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 .
Status
In response to the amendment filed on 09/16/2025, claim 1 has been amended. Claims 13-15 were previously cancelled. Claims 1-12 and 16-20 are pending and under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/21/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 18, and 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims, 1, 11, and 14 of copending Application No. 17/721440 in view of European Patent Application No. 0276066 and U.S. Patent No. 918126.
Claims 1, 11, and 14 of Application No. 17/721440 recite all limitations of claim 1 of the subject application except that “an upper product end; a housing at said upper product end, said housing comprising a top opening and an outer wall, a treatment sheet disposed over said top opening of said housing, and one or more windows disposed in said outer wall of said housing”.
However, European Patent Application No. 0276066 discloses in fig. 11, an upper product end (fig. 11 and col. 3:30-46, upper body portion 1B); a housing at said upper product end, said housing comprising a top opening and an outer wall (a housing has an outer wall. The foil 2 is disposed on top of the housing, therefore, there is a top opening there); a treatment sheet disposed over said top opening of said housing (the foil 2 [corresponds to the recited treatment sheet] is disposed at the top opening of the housing); and one or more windows disposed in said outer wall of said housing (recesses 24 [correspond to the recited windows] are disposed at the outer wall of the housing).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the personal care product of Application No. 17/721440 to provide the upper product end, the housing, the top opening, the outer wall, and the treatment sheet over the top opening as taught by European Patent Application No. 0276066. The treatment sheet disposed at the upper product end is utilized for the safe shaving of facial hairs.
Claims 1, 11, and 14 of Application No. 17/721440 further recite all limitations of claim 1 of the subject application except that “a dome or a cone shape projecting from a center area of the floor surface”.
However, U.S. Patent No. 918126 discloses in fig. 2, a dome or a cone shape projecting from a center area of the floor surface (an arm 16, which corresponds to the recited floor surface, comprises a dome shape, and the dome-shaped arm is effectively configured to be projected from a center area of the floor surface).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the personal care product of Application No. 17/721440 to provide the dome shape projecting from a center area of the floor surface as taught by U.S. Patent No. 918126. The dome-shaped arm of Clark is made of spring material to help hold parts of the housing including a guard, a blade, and a backing plate together so that it leads to provide a guide for an angle at which a razor is held to the face when shaving.
Claim 1 of Application No. 17/721440 recite all limitations of claim 18 of the subject application except that “said housing comprises a substantially cylindrical shape”.
However, European Patent Application No. 0276066 discloses said housing comprises a substantially cylindrical shape (see fig. 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the personal care product of Application No. 17/721440 to provide the cylindrically shaped housing as taught by European Patent Application No. 0276066. The cylindrical shape may be convenient for a user to grab it at any direction to use the personal care product.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 1 of the Subject Application
Claim 1 of Application No. 17/721440
A personal care product comprising
A personal care product comprising
a housing wherein said housing comprises a floor surface
a housing comprising a floor surface and a plurality of columns
a treatment sheet
a treatment sheet having a lower surface
Claims 11 and 14 of Application No. 17/721440
wherein the floor surface is shaped and the comprises a dome or a cone shape
said floor surface is parallel relative to a plane C1 defined by said lower surface wherein said shaped floor surface comprises a dome or a cone shape
Claim 18 of the Subject Application
Claim 1 of Application No. 17/721440
The personal care product comprises said housing
A personal care product comprising a housing
Claim 19 of the Subject Application
Claim 1 of Application No. 17/721440
wherein said housing comprises a cavity
a treatment sheet having a lower surface; a housing comprising a floor surface and a plurality of columns; a cavity formed by a volume extending from said lower surface to said floor surface
As shown in the table above, Claim 1 of the subject application claims subject matter that is different, but not patentably distinct, from the subject matter of Claims 1, 11, and 14 of copending Application No. 17/721440. Claim 1 of the subject application claims subject matter that is different, but not patentably distinct, from the subject matter of Claims 1, 11, and 14 of Application No. 17/721440 in view of European Patent Application No. 0276066 and U.S. Patent No. 918126.
Claim 18 of the subject application claims subject matter that is different, but not patentably distinct, from the subject matter of Claim 1 of copending Application No. 17/721440. Claim 18 of the subject application claims subject matter that is different, but not patentably distinct, from the subject matter of Claim 1 of Application No. 17/721440 in view of European Patent Application No. 0276066.
Claim 19 of the subject application claims subject matter that is different, but not patentably distinct, from the subject matter of Claim 1 of copending Application No. 17/721440.
Thus, Claims 1, 18, and 19 are anticipated by Claims 1, 11, and 14 of Application No. 17/721440 and a patent to Claims 1, 18, and 19 would, provisionally, extend the right to exclude granted by Application No. 17/721440.
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.
