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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation reading “wherein the housing windows” (in line 8) should read: “wherein the one or more housing windows”.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation reading “an upper ledge” (in line 8) should read: “the [[an]] upper ledge”.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation reading “wherein one or more tabs extends into said at least one notch” should read “wherein the one or more tabs extends into said at least one notch”.
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 1-16 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the notch" in the last line of Claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because a notch has not been previously delimited in the claim it is unclear if this refers to some other previously claimed structure, or whether this is a newly introduced structure. If this is newly introduced structure than the limitation should be preceded by the pronoun “a” instead of “the”. Also, this makes the term “a roof of the notch” indefinite, since it is not clear what part is the claimed notch, it is also not clear what part is the claimed roof of the notch. Looking at figure 8 of the present figures-drawings, in conjunction with the third par. of page 19 of the specification, it appears that the claimed angle is the angle 555, which is formed between outer wall 530 and a bottom wall of the bent portion 553 (which bottom wall is parallel to a top wall if the bent portion and to a notch 216 in the housing which corresponds to the top wall of the bent portion).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPGPUB 20100000092, to Schneider.
Regarding Claim 1, Schneider discloses a:
personal care product (abstract) comprising:
an upper product end (6) and a lower product end (1);
a housing (combination of parts 26, 23, 25 and 31 of part 30) at the upper product end (fig 6), said housing comprising a housing wall (25) and one or more windows (23) along an outer circumferential perimeter in said housing wall (fig 6), each of the one or more windows comprising an upper ledge (hook shaped member 31 of base portion 26)
a frame member (27) comprising one or more tabs each of said one or more tabs (hook shaped member 31 of top portion 27) comprising a bent portion (see annotated fig 5 below), said one or more tabs coupled to said one or more windows (par 0041, and fig 5);
wherein the one or more housing windows are open areas that aid in rinsing debris produced during use of the personal care product (e.g. since the windows are open to an inside and outside of the device, thus, if a user pours water in the opening and then hits the whole product against a surface these windows will aid in rinsing debris produced during use of the personal care product) and wherein the bent portion of the tab wraps around the upper ledge of the window (fig 4) and wherein a portion of each of the one or more tabs forms a part of the outer surface of the personal care product (when top parts 31 engage bottom parts 31, fig 5, par 0041), and wherein an angle formed by the bent portion between an outer wall 32 of the frame member and a roof of the notch is greater than 90 degrees (See annotated fig 5 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
943
718
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, in Schneider said one or more tabs extend from an outer wall of said frame member (See annotated fig 5 above).
Regarding Claim 3, in Schneider said housing wall 25 comprises at least one notch (notch defined by bent portion 31 of housing [combination of parts 26, 23, 25 and 31 of part 30]).
Regarding Claim 4, in Schneider said at least one notch is formed in an upper ledge of said one or more windows (notch defined by part 31 of frame 27).
Regarding Claim 5, in O’Connor the one or more tabs extends into said at least one notch (fig 5, and par 0049).
Regarding Claim 6, in Schneider said one or more tabs is bent into said at least one notch (due to the bent shape of the tabs 31).
Regarding Claim 7, in Schneider said one or more tabs wrap around an exterior of said housing wall (where the wall includes part 31 on the bottom housing part).
Regarding Claim 8, in Schneider said each of said one or more tabs comprises a bent portion (See annotated fig 5 above).
Regarding Claim 9, in Schneider said a quantity of said one or more tabs equals a quantity of said one or more windows (See fig 5).
Regarding Claim 10, in Schneider a quantity of said one or more tabs equals a quantity of said at least one notch (fig 5).
Regarding Claim 12, in Schneider said wherein said housing wall is an exterior wall on said housing (see fig 5).
Regarding Claim 13, in Schneider said frame member 30 comprises straight sections and corner sections (see annotated fig 4, below).
Regarding Claim 14, in O’Connor said one or more tabs extend from said straight sections (see annotated fig 5, below).
PNG
media_image2.png
862
813
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
428
634
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 of this title, 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 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 2167833, to Gold in view of USPN 1966731 Newman.
Regarding Claim 17, Gold discloses a method for assembling a personal care product (pg. 2, col. 2, 1-20), comprising the steps of:
providing a housing (30) at an upper product end (top, fig 1), said housing comprising, an upper surface (top of housing 33), a housing top opening (opening of housing 33 which accepts plate 20, fig. 3), a housing wall (peripheral wall of housing 30, which is above windows 36h) and one or more windows (windows formed by openings 36h and threaded ledges surrounding the openings 36h) in said housing wall (fig 3);
providing a planar treatment sheet (20) over said housing top opening (fig 1) and on said upper surface of said housing (at top of parts 51/50 of the housing 30), said planar treatment sheet having a perimeter area (outer edges);
providing a frame member (31) comprising one or more tabs (combination of parts 32 and 33), disposing said frame member (31) on said perimeter area of said treatment sheet (fig 3);
joining said one or more tabs to said one or more windows (fig 3, at 40s, threaded part); and
bending the one or more tabs to form one or more bent portion (at bent portion 33), wherein each of the one or more bent portion wraps-around the outer housing wall and an upper ledge of a window of the one or more windows (at 40s, threaded portion, see fig 3) and wherein a portion of each of the one or more tabs forms a part of the outer surface of the personal care product (at the parts 33).
Gold lacks joining said one or more tabs to said one or more windows, and mechanically bending the one or more tabs after disposing the frame member to form one or more bent portion.
