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 final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/15/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 7-8, 13, 16, 19 and 23 and the cancelation of claim 20. Due to the amendment to claim 23 the Examiner withdraws the objection of record for claim 23.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“Locking element” as recited in claim 1 (first, “element” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “locking”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “locking” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the locking element).
“Fast release mechanism” as recited in claim 1 (first, “mechanism” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “fast release”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “fast release” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the fast release mechanism).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 16 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ilanlou (US 5,649,364 A) in view of Griner (US 2014/0096395 A1), Hage et al. (US 2011/0173821 A1), and Sadler et al. (US 234,070 A).
Regarding claim 16, Ilanlou teaches a razor blade head (Ilanlou, Figs. 1-3 and 6, 15) comprising a razor blade housing (Ilanlou, Fig. 6, 23), a razor blade (Ilanlou, Figs. 1 and 6, B) embedded to the housing (Ilanlou, Col. 2 line 65 – Col. 3 line 7), a rectangular reception tube (Ilanlou, Fig. 6, 22) with an inlet orifice (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (Ilanlou) below) at one end of the razor blade head (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (Ilanlou) below).
Ilanlou does not teach wherein an inner wall of the reception tube comprises two structural contact regions, each one of the two structural contact regions being in proximity to a first longitudinal end of the reception tube and the other structural contact region being in proximity to a second longitudinal end of the reception tube, the structural contact regions further having smaller inner cross-sectional dimensions than inner cross-sectional dimensions of a portion of the tube longitudinally separating the two structural contact regions from each other.
Griner teaches a reception tube with an inner wall (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 2 (Griner) below), wherein an inner wall of the reception tube comprises two structural contact regions (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 2 (Griner) below), each one of the two structural contact regions being in proximity to one of the far longitudinal ends of the reception tube, as shown in Fig. 2 of Griner each of the structural contact regions is in proximity to at least one of the far longitudinal ends of the reception tube, the structural contact regions further having smaller inner cross-sectional dimensions than inner cross sectional dimensions of a portion of the tube separating the two structural contact regions from each other (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 2 (Griner) below). Given the broadest reasonable interpretation of “structural contact region” is a surface, area, or region that is in contact with another surface, area, or region and provides some structural support. Given that the smaller inner surfaces of Griner provide support for the longitudinal pin when the pin is inserted and are understood to have a smaller dimension than that of the region separating them. Additionally, while the longitudinal pin and orifice are on opposite structures a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that the structures of the orifice and longitudinal pin could apply to the same structures of Ilanlou. It should also be appreciated that the teachings of Griner also show that it is known in the art to shape different portions of a tube to better secure a razor head as such heads are dangerous objects that a person of ordinary skill would desire to ensure is securely attached.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the reception tube taught by Ilanlou to feature the separated structural contact regions like those taught by Griner such that they were proximal to a first and second end of reception tube or where positioned however desired by a worker in the art as it is a matter of routine skill in the art for a worker to shape a component for a device however be desirable or expediate at the time (see MPEP 2144.04(V)(B)), further, such a modification would also be obvious to try as the result of providing such contact regions to provide contacting support for the longitudinal pin when inserted is well known in the art as taught by Grinder. While the specific shape or locations for such regions are not limited to a few specific shapes or locations the result of providing support for the pin does not change.
Ilanlou in view of Griner does not teach the structural contact regions further having smaller inner cross-sectional dimensions than inner cross-sectional dimensions of a portion of the tube longitudinally separating the two structural contact regions from each other.
Hage teaches a straight razor (Hage, Figs. 5-7, 100) comprising a longitudinal pin (Hage, Figs. 6-7, 146) and a reception tube (Hage, Fig. 7, 130), wherein an inner wall of the reception tube comprises two structural contact regions (Hage, Fig. 7, 140 and 136), each one of the two structural contact regions being in proximity to one of the longitudinal ends of the reception tube (Hage, Fig. 7, 140 and 136), one structural contact region further having smaller inner cross-sectional dimensions than inner cross sectional dimensions of a portion of the tube separating the two structural contact regions from each other (Hage, Fig. 7, 140 and 136).