Claims 1-12 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clifford et al. (EP 0276066A1, cited on 09/27/2022 IDS, hereinafter Clifford), in view of Clark (US 918126, cited on 07/21/2025 IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Clifford discloses a personal care product (safety razor) comprising
an upper product end (fig. 11 and col. 3:30-46, upper body portion 1B);
a housing at said upper product end, said housing comprising a top opening and an outer wall (see annotated Clifford fig. 11 below for outer wall of the housing. The foil 2 is disposed on top of the housing, therefore, there is a top opening there);
a treatment sheet disposed over said top opening of said housing (see annotated Clifford fig. 11 below, the foil 2 [corresponds to the recited treatment sheet] is disposed at the top opening of the housing); and
one or more windows disposed in said outer wall of said housing (see annotated Clifford fig. 11 below, recesses 24 [correspond to the recited windows] are disposed at the outer wall of the housing);
wherein said housing comprises a floor surface (see annotated Clifford fig. 11 below for the floor surface); wherein the floor surface is shaped (see annotated Clifford fig. 11 below, the flat floor surface comprises support legs 23 to form a shape), but does not disclose the floor surface comprises a dome or a cone shape projecting from a center area of the floor surface.
Clifford discloses the housing at an upper product end could comprise a shaped block of plastic foam material (col. 1:25-30) and could have different configurations (figs. 1-4) for adequate deformability (col. 2:19-25). Thus, Clifford teaches a shape of the personal care product including the floor could be changed to improve the use of the product, but Clifford does not disclose the dome or the cone shape projects from a center area of the floor surface.
Clark teaches, in an analogous personal care product field of endeavor, the floor surface comprises a dome or a cone shape projecting from a center area of the floor surface (fig. 2, Clark discloses a safety razor comprising a blade 12 [corresponds to the recited treatment sheet] at a top opening of a housing and the housing has an arm 16 [corresponds to the recited floor surface] wherein the arm comprises a dome shape. The dome-shaped arm 16 encompasses entire length of the blade 12, thus the dome shape is effectively configured to be projected from a center area of the floor surface. Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the floor is a level base of a structure. Therefore, the arm 16 is considered as the floor of the housing. Please see the attached non-patent document of Merriam-Webster dictionary definition).
Applicant explains having a cone shaped protrusion expedites drainage for expelling fluid and debris removal (specification p. 14:26-31). On the other hand, however, Applicant also explains having a flat floor surface allows fluid to flow without obstruction from one window to another rinsing away the debris (specification p. 11:25-30). It appears a particular configuration of the floor surface is not significant to a design of the floor surface. The court held that the configuration of the claimed floor surface comprising a dome or a cone shape was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the floor surface of Clifford to make it a dome shape as taught by Clark. The dome-shaped arm of Clark is made of spring material to help hold parts of the housing including a guard, a blade, and a backing plate together so that it leads to provide a guide for an angle at which a razor is held to the face when shaving (Clark, p. 1, lines 64-86).
PNG
media_image1.png
738
1001
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Clifford Fig. 11
Regarding claim 2, Clifford as modified by Clark teaches the personal care product as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein fluid is capable of flowing through said one or more windows or through a plurality of apertures in said treatment sheet, or any combination thereof (Clifford, fig. 11, the safety razor of Clifford has the windows and apertures as recited, therefore, fluid is capable of flowing through them).
Regarding claim 3, Clifford as modified by Clark teaches the personal care product as in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose fluid flows in a direction parallel to said treatment sheet into said one or more windows, out of said one or more windows, or any combination thereof.
However, Clifford discloses, in fig. 11 and col. 3:40-44, the treatment sheet (foil 2) and the windows (recesses 24). Therefore, there should be the same effect in case of fluid flow.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the razor of Clifford as modified by Clark to provide fluid to flow in order to clear the shaving debris (Clifford, col. 3:40-44).
Regarding claim 4, Clifford as modified by Clark teaches the personal care product as in the rejection of claim 3, wherein said fluid is water. Although Clifford does not disclose the use of water for cleaning explicitly, it discloses the use of the razor in soapy bath water condition (col. 1:38-41). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the razor of Clifford as modified by Clark to provide water to clean the razor because water is readily available at home during shaving. Water effectively cleans the shaving debris out of the razor.
Regarding claim 5, Clifford as modified by Clark teaches the personal care product as in the rejection of claim 3, wherein said fluid flow removes debris from a lower surface of said treatment sheet, a cavity of said housing, or both (Clifford, col. 3:40-44, space under the foil 2 and the recesses 24 provide large passages for the clearance of the shaving debris. Fluid would enhance the clearance effect).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the razor of Clifford as modified by Clark to provide fluid to flow in order to clear the shaving debris effectively (Clifford, col. 3:40-44).
Regarding claim 6, Clifford as modified by Clark teaches the personal care product as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein said one or more windows comprise a shape that is identical to at least one other of said one or more windows (Clifford, fig. 11, recesses 24 [correspond to the recited windows] have the identical shape).
Regarding claim 7, Clifford as modified by Clark teaches the personal care product as in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose said one or more windows comprises two or three windows.
However, it appears there are six windows in Clifford, fig. 11. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the safety razor of Clifford to provide two or three windows. Two or three windows may have larger size than six to eight windows for the same size of the upper product end of the razor. It may help clearing the shaving debris quickly and completely. 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. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 8, Clifford as modified by Clark teaches the personal care product as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein at least one of said one or more windows further comprises a polygonal shape or a round shape (Clifford, fig. 11, windows have a polygonal shape).
Regarding claim 9, Clifford as modified by Clark teaches the personal care product as in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose said one or more windows comprise two opposing windows.
However, Clifford discloses three windows are disposed opposing to the other three windows (fig. 11). Therefore, the windows can be disposed to be opposing to each other, but Clifford does not disclose only two opposing windows. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the safety razor of Clifford as modified by Clark to provide the two opposing windows. The two opposing windows may be facing each other directly so that it may help clearing the shaving debris quickly and completely. 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. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 10, Clifford as modified by Clark teaches the personal care product as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein at least one of said one or more windows comprises rounded corners (Clifford, fig. 11, corners of the windows are round).
Regarding claim 11, Clifford as modified by Clark teaches the personal care product as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein said outer wall is along an outer surface of said upper end of said personal care product (see annotated Clifford fig. 11 above).
Regarding claim 12, Clifford as modified by Clark teaches the personal care product as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein said treatment sheet is visible from said one or more windows (see annotated Clifford fig. 11 above, because there is uninterrupted space between the window and the foil 2 [corresponds to the recited treatment sheet], the foil is visible from the window).
Regarding claim 16, Clifford as modified by Clark teaches the personal care product as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein said shape of said shaped floor surface does not obstruct said one or more windows (Clifford, fig. 11, the support leg 23 [corresponds to the recited shape] does not fill the recess 24 [corresponds to the recited window], therefore, it does not obstruct the window).
Regarding claim 17, Clifford as modified by Clark teaches the personal care product as in the rejection of claim 1, said housing of said upper product end is releasable from a lower product end of said personal care product (Clifford, fig. 11 and col. 3:22-46, the razor comprises a lower body portion 1A and an upper body portion 1B. The upper body portion 1B is connected to the lower body portion 1A by engaging brackets 22 with support legs 23, therefore, the upper and lower body portions are releasable by disengaging the brackets 22 and the support legs 23).
Regarding claim 18, Clifford as modified by Clark teaches the personal care product as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein said housing comprises a substantially cylindrical shape (see annotated Clifford fig. 11 above, the housing has the cylindrical shape).
Regarding claim 19, Clifford as modified by Clark teaches the personal care product as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein said housing comprises a cavity (see annotated Clifford fig. 11 above, the housing comprises the cavity behind the windows).
Regarding claim 20, Clifford as modified by Clark teaches the personal care product as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein said treatment sheet comprises a plurality of apertures (Clifford, fig. 11, the foil 2 [corresponds to the recited treatment sheet] comprises a plurality of apertures).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the support legs 23 of Clifford are not a dome or a cone shape. However, Examiner explained in the previous non-final rejection office action dated on 06/16/2025 that Clifford discloses the housing at an upper product end could comprise a shaped block of plastic foam material (col. 1:25-30) and could have different configurations (figs. 1-4) for adequate deformability (col. 2:19-25). Thus, Clifford teaches a shape of the personal care product including the floor could be changed to improve the use of the product.
However, the amended claim 1 recites the floor surface comprises a dome or a cone shape projecting from a center area of the floor surface. Because the support legs 23 of Clifford are not projected from the center area of the floor surface, Clifford is not cited to rejection the amended claim limitations.
On the other hand, Clark teaches the amended claim limitations. Although Applicant argues the arms 16 of Clark is not the floor surface because there is no material between the arms, Merriam-Webster dictionary presents that the floor is a ground or base of a structure. Because the arms form a base of the housing element for the razor, a surface of the arm 16 forms a floor surface. The arms also have a dome configuration. Moreover, the arms are extended to edges of the blade. The dome-shaped arms span the entire length of the housing wherein a center of the dome shape is at a center of the arms. Thus, the dome is practically projected from the center area of the arms. Examiner notes that the arms of Clark read on the amended claim languages because the claim recites the dome or the cone shape without particularity such as size, orientation, etc.
Applicant traverses Examiner’s assertion in the previous non-final rejection office action dated on 06/16/2025 that it appears a particular configuration of the floor surface is not significant to a design of the floor surface. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant explains comparing with the flat housing floor, the dome shaped housing floor has advantage of expediting drainage (p. 14:23-31). However, Applicant explains the floor surface having a flat, planar surface also has advantage because the flat floor surface allows the housing to have a “view” across to the other windows and the “view” allows rinsing fluids like water to flow without obstruction from one window to another rinsing away the debris (p. 11:25-30).
It may be possible that the dome-shaped floor expedites the drainage if rinsing agent is applied from the treatment sheet. If the rinsing agent or water is applied to the window of the housing, however, the dome-shaped floor will not achieve the expedited drainage nor the complete drainage of debris. While claims do not recite how the rinsing agent or water is poured to the personal care product, it would be unreasonable to assert the dome-shaped floor improves the drainage.
For the reasons above, the arguments are not persuasive.
Because Applicant has not filed a terminal disclaimer, the provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection remains.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUKWOO JAMES CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00a-5:00p.
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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
/S.J.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723