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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/23/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
In this case, line 1 of the abstract “According to an aspect, there is provided” should be deleted.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-13 are objected to because of the following informalities: the preamble of claims 3-13 “An electric hair cutting device” should read –The electric hair cutting device--. 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.
Claims 9-13 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.
Claims 9-10 “the second plurality of electrodes” lacks of antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear what it refers to. Similarly the issue above, claims 11-12 “the first electrode” is unclear what it refers to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Flyash et al (US 2012/0233864) hereinafter Flyash.
Regarding claim 1, Flyash shows an attachment assembly (120, Figure 1) for an electric hair cutting device, the attachment assembly configured to be removably mounted to a body of the electric hair cutting device (see Para. 47 “A reusable or disposable cartridge 500”), the attachment assembly comprising:
a plurality of electrodes (see Para. 47 “ an electrode carrier 504 for a multiplicity of RF voltage-applying dome-shaped elements 506”) configured to contact the skin of a user during use; and
a contact element (128, 118, Figure 1 and Para. 25) electrically coupled to the plurality of electrodes, and configured such that, when the attachment assembly is mounted onto the body of the electric hair cutting device, the contact element is to receive radio frequency, RF, energy from an RF generator unit of the electric hair cutting device and to transmit the RF energy via the plurality of electrodes into the skin of the user in order to increase the temperature of the skin of the user (Paras. 25-30);
wherein the attachment assembly is a comb attachment having teeth (see dividers 530, Figure 5) that serve to lift hairs to be cut during use (the dividers can be lifted the hairs, also see Figure 3.B).
Regarding claim 2, Flyash shows an electric hair cutting device (as a whole device 100, Figure 1) comprising:
a body (110) comprising:
a radiofrequency, RF, generator unit (see Para. 40 “RF generator 114”) configured to generate RF energy; and
a cutting assembly (see blades 524, 526, Figure 1) comprising:
a cutting element (see the blades); and
a first plurality of electrodes (see the electrodes 506 of the row 508a, Figure 5.A) electrically coupled to the RF generator unit and being configured such that, when the first plurality of electrodes contact the skin of a user, RF energy is conducted from the RF generator unit into the skin of the user in order to increase the temperature of the skin of the user (Paras. 25-28 and Para. 11 “regulate the temperature of the skin, blades or electrodes”);
the electric hair cutting device further comprising:
an attachment assembly (see the reuseable or disposable cartridge 500 above) as claimed in claim 1 removably mountable to the body,
wherein the plurality of electrodes of the attachment assembly is a second plurality of electrodes (see Para. 50 “any one of blades 524 or 526 may be operative to couple RF energy to skin or be replaced by an RF electrode”) configured to contact the skin of a user during use;
wherein the first plurality of electrodes are electrically coupled to the second plurality of electrodes of the attachment assembly such that, in use, RF energy can be conducted from the RF generator unit to the second plurality of electrodes and into the skin of the user in order to increase the temperature of the skin of the user (Para. 48 “an RF current may be applied between all elements sharing row 508a and all elements sharing row 508b and between all elements sharing row 508c and all elements sharing rows 508d. Since the depth of heated portion 206 in skin 202 is influenced by the distance between the electrodes and the current between them, the determination of which rows to apply RF energy to may depend on the desired depth of heated portion 206” and also see the heated portion 206 in Figure 5B).
Regarding claim 4, Flyash shows that the RF generator unit is configured to operate a power rating of 20 W (Para. 33 “1-20 W”).
Regarding claim 5, Flyash shows a processing unit (116, Figure 1) in operative communication with the RF generator unit (114), the processing unit configured to:
control an operating parameter of the RF generating unit (Para. 25 and Figure 1); and
control an operating parameter of the cutting clement (Figure 1) of the electric hair cutting device.
Regarding claim 8, Flyash shows that the relative positions of the electrodes of the first plurality of electrodes and/or the second plurality of electrodes are adjustable (Para. 11 “regulate the temperature of …electrodes”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flyash.
Regarding claim 3, Flyash shows all of the limitations as stated above including the RF generator unit (114) is configured to generate RF energy to be transmitted to the skin of the user to regulate a temperature of the skin of the user is caused to increase, however, it is unclear whether it is between 38°C and 42°C or not.
Please note that "a temperature of the skin of the user is caused to increase to a temperature of between 38°C and 42°C". This disclosed temperature range represents a straightforward option for persons skilled in the art for heating the skin, in particular safety regulations do not allow temperatures above 42°C for electric devices having skin contact.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have the temperature of any reasonable range including the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 6-7, 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flyash in view of Azar (US 2007/0179490).
Regarding claim 6, Flyash shows all of the limitations as stated above and silently discusses a skin impedance measurement unit configured to measure an impedance of the skin between a pair of electrodes in the second plurality of electrodes during use; wherein the processing unit is configured to control an operating parameter of the RF generator unit (114) based on the measured impedance of the skin.
Azar discloses "a skin impedance measurement unit configured to measure an impedance of the skin between a pair of electrodes in the second plurality of electrodes during use". The disclosed impedance measurement is known e.g. from the impedance determining unit 94 disclosed in Paras.105-106 and Fig. 8, which is in the same technical field and would thus prompt persons skilled in the art to substitute the measuring means of Flyash since this is known alternative way for the same purpose.
Regarding claim 7, the modified cutting device of Flyash shows that the
second plurality of electrodes comprise a first pair of electrodes of opposite polarity and a second pair of electrodes of opposite polarity; wherein the skin impedance measurement unit is configured to measure an impedance of the skin between each electrode in the first pair of electrodes and between each electrode in the second pair of electrodes; and
wherein the processing unit is configured to:
control a parameter of the RF energy delivered to each of the first and second pairs of electrodes based on the measured impedances of the skin (see the discussion in claim 6 above and see Para, 106 of Azar for controlling RF electrodes and see the discussion of “bipolar” in the specification of Azar).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, the modified cutting device of Flyash shows that at least one electrically insulating element (302 of Flyash) located between adjacent electrodes of opposite polarity of a second plurality of electrodes, the at least one electrically insulating element configured to contact the skin of the user during use in order to restrict the flow of current between the adjacent electrodes of opposite polarity via fluid present on the skin of the user.
Regarding claim 10, the modified cutting device of Flyash shows that the second plurality of electrodes comprise a first electrode of a first polarity, a second electrode of a second polarity and a third electrode of the second polarity; wherein the second electrode and the third electrode are located either side of the first electrode (see Flyash’s Figure 5 and see the discussion of polarity in Azar’s reference).
Regarding claim 11, the modified cutting device of Flyash shows that a skin-contacting surface area of the first electrode is between two and four times greater than the skin-contacting surface area of each of the second electrode and the third electrode (as this is written, it is unclear what the first electrode refers to, therefore, first 3 rows electrodes is greater than one row of electrodes as seen in Figure 5 of Flyash).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flyash in view of Azar (US 2007/0179490) and Panagiotopoulou (US 2021/0146562).
Regarding claim 12, the modified cutting device of Flyash shows all of the limitations as stated above except the sizes of the first electrode has a width of between 2.8 mm and 7 mm; the second electrode has a width of between 1 mm and 3.5 mm; and the third electrode has a width of between 1 mm and 3.5 mm.
Panagiotopoulou discusses sizes of first and second electrodes 40, 42 may be made of any suitable size as discussed in Para. 45.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the electrodes of Flyash to any size, as taught by Panagiotopoulou, in order to form atraumatic protrusions on the surface of cartridge (see Para. 45 of Panagiotopoulou).
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to made the eletrodes of any reasonable range including the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233., in order to form atraumatic protrusions on the surface of cartridge (see Para. 45 of Panagiotopoulou).
Regarding claim 13, the modified cutting device of Flyash shows all of the limitations as stated above including a separation between the first electrode and each of the second and third electrodes (see Flyash’s Figure 5), however it is unclear whether it is between 3 mm and 15 mm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to made the eletrodes of any reasonable range including the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233., in order to form atraumatic protrusions on the surface of cartridge (see Para. 45 of Panagiotopoulou).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20210322098 A1 teaches a treatment skin by using RF electrode.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM EST.
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.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 6/26/2026
Prosecution Insights