Sadler teaches a straight razor (Sadler, Figs. 1-3) comprising a longitudinal pin (Sadler, Fig. 1-2, B) and a reception tube (Sadler, Fig. 1, L), wherein the inner wall of the reception tube has a shape that corresponds with the shape of the longitudinal pin.
The teachings of Griner, Hage, and Sadler show that it is known in the art of straight razors and razors to provide a reception tube with a corresponding shape to a longitudinal pin as such arrangements provide secure attachment of the blade head to the handle. The exact shape is dependent what shape a worker of ordinary skill in the art would consider desirable at the time. While the prior art does not teach the two structural contact regions being longitudinally separated Griner shows that it is known in the art to separate such structures horizontally while Sadler and Hage show that it is known to have these regions in different locations and Griner, Sadler, and Hage all show that it is known for these regions to have smaller cross sectional dimensions than other sections of the tube. As such it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the shape of the reception tube to be any desirable shape to correspond with a longitudinal pin as such changes of shape are well within a level of ordinary skill of a worker in the art as taught by Griner, Sadler, and Hage (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)).
PNG
media_image1.png
415
740
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
428
591
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, Ilanlou in view of Griner teaches the razor blade head of claim 16, wherein the reception tube (Ilanlou, Fig. 6, 22) comprises at least one aperture (Ilanlou, Fig. 6, 26) defining a locking element to a longitudinal pin of a shank (Ilanlou, Col. 2, 44-48) and being disposed on the reception tube (Ilanlou, Fig. 6, 22 and 26).
Regarding claim 22, Ilanlou in view of Griner teaches the blade head of claim 16 comprising a flat surface extending upward, away from the razor blade, from the orifice and in a same plane of the orifice (Ilanlou, Fig. 6, 21, 21’, 23, and 27).
Claims 1, 5, 7, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ilanlou (US 5,649,364 A) in view of Hage (US 2011/0173821 A1) .
Regarding claim 1, Ilanlou teaches a straight razor (Ilanlou, Figs. 1-3 and 6, 10) comprising:
a handle (Ilanlou, Fig. 1, 11);
a shank (Ilanlou, Figs. 1-2, 12); and
a razor blade head (Ilanlou, Figs. 1-3 and 6, 15);
wherein the shank (Ilanlou, Figs. 1-2, 12) being interconnected to the handle (Ilanlou, Figs. 1-3, 11 and 12), comprising a main body (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 2 (Ilanlou) below) being proximal to the handle, a longitudinal pin (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 2 (Ilanlou) below) being distal to the handle for holding a razor blade head (Ilanlou, Figs. 1-3 and 6, 15), and a fast release mechanism (Ilanlou, Figs. 1-2, 17), wherein the longitudinal pin comprises a first and second longitudinal ends (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 2 (Ilanlou) below), dimensions and an outer cross sectional shape being compatible with, or smaller than, an inner cross sectional shape (Ilanlou, Col. 3, lines 15-18) of a reception tube (Ilanlou, Fig. 6, 22) of a razor blade head (Ilanlou, Figs. 1-3 and 6, 15), and
the razor blade head (Ilanlou, Figs. 1-3 and 6, 15) comprising a razor blade (Ilanlou, Figs. 1 and 6, B), a housing (Ilanlou, Fig. 6, 23), the reception tube (Ilanlou, Fig. 6, 22), the razor blade (Ilanlou, Figs. 1 and 6, B) being partially embedded in the housing such that a cutting edge is left exposed (Ilanlou, Col. 2 line 65 – Col. 3 line 7), the reception tube comprises an inner wall (Ilanlou, Col. 3, lines 15-18), an orifice (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (Ilanlou) above) at one end of the razor blade head (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (Ilanlou) above), and an inner cross sectional shape being compatible with or wider than an outer cross sectional shape and dimensions of the longitudinal pin of the shank (Ilanlou, Col. 3, lines 15-18), the handle and the shank are non-disposable components (Ilanlou, Col. 2, lines 55-58), the razor blade head being disposable (Ilanlou, Col. 2, lines 55-58) and is releasably connected to the shank (Ilanlou, Col. 2, lines 44-48), wherein the longitudinal pin being adapted to connect to the razor blade head (Ilanlou, Col. 2, lines 55-58), and the fast release mechanism being adapted to release the razor blade head from the shank (Ilanlou, Col. 2, lines 55-58).
