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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5-10-2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 8-18 are pending. Claims 9, 11, and 17 are withdrawn. Claims 1-4, 8, 10, 12-16 and 18 are examined in this action.
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.
Claims 1-4, 8, 10, 12-13, 15-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US 2,614,321 to Ackerman in view of US 4,984,365 to Leonard and US 2,851,772 to Monnet.
In re Claim 1, Akerman teaches a personal care product comprising:
a treatment sheet comprising a first material and a plurality of first apertures (see Fig. 5, blade #9 which is made of metal); and
at least one support sheet comprising a second material and a plurality of second apertures (see Fig. 5, #8, which can be made of any suitable material such as an elastic material, rubber, plastic or metal – see Col. 2, ll. 1-48), wherein the support sheet second material comprises a mesh type of material (see Fig. 5, #8 which includes a number of “small” apertures – according to Applicant’s specification, “A mesh type of material is itself comprised of a plurality of small apertures” --Applicant’s specification, Pg. 13, ll. 1-2.), said at least one support sheet disposed beneath said treatment sheet (see Fig. 5);
wherein each of said plurality of first apertures comprises a first lower aperture area at a first lower surface of said treatment sheet (in Akerman, the aperture in #9 pass through the “thickness” of #9, and the aperture of #9 closest to #8 is a first lower aperture area at a first lower surface) and each of said plurality of second apertures comprises a second upper aperture area at a second upper surface (in Akerman, #8 includes a thickness and the aperture passes through the thickness, the aperture at the surface of #8 closest to #9 is a second upper aperture) and a second lower aperture area at a second lower surface of said support sheet (in Akerman, #8 includes a thickness and the aperture passes through the thickness, the aperture at the surface of #8 farthest from #9 is a second lower aperture).
Akerman does not teach wherein the support sheet and the treatment sheet are disposed between a housing and a frame member and wherein the housing further comprises a cavity surrounded by side walls whereby the treatment unit generally being disposed above the cavity. However, Leonard teaches that it is known in the safety razor art to place the cutting structure (see Fig. 4 of Leonard, #20) between a housing (see Leonard, Fig. 4, #10/12/14, etc.) and a frame member (see Leonard, Fig. 4, #26), and wherein the housing further comprises a cavity (see Figs. 1-4, aperture #40), surrounded by side walls (see Figs. 1 and 4, the four side walls of #12) whereby the treatment unit generally being disposed above the cavity (see Figs. 1 and 4 , #20 is placed above aperture #40); and wherein said second lower aperture area of said support sheet is greater to said second upper aperture area of said support sheet.
In the same field of inventions, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the blade of Leonard with the treatment sheet and support sheet blade of Akerman. Doing so is the substation of one known housing structure for another known housing structure to achieve the results of securing the blade (see MPEP 2143, I, B). Doing so provides easy, inexpensive and reliable securing of the foil shaving member to the body member is provided in a razor which can be manufactured using, for example, commercially available labeling equipment (see Leonard, Col. 1, ll. 32-43).
Harris teaches a second lower aperture area of said support sheet is greater to said second upper aperture area of said support sheet (see Harris, Fig. 1 and 5, showing #42 having a smaller aperture area than the aperture area below #42). In the same field of invention, razors, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to provide a lower aperture area that is greater than an upper area, as taught by Harris.
Additionally, Monnet teaches that it is known to provide a second lower aperture area of a support sheet is greater to a second upper aperture area of said support sheet (see Monnet, Fig. 10, #82/84). In the same field of invention, razors, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to provide a lower aperture area greater than an upper aperture area. Doing so is the substitution of one known cutting arrangement for another known cutting arrangement to cut hair on a person (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
In re Claim 2, modified Akerman, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein said support sheet is joined to said treatment sheet (see Akerman, Fig. 5, showing #8/#9 joined together).
In re Claim 3, modified Akerman, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein each of said plurality of first apertures of said treatment sheet comprise cutting edges (in Akerman, the apertures of blade #9 comprises cutting edges).
In re Claim 4, modified Akerman, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein said cutting edges are formed on at least a portion of an inner perimeter of said plurality of first apertures (the cutting edges of the apertures of blade #9, in Akerman, are formed on at least a portion of an inner perimeter of said first apertures).
In re Claim 8, modified Akerman, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein at least one of said plurality of first apertures of said treatment sheet is aligned beneath at least one of said plurality of second apertures such that an opening extends from a first upper surface of said treatment sheet to a second lower surface of said support sheet (see Fig. 5, showing at least one of said plurality of first apertures of said treatment sheet #9 is aligned beneath at least one of said plurality of second apertures #8 such that an opening extends from a first upper surface of said treatment sheet to a second lower surface of said support sheet – see Fig. 5,, showing an aperture through #9 and #8).
In re Claim 10, modified Akerman, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein said plurality of first apertures comprise a first shape and said second plurality of second apertures comprise a second shape (each of the apertures of Fig. 5 have a shape, the apertures of #9 have a first shape and the apertures of #8 have a second shape).
In re Claim 12, modified Akerman, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein said first and second aperture shapes are circles or polygons (The first and second apertures shapes are circles).
In re Claim 13, modified Akerman, in re Claim 1,teaches wherein said first material is different than said second material (see Akerman Col. 2, ll. 1-49, teaching making the housing/support out of rubber and plastic which is different that the steel used to make a razor blade).
In re Claim 15, modified Akerman, in re Claim 1,teaches wherein said second material is comprised of metal, ceramic, thermoplastic, thermoset, or elastomeric polymer, or any combination thereof (see Akerman Col. 2, ll. 1-49, teaching making the housing/support out of rubber and plastic which is different that the steel used to make a razor blade).
In re Claim 16, modified Ackerman does not teach wherein said support sheet is joined to said treatment sheet with an adhesive, a varnish, an ink, or any combination thereof. However, Lenard teaches that it is known to secure a blade with an adhesive (see Leonard, Figs 1-4, #46 – see also Col. 1, ll. 44-68; Col. 2, ll. 48 – Col. 3, ll. 18). In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective fling date to assemble the structure of Ackerman within any known method/material including adhesive. Doing so would provide for an assembly that is secured together during use. The Examiner notes that securing the assembly by adhesive would make a razor that is disposable, as is known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art understands that reusable razors typically have large numbers of bacterial on the razor assembly. Providing a disposable razor eliminates this risk or problem.
In re Claim 18, modified Akerman, in re Claim 1,teaches wherein said at least one support sheet is not visible from a top view of said treatment sheet (as best understood, portions of #8 are not visible from the “top view” because these portions are covered by the surfaces of blade #9).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2,614,321 to Ackerman in view of US 4,984,365 to Leonard and US 2,851,772 to Monnet, and further in view of US 5,604,983 to Simms.
In re Claim 14, modified Ackerman, in re Claim 1, teaches the blade made of a material, but does not teach the specific material, and, as such, does not teach wherein said first material is comprised of glass, silicon, ceramic, diamond, sapphire, steel, or any combination thereof.
However, Simms teaches that it is known to provide a blade made from steel (see Simms, Col. 4, ll. 21-23). In the same field of invention, blades, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to make the blade from steel, as taught by Simms. Doing so is combining prior art material according to known methods to yield predicable results (see MPEP 2143, I, A). In other words, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to use steel to make the blade of Ackerman from, as this is a known material, that is readily available and inexpensive. Such a choice would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN RILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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.
/JONATHAN G RILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights