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 .
Note on the prosecution history in this case
The claims presented in case 18/760,109 are substantially similar to those presented in 16/834,418. This is relevant because the claims at issue there (as here) are drawn to switching between ‘modes’ of displaying information on a shaver, and have been well developed previously. Specifically, the idea of toggling between modes, and all the particular information which applicant now seeks to patent as novel and unobvious to display have already been rejected multiple times, and the rejections thereof appealed to the PTAB and affirmed as proper. The minor changes to the present claims do not reflect meaningful changes—as set forth with particularity below.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 3-5, 8-15, 18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2/4/26, on the allegation that the office action did not indicate which limitations in the claims define the subcombinations. This is clearly untrue, as the listing of the groupings and the discussion beginning on page 5 clearly sets forth the elements which cause the claim sets to be regarded as divergent from one another. Applicants remarks are not persuasive of error, and therefore the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Upon search and consideration, claims 8 and 18 were found to be present in the cited art, and therefore are Rejoined.
Claim 3 is believed to be obvious, and rejoined. If applicant disagrees with this characterization (disagrees that the rejection of claim 1 plainly renders claim 3 obvious), then claim 3 should remain withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-8, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura (US 2016/0307712), in view of Lomholt (US 5,789,901), Mintz (2015/0246454), Iso (US 5,894,670), Momose (US 5,920,988), King (US 2017/0232624) Kimoto (US 4,594,777) and Thrush 2014/0269832.
Regarding claim 1, despite the length of the claim and number of elements in claim 1, the concepts presented and the device they represent should not be granted in a patent, since the features and elements are all known, and known for the same purposes and devices as applicant. Broadly—shavers are known, shavers are known to store and display information relevant to shaving, and shavers are known to toggle between viewing modes for that information in suitable fashion. The particular nature of how those elements are arranged is an obvious outflow of the knowledge in the art—the knowledge available to skillful men, and the knowledge of and solution to art recognized desires and problems.
It has been held that the combination of elements known in the prior art to be used in accordance with their known functions is unpatentable as a matter of law absent a showing that the combination has results which are unexpectedly advantageous over the prior art. Please see Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc. U.S. Supreme Court No. 75-110 425 US 273, 189 USPQ 449 (1976), Which states “patent[s] for combination that only unites old elements with no change in their respective functions withdraws what is already known into field of its monopoly and diminishes resources available to skillful men” and [a] patent [which] simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform, although perhaps producing a more striking result than in previous combinations…are not patentable under standards appropriate for a combination patent”; also see Anderson’s Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., Inc. U.S. Supreme Court 396 US 57, 163 USPQ 673 (1969) which states “while the combination of old elements performed a useful function, it added nothing to the nature and quality of the radiant-heat burner already patented”. Similarly here, charging elements, cradles, magnets, and shavers are all well known components, and are being used according to applicant in the same manner they are already known to be used.
The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. _____(2007) affirmed both Sakraida and Anderson’s requirement that to be patentable a combination needed to provide some synergistic effect. See Slip op. at 13 lines 3-19. Using known elements for their known functions is as a matter of law not patentable, since it removes resources available to skillful men, contrary to U.S. Const., Art. I §8, cl.8. which provides patent monopolies to promote the progress of useful arts. See Slip op. KSR at 24 lines 5-7.
Each of the elements claimed are known as seen in the cited prior art (below); their combination is unpatentable absent a showing that one of ordinary skill would be unable to effect their combination, or their combination provides unexpectedly good results (more than a duplicated effect).
Nishimura (US 2016/0307712) discloses an electric shaver (1 figure 1), comprising at least one cutter unit (22/23 inter alia figure 1).
Nishimura (US 2016/0307712) discloses a drive unit comprising a motor for driving said at least one cutter unit (“Linear motor 21 as the driving source is stored in head cover 24. Linear motor 21 is actuated in response to the power supply from a battery, and the inner blade units are reciprocated in the longitudinal direction of head 20.” [0046]).