Ilanlou does not teach at least one locking element of the shank, at least one locking element of the razor blade head being complementary to the locking elements of the shank, the at least one locking element of the shank being adapted to lock the reception tube of the razor blade head to the longitudinal pin. Ilanlou also does not teach the outer cross sectional shape of the longitudinal pin defining two structural contact regions with the reception tube being complementary to structural contact regions of the reception tube, each one of the two structural contact regions of the longitudinal pin being in proximity to the first longitudinal end of the longitudinal pin and the other structural contact region of the longitudinal pin being in proximity to the second longitudinal end, the two structural contact regions of the longitudinal pin being separated by a portion being thinner than the two structural contact regions of the longitudinal pin, and having an outer cross sectional diameter being smaller than an inner cross sectional diameter of the reception tube of the razor blade and the inner wall of the reception tube comprises two structural contact regions being complementary to the structural contact regions of the longitudinal pin of the shank, one of the two structural contact regions being in proximity to a first longitudinal end of the reception tube and the other structural contact region being in proximity to a second longitudinal end of the reception tube such that the structural contact regions of the longitudinal pin press against the structural contact regions of the reception tube when the razor blade head is connected to the shank.
Hage teaches a straight razor (Hage, Figs. 5-8, 100) comprising a longitudinal pin (Hage, Fig. 7, 146) with an outer cross sectional shape defining two structural contact regions (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 7 (Hage) below) with the reception tube (Hage, Fig. 7, 140) being complementary to the structural contact regions of the reception tube (Hage, Fig. 7, 140), the two structural contact regions of the longitudinal pin being separated by a portion being thinner than the two structural contact regions of the longitudinal pin (Hage, Fig. 7, 210), and having an outer cross sectional diameter being smaller than an inner cross sectional diameter of the reception tube of the razor blade (Hage, Fig. 7, 140), and the inner wall of the reception tube comprises two structural contact regions (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 7 (Hage) below) being complementary to the structural contact regions of the longitudinal pin of the shank and are located in proximity to each one of the ends of the reception tube such that the structural contact regions of the longitudinal pin press against the structural contact regions of the reception tube when the razor blade head is connected to the shaft (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 7 (Hage) below). This arrangement helps to provide secure releasable attachment of the handle to the razor blade head while allowing the razor blade head to pivot (Hage, P. 0044) and a shank (Hage, Figs. 6-7, 180) comprising at least one locking element (Hage, Figs. 6-7, 214) of the shank (Hage, Figs. 6-7, 180), at least one locking element (Hage, Fig. 8, 132) of the razor blade head (Hage, Figs. 6-8, 102) being complementary to the locking elements of the shank (Hage, Figs. 7-8, 132 and 214, P. 0051), the at least one locking element of the shank being adapted to lock the reception tube of the razor blade head to the longitudinal pin (Hage, P. 0051). Such an arrangement helps to ensure proper alignment of the head and shank (Hage, P. 0051).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the straight razor taught by Ilanlou to include structural contact regions for both the longitudinal pin and the inner wall of the reception tube taught by Hage such that one structural contact region of the pin and one structural contact region of the tube were proximal to a first longitudinal end and the other structural contact region of the pin and the other structural contact region of the tube were proximal to a second longitudinal end or where positioned however desired by a worker in the art as it is a matter of routine skill in the art for a worker to shape a component for a device however be desirable or expediate at the time (see MPEP 2144.04(V)(B)), further, such a modification would also be obvious to try as the result of providing such contact regions to provide contacting support for the longitudinal pin when inserted is well known in the art as taught by Hage to provide secure releasable attachment of the handle to the razor blade head. While the specific shape or locations for such regions are not limited to a few specific shapes or locations the result of providing support for the pin does not change. Further, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the straight razor taught by Ilanlou to include a locking element for the shank and a locking element for the razor blade head like that taught by Hage as such an arrangement helps to ensure proper alignment of the razor blade head and shank.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the reception tube taught by Ilanlou to feature the separated structural contact regions like those taught by Griner such that they were proximal to a first and second end of reception tube or where positioned however desired by a worker in the art as it is a matter of routine skill in the art for a worker to shape a component for a device however be desirable or expediate at the time (see MPEP 2144.04(V)(B)), further, such a modification would also be obvious to try as the result of providing such contact regions to provide contacting support for the longitudinal pin when inserted is well known in the art as taught by Grinder. While the specific shape or locations for such regions are not limited to a few specific shapes or locations the result of providing support for the pin does not change.
PNG
media_image3.png
370
619
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
285
726
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Ilanlou in view of Hage teaches the straight razor according to claim 1, wherein the longitudinal pin and the reception tube having a length at least 50% of the length of the razor blade head, Ilanlou teaches that the longitudinal pin (Ilanlou, Figs. 1-2, 12) may have a length at least 50% of the length of the razor blade head (Ilanlou, Figs. 1-2, 15) as can be seen in Fig. 1 where the latching means (Ilanlou, Figs. 1-2, 17) positioned at one end of the longitudinal pin is shown to be located half way down the length of the razor blade head when the two components are connected but does not specifically state that this length is 50% of the length of the razor blade head.
Ilanlou in view of Hage teaches the claimed invention except for the length of the longitudinal pin being 50% of the length of the razor blade head. The longitudinal pin of Ilanlou in view of Hage does have a length but Ilanlou does not teach what this length is or how this length would compare to the length of the razor blade head. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the longitudinal pin of Ilanlou in view of Hage to be 50% of the length of the razor blade head and a similar change to the counter-connector, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). As such a change in the length of the longitudinal pin of Ilanlou in view of Hage in relation to the length of the razor blade head would not change the way in which the longitudinal pin would mount into the razor blade head and would only be a change in the relative dimension of the structures involved it would be within the general skill of a worker in the art to perform such a modification.
Further, the Applicant has not established that the recited length of the longitudinal pin provides an advantage, is used for particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected Ilanlou in view of Hage’s arrangement and the Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with either Ilanlou in view of Hage’s or Applicant’s longitudinal pin since both arrangements perform the same function.
Regarding claim 7, Ilanlou in view of Hage teaches the straight razor according to claim 1, wherein the at least one locking element of the shank is a protrusion (Hage, Figs. 6-7, 214) protruding from a surface of at least one of the contact regions of the longitudinal pin of the shank being complementary to a complementary apertures in the wall of the reception tube of the razor blade head (Hage, Fig. 8, 132).
Regarding claim 15, Ilanlou in view of Hage teaches the straight razor according to claim 1.
Ilanlou in view of Hage does not teach wherein an exposed face of the blade has a vertical length in a range of 0.1 mm to 20 mm. As best understood the exposed face of the blade is a flat side of the blade that extends from a beveled edge near the cutting edge of the blade to the edge opposite the cutting edge and the range of this measured length is what is shown in Fig. 6 of the instant invention. While Ilanlou does not teach a range for this distance Ilanlou does show some portion of the blade (Ilanlou, Figs. 1 and 6, B) would be exposed.
As such, Ilanlou in view of Hage teaches the claimed invention except for vertical length of the exposed face of the blade. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select any length for the exposed face of the blade, not just within the claimed range, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 18, Ilanlou in view of Hage teaches a kit (Ilanlou, Fig. 3) comprising a plurality of razor blade heads (Ilanlou, Fig. 3, 32) as defined in claim 1 being releasably connectable to the shank of the straight razor (Ilanlou, Fig. 3, 33), the razor blade heads, shank and handle are the same as those of Figs 1-2 and 6 of Ilanlou.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ilanlou (US 5,649,364 A) in view of Hage (US 2011/0173821 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (US 4,622,742 A), hereafter known as Lee I.
Regarding claim 2, Ilanlou in view of Hage teaches the straight razor according to claim 1.
Ilanlou in view of Hage does not teach wherein the razor blade head comprises a removable blade guard surrounding and/or covering the cutting edge of the blade and connected to the blade housing through breakable connectors.
Lee I teaches a straight razor head (Lee I, Figs. 1-6, 12) that comprises a removable blade guard (Lee I, Figs. 1-4, 22) surrounding and/or covering the cutting edge (Lee I, Fig. 4, 21) of the blade (Lee I, Figs. 1-2 and 4, 20) and connected to the blade housing through breakable connector (Lee I, Fig. 2, 24, Col. 4, lines 9-23). Such a structure helps to eliminate the risk of injury due to the sharp edge of the blade (Lee I, Col. 4, lines 3-6).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to modify the razor blade head of Ilanlou in view of Hage to include the removable blade guard as taught by Lee I to help eliminate the risk of injury.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ilanlou (US 5,649,364 A) in view of Hage (US 2011/0173821 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2002/0026721 A1), hereafter known as Lee II, and Abidin et al. (US 5,222,951 A), hereafter known as Abidin.
Regarding claim 8, Ilanlou in view of Hage teaches the straight razor according to claim 1.
Ilanlou in view of Hage does not teach wherein the release mechanism comprises a sliding button located on a rail segment of the shank in proximity to the end of the longitudinal pin being proximal and connected to the main body of the shank with a spring, the button comprising an outer surface, facing the reception tube of the razor blade head, being structural compatible to an outer surface of the orifice of the reception tube of the razor blade head, and adapted to release the razor head from the shank in response to sliding of the slide button toward the razor blade head.
In the art of sliding buttons Abidin teaches a sliding button (Abidin, Figs. 3 and 6-8, 24) that sliding along a rail or top surface of the main body (Abidin, Figs. 3 and 6-8, 12) and wherein the button is held to the main body by a spring (Abidin, Figs. 3 and 6-8, 17). When the sliding button is slid away from the proximal end of the body it pushes the hook (Abidin, Figs. 3 and 6-8, 11) forward much the same way as the instant invention would push the razor blade head of the instant invention.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the locking mechanism taught by Ilanlou in view of Hage instead be the sliding button, rail, and spring of Abidin as it is well known in the art of razors to provide sliding locks for the release of a razor blade head from a handle portion as taught by Lee II.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ilanlou (US 5,649,364 A) in view of Hage (US 2011/0173821 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brenner (US 6,026,578 A).
Regarding claim 9, Ilanlou in view of Hage teaches the straight razor according to claim 1.
Ilanlou in view of Hage does not teach wherein the handle weighs at least 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, or 40 g.
Brenner teaches a handle (Brenner, Figs. 1-3, 1) for a razor wherein the weight of the handle is between 3.5 to 4.5 ounces (Brenner, Col. 3, lines 45-48) or about 99 to about 128 grams when converted to grams by multiplying the mass in ounces by 28.35. As the claims requires that the handle be at least 40 grams and Brenner teaches about 99 to about 128 grams, the handle of Brenner is within the recited range as it is greater than 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, or 40 grams. By having a handle of such weight, it reduces the effort of a user to determine how much pressure to apply during shaving (Brenner, Col. 2, lines 10-13).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the weight of the handle taught by Ilanlou in view of Hage to be between about 99 to about 128 grams as taught by Brenner as doing so reduces the effort of a user when determining how much pressure to apply during shaving.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ilanlou (US 5,649,364 A) in view of Hage (US 2011/0173821 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Halucha (US 2018/0169874 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Ilanlou in view of Hage teaches the straight razor according to claim 1.
Ilanlou in view of Hage as modified does not teach wherein at least one of the handle and the shank is adapted to comprise an island.
Halucha teaches a handle (Halucha, Figs. 1, 3a-3b, and 4, 2, 2a, 30, 32, and 34) that is adapted to comprise an island (Halucha, Figs. 1, 3a-3b, and 4, 1, 1a, 3, 31, 33 and 35). Including such an island provides a grip (Halucha, P. 0026). Although the device of Halucha is a folding or retracting knife the device is related to the instant invention in that it is both a hand tool used for cutting and as folding knives have similar constructions to straight razors.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the handle taught by Ilanlou in view of Hage to include an island as taught by Halucha as a way to provide a grip surface for the handle.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ilanlou (US 5,649,364 A) in view of Hage (US 2011/0173821 A1) and Halucha (US 2018/0169874 A1) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Metcalf et al. (US 5,822,869 A), hereafter known as Metcalf, and Gklezos et al. (US 11,273,566 B2), hereafter known as Gklezos.
Regarding claim 13, Ilanlou in view of Hage and Halucha teaches the straight razor according to claim 10, wherein the island is reversibly attached to the handle, the islands as taught by Halucha are capable of being rotated and attached to the groove from either end of the island.
Ilanlou in view of Hage and Halucha does not teach wherein the island has a defined weight selected from a range of 0.1 g to 10 g.
Metcalf teaches a razor handle (Metcalf, Figs. 1-3, 12) with islands (Metcalf, Fig. 3, 36 and 38) that fit into a groove (Metcalf, Fig. 3, 34) and include a weight (Metcalf, Fig. 3, 36).
Gklezos teaches a razor handle (Gklezos, Figs. 1 and 9-10, 9) wherein a set of weights (Gklezos, Figs. 9-10, 32) that fit into a slot (Gklezos, Fig. 10, 25) in the handle have a defined weight selected from a range of 0.3 gram to 15 grams (Gklezos, Col. 6, lines 53-55) and wherein the weight can be different between each (Gklezos, Col. 12, lines 21-24) which allows a user to adjust the weight of the razor based on usage (Gklezos, Col. 2, lines 56-62).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the islands taught by Ilanlou in view of Hage and Halucha to be weighted as taught by Metcalf and for each island to have a defined weight selected from a range of 0.3 grams to 15 grams as taught by Gklezos to allow for a user to adjust the weight of the razor based on usage.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ilanlou (US 5,649,364 A) in view of Hage (US 2011/0173821 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Halucha (US 2018/0169874 A1), Metcalf (US 5,822,869 A), and Gklezos (US 11,273,566 B2).
Regarding claim 17, Ilanlou in view of Hage teaches the straight razor of claim 1.
Ilanlou in view of Hage does not teach a kit comprising a set of islands each having a different weight being attachable to the handle of the straight razor for weight adjustment of the handle.
Halucha teaches a handle (Halucha, Figs. 1, 3a-3b, and 4, 2, 2a, 30, 32, and 34) that is adapted to comprise a set of islands (Halucha, Figs. 1, 3a-3b, and 4, 1, 1a, 3, 31, 33 and 35). Including such an island provides a grip (Halucha, P. 0026). Although the device of Halucha is a folding or retracting knife the device is related to the instant invention in that it is both a hand tool used for cutting and as folding knives have similar constructions to straight razors.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the handle taught by Ilanlou in view of Hage to include an island as taught by Halucha as a way to provide a grip surface for the handle.
Ilanlou in view of Hage and Halucha does not teach wherein the sets of islands each have a different weight .