Newman discloses a threaded connection device dealing with the same problem of securing the threaded connection as dealt with in the Gold apparatus, and discloses that in forming a threaded connection between two parts, pipe 1 having threaded end 2, and bead 10 having threaded sleeve 7, which interacts with the end 2 to form a threaded connection, and discloses that in such an assembly a crimped lug (tab) 12 may be hammered over the sleeve 7 to help assemble the sleeve onto the threaded part 2, and that such lug/tab should be hammered (mechanically bent) into place over the sleeve (pg 1, 69-79), in order to ensure a tight and secured threaded connection and to prevent loosening of the connection (pg 1, lines 10-110).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gold by enhancing the threaded connection thereof to include lugs/tabs on an exterior thereof, which tabs are joined to said one or more windows of Gold, and mechanically bending the one or more tabs after disposing the frame member to form one or more bent portion, in order to ensure a tight and secured threaded connection and to prevent loosening of the connection, as taught by Newman.
Regarding Claim 18, in Gold, said step of joining further comprises channeling said one or more tabs into one or more notches in said one or more windows of said housing, or both (since threading involves channeling into).
Regarding Claim 19, in Gold, said frame member 31, is disposed over both an upper perimeter area of said treatment sheet (at 33) and an upper surface of said housing (at 32/40s).
Regarding Claim 20, in Gold, wherein said step of joining further comprises providing a gap between an outer perimeter of said treatment sheet and a housing wall (see annotated fig 3 below).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of USPGPUB 20210354320, Kanakaris.
O’Connor lacks the apparatus having wherein said housing of said upper product end is releasable from said lower product end.
Kanakaris discloses a shaving cartridge assembly, in the same field of endeavor as the shaving cartridge assembly tool of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes an upper product end 10 and a lower product and 12, which are releasable from one another in order to allow the blade holding lower end to be used on different head parts of different types of heads, par 0021 and 0011.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schneider by having the said housing of said upper product end being releasable from said lower product end in order to allow the blade holding lower end to be used on different head parts of different types of heads as taught by Kanakaris.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US4984365, Leonard.
Regarding Claim 15, in Schneider said frame member has a top inner perimeter (about cutter member 9), said top inner perimeter comprising an inner fillet 34 with a radius (see fig 6).
Schneider lacks the radius ranging from about 0.05mm to about 0.3 mm.
Leonard discloses a safety razor with a detachable cap 14 which has a skin engaging top surface thereon, in the same field of endeavor as the removable cap skin engaging tool of the present invention, and discloses that in such an assembly such a skin engaging surface is rounded to a particular radius in order to provide a smooth skin engaging surface (col 2 lines 35-51). Thus, Leonard discloses that the radius of a skin engaging surface of a cap is a result effective variable.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select the radius of the filet in Schneider being in the range of 0.05mm to 0.3mm because discovering an optimum radius in said range would have been a mere design consideration based on ensuring that the skin engaged surface is smooth, as taught in Leonard. Indeed, Leonard is evidence that a rounded radiused surface is known in the art as a suitable skin engaging surface for an cutting device. Such a modification would have involved only routine skill in the art to accommodate the aforementioned requirement of providing a smooth surface, since the modification merely requires the selection of a particular radius range. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a radius of a filet of the cover in the range of 0.05mm to 0.3mm in order to ensure that the skin engaging portion is smooth.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of USPN 9539734, Bozikis.
Regarding Claim 16, Schneider discloses said one or more tabs have a length (fig 12).
Welsh lacks the length ranging from about 2 mm to about 6 mm and a width ranging from about 2 mm to about 5 mm.
Bozikis discloses a blade support housing, in the same field of endeavor as the blade support of the present invention, and discloses that such a system includes tabs 200 which connect a frame 201 to a housing member 111 and to squeeze a treatment sheet 117 therebetween and discloses that the tabs have a length ranging from about 2 mm to about 6 mm (col 6 lines 25-35) and a width ranging from about 2 mm to about 5 mm (col. 5 lines 15-20) (see also col 4 lines 35-45, where it is noted that “the term “about” or “approximately” as used in the description and the appended claims should be understood to include the recited values or a value that is three times greater or one third of the recited values. For example, about 3 mm includes all values from 1 mm to 9 mm, and approximately 50 degrees includes all values from 16.6 degrees to 150 degrees.”) Thus, Bozikis discloses that the length and width of connecting tabs in such an assembly are result effective variables.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select the tab length and width in Schneider to be in the above cited ranges because discovering an optimum with and length in said range would have been a mere design consideration based on ensuring that the parts secured by the tabs in the blade housing are secured therein (col 4 lines 35-45) as taught in Bozikis. Indeed, Bozikis is evidence that a such heights and widths are known in the art as a suitable blades securing means in a cutting device. Such a modification would have involved only routine skill in the art to accommodate the aforementioned requirement of providing a blade securing means, since the modification merely requires the selection of a particular width and length. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a tab length ranging from about 2 mm to about 6 mm and a width ranging from about 2 mm to about 5 mm in order to ensure that the parts within the tabs and cover are secured therein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 6/11/26, with respect to the 35 USC 112 and the prior art rejections (as the claims have now been amended) have been fully considered and are persuasive. With regard to the 35 USC 112 rejections, Applicant’s amendments have rendered these moot. With regard to the prior art rejections, none of the prior art comprises the newly added features of independent claims 1 and 17. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Schneider and Newman.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPNs/USPGPUBs 20060156550, 3473220, 5347714 20140259675 8677628 20220330675 20220330674 4807360 3465436 20250296258 20240227221 5031317 4977670 4964214 20240156232 4875288 4442596 D305806 20200248535 and 7152323each disclose state of the art cutters with container portions, and thus disclose elements of the present invention.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 FERNANDO A AYALA whose telephone number is (571)270-5336. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Eastern standard.
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 on 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.
/FERNANDO A AYALA/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/BOYER D ASHLEY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights