DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 18JUN2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18JUN2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner acknowledges the clerical error listed by the Applicant and thanks the Applicant for the notice.
Regarding Claim 26, Applicant argues:
1. (pg 7) prior art Gutjahr fails to disclose "two end elements comprising one or more apertures on a face of the end elements, said end elements are positioned perpendicularly to the cylindrical screen, at each end thereof". As stated in the Office Action mailed 19MAR2025, Examiner states prior art Gutjahr is silent to this limitation, and such is restated below.
However, as stated in the Office Action mailed 19MAR2025, prior art Page teaches a head element of a shaving apparatus, having two end elements (32) comprising two or more apertures (30) on a face of the end elements, said end elements are positioned perpendicularly to the cylindrical screen, at each end thereof (as illustrated in Fig 6). Page further teaches the purpose of the end elements in that they supply structure and support to the cylindrical screen (Col 2, Ln 54-55 and Col 3, Ln 1).
2. (pg 7) prior art Gutjahr fails to disclose "wherein the one or more apertures are configured to allow the movement or clearance of the cut hair from the cradle in the inner cavity of the cylindrical screen outside of the inner cavity". This limitation was not present in the claims as amended and examined prior to issuance of the Office Action mailed 19MAR2025, and as such, could not have been examined at that time.
However, as stated below, prior art Schwab teaches a head element (4) (Col 1, Ln 47; as illustrated in Fig 1) of a shaving apparatus (Col 1, Ln 42; as illustrated in Fig 1). Schwab further teaches end elements (5) (Col 2, Ln 1-2; as illustrated in Fig 2) wherein the end elements are in the form of a wheel (Col 1, Ln 47; as illustrated in Fig.s 3/4) comprising one or more apertures (4a) (Col 1, Ln 54; as illustrated in Fig. 1), whereby the one or more apertures allow the movement or clearance of the cut hair from the cradle (12) (Col 2, Ln 20) in the inner cavity of the cylindrical screen (Col 1, Ln 47-48) outside of the inner cavity (Col 1, Ln 40-46).
Applicant further argues Claim 26 has been amended to "specifically recite the apertures on the end elements are used for transporting clippings from the cradle out of the cavity" (pg 7). Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes the actual claimed limitation is "wherein the one or more apertures are configured to allow the movement or clearance of the cut hair from the cradle in the inner cavity of the cylindrical screen outside of the inner cavity" (emphasis added by Examiner). Examiner respectfully notes the claimed limitation merely requires the ability to allow either movement of cut hair or clearance of the cut hair, not "apertures on the end elements are used for transporting clippings from the cradle out of the cavity" as argued by the Applicant. Prior art Schwab has been interpreted as being configured or being capable of being configured to meet either of the foregoing requirements of the claimed limitation.
Applicant further argues prior art Gutjahr fails to disclose a cradle, as required by amended Claim 26 (pg 8). Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes the claimed limitation requires only "an inner cradle positioned within the inner cavity, said inner cradle is configured to collect cut hair", which, as stated in the Office Action mailed 19MAR2025, as stated below, is disclosed by prior art Gutjahr. The "two end elements" are not claimed to be exclusive elements of the cradle, only elements of the cutting portion of the head element. As such, prior art Gutjahr fully discloses to claimed matter.
Examiner notes Applicant provides an interpretation the cradle of prior art Gutjahr and also provides an interpretation of the claimed cradle of Claim 26. Examiner thanks the Applicant for these interpretations, however notes that only facts on the record may be admitted as arguments and interpretations are not facts. Applicant further argues that the cradle of prior art Gutjahr functions differently than that claimed in Claim 26 and that the purpose of the cradle of prior art Gutjahr differs form that of the cradle of Claim 26. Examiner notes that only the claimed limitation may be examined for patentability and as such opinions as to the purpose of an element disclosed by prior art may not be offered as factual differentiation from claimed matter. Only the structural elements of claims may be examined in view of prior art, and, as stated above, and restated below in the rejection of Claim 26, prior art Gutjahr discloses the limitation of the cradle as claimed.
Applicant further argues prior art Gutjahr fails to disclose "any downstream flow path or structural intent to transfer clippings outside the shaving head". Examiner notes this limitation is not present in claims 26 nor in any of its dependent claims. The claims, as amended requires only that "the one or more apertures are configured to allow the movement or clearance of the cut hair from the cradle in the inner cavity of the cylindrical screen outside of the inner cavity" (emphasis added by Examiner). The only limitation which could be construed as a "flow path", as best understood by the Examiner, is "the inner surface of the cylindrical screen configured to cut hairs that pass through the plurality of openings in the screen", which as stated in the Office Action mailed 19MAR2025, and as stated below "Gutjahr discloses…the cutting component positioned adjacent to the inner surface of the cylindrical screen configured to cut hairs that pass through the plurality openings in the screen (Col 2, Ln 42-46; as illustrated in Fig 1)".