In the art of razor handles it is known to provide razor handles with a weight as evidenced by Metcalf (Metcalf, Fig. 3, 36) that are part of an island (Metcalf, Fig. 3, 40). It is also known in the art to provide a razor handle with a set of weights as evidenced by Gklezos which teaches a set of weights (Gklezos, Figs. 9-10, 32) each having a defined weight between 0.3 grams to 15 grams (Gklezos, Col. 6, lines 53-55) and that the weight of each weight can be different (Gklezos, Col. 12, lines 21-24) which allows a user to adjust the weight of the razor based on usage (Gklezos, Col. 2, lines 56-62).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the set of islands taught by Ilanlou in view of Hage and Halucha such that each have a different weight as doing so is known in the art as evidenced by Metcalf and Gklezos and would be motivated to do so to allow a user to adjust the weight of the razor based on usage.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ilanlou (US 5,649,364 A) in view of Hage (US 2011/0173821) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Griner (US 2014/0096395 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Ilanlou in view of Hage teaches the kit according to claim 18.
Ilanlou in view of Hage does not teach wherein at least two razor blade heads each comprises a different razor blade, the different razor blade differentiates from each other by at least one the following characteristics: cutting edge length, face length, face exposure length, blade cross sectional profile, sharpness, grind type, and blade nose type.
Griner teaches wherein at least two razor blade heads (Griner, Fig. 4, 416) each comprises a different razor blade (Griner, P. 0024), the different razor blade differentiates from each other by at least one the following characteristics: cutting edge length, face length, face exposure length, blade cross sectional profile, sharpness, grind type, and blade nose type (Griner, P. 0024, lines 4-11). Having different types of blades allows for the straight razor to perform different types of jobs dependent on the razor blade head used (Griner, P. 0024).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the set of razor blade heads taught by Ilanlou in view of Hage to include different types of razor blade heads as to allow for the straight razor to perform different types of jobs.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ilanlou (US 5,649,364 A) in view of Hage (US 2011/0173821) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Proctor (US 1,057,272 A).
Regarding claim 23, Ilanlou in view of Hage teaches the straight razor according to claim 1.
Ilanlou in view of Hage does not teach wherein the longitudinal pin and the reception tube having a length nearly equal to the length of the razor blade head. The longitudinal pins shown by Ilanlou in view of Hage do not extend near the opposite end of the razor blade head.
Proctor teaches a straight razor (Proctor, Figs. 1-6) comprising a razor blade head (Proctor, Figs. 1-7, 3, 4, and 5) and a longitudinal pin (Proctor, Figs. 1-5, 8), wherein the longitudinal pin and the reception tube having a length nearly equal to the length of the razor blade head (Proctor, Fig. 1, 3, 4, 5, and 8).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the length of the longitudinal pin as taught by Proctor and modify the length of the reception tube such that both the lengths of the longitudinal pin and the reception tube were nearly equal to the length of the razor blade head as such changes in size only require routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Here Ilanlou, Hage and Proctor teach that it is known in the art to have various lengths for a longitudinal pin and both Ilanlou and Hage teach that it is known in the art to vary the length of the reception tube. As such, it would have been only a matter of routine choice to a worker in the art to select any desirable length for the longitudinal pin and the reception tube.
Response to Amendment
The applicant assert that the claim interpretations of record are full supported by the instant specification. The Examiner agrees, while the instant specification includes structure for each of the interpreted limitations these limitations lack structure within the claims themselves and are, therefore, interpreted properly under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (see MPEP 2181(VI)). If the applicant does not want to have the claim limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) present a sufficient showing to establish that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f); or (2) amend the claim limitation in a way that avoids interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function) Since it is improper to import limitations into the claims from the specification the limitations are interpreted given their broadest reasonable interpretation as the claims have not been amended to include sufficient structure to perform the claimed function hence the continued inclusion of the interpretations of record under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
The applicant asserts that the amendments to claims 1 and 16 overcome the respective 35 U.S.C. 103 obviousness type prior art rejections of record as the prior art of record does not teach the specific position of the structural contact regions of the pin and tube asserting that a change in shape rational is insufficient due to the regions providing the grip and support needed for a sturdy attachment under shaving load, while the intervening thinner or wider-separation portion facilitates insertion and release as evidenced by the instant specification. The Examiner disagrees. First, the limitations as currently claimed do not require such functions as these functions are not currently claimed. Second, the purpose of the regions taught by the prior art serve similar functions and are thus not unique to the instant invention. In other words, these functions generally do not help to distinguish the instant invention over the prior art of record. As such, the applicant’s assertions are unpersuasive. However, while reviewing P. 0064 of the instant specification for support of the applicant’s assertions the Examiner would point out that there are some specific dimensions included for the opening and aperture which may overcome the prior art of record pending further search and consideration.
