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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The arguments are considered in full, individually and as an ordered group—but none of the arguments reasonably overcomes the overwhelming evidence that applicant has not invented anything—the alleged invention, as claimed, is using buttons to display information on a shaver while the shaver motor may continue to be ON. Every aspect of this idea is already embodied, known, disclosed, and cited of record, and logically can be used for the purposes stated and implicit in the uses shown in the cited art. Turning on or off screens, turning on or off motors, and controlling them as an ordered unit is not new, is not an invention of the applicant, and should not receive patent protection, because it takes what is available to the skilled public and constrains its use. Applicant has added no technology to the common knowledge, and has failed to meet the requirements for patentability as previously discussed and explained.
Applicant alleges that the rejection of record simply identifies alternative arrangements, and thus the combination of known elements is not sufficient to show “motivation” to combine. (Rem. P. 9). This is not persuasive of error. The logic of the combination and the cited evidence is appropriate to the case at hand. The rejection is correct, the argument has failed to provide any evidence of error, and is therefore maintained.
Applicant alleges that the prior art cited does not identify the specific problem of applicant, nor the specific solution. (Rem. P 10) This is not persuasive of error, since the prior art reasonably shows that applicant has not invented anything—and is using old components according to their known functions, and the combination is clearly logical and the technical understanding of the “problem” of how to control a shaver and display information is completely solved and those of ordinary skill should have access to the knowledge long in the public domain and evidenced by the art cited and discussed at length. Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive of error, and therefore the rejection of record is maintained and made final.
Applicant amended claims 16 and 19 to contain limitations related to “battery status” information. This is clearly readable on the previous rejection of claim 2 (battery status) and claim 6 (non-operation mode). Claims 16 and 19 are therefore rejected as set forth with respect to claims 2, 6 AND 16 in the action dated 4/9/2026, and incorporated here by reference, and made final. Specifically, the cited art and rejection discusses displaying all the types of information applicant is claiming (“battery status” and “non-operation mode information”) the implementation of these known building blocks is straightforward, and should be available to the public—they are in the public domain as evidenced, explained, and as is logically apparent from the previous discussions.
All other rejections are as previously set forth correctly detailing the non-inventiveness of the pending claims and are incorporated here by reference, and made final.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN M MICHALSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-6752. The examiner can normally be reached Typically M-F 6a-3:30p East Coast Time.
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.
SEAN M. MICHALSKI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3724
/SEAN M MICHALSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights