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 2-4 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. Claim 2 requires “relatively small” and “relatively large” angles which is not clear. This is a subjective and therefore unknowable limitation.
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) 1-4 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2015-223315, (Koike, herein) in view of US 6,568,083, (Taniguchi, herein) and US 4,719,698 (Ninomiya herein).
Regarding claim 1, Kaike clearly discloses every claimed element in claim 1, except the selection of two distinct speeds for the driving of first and second directions (See abstract, figures 1-2, inter alia).
In the art of dry shavers (with inner rotating blades against a skin engaging foil) it is known to vary the speed, since different speeds will affect the shave feel and quality:
“When the inner cutter is driven to rotate relative to the outer cutter, the speed controller is configured to vary a rotation speed of the inner cutter.” (Taniguchi Col. 4 line 50).
See also: “cutter head employs an inner cutter which is driven to rotate in contact with an outer cutter, the shaver may include a like speed controller which varies the rotation speed of the inner cutter in accordance with the varying position of the cutter head. Although the above speed controller of varying the speed of the inner cutter is advantageous for successfully shaving the hairs at any position of the cutter head 60, the speed controller may be otherwise configured to keep the speed of the inner cutter constant…” (Taniguchi, Col. 10 line 44+).
See also Ninomiya US 4719698 “rotation of the motor in the electric shaver than about 6,600 rpm would not ensure the optimum shaving performance. In practice, the actual speed of rotation of the drive motor effective to achieve the optimum shaving performance varies from 6,600 to 8,000 rpm depending on the type of a particular electric shaver.”
It would have been obvious to permit the selection and varying of the speeds of the forward and backward directions of Koike, since the art of shavers recognizes that speed of inner shaver drive impacts shaver performance (Ninomiya above) and that control over speed is a routine variable known to be controlled and adjustable by those of ordinary skill (Taniguchi).
Regarding claim 2, Koike shows a relatively large and smaller angles, as best understood. Additionally, it has been held that changing the size or range of an article is not ordinarily a matter of invention. Appropriate selection of size, weight, ratios, etc. is considered routine, and is typically a matter of design choice. See In re Rose 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and also In re Yount (36 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 775, 171 F.2d 317, 80 USPQ 141. Here, selecting the angles has a limited range available and a smaller and larger relative angle would be chosen for the angles shown in Koike as a matter of necessity. It has been held that a motivation to try constitutes a motivation, unless it is shown that one of ordinary skill would have been unable to make the combination. See KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc. et al. US Supreme Court, No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. ___ (2007), which states “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his of her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” Slip op. at 17. The same analysis renders claim 3 obvious in like manner—as a selection of angle size in a clearly limited environment for which routine experimentation will provide suitable angles, which should be available to the ordinary skilled artisan.
Similarly, with respect to claim 4, Ninomiya discloses that rotation speeds are known to vary successfully between 6,600 and 8000 rpm, so it would be obvious to select those as two points of the adjustability range, resulting in a ratio of 1.2~ to 1 (8,000 : 6,600).
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
Prosecution Insights