receiving any one of an electric power supply plug and said hanger attachment plug (chamber 45 is configured to admit plug pins 32 and receive a power source plug; see col. 7, lines 55-61 and figs. 7, 8, and 10).
Regarding claim 17, Muraguchi as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Muraguchi as modified further discloses wherein said personal care device is an electric hair removal device (the personal care device comprises an electric shaver; see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, Muraguchi as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Yang further discloses wherein said hard material is a hard plastic material (plug portion 11 may be made from a plastic such as ABS; see paragraph [0041]).
Muraguchi as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein said soft material is a soft plastic material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Muraguchi to make the soft material a soft plastic material since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that using a soft material specifically made from plastic would be beneficial because plastic is widely known to be inexpensive and relatively easy to manufacture. Therefore, in order to reduce costs and improve manufacturability, such a modification would be obvious.
Regarding claim 20, Muraguchi as modified discloses the limitations of claim 4 as described in the rejection above.
Muraguchi as modified further discloses wherein said controller is configured to control a display of the personal care device (microprocessor 16 is configured to display the amount of charge the device has via LEDs; see col. 4, lines 49-53) to indicate attachment of the hanger upon detection of short circuiting or contacting of the connector pins by the attachment plug of the hanger (as modified to include a hanger, microprocessor 16 can be further configured to indicate attachment of the hanger via LEDs in the same manner; see col. 4, lines 49-62).
Regarding claim 21, Muraguchi as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Muraguchi as modified further discloses wherein the attachment plug of the hanger has a cross-sectional contour corresponding to the cross-sectional contour of an inner side of the power socket (as modified to include a power socket with ridges that correspond to the attachment plug, the cross-sectional contour of the attachment plug corresponds to the cross-sectional contour of the power socket).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 4-5, 17-18, and 20-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 19 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not disclose or otherwise render obvious in combination with all claim limitations a personal care device wherein the undercut is formed by a through hole through the inner circumferential wall, and that the through hole is part of a drainage path.
The closest prior art of record is Muraguchi (US 6430813) as modified by Yang (US 20130029507) as applied above. Muraguchi as modified by Yang discloses a power socket with a snap-fit contour (plug portion 11 of Yang has multiple ridges – thus, the power socket that receives such a plug would need to have corresponding contours to facilitate insertion of plug portion 11; see fig. 3). As described above, the snap-fit contour is further formed by an undercut in an inner wall of the power socket (in order to accommodate the outwardly extending ridges of plug portion 11). However, there is no teaching that the undercut is formed by a through hole that is part of a drainage path for draining water.
The next closest prior art of record is Suarez (US 9570848). Suarez discloses an electrical plug for use in hair clippers (see fig. 1) that includes a hanger, specifically a loop portion (loop 104; see fig. 1). However, Suarez does not disclose an attachment plug that allows the electrical plug to be separated from the power socket of the hair clippers. Instead, the electrical plug of Suarez is integrated into the device in such a way that it would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the plug detachable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 5325589 to Kubo, drawn to a hair clipper.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HALEIGH N WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3818. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 530AM-330PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571)272-4502. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HALEIGH N WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights