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 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 3, 7, 12, 16 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.
Claim 3 requires the use of a battery—which is confusing because there are multiple batteries disclosed, and it is not clear whether this requires the charger station to have the battery (As shown in figure 11) in the cradle portion, or if the assembly of the system showing a single battery in the handle of a personal care unit would meet the claim, since assembled or in use the battery (single) in the handle would be part of the system including the charger station. Clarification is required.
Claim 7 requires the contacts to “completely cover” the recess or projection, which is not understood in light of the disclosure—the contacts are small and do not ‘cover’ or completely cover the recess—they are engaged together, and the base of the handle appears to contact and conform to the base of the cradle, but the ‘covering’ aspect of the contacts is not shown or disclosed such that it would be understood by one of ordinary skill. Claim 15 is likewise rejected for the same language.
Claim 12 requires “the contact elements (130, 230, 330) are configured with different form-fit” which does not make sense since “different” necessitates a comparator—something must be different to something else. Here, the comparator is implicit, and not clearly so—such that a person of ordinary skill would understand the scope of the claim in an objective way. The claim is indefinite.
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, 2, 4-10, and 13-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaefer (US 2018/0212466) in view of Mattinger et al (US 5,159,256).
Regarding claim 1, Schaefer discloses a charging station (150 figure 3) for charging a battery (119 figure 3, [0029]: “battery”) device in a hair clipper (‘dry shaving razor…” [0002] inter alia), comprising- a main body (194 figure 3); and a connection device (“In some configurations, the handle receiving portion 190 may also define a recess 188 having the outer contact surface 176 that includes a bottom surface 156.”) for electrically connecting the hair clipper (using “inductive charge coils 112”) to the charging station; Schaefer discloses a magnetic element used to couple the handle into the base—" The outer surface contact area 138 (FIG. 2) can be received into the recess 188 such that the docking magnets 118, 132 of the handle 102 magnetically interact with the docking magnets 158, 160 of the stand 150 that are positioned beneath the bottom surface 156 (shown as inner surface 172 in FIG. 3).”
Schaefer does not use the same connection device (recess, e.g. 188 figure 6, inter alia) having two contact elements. This is because Schaefer uses induction charging—which doesn’t have “contacts” per se, but instead uses magnetic coils etc. to induce across a gap the charge for the charging of the device.
An older and routine manner of charging a battery powered device (such as, and in this case- explicitly --- a shaver---) is shown and discussed in Mattinger et al (US 5,159,256): “Furthermore spring-like contacts, on which the device being charged presses of its own weight, are provided in the holder. Current or power is supplied to the spring-like contacts from a power supply unit which is integrated in a line-powered power supply plug, so that the battery is subsequently charged.”
Further discussed as: “ 4) The tool portion 1 can be plugged in the holder 5 when the unit is not in use so that the contacts 6, 7 and 8 come into contact with the spring contacts 9, 10 and 11 so that the rechargeable battery 26 can be charged by a cable 12 from a current supply unit or power supply, which is not shown in FIG. 1.” And also in similar other embodiments shown in the figures.
It would have been obvious to replace the induction charging of Schaefer with the Mattinger two contact system (or equivalent) since it is a known method of connecting mains power to a rechargeable battery through a charging cradle. 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 (above); 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).
Regarding claim 2, Schefer further discloses at least one supporting element for supporting the hair clipper (As seen in Schaefer figure 6, the rim of the recess is a supporting element, since it provides a location for the handle to lean, in the same essential manner as applicant’s).
Regarding claim 4, as noted with respect to claim 1, Schaefer discloses an adapter for adapting of a plug contact of a hair clipper comprising a main body with a plug device (the bottom end of the clipper with its induction connection and as modified with respect to claim 1 above, the replacement of contacts for the induction connection is a plug contact set up-- is per se a plug device), configured to connect the adapter (the recess of the cradle with contacts as noted supra) to a connection device (the bottom of the clipper) of a hair clipper (e.g. figure 1); and a connection device (which noted above in the discussion of the magnet and ‘contacts’ of the Schaefer in view of Mattinger discussion) comprises two contact elements (Mattinger etc. noted above) and a magnetic retaining element (discussed above).
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 differs from the discussion of claims 4 and 1 only in the claim language addressing a blade arrangement for cutting (111 figure 2); a drive unit, which drives the blade arrangement; and a battery device, which supplies electrical power to the drive unit. Schaefer discloses a blade arrangement for cutting (111 figure 2); a drive unit, which drives the blade arrangement ([0002]: “vibrating or oscillating components”; [0027]: “The handle 102 may include one or more powered elements, such as fluid pumps, motors, sensors, vibrating or oscillating components, heating elements, and so forth.”) ; and a battery device ([0006]: “a rechargeable battery positioned within the handle.”).
Claim 13 is rendered obvious in the same manner as claims 1, 4, 5—including adapted connection between a shaver and a base via suitable and complementary connections, as seen at the base of Schaefer in the several figures thereof.
Regarding claim 14, the connection device of Schaefer is discussed above as a curved recess, as shown in the figures thereof—and clearly is an inward curved recess, and contains contacts in light of the spring- etc. contacts introduced and substituted for the induction connection of Schaefer for Mattinger’s routine springs.
