The Gillette Company

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 15, 2021

2020004925 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 15, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/215,650 07/21/2016 Matthew Stephen Bauer 13976 6063 27752 7590 09/15/2021 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY GLOBAL IP SERVICES CENTRAL BUILDING, C9 ONE PROCTER AND GAMBLE PLAZA CINCINNATI, OH 45202 EXAMINER AYAD, MARIA S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2145 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/15/2021 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): centraldocket.im@pg.com mayer.jk@pg.com pair_pg@firsttofile.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte MATTHEW STEPHEN BAUER, PAWAN SUDARSHAN KODANDAPANI, and JEFFREY DEAN MCDOWELL ____________________ Appeal 2020 -004925 Application No. 15/215,6501 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before MARC S. HOFF, CATHERINE SHIANG, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of claims 1–16 and 18–20.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appellant’s invention concerns device tuning. Method steps include identifying a razor device, where the razor device includes a sensing system; determining a first operating parameter of the razor device relating to the 1 Appellant states that the real party in interest is The Gillette Company LLC. Appeal Br. 2. 2 Claim 17 has been cancelled. Appeal 2020-004925 Application No. 15/215,650 2 sensing system; and providing a user interface to the user, including a user option to adjust the first operating parameter. Claim 1 is reproduced below: 1. A system for device tuning comprising: a processor that receives and processes instructions; and a memory component that stores logic for providing the instructions, wherein the logic causes the system to perform at least the following: identify a handheld device, wherein the handheld device includes a transmitting system and a sensing system comprising an engagement sensor; determine one or more first operating parameters of the handheld device, wherein the one or more first operating parameters relate to the sensing system and comprise a minimum amount of time that the engagement sensor is to be triggered for a signal from the engagement sensor to be presumed accurate; determine a second operating parameter of the handheld device, wherein the second operating parameter relates to the transmitting system; and provide a user interface to a user, wherein the user interface includes a user option to adjust at least one of the following: the one or more first operating parameters and the second operating parameter. The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is: Name Reference Date Kawachi US 2009/0066474 A1 March 12, 2009 Patel US 2014/0033034 A1 Jan. 30, 2014 Vega US 2015/01865541 A1 July 2, 2015 Vetter US 2015/0230899 A1 Aug. 20, 2015 Appeal 2020-004925 Application No. 15/215,650 3 Claims 1–5 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Patel and Kawachi. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Patel, Kawachi, and Vetter. Claims 8–11, 13–16, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Patel, Kawachi, and Vega. Claims 12 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Patel, Kawachi, Vega, and Vetter. Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed March 19, 2020) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed April 16, 2020) for their respective details. ISSUE Does the combination of Patel and Kawachi teach or suggest determining one or more first operating parameters of a handheld device, said parameters comprising a minimum amount of time that the engagement sensor is to be triggered for a signal from the engagement sensor to be presumed accurate? ANALYSIS Independent claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, determining one or more first operating parameters of a handheld device, the one or more parameters comprising “a minimum amount of time that the engagement sensor is to be triggered for a signal from the engagement sensor to be presumed accurate.” Appeal 2020-004925 Application No. 15/215,650 4 Appellant argues that the Examiner lacks motivation to combine Patel with Kawachi. Appeal Br. 10. According to Appellant, Kawachi would not suggest modifying Patel to include an engagement sensor, or determine “a minimum amount of time that the engagement sensor is to be trigger[ed] for a signal from the engagement sensor to be presumed accurate,” as is claimed. Appeal Br. 10. Appellant contends, in related remarks, that the combination of Patel and Kawachi would not include an engagement sensor, and would not function to determine “one or more first operating parameters [related] to the sensing system and comprise a minimum amount of time that the engagement sensor is to be triggered for a signal from the engagement sensor to be presumed accurate,” as is claimed. Appeal Br. 11 (emphasis omitted). Appellant argues that Kawachi does not disclose a handheld device or an engagement sensor. Appeal Br. 12. We do not agree with Appellant’s arguments. Rather, we agree with the Examiner that Kawachi does disclose an “engagement sensor” (infrared sensor 220), and discloses specific values for the amount of time that continuous detection of a user’s finger must occur for an accurate detection. Ans. 7, citing Kawachi ¶ 68. Appellant’s argument that Kawachi does not teach a handheld device is not germane to the rejection under appeal, because the Examiner cites Patel rather than Kawachi for its teaching of a handheld device. Ans. 8. We agree with the Examiner that Appellant’s “engagement sensor” is not claimed so as to require any specific type of engagement. Id. Appellant further contends that Kawachi addresses a very different problem than the problem addressed by the present invention. Appeal Br. 13. Appeal 2020-004925 Application No. 15/215,650 5 Appellant characterizes the problem addressed by Kawachi as determining when a driver’s hand is approaching a touch screen display on a vehicle dashboard. Id. Appellant further suggests that Kawachi’s field of endeavor, “to determine if it is an operator’s intention to operate a touch panel display,” is not the same as that of Appellant, “to properly monitor handheld device usage by a consumer.” Id. Appellant’s argument that Kawachi is nonanalogous art is not persuasive. We agree with the Examiner that “both the inventor and Kawachi are essentially seeking to solve the same problem of accurately detecting whether an operator has intentionally triggered a certain engagement sensor of the sensing system of the device for a continuous period of time.” Ans. 11. We find that the combination of Patel and Kawachi teaches all the features of the invention under appeal, and we are not persuaded that Kawachi is not analogous to the present invention. We sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 1–5 and 7 over Patel and Kawachi and the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 8–11, 13–16, 18, and 20 over Patel, Kawachi, and Vega. Appellant does not argue any dependent claims separately. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 6 over Patel, Kawachi, and Vetter, and the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 12 and 19 over Patel, Kawachi, Vega, and Vetter, for the reasons stated with respect to independent claims 1, 8, and 15. CONCLUSION The combination of Patel and Kawachi suggests determining one or more first operating parameters of a handheld device, said parameters Appeal 2020-004925 Application No. 15/215,650 6 comprising a minimum amount of time that the engagement sensor is to be triggered for a signal from the engagement sensor to be presumed accurate. DECISION SUMMARY3 In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–5, 7 103 Patel, Kawachi 1–5, 7 6 103 Patel, Kawachi, Vetter 6 8–11, 13–16, 18, 20 103 Patel, Kawachi, Vega 8–11, 13– 16, 18, 20 12, 19 103 Patel, Kawachi, Vega, Vetter 12, 19 Overall Outcome 1–16, 18– 20 ORDER The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–16 and 18–20 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED 3 In the event of further prosecution, we leave it to the Examiner to determine whether the claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Although the Board is authorized to reject claims under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), no inference should be drawn when the Board elects not to do so. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1213.02.