Nishimura (US 2016/0307712) discloses an ON-OFF switch for activating and deactivating the drive unit see 12 figure 1, and discussion at [0049]-[0051] inter alia. Essentially, the button 12 controls the operation of the device, including presenting information on a screen in some instances—e.g. “the short press of switch 12 is disabled, and the operation mode is not changed. When the short press of switch 12 is detected in the lock mode, mode processing unit 33 displays, on display unit 13 (FIG. 1), a symbol (for example, padlock) indicating that the operation mode is the lock mode.” [0065].
Nishimura (US 2016/0307712) discloses a display device for displaying shaver information, (See citation id, [0065] “display…13…symbol…padlock…indicating…lock mode”).
Nishimura (US 2016/0307712) discloses said drive unit, when active, is operable in more than one operation mode comprising at least first and second speed modes. See [0029], as discussed at Final Rejection in 16/834,418 dated 12/15/2022 at p. 8. The issue of whether speed modes are known / obvious in shavers has been decided by the adoption and affirmance of these rejections in the Patent Board Decision issued 5/23/2025.
Nishimura (US 2016/0307712) discloses “where the cutter unit is driven at a first speed in the first speed mode and at a second speed different from the first speed in the second speed mode,” as in page 8 of the Final Rejection in 16/834,418 dated 12/15/2022 and subsequent affirmance of these rejections in the Patent Board Decision issued 5/23/2025.
Nishimura (US 2016/0307712) discloses a mode input element (touch button, regarding present claims 8, 18) is provided for switching the drive unit into one of the first or second speed modes when the drive unit is active causing the cutter unit to be driven at one of the first speed or the second speed, See [0029], as discussed at Final Rejection in 16/834,418 dated 12/15/2022 at p. 8-9,and the adoption and affirmance of these rejections in the Patent Board Decision issued 5/23/2025.
Nishimura (US 2016/0307712) discloses wherein said mode input element switches the display device into different display modes when the drive unit is inactive such that when said mode input element is activated a first time with the drive unit inactive, first shaver information is caused to be displayed on the display device so as to define a first display mode and when said mode input element is activated a second time after the first time with the drive unit inactive, second shaver information is caused to be displayed on the display device so as to define a second display mode. The portion of Non-Final Rejection from 06/17/2022 in 16/834,418 are reproduced below for completeness of discussion, but in brief—the Nishimura device is meant to display first and second information at various times based on how the screen is toggled and what use it is being used for.
PNG
media_image1.png
240
566
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
182
534
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The clause “wherein the second information comprises one of shaving runs information, cleaning information or cutter unit wear information, “ has been previously held to be obvious, in this context, as set forth in the Final Rejection in 16/834,418 dated 12/15/2022 at p. 11-15,and the adoption and affirmance of these rejections in the Patent Board Decision issued 5/23/2025.
This discussion is repeated here for convenience:
Displaying information to a user is a well known and routine process. Lomholt (US 5,789,901) indicates a shaver which displays “shaving time” per se: “Such an apparatus, particularly a shaver, is known and is sold by Philips Electronics under type number HS 990. This shaver comprises a rechargeable battery for feeding a motor and a LCD display for indicating the remaining shaving time.” This is per se “shaving runs” information.
Shavers which calculate or generate information about cleaning
Shavers which calculate or generate information about cleaning are well known in the art of shavers. Iso (US 5,894,670) specifically discusses this known feature, and provides evidence of this fact, stating “The microcomputer 6, using the working time of the electric shaver 1, can send beard dust cleaning information that beard dust accumulated in the electric shaver 1 should be cleaned off or shaver blade cleaning information that the shaver blades should be cleaned to the electric shaver stand 2 via the light emitting device 4.” Because the device and processor is evaluating cleaning information and sending that data to the user at least in the form of an indicator light, the “display” for sharing information about “cleaning” is known in the art.