Regarding claim 6, as seen in Schaefer the connection device comprises an inwardly curved recess or an outwardly curved projection (the intersection of the handle base with the base cradle shown in the several figures shows a concave curvature to the connection area).
Regarding claim 7, Schaefer (US 2018/0212466) in view of Mattinger et al (US 5,159,256) according to claim 6 above shows the unpatentability of using two contact elements (leads/ springs of Mattinger as above) together with the at least one retaining element (magnet/ recess), however the nature of the clause “completely cover the recess” is ambiguous as noted under the 112(b) rejection above. As best understood—this is meant to convey something about the form of the contact between the handle and the cradle—which is believed to be met by Schaefer (US 2018/0212466) in view of Mattinger, perhaps apart from the size. The adjustment of the contact and magnet and base/recess to be ‘covering’ the connected portion is not inventive, since it is the selection of the size of the object, and not a change in its function or effect. This is provided as an explanation as best understood.
Regarding claim 8, Schaefer (US 2018/0212466) in view of Mattinger demonstrates that at least one of the two contact elements is configured as a contact projection a contact recess and/or a contact strip—because the combination uses at least spring contacts, which are per se projections.
Regarding claim 16, 17 are rejected on the same grounds as claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, Schaefer (US 2018/0212466) in view of Mattinger discloses or renders obvious at least two retaining elements being, in particular magnetically oppositely polarized—because as shown they are adjacent to each other and attract each other—making them clearly opposite polarized to each other.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected on the same grounds as claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, Schaefer (US 2018/0212466) in view of Mattinger discloses a charging station (noted above with respect to claim 1), wherein at least one of the two contact elements is configured as magnetic retaining element or the retaining element is positioned adjacent to the contact element (See figures 1-9, showing the magnet portion near and adjacent to the induction contact—which when replaced is still adjacent thereto).
Claim 20 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 10.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaefer (US 2018/0212466) in view of Mattinger et al (US 5,159,256) as applied to claims 1, 2, 4-10, 13-20, and 14 above, and further in view of (US 11,231,152).
Regarding claim 3, Schaefer does not disclose the charging station as having a battery device (distinct from the one in the handle of the clippers). We have already shown evidence of the use of a battery in the handle of the shaver, since battery means are known to provide power to hand tool such as personal grooming equipment.
The charging cradle is intended to be powered by a mains power source in the art discussed previously. The need for a backup-power method (another battery in the charger station) is not critical or important to a personal shaver charger.
However, the use of a backup battery is prima facie obvious, because the point of the charger is to charge the shaver—and in broad terms, all persons of ordinary skill understand that they could use a backup battery to always have the charger be available as a charge point, even in cases of power outage. The replacement of mains only in the charger for a mains coupling plus a backup battery would provide redundancy and is prima facie beneficial for that purpose. The art teaches the use of backup (alternate) power sources in appliances where the availability of power continuously is desired. See US 11,231,152, which discusses this possibility : “The battery backup system are insertable into the luminaire housing 104 or kept in close proximity thereof for use when the junction box 3 and/or the solar charging station 114 have insufficient power to appropriately energize the security light 100 and/or other load factors. For example, when there is an outage of the wired voltage connection at the junction box 3 and the voltage level of the rechargeable battery 120 in the solar charging station 114 is determined to be too low, the security light 100 may operate using the replaceable battery backup system 160. In some implementations, such operation may be in a reduced lighting level.”
It would have been obvious to add a battery to the charger of Schaefer, since doing so provides the prima facie benefit of being able to charge the shaver even if the mains is unavailable. It is also viewable as adding battery capacity (duplication or adjustment of size) which is another improvement prima facie.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaefer (US 2018/0212466) in view of Mattinger et al (US 5,159,256) as applied to claims 1, 2, 4-10,13-20 above, and further in view of US 2015/0208826.
Regarding claim 11, the contacts of Schaefer (US 2018/0212466) in view of Mattinger et al (US 5,159,256) are not exactly ‘circular’ because they are disclosed in Mattinger as being spring contacts. The use of circular contacts is old and well known—as seen in [108] of US 2015/0208826 which states both the knowledge of circular contacts for electrical charge connection, and also the fact that the shape is largely a matter of design choice by those of ordinary skill : “ In some embodiments, charging contacts 340 and 342 may be circular contact points. In some embodiments, the diameter 344 of circular contact points may be less than or equal to width(s) 282/284. Widths 282 and 284, diameter 344, and charging contacts 250/252 and 340/342 in general, should be of sufficient size so as to provide good electrical contact between charging contact rings 250/252 and charging contacts 340/342. While FIGS. 15 and 16 show charging contacts 340/342 having a circular shape, charging contacts 340/342 may have any shape, including, but not limited to, a square shape, a rectangular shape, or an elliptical shape. The size of square, rectangular, or elliptical charging contacts may be selected in a similar way the diameter 344 of circular charging contacts is selected (i.e., to provide good electrical contact….”
It would have been obvious in the charging arts to replace the induction of Schaefer with suitable contact points, as known in Mattinger to be suitable for hair cutters, and further known that the shape and size of contacts including specifically circular charge contacts is well known and a routine expedient for coupling in a charging context, as shown in US 2015/0208826
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