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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group D (Claims 5-6 and 13) in the reply filed on 9-24-2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 2-4, 7-9, 12 and 14-15 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9-24-2026.
Claims 1, 5-6, 10-11 and 13 are examined in this action.
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, 5-6, 10-11 and 13 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.
In re Claim 1, “calculated velocity” lacks antecedent bases. The examiner suggests calculating, based on the motion data, a calculated velocity. The claims were examined a best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 5, “wherein the first defined velocity threshold is determined based on an effective treatment length of a treatment element of the personal care device, an average treatment amount per stroke of the personal care device, and a time between treatments performed by the treatment element,” is indefinite. The claims (Claim 1 and 5) are method claims. As such, it is unclear what is being claimed. The method claims require action of some sort, in the “present.” Typically these limitations include a gerund. Here, the claim does not require determining, as the velocity threshold has already been determined. Further, it is unclear what steps, if at all, are being claimed.
In re Claim 6, “wherein the first defined velocity threshold is determined based on an effective cutting length of the cutting element of the personal care device, an average number of cuts per stroke of the cutting element, and a time between cuts made by the cutting element,” is indefinite. The claims (Claim 1 and 6) are method claims. As such, it is unclear what is being claimed. The method claims require action of some sort, in the “present.” Typically these limitations include a gerund. Here, the claim does not require determining, as the velocity threshold has already been determined. Further, it is unclear what steps, if at all, are being claimed.
In re Claim 13, “wherein the defined velocity threshold” is indefinite. As best understood, Claim 13 depends from Claim 11 and Claim 1. However, “the defined velocity threshold” was not previously introduced. Claim 1 requires “a first defined velocity threshold.” Is this the same as a defined velocity threshold? The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 13, “wherein the defined velocity threshold comprises a velocity above which a probability of cutting all hairs engaged by the cutting element exceeds a defined probability threshold,” is indefinite. It is unclear what is being claimed. As best understood, a velocity is all that is required. A velocity of a shaving device includes some probably of cutting all hairs that exceeds some defined threshold. As best understood, these understandings were previously calculated in a lab or in development and are not numbers or values stored in the device. The claims were examined a best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-6, 10-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 3974126 A1.
In re Claim 1, EP 3974126 A1 teaches a computer-implemented method of providing guidance to a user of a personal care device (see Para. 0006), the method comprising:
receiving, from a sensor (#108) of the personal care device, motion data indicative of the motion of the personal care device over a period of time during a personal care activity (see Para. 0024, internal measurement unit; see also Para. 0011 teaching the usage parameter includes a speed of movement of the personal care device; see also Para. 0027 which states: “ Data from such a sensor may be used to determine whether or not the user is moving the personal care device 102 at an appropriate speed and in an appropriate manner.”);
calculating, based on the motion data, a velocity at which the personal care device is moving during the period of time (see Para. 0027, which states: “ Data from such a sensor may be used to determine whether or not the user is moving the personal care device 102 at an appropriate speed and in an appropriate manner.”; see also Para. 0038-0039);
comparing the calculated velocity with a first defined velocity threshold (see Para. 0039, which states “The processor 110 is configured to generate a user input request to be presented to the user, responsive to a determination that one or more of the received device usage data and the received performance data differ from stored reference device usage data and stored reference performance data, respectively, by more than a defined threshold amount.” As well as “If either comparison results in a difference by more than the defined threshold, the user input request is generated. For example, the processor 110 may generate a user input request if it determines that the received device usage data (e.g. a speed of movement of the shaving device over the face of the user) differs from (e.g. is faster or slower than) stored reference device usage data (e.g. a stored reference speed of movement indicating an average speed of movement of the shaving device by the user during past usage instances) by more than a defined threshold amount (e.g. by more than +/- 20 cm/s, or +/- 10%).”);
generating, based on the comparison, an instruction signal for delivery to a recipient device such that the user is aware in real time when a personal care activity is being performed too quickly or too slowly to achieve an optimum effect from the treatment (see Para. 0036 teaching a user interface; see also Paras. 0037-0038 and 0050-0051, teaching a user input request; see also Para. 0041 which states “For example, if the received device usage data indicates that a user moved a shaving device particularly quickly over their face, then the user input request may comprise a request for confirmation that the user did indeed move the shaving device quicker than normal. If the user provides a response confirming the faster than usual movement of the shaving device, then the user may be provided with advice to improve their shaving device usage, for example a recommendation to move the shaving device slower.” ).
In re Claim 5, EP 3974126 A1 teaches a computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the first defined velocity threshold is determined based on an effective treatment length of a treatment element of the personal care device, an average treatment amount per stroke of the personal care device, and a time between treatments performed by the treatment element (see Para. 0034, which states “For a shaving device, for example, the referenced data may include an "ideal" speed of movement of the shaving device over the user's skin,” As best understood the ideal speed of movement of the shaving device takes into consideration effective treatment length, average treatment amount per stroke, and a time between treatments).
In re Claim 6, EP 3974126 A1 teaches wherein the personal care device comprises a hair cutting device having a cutting element (see Para. 0010 teaching: The personal care device may, in some embodiments, comprise a shaving device – see also Para. 0026 which states “For example, the treatment element 106 of a shaving device may comprise a shaving head or cutting element”.); and
wherein the first defined velocity threshold is determined based on an effective cutting length of the cutting element of the personal care device, an average number of cuts per stroke of the cutting element, and a time between cuts made by the cutting element (see Para. 0034, which states “ For a shaving device, for example, the referenced data may include an "ideal" speed of movement of the shaving device over the user's skin,” As best understood the ideal speed of movement of the shaving device takes into consideration effective treatment length, average treatment amount per stroke, and a time between treatments).
In re Claim 10, EP 3974126 A1 teaches further comprising: storing an indication of the comparison in a storage device (EP 3974126A1 teaches a Processor #110 as well as storing the reference data in Para. 0045-0049).
In re Claim 11, EP 3974126 A1 teaches a sensor configured to measure motion data indicative of the motion of the personal care device over a period of time during use in a personal care activity (see Para. 0026 and Figs. 1-2 , sensor #108); and a processor configured to perform a method according to any of the preceding claims (see Figs. 1-2, #110 and Para. 0032).
In re Claim 13, EP 3974126 A1 teaches wherein the personal care device comprises a hair cutting device (see Para. 0010 teaching: The personal care device may, in some embodiments, comprise a shaving device), and wherein the hair cutting device further comprises:
a cutting element for cutting hair extending from skin of a user during a personal care activity (see Para. 0026 which states “For example, the treatment element 106 of a shaving device may comprise a shaving head or cutting element”.);
wherein the defined velocity threshold comprises a velocity above which a probability of cutting all hairs engaged by the cutting element exceeds a defined probability threshold (see Para. 0044, which states “In some embodiments, the model used by the processor 110 (or the analysis module 116) may provide outputs with a level of confidence, or with an associated probability of the output. If the confidence of an output, or the probability of an output, is low, then the user may be asked to provide an input in order to increase the confidence level of the output of the model or, conversely, to lead to a change to the model in order to increase the confidence level of future outputs. As noted above, the user may be requested to provide input when received data indicates that the user's behavior (e.g. from the device usage data) deviates from routine (e.g. from an average calculated from the stored reference data). In some examples, anomaly detection techniques may be used to detect deviations.” – the Examiner notes that the threshold velocity can be any value at any probability of cutting all hairs. As best understood, the structure of EP 3974126 A1 reads on this limitation. The probability of cutting all hear engaged and a defined probability threshold appear to be calculations done in the lab and not saved on the device).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN RILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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.
/JONATHAN G RILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
