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 .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-5, drawn to a system comprising a personal care device, classified in B26B19/3853,3873.
II. Claims 6-16, drawn to a hanger for hanging up a personal care device, classified in B23Q13/00.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because the subcombination requires further details of a hanger, including at least a gripping portion and a projection (as part of the attachment plug). The subcombination has separate utility, such as usage on a different handheld electrical appliance (e.g., other hair care devices such as heat styling tools, blow dryer, etc.).
The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply: the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries). See distinct classification above.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve 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 restriction 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 upon the elected invention.
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.
During a telephone conversation with Andrés Velarde on 12/1/2025 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of group I, claims 1-5. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 6-16 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“hard material” should be amended to read “a hard material”
“soft material” should be amended to read “a soft material”
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains legal phraseology such as “said”. Further, the abstract contains implied phrases such as “the present invention relates to”. 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 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.
Claims 1, 3, and 4 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.
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 1 recites the broad recitation “system comprising a personal care device”, and the claim also recites “in particular electric hair removal device” 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. Further, claim 1 also requires that the attachment plug be made from a hard material, “in particular hard plastic material”, and that the loop portion be made from a soft material, “in particular soft plastic material”. As described above, there is a question as to whether these elements are required to be made from a hard/soft plastic material respectively, or if these are simply examples of the hard or soft material that can be used.
Claim 3 is similarly rejected, because claim 3 recites the broad recitation “wherein said undercut is formed by a through hole through said inner circumferential wall”, and the claim also recites “preferably wherein said through hole is part of a drainage path” which is the narrow statement of the range/limitation. The claim is 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 remainer of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claim. There is a question as to whether the through hole being part of a drainage path is a required feature, or simply an example of the through hole.
Claim 4 is similarly rejected, because claim 4 recites the broad recitation “a controller for controlling a function of the personal care device… upon insertion of the attachment plug of the hanger into the power socket”, and the claim also recites “more particularly, said controller is configured to control a display of the personal care device…” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is 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 remainer of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claim. That is, it is not made explicitly clear if the controller is required to perform the function of controlling a display of the personal care device, or if that is simply an example of a response to short circuiting or contacting of the connector pins.
For purposes of examination, the above narrower features are interpreted to be optional, and thus not required by the claims.
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suarez (US 9570848) in view of Wu (US 20050032405).
Regarding claim 1, Suarez discloses a system comprising a personal care device, in particular electric hair removal device (hair dressing equipment 131; see fig. 5), and a hanger (hanging loop 104; see fig. 3), said hanger being provided with an attachment plug (plug housing 101; see figs. 1-3) and a loop portion (hanging loop 104 contains a looped portion; see col. 3, lines 16-23 and figs. 1-5), said personal care device being provided with an elongated housing (hair dressing equipment 131 has an elongated housing; see fig. 5) receiving an electric motor and/or an electric power source (port 132 is located on the housing of hair dressing equipment 131, and is configured to receive conductors 111 for transmitting power; see col. 2, line 56-col. 3, line 3), a working head attached to said housing (a blade set is attached to one end of the housing; see fig. 5), wherein a power socket for receiving an electric power supply plug is provided at said housing (port 132 receives plug housing 101; see col. 3, lines 1-3), wherein said attachment plug is made from hard material, in particular hard plastic material (this feature is satisfied when the plug housing 101 is molded from polycarbonate per col. 3, lines 32-36) and said loop portion which is made from soft material, in particular soft plastic material (this feature is satisfied when the hanging loop 104 is molded from polyethylene per col. 3, lines 32-36).
Suarez does not explicitly disclose wherein said power socket is provided with a snap-fit contour for snap-fitting said attachment plug in the power socket.
Wu discloses wherein said power socket is provided with a snap-fit contour for snap-fitting said attachment plug in the power socket (locking recess 14 comprises first catch plate 22 and second catch plate 24. Each catch plate has snap hooks 222, 242 respectively, which cooperate with shaft portion 37 of second snapping portion 36 in order to snap plug 30 into place; see paragraphs [0021, 0024] and fig. 1). Wu teaches that providing the snap-fit connection for the attachment plug in the power socket is advantageous because the attachment plug is replaceable with plus of different kinds and sizes, thereby enhancing the versatility of the plug by making the plug replaceable (see Wu at the abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Suarez in view of Wu to include a snap-fit contour on the power socket. This modification is advantageous because it makes the attachment plug replaceable with different kinds and sizes of plugs, thus enhancing the versatility of the plug by making the plug compatible with different types of power cords.
Suarez discloses plastic materials that may be used for the attachment plug and loop portion, including examples of suitable plastics. To the extent that Suarez does not explicitly disclose choosing different materials for the plug and loop portions, 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). Since the attachment plug and the loop portion have different functions (i.e., the attachment portion receiving a cord and the loop portion being intended to hang the device), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select different materials for these two parts, where the particular materials are selected to optimize performance of the functions of the respective portions. Since a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a hard material is suitable for an attachment plug and a soft material is suitable for a hanger with a loop portion, it would be obvious to select the recited materials.