Iso further discusses using multiple displays for displaying multiple types of information, which are therefore evidenced as being known and desirable features in the art—“ The display panel 13, having a shaver blade pressure display 31, power switch display 34, infra-red ray drive display 35, remaining battery capacity display 36, beard dust cleaning display 33, and shaver blade cleaning display 32, is made of a partly transparent mirror. On the back of each display, an LED…When the LED comes on, the display of the lighted portion is illuminated, so that the user of the electric shaver 1 can verify this display.”
Momose (US 5,920,988) discloses an additional set of display of cleaning information facts in the art. Momose states “the proper time for cleaning can be accurately counted and indicated with no discrepancy between the accumulation of shaving debris and the timing with which the display indicates that this proper time for cleaning has arrived.” This suggestion is to calculate a cleaning information and to display that information to a user, so the user knows to clean the device.
Shavers which know and generate information about wear
Shavers which know and generate information about wear of shaving implements is old and well known. For example, King (US 2017/0232624) states “Further processing is carried out on the interface device which permits visual display and interaction with the user. The information displayed is related to the data gathered, and may include the number and lengths of strokes, the duration of the shave and each stroke, the temperature and humidity and comparisons with earlier shaves or a standard or ideal shave.” [0007]. Both the number of and length of strokes, and the “duration” of shaves, as well as the comparison to “standard” noted above is considered to be “wear” information about the tool. King further discloses “ [0009] In another aspect, the present invention is directed to methods of tracking the use of shaving devices. In one embodiment, the method comprises the steps of receiving an input signal indicative of a movement of the shaving device, maintaining a count of a number of the movements, incrementing the count in response to additional received input signals, and displaying a value in response to the counted number of movements.” Knowing the amount of use is a type of shaving wear data, within the terms reasonable meaning. The data manipulation is discussed in terms indicating it is routine and easy to implement for those of ordinary skill in the art of shaver usage tracking—at [0034] King continues: “[0034] The digital signals output … are subsequently processed by a microprocessor 50 that filters the sensed data, detects significant changes that would be indicative of the user starting to use the razor based on the generated signals. The microprocessor 50 may then output the determination results to an output device, such as an Input/Output (I/O) 30, or wireless communication module 31. Most likely the display will be a smart phone or other device belonging to the user and the user will download an app to configure the smart phone to process, manage and display the data as desired by the user.” This is also an invitation to those of ordinary skill to track and output such as wear information like number of uses to any reasonably known display type, since the display is functioning to inform a user—so the effectation of that desired result by ordinarily known and well understood displays is considered obvious.
In the art of shavers, the recording and displaying wear characteristics is a well known desirable result, and a well known piece of information to evaluate and take into consideration in the creation of a shaver—such as described above in King. The display 32 is shown integrated with the shaver—as at 32 figures 1, 2 and 4.
In Mintz (2015/0246454) discloses the use of distinct buttons to control On/Off and other functions—as at [0039}: “Such a display 132 may be integrated into the exterior surface 104 of the exterior housing 112 of the electric clipper. The display 132 may include a transparent cover that is generally flush with the exterior surface 104 to prevent build up of foreign matter or bacteria. The display 132 may be a liquid crystal display (LCD), a display formed from a plurality of light-emitting diodes, or the like, and may be backlit. The backlight may be activated/deactivated upon turning the electric clipper 100 on or off, activating a boost actuator 122, being coupled to or decoupled from a charging power source, sensing that the electric clipper 100 is being held, or by actuating or depressing a dedicated actuator or button, to note but a few options in these regards.” This is evidence that the art of shaving tools found the addition of additional buttons and screen display functions to be routine and obvious based on the desire to toggle to different information.
Teachings relating to user interfaces using multiple buttons with independent functions
As noted above, Nishimura goes to some length to use a single button with various tapping codes to utilize multiple features and display different information or to change modes. Nishimura uses long or short presses to effect differences in operation or display, as seen in the tables thereof. However, it is useful to remember that in the art of shavers, it is well known to separate the on/off function from other functions, or to provide additional buttons to provide different input to the device. Mintz shows button 120 (which is power, or On/Off) and additional button 122 which implements boost mode (a change in mode via a separate button).
Similarly, Kimoto (US 4,594,777) discloses an on/OFF button 85 figure 12a, and a speed changing input button 87. The differentiation of functions of buttons so the on/off is a separate button will aid in functionality, since in contrast to Nishimura, the ON condition can be specified in a simple toggle, where changing another parameter (such as display, lock information, mode indication) can be made with a separate button.
While not in the Shaver art—Thrush 2014/0269832 is related to the same problem as the inventor—how to display information effectively to a user of a powered device which is known to store or create some data (As noted above, Nishimura discloses some data types, and the other cited art demonstrates that other types of information are routine in the shaver art). Thrush makes the same conclusion that Kimoto alludes to—that using a differentiated button for ‘on/off’ versus ‘display’ functionality with improve a user’s experience, since having distinct (additional) buttons will allow “the user to depress the buttons and thereby quickly display information…without navigating user interface menus” ([0010]).
In light of Lomholt, King and Mintz and Kimoto and Thrush, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to adapt the device and/or method of Nishimura to include additional on/off button separate from the mode selection button, and/or additional buttons, since doing so would provide a simpler way to actuate the known desirable functions without resorting to tapping a code on a single button as explained in Nishimura, which is a simpler user interface. In other words, Adapting
It also would have been obvious to have the buttons being tapped display the known display information types, including at least those shown in Nishimura (mode and battery indicators) and also in Lomholt (‘shaving time’) since that counter would be a known useful piece of information, which is shown in the art to be convenient for users to be aware of during use.
With respect to claim 1, while the difference between Nishimura and the present claim is that Nishimura does not disclose the storage and display of cleaning information, OR wear information, OR shaving runs as the second information which is displayable, the use of multiple information types including specifically “wear” “cleaning” and “runs” are known in the art (as discussed above), and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to make Nishimura monitor and display multiple types of information since the reason to monitor the information types discussed were known in the art, suggesting their usefulness to users, and because their implementation would require no undue experimentation and would have no unexpected results. Here, the addition of function information display properties would provide the function it is known to have in the art—displaying useful information about a shaver, including cleaning status, run time, stroke duration, battery amount, etc. The choice to call them ‘first’ and second or order them differently, or provide them on different screens even is obvious in light of the related teachings shown above.
Turning now to the final clause of claim 1—“wherein the drive unit stays inactive between activation of the mode input element at the first and second times.” This clause relates to the operation of the shaver, and is requiring that the motor/drive be “OFF” while the user is toggling between different information. IN light of the teachings above—the choice of whether to have the motor be on or off during some display modes is prima facie obvious.
This was discussed in the Ex. Ans. in 16/834,418 page 6-8 as an outcropping of the ‘obvious to try’ principle. These arguments are incorporated by reference. Further: where there are only a few possible solutions, all evident, the selection of any of the solutions is prima facie obvious. Here—we see art demonstrate that the control of “ON” or “OFF” condition by the control of a shaver is a known thing to be controlled (Nishimura, as evident in all the modes). It is also clear from this disclosure that selecting the modes, and their associated display functions is not inventive—it is using the knowledge and features of the art in their known manner to achieve a predictable result. The art has demonstrated that those of ordinary skill know how to control off and on in a shaver, and ALSO they know to monitor useful information like shave runs, battery level, etc. and display that when convenient.
Here, the choice of using some menus to display first and second information is obvious BOTH when the motor stays running, AND when the user / designer wants to turn it off. Both are motivated by the art and the nature of the problem itself.
It is useful to know the level of battery charge or the amount of blade wear before one starts the shaver—this will give an indication of whether the shaver is likely to complete the shaving operation, or whether it will hurt (due to worn blades). This motivates providing information display modes which are actuatable during a period of motor/drive OFF.
It is ALSO useful to be able to check battery level and shave wear level during motor on condition, because the user could just leave the motor running during a shaving use and flip through the view menus to check what the battery is doing (or what speed mode it is driving in), or the other known information bits above. For example, imagine the battery display at the start said 18%, but during use the user was taking a long time to shave, and they realize they might need to go beyond the battery life—they could leave the motor running and glance down, and then see that the battery is still at 17% and thus make an informed decision with respect to how long to go before stopping to charge.
"a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and commonsense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under §103." KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
See also See DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 80 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 2006), which states that “the suggestion test is not a rigid categorical rule. The motivation need not be found in the references sought to be combined, but may be found in any number of sources, including common knowledge, the prior art as a whole, or the nature of the problem itself. In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999 [50 USPQ2d 1614] (Fed. Cir. 1999). As we explained in Motorola, Inc. v. Interdigital Tech. Corp., 121 F.3d 1461, 1472 [43 USPQ2d 1481] (Fed. Cir. 1997), ‘there is no requirement that the prior art contain an express suggestion to combine known elements to achieve the claimed invention. Rather, the suggestion to combine may come from the prior art, as filtered through the knowledge of one skilled in the art.’ “ (emphasis added).
Here, the art as a whole suggests that selecting appropriate speed settings, modes for displaying any relevant information known in the art, and controlling it by a computer, etc. in the shaver would have been the combination of old elements according to their known function, and motivated by the nature of the problem at hand (shaving and giving information to a user).
Regarding claim 2, the combination above treats “the first shaver information comprises battery status information.” Because reference “Iso” discussed the use of displaying battery information, and motivated the inclusion of that feature in shavers.
Regarding claim 3, while a repeated actuation is not directly correlated (necessarily) with the input selection schema of Nashimura, the disclosure as a whole renders the use of three (and more) input mode selection types, as noted above in discussion, since the useful selection of any of a large number of disclosed types of information are obvious to provide, the selection of the number of screen types, input button patters, etc. is prima facie obvious. If applicant disagrees with this characterization, then claim 3 should remain withdrawn, as it is being included only because examiner believes the rejection of record as applied to claim 1 to plainly render claim 3 obvious for the same essential reasons.
Regarding claim 6, the optional display of “non-operation mode information.” is addressed above—as Iso discusses and motivates the display of “battery status information.”
Regarding claim 7, the combination as set forth above renders claim 7 obvious, since KING discloses finding and therefore displaying information related to at least one of the following: a shaving runs information mode in which the number of shaving runs performed since a last cleaning run is displayed as the shaving runs information, (See Supra: King (US 2017/0232624) states “Further processing is carried out on the interface device which permits visual display and interaction with the user. The information displayed is related to the data gathered, and may include the number and lengths of strokes, the duration of the shave and each stroke, the temperature and humidity and comparisons with earlier shaves or a standard or ideal shave.” [0007]. Both the number of and length of strokes, is considered to be “shaving runs” information about the tool.)
Nishimura discloses a cleaning information mode in which a cleaning status of the shaver is displayed, wherein the cleaning status is defined by the cleaning information, (“wash mode” of Nishimura, for example).
King discloses a cutter unit wear information mode in which wear of the cutter unit is displayed as the wear information.( King (US 2017/0232624) states “Further processing is carried out on the interface device which permits visual display and interaction with the user. The information displayed is related to the data gathered, and may include the number and lengths of strokes, the duration of the shave and each stroke, the temperature and humidity and comparisons with earlier shaves or a standard or ideal shave.” [0007]. Both the number of and length of strokes, and the “duration” of shaves, as well as the comparison to “standard” noted above is considered to be “wear” information about the tool.)
Claim 8 has been addressed supra with claim 1 where it was noted that Nishimura discloses “a touch button…” per se (12).
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 contains the same claim elements as claim 6, including “non-operation mode information.:” which is therefore rejected on the same grounds as those seen supra.
Regarding claim 17, as explained fully above, the selection and use of “the non-operation mode information comprises battery status information, shaving time and shaving runs information, cleaning information or cutter unit wear information.” Is shown in the relevant art: Nishimura’s wash mode; Iso’s battery status, among other features.
Claim 18 is rejected in the same manner as above with respect to claim 1, where it was noted that Nishimura discloses a touch button (12 figure 1).
Conclusion
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