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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in Application No. 18878136, filed on 12/23/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/23/2024 was filed on the filing date of the application on 12/23/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, “Electric” should be “An electric” for clarity.
Regarding claim 1, “characterized in that” should be “wherein” to better fit the US style of format.
Regarding claim 2-9, “Electric” should be “The electric” for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 7 is 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.
Regarding claim 7, “preferably” is indefinite. It is unclear if the limitation after “preferably” is required by the claim or not.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Labrijn (US 5031315) in view of Godlieb (US 20220031436 A1) and Campbell (US 20150040403 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Labrijn teaches Electric shaver comprising:
at least one hair-cutting unit (9) having a central axis (central axis of M, see Figure 1), an external cutting member (4) having hair-entry openings (5) provided in an annular shaving area arranged concentrically about the central axis (see Figure 1), and an internal cutting member (8) covered by the external cutting member and having an annular array of cutting arranged concentrically about the central axis (see Figure 1); and
a drive system (14) configured to rotate the internal cutting member of each hair-cutting unit about the central axis of the hair-cutting unit in a first rotational direction (R, see Figure 1) and at a first rotational speed (a first unknown value speed, see Figure 1) and to rotate the external cutting member of each hair-cutting unit about the central axis of the hair cutting unit in a second rotational (R’, see Figure 1) direction opposite to the first rotational direction and at a second rotational speed (a second unknown value speed).
Labrijn fails to teach which is lower than the first rotational speed, the hair-entry openings of the external cutting member of each hair-cutting unit comprise a V-shaped opening portion pointing in the first rotational direction of the internal cutting member, and the second rotational speed of the external cutting member of each hair-cutting unit is such that a tangential speed of the external cutting member relative to the central axis, measured in a radial position of a central base point of the V-shaped opening portions relative to the central axis, is in a range between 7.5 and 50 cm/s.
Godlieb teaches a shaver with different motor speed (paragraph 0105).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Labrijn to allow different speeds for the motor, as taught by Godlieb, in order to better meet different speed requirement (abstract of Godlieb).
Furthermore, with respect to the specific speed of the second rotation speed is lower than the first rotational speed, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art., In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify the speed of the motor to have specific speed set forth in the claim to get the desired effect wanted by the end user.
Campbell teaches a shaver including the hair-entry openings of the external cutting member of each hair-cutting unit comprise a V-shaped opening portion pointing in the first rotational direction of the internal cutting member, and the second rotational speed of the external cutting member of each hair-cutting unit is such that a tangential speed of the external cutting member relative to the central axis, measured in a radial position of a central base point of the V-shaped opening portions relative to the central axis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Labrijn to change the shape of the opening, as taught by Campbell, in order to better cut hair (abstract of Campbell).
Furthermore, with respect to the specific speed of tangential speed is in a range between 7.5 and 50 cm/s (or 11.25 and 30.0 cm/s), the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art., In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify the speed of the motor to have specific tangential speed set forth in the claim to get the desired effect wanted by the end user.
Regarding claim 2, modified Labrijn further teaches the second rotational speed of the external cutting member of each hair-cutting unit is such that said tangential speed of the external cutting member relative to the central axis is in a range between 11.25 and 30.0 cm/s (as modified in claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, modified Labrijn further teaches the hair-entry openings of the external cutting member of each hair-cutting unit further comprise a radially inner straight opening portion, connected to the V-shaped opening portion at a first end of the V - shaped opening portion facing the central axis of the hair-cutting unit, and a radially outer straight opening portion, connected to the V-shaped opening portion at a second end of the V-shaped opening portion facing away from the central axis of the hair-cutting unit, said radially inner and outer straight opening portions each having a main direction of extension in a radial direction relative to the central axis of the hair-cutting unit (as modified by Campbell, see Figures 6a-c).
Regarding claim 4, modified Labrijn further teaches the hair entry openings extend over a first radial distance in a radial direction relative to the central axis of the hair-cutting unit, and the V-shaped opening portions of the hair-entry openings extend over a second radial distance in the radial direction (as modified by Campbell, see Figures 6a-c).
Modified Labrijn fails to teach said second radial distance being at least 50% of said first radial distance.
Furthermore, with respect to the specific distance of said second radial distance being at least 50% of said first radial distance, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art., In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify the shape/size of the opening to have specific shape set forth in the claim to get the desired cutting effect wanted by the end user.
Regarding claim 5, modified Labrijn further teaches a V-angle (α) of the V-shaped opening portions of the hair-entry openings is in a range from 60° to 135° (as modified by Campbell, paragraph 0016 of Campbell).
Regarding claim 6, modified Labrijn further teaches the cutting elements of the internal cutting member of each hair-cutting unit comprise a cutting edge having a V-shaped cutting edge portion pointing in the second rotational direction of the external cutting member, said V-shaped cutting edge portions and the V-shaped opening portions of the hair-entry openings of the external cutting member being aligned in a tangential direction relative to the central axis of the hair-cutting unit (as modified by Campbell, see Figures 6a-c).
Regarding claim 7, modified Labrijn further teaches the first rotational speed of the internal cutting member of each hair-cutting unit is such that a tangential speed of the internal cutting member relative to the central axis, measured at a radial distance from the central axis equal to a radial distance from the central axis at which the radial position of the central base point of the V-shaped opening portions is located (as modified by Campbell, unknown value, see Figures 6a-c).
Modified Labrijn fails to teach is in a range between 70 and 375 cm/s, more preferably in a range between 140 and 250 cm/s.
Furthermore, with respect to the specific speed of a tangential speed is in a range between 70 and 375 cm/s (or 140 and 250 cm/s), the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art., In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify the speed of the motor to have specific tangential speed set forth in the claim to get the desired effect wanted by the end user.
Regarding claim 8, modified Labrijn further teaches the drive system comprises a single motor configured and arranged to rotate both the internal cutting member of each hair-cutting unit and the external cutting member of each hair-cutting unit about the central axis of the hair-cutting unit via a transmission system (via 12, see Figure 2 of Labrijn).
Regarding claim 9, modified Labrijn further teaches the motor is arranged in a main housing of the shaver, wherein the at least one hair-cutting unit is arranged in a shaving unit of the shaver which is coupled to the main housing, and wherein the transmission system is partially arranged in the main housing and partially arranged in the shaving unit (via 12, see Figure 2 of Labrijn).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIANG DONG whose telephone number is (571)270-0479. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8 AM-6 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, Ashley Boyer 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.
/LIANG DONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 5/30/2026
Prosecution Insights