Regarding claim 2, Suarez as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Wu further discloses wherein said snap fit contour is formed by an undercut (catch plate 22 and second catch plate 24 each have a snap hook 222, 242; see paragraph [0024] and fig. 1) at an inner circumferential wall of the power socket (snap hook 222 and snap hook 242 are located within an inner wall of locking recess 14; see fig. 1).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suarez (US 9570848) in view of Wu (US 20050032405), and further in view of Yu (CN 109524838).
Regarding claim 3, Suarez as modified discloses the limitations of claim 2 as described in the rejection above.
Suarez as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein said undercut is formed by a through hole through said inner circumferential wall, preferably wherein said through hole is part of a drainage path for draining water from the interior of the power socket to an outer side of the housing.
Yu discloses wherein said undercut is formed by a through hole through said inner circumferential wall, preferably wherein said through hole is part of a drainage path for draining water from the interior of the power socket to an outer side of the housing (drain hole 3331 is provided to facilitate drainage and prevent water accumulation; see paragraph [0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Suarez to provide a through hole for draining water as part of the undercut. Yu discloses that inclusion of a through hole (drain hole 3331) facilitates drainage and prevents water accumulation within the contact groove. Further, it is noted that water accumulation can result in insufficient fit between the elements of the plug and socket. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this would be undesirable because it would prevent the plug and socket from snap-fitting in a secure manner. Thus, removal of water is necessary and a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include some way to drain water from the socket.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suarez (US 9570848) in view of Wu (US 20050032405), and further in view of Yang (CN 110936410).
Regarding claim 4, Suarez as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Suarez as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein a controller for controlling a function of the personal care device 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, wherein, more particularly, said controller is configured to control a display of the personal care device to indicate attachment of the hanger upon detection of short circuiting or contacting of the connector pins by the attachment plug of the hanger.
Yang discloses wherein a controller for controlling a function of the personal care device is responsive to short circuiting (upon detection of a short circuit, the electronic control system activates a protection program that disconnects the Q1 thyristor, which prevents the battery from discharging a large current; see paragraphs [0050-0051]) 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, wherein, more particularly, said controller is configured to control a display of the personal care device to indicate attachment of the hanger upon detection of short circuiting (when the overcurrent discharge protection and system overcurrent protection functions are activated, an indicator light will flash as an alarm; see paragraphs [0051-0052]) or contacting of the connector pins by the attachment plug of the hanger.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Suarez in view of Yang to include a controller that responds to short circuiting. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that providing an electronic control system that prevents excessive current discharge is a common safety feature in electronic devices, and can prevent damage to the system from short circuits. Further, providing an indicator light that flashes in response to activation of the protection features serves to inform a user of abnormal operation so that appropriate action may be taken. The device of Suarez as modified would benefit from this type of control system in the same way, thus making the modification obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suarez (US 9570848) in view of Wu (US 20050032405), and further in view of Skuhra (US 20170305021).
Regarding claim 5, Suarez as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Suarez as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein said housing includes an inner housing receiving said motor and an outer housing surrounding said inner housing, wherein said inner housing is provided with an opening for a charging connection on an end portion of said inner housing.
Skuhra discloses wherein said housing includes an inner housing receiving said motor (insulative liner 66 defines a plurality of compartments, one of which includes electric motor 62; see paragraph [0024] and fig. 5) and an outer housing surrounding said inner housing (lower housing 18 and cover 22 surround insulative liner 66; see paragraph [0023] and figs. 1, 4-5), wherein said inner housing is provided with an opening for a charging connection on an end portion of said inner housing (at second end 54, an opening is formed on insulative liner 66 to receive a charging cord; see figs. 4-5).
As modified by Skuhra, Suarez further discloses said opening being provided with said power socket for receiving anyone of an electric power supply plug and said hanger attachment plug (port 132 receives plug housing 101, which comprises a plurality of conductors 111. During use, conductors 111 complete an electrical connection to supply power to hair dressing equipment 131; see col. 2, line 56-col. 3, line 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Suarez in view of Skuhra to include a housing comprising an inner and outer housing. Skuhra discloses that the liner provides insulating properties, for example, electrical and thermal insulation, as well as vibration damping (see paragraphs [0004-0007]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that further modifying the device of Suarez to include an inner housing for further insulating the electrical components would be beneficial since it would likely reduce the chance of water damage.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 20050015997 to Roble, drawn to a trimmer glove; US 4977042 to Chiyajo, drawn to a rechargeable type small electric appliance; US 4251915 to Ullman, drawn to a dry shaver; KR 200267798 to Shin, drawn to a charging plug of an electric shaver; and KR 900001971 to Lee, drawn to a plug device for charging an electric shaver.
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
/EVAN H MACFARLANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3724