The applicant asserts that the 35 U.S.C. 103 obviousness type prior art rejection of record of claim 5 is improper as the prior art of record does not teach the specific the claimed length relationship and asserts that this is not a mere size design choice as the instant specification teaches that the pin length is selected so that the pin extends at least half the length of the razor blade head, and in some embodiments nearly the full length, so that the reception tube can accommodate the pin and provide the desired stability. The Examiner disagrees. Again, the limitation taken from the specification is not claimed. As such, the applicant’s assertions are unpersuasive.
The applicant asserts that the 35 U.S.C. 103 obviousness type prior art rejection of record of claim 7 is improper as the rejection of record refers to a key (Hage, Fig. 6, 214) and a keyway (Hage, Fig. 8, 132) and therefore does not teach the claimed protrusion and opening. The Examiner disagrees. The claim states “wherein the at least one locking element of the shank is a protrusion protruding from a surface of at least one of the contact regions of the longitudinal pin of the shank being complementary to a complementary apertures in the wall of the reception tube of the razor blade head”. This just requires a protrusion on the shank being complementary to an aperture which Hage teaches (Hage, P. 0051). As such, the applicant’s assertions are unpersuasive.
The applicant asserts that the 35 U.S.C. 103 obviousness type prior art rejection of record of claim 15 is improper as the rejection of record relies on a generalized size-selection rationale without a prior art teaching for a specific measured range. The Examiner disagrees. First, blade exposure is a well-known variable in the art of razors as a reduced exposure may help to increase the safety of the device while increase exposure may help with cleaning. Second, while exposure is well-known in the art the applicant fails to define what they consider this exposure to be. Specifically, the instant specification refers to “face exposures” but does not define between what structures the blade is exposed and therefore between which structures the exposure is measured. Hence why the rejection of record is as best understood and relies on a generalized size-selection rational. The Examiner would suggest amending the instant disclosure to better define the exposure without introducing new matter. As such, the applicant’s assertions are unpersuasive.
The applicant asserts that the 35 U.S.C. 103 obviousness type prior art rejection of record of claim 18 is improper as the prior art rejection of claim 1 does not teach the heads “as defined in claim 1”. The Examiner disagrees, as discussed in the assertion regarding claims 1 and 16 the prior art rejection of record for claim 1 properly teaches the head of claim 1. As such, the applicant’s assertions are unpersuasive.
The applicant asserts that the 35 U.S.C. 103 obviousness type prior art rejections of record for claims 2, 9-10, 12, 13, 17, 19, 23 str improper as the prior art rejection of record for claim 1 does not teach the all the claimed limitations of claim 1. The Examiner disagrees, as discussed in the assertion regarding claims 1 and 16 the prior art rejection of record for claim 1 properly teaches the limitations of claim 1. As such, the applicant’s assertions are unpersuasive.
The applicant asserts that the 35 U.S.C. 103 obviousness type prior art rejection of record of claim 13 is improper as the prior art does not teach the claimed range of 0.1 g to 10 g and instead teaches a broader range of 0.3 g to 15 g. The Examiner disagrees. The prior art of record teaches a range that overlaps with the claimed range which has been established in case law as showing that a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(I)). As such, the applicant’s assertions are unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert D Cornett whose telephone number is (571) 270-0182. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am-5:30 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.
/ROBERT D CORNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights