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 Amendment
In response to the amendment filed on 8/22/2024, no Claims have been cancelled, and Claims 1-15 and newly added Claims 16-19 are pending.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 27, line 5: “…of the cover elements 20, 22. In the present case, the two handles 20, 22…”. This statement reciting that the cover elements and the handles have the same element is objected to.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-5, 10 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE1242815B Burges (referenced in applicant’s IDS of 8/22/2024) in view of US 20040087973 A1 Shobeiri.
Regarding claim 1, Burges teaches an epilator spring for hair removal (paragraph 12-13 of machine translation provided by applicant in IDS of 8/22/2024), comprising:
a spring element (2, Fig. 1) configured as a coil spring and having a central axis (as seen in Fig. 1, paragraph 22), as well as having an epilation region (paragraph 22, spaces between the coils of spring element 2 where hairs are grasped) with a plurality of spring windings which are spaced apart from one another in an unloaded state of the spring element and between which hairs can be clamped by pressing together the spring element in the axial direction (paragraph 22) by way of handles (seen in annotated Fig. 1), and
cover elements (4, Fig. 1) arranged at the ends of the spring element, wherein the cover elements are connected to one another via a bracket element (1, Fig. 1) having respective arms (seen in annotated Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
427
310
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Burges is silent on wherein the cover elements and the bracket element are produced as a single part from a plastic.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cover elements and the bracket element to be formed as a single piece, as producing the cover elements and the bracket elements as a single piece would have predictable results, wherein the modification would be able to function as intended, and furthermore, one or ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in making the cover elements and bracket element as a single part (see In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965)).
Additionally, Shobeiri teaches a hair removal device (Fig. 1, abstract, paragraph 10) that is made from plastic (paragraph 18, 22). Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the cover elements and bracket element of Burges using the materials as taught by Shobeiri, 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. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). (See MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Burges and Shobeiri teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Burges further discloses wherein the arms of the bracket element when the spring element is in the unloaded or loaded state run at least substantially parallel to one another at a distance (seen in Fig. 1, arms are substantially parallel to each other) and are connected to one another via a connecting region (seen in annotated Fig. 1 above).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Burges and Shobeiri teaches the limitations of claim 2, and Burges further discloses wherein the connecting region is designed as an arch with a chord which corresponds to the distance between the arms (as seen in annotated Fig. 1 above).
Regarding claim 4, 16 and 17, the combination of Burges and Shobeiri teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Burges further discloses wherein the arms extend at least over 50% of a length of the bracket element (claim 4) (as seen in annotated Fig. 1 above), wherein the arms extend at least over 70% of the length of the bracket element (claim 16) (as seen in annotated Fig. 1 above), and wherein the arms extend at least over 90% of the length of the bracket element (claim 17) (as seen in annotated Fig. 1 above).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Burges and Shobeiri teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Burges further discloses wherein the cover elements in their outer diameter are at least substantially equal to the outer diameter of the spring element (seen in Fig. 1-3, cover elements 4 have an outer diameter substantially equal to the outer diameter of the spring element 2), whereby the epilation region can be placed parallel to a surface of a skin to be epilated over a corresponding length (paragraph 23, 27, the spring element 2 has a flattened portion 3 that makes it easier to grasp objects due to the surface contact with a flat or nearly flat surface on which the objects to be picked up are located. Therefore, it is suggested that in order to provide maximum surface contact with the skin surface to be epilated, the epilating region (spaces between the coils of spring element 2 where hairs are grasped) is placed parallel to a surface of the skin to be epilated over a corresponding length.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Burges and Shobeiri teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Burges further discloses wherein respective handle structures (as seen in annotated Fig. 1 above) are provided on the outside of the arms in a region of the cover elements (as seen in annotated Fig. 1 above).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burges in view of Shobeiri and further in view of US 6159222 A Yiu.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Burges and Shobeiri teaches the limitations of claim 5.
The combination is silent on wherein the arms of the bracket element correspond in their width at least substantially to the outer diameter of the respective cover element.
However, Yiu teaches a device for hair removal (abstract, col. 2 line 59 – col. 3 line 6) comprising a spring element (80, Fig. 2a, 2c, 3a-4), arms (60, 70, Fig. 2a-4), cover elements (area where spring 80 contacts with arms 60, 70, as seen in annotated Fig. 4 below), and wherein the arms have a width that corresponds at least substantially to the outer diameter of the respective cover elements (as seen in annotated Fig. 4 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
403
526
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the width of the arms of Burges with the width of the arms as taught by Yiu since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art; the teachings of Yiu would be sufficient to provide wherein the width of the arms corresponds at least substantially to the outer diameter of the respective cover elements.
Claims 7-9, 12-13, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burges in view of Shobeiri and further in view of DE1198964B Burges (referenced in applicant’s IDS of 8/22/2024, hereinafter Burges ‘964).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Burges and Shobeiri teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Burges further discloses wherein the cover elements (4) have respective plug pins (5, Fig. 1, 3).
The combination is silent on wherein the plug pins are adapted in their outer diameter to the inner diameter of the spring element, wherein the spring element has between 1.5 and 2.5 turns abutting one another at both ends, and the plug pins correspond in their axial length at least substantially to the length of the turns abutting one another.
However, Burges ‘964 teaches a similar epilator spring for hair removal (paragraph 1-6 of machine translation provided by applicant in IDS of 8/22/2024) that comprises a spring element (6, Fig. 1-2), cover elements (7, Fig. 2) having respective plug pins (4, 5, Fig. 1-2), wherein the plug pins are adapted in their outer diameter to the inner diameter of the spring element (as seen in Fig. 1-2), and wherein the spring element has between 1.5 and 2.5 turns abutting one another at both ends (as seen in annotated Fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
491
281
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The axial length of the plug pins (4, 5) of Burges ‘964 extend past the 2.5 turns of the spring element abutting one another at both ends, however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the modification of Burges with Shobeiri and Burges ‘964 to have the plug pins correspond in their axial length at least substantially to the length of the turns abutting one another since the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (See In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A))).
Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the plug pins and the spring element turns of Burges with the plug pins and spring element turns as taught by Burges ‘964 since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art; the teachings of Burges ‘964 would be sufficient to provide wherein the plug pins are adapted in their outer diameter to the inner diameter of the spring element, wherein the spring element has between 1.5 and 2.5 turns abutting one another at both ends, and the plug pins correspond in their axial length at least substantially to the length of the turns abutting one another.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Burges, Shobeiri, and Burges ‘964 teaches the limitations of claim 7, and the combination further teaches wherein the plug pins in their axial length correspond to a maximum length of 2.5 turns abutting one another of the spring windings (as explained above in claim 7, the axial length of the plug pins (4, 5) of Burges ‘964 extend past the 2.5 turns of the spring element abutting one another at both ends, however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the modification of Burges with Shobeiri and Burges ‘964 to have wherein the plug pins in their axial length correspond to a maximum length of 2.5 turns abutting one another of the spring windings since the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (See In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A)))).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Burges, Shobeiri, and Burges ‘964 teaches the limitations of claim 7, and Burges further discloses wherein the spring element is easily detachably connected to the plug pins (paragraph 27, the spring element 2 can be replaced).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Burges and Shobeiri teaches the limitations of claim 2.
The combination is silent on wherein the connecting region has, at least regionally, a smaller wall thickness than the arms.
However, Burges ‘964 teaches a similar epilator spring for hair removal (paragraph 1-6 of machine translation provided by applicant in IDS of 8/22/2024) that comprises arms (1, 2, Fig. 1-2) and a connecting region (as seen in annotated Fig. 1 below) wherein the connecting region has, at least regionally, a smaller wall thickness than the arms (as seen in Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image4.png
507
256
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the modification of Burges with Shobeiri with the teachings of Burges ‘964 to have wherein the connecting region has, at least regionally, a smaller wall thickness than the arms to have a hinge area that needs less force and is easier to compress the arms together.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Burges, Shobeiri, and Burges ‘964 teaches the limitations of claim 12, and Burges ‘964 further discloses wherein the wall thickness in a transition region (as seen in annotated Fig. 1 above) of the arms to the connecting region decreases (as seen in annotated Fig. 1 above).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Burges, Shobeiri, and Burges ‘964 teaches the limitations of claim 7, and the combination further teaches wherein the plug pins in their axial length correspond to a maximum length of 1.5 turns abutting one another of the spring windings (as explained above in claim 7, the axial length of the plug pins (4, 5) of Burges ‘964 extend past the 2.5 turns of the spring element abutting one another at both ends, however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the modification of Burges with Shobeiri and Burges ‘964 to have wherein the plug pins in their axial length correspond to a maximum length of 1.5 turns abutting one another of the spring windings since the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (See In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A)))).
Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burges in view of Shobeiri and further in view of US5019091A Porat et al. (hereinafter Porat).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Burges and Shobeiri teaches the limitations of claim 10.
The combination is silent on wherein the respective handle structures are formed by linear bars running transversely to the arms.
However, Porat teaches a device for grasping objects (forceps/tweezers, abstract, col. 1 line 19-23, col. 4 line 30-38) that comprises arms (12, 14, Fig. 1) and handle structures (22, Fig. 1) are formed by linear bars (39, Fig. 1) running transversely to the arms (col. 4 line 27-29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modification of Burges with Shobeiri with the teachings of Porat to have wherein the respective handle structures are formed by linear bars running transversely to the arms in order to provide a good grip by the user as disclosed by Porat (col. 4 line 27-29).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Burges and Shobeiri teaches the limitations of claim 1.
The combination is silent on wherein the arms are reinforced by bars.
However, Porat teaches a device for grasping objects (forceps/tweezers, abstract, col. 1 line 19-23, col. 4 line 30-38) that comprises arms (12, 14, Fig. 1) and wherein the arms are reinforced by bars (18, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modification of Burges with Shobeiri with the teachings of Porat to have wherein the arms are reinforced by bars in order to strengthen the arms as disclosed by Porat (col. 3 line 45-48).
Claims 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burges in view of Shobeiri and further in view of WO 0228219 A1 Pieriboni.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Burges and Shobeiri teaches the limitations of claim 1.
The combination is silent on wherein the spring element is configured with a polygonal basic shape.
However, Pieriboni teaches a device for removing hair (abstract, pg. 1 line 12-14, pg. 2 line 4-21) having a spring element (3, Fig. 2, 5, pg. 4 line 17-18) that is configured with a polygonal basic shape (spring element 3 is configured with a square shape as seen in Fig. 2, pg. 2 line 18-21, pg. 4 line 17-21, pg. 5 line 9-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the modification of Burges with Shobeiri with the teachings of Pieriboni to have wherein the spring element is configured with a polygonal basic shape in order to have good contact with the skin as disclosed by Pieriboni (pg. 5 line 9-12).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Burges, Shobeiri and Pieriboni teaches the limitations of claim 15, and Pieriboni further discloses wherein the spring element is configured with a triangular, square, or octagonal basic shape (spring element 3 is configured with a square shape as seen in Fig. 2, pg. 2 line 18-21, pg. 4 line 17-21).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHOA TAN LE whose telephone number is (703)756-1252. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 4:30pm.
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, Jackie Ho can be reached at 571-272-4696. 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.
/KHOA TAN LE/Examiner, Art Unit 3771 /MOHAMED G GABR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771