Applicant further argues that modification of prior art Gutjahr "would require substantial redesign" (pg 9) without explain or listing what modifications would be required or how these modifications would be executed, without including any references to prior art of record to substantiate the argument. As such, the argument is merely prose and not a proper argument against the claim rejection.
Applicant further argues that the "goal of prior art Gutjahr " is to passively trap hair (pg 9). Examiner thanks the Applicant for the interpretation of the prior art, however such interpretations may not be the basis for arguments against claim rejections, without factual basis in prior art of record. Further the purpose of the prior art is not at question in the record, only the elements in view of the claimed matter.
Finally, Applicant argues (ppg 9 & 10) that prior art Gutjahr fails to disclose or suggest "modifying its internal partition into a component that facilitates external debris clearance". Examiner thanks the Applicant for this interpretation of the prior art, however, only the claimed limitations may be examined in view of the prior art for patentability and the claimed limitation "an inner cradle positioned within the inner cavity, said inner cradle is configured to collect cut hair", which, as stated in the Office Action mailed 19MAR2025, and as stated below, is disclosed by prior art Gutjahr.
Regarding Claims 30-31 & 33, Applicant further argues "Gutjahr and Page alone or in combination fail to teach the features
• "an inner cradle positioned within the inner cavity, said inner cradle is configured to collect cut hair; and
• two end elements comprising one or more apertures on a face thereof, said end elements are positioned perpendicularly to the cylindrical screen, at each end thereof, wherein the one or more apertures are configured to allow the movement or clearance of the cut hair from the cradle in the inner cavity of the cylindrical screen outside of the inner cavity".
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes, with respect to point (1), this argument has been discussed above and is stated in the rejection below. With respect to point (2), as stated in the Office Action mailed 19MAR2025, and as stated below, prior art Gutjahr is silent to this limitation, however prior art Schwab is used to modify prior art Gutjahr to the effect of adding the specific limitations as claimed, namely,
Regarding Claim 30, Schwab further teaches end elements (5) (Col 2, Ln 1-2; as illustrated in Fig 2) wherein the end elements are in the form of a wheel (Col 1, Ln 47; as illustrated in Fig.s 3/4) comprising one or more apertures (4a) (Col 1, Ln 54; as illustrated in Fig. 1), as required by amended claim 30;
Regarding Claim 31, Schwab further teaches the cylindrical screen is rotatable around a rotational axis (Col 1, Ln 52-53), as required by the claim. Examiner again asserts the use of aluminum as a foil screen material is known in the art, and as evidenced by prior art 2022/0080607 to Brenner, et alia (19JUL2021), (Para [0044], Ln 1-3).
Regarding Claim 33, Schwab teaches the cutter comprises a gap between the end elements and the cutting component (as illustrated in Fig 3).
Applicant further argues prior art Schwab fails to teach the two end elements are in the form of a wheel (pg 10). As stated above, prior art Schwab teaches this limitation: "wherein the end elements (5) are in the form of a wheel (Col 1, Ln 47; as illustrated in Fig.s 3/4)". Applicant further argues prior art Schwab fails to teach apertures "configured to allow the movement or clearance of the cut hair from the cradle" as required by the claims, however this argument has previously been refuted in the response regarding claim 26, and this limitation is noted explicitly present in claims 30, 31 or 33.
Regarding Claims 42-44, Applicant argues the prior art fails to disclose "an inner cradle positioned within the inner cavity and facing an inner surface of the cutting component" however this limitation is not present in claims 26 nor in claims 42-44.
Applicant argues, again (pg 11) that the prior art fails to disclose ""two end elements comprising one or more apertures on a face of the end elements ...wherein the one or more apertures are configured to allow the movement or clearance of the cut hair from the cradle in the inner cavity of the cylindrical screen outside of the inner cavity". This argument has been refuted previously above and will not be restated here.
Regarding Claim 45, Applicant argues similarly to the arguments against claim 26, and those arguments are similarly refuted here.
Applicant further argues, that by amending Claims 26 and 45 to include limitation previously required by Claim 30, the previous rejection is moot and that claims are now allowable over prior art. Examiner notes that this mere rearrangement of claim limitations, previously presented, are still taught by the combination of prior art Gutjahr/Page/Schwab, as stated below.
For the sake of clerical completeness, the previous 35 USC 103 Rejection of Claims 26 and 45 have been withdrawn and are replaced by the 35 USC 103 Rejections as stated below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 26-29, 30-38, 40-41, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gutjahr (US 4,00,560), in view of Page (US 2,526,153), hereinafter Page and Schwab (US 2,395,296), hereinafter Schwab.
Regarding Claim 26, Gutjahr discloses a head element (2) (Col 1, Ln 65; as illustrated in Fig 1) of a shaving apparatus (Col 1, Ln 62), said head element comprises a cutter (11) (Col 2, Ln 9; as illustrated in Fig 2), said cutter comprises:
a cylindrical screen (5) (Col 2, Ln 1-2; as illustrated in Fig 1) comprising a plurality of openings (6) (Col 2, Ln 2; as illustrated in Fig 1), an outer surface and an inner surface defining an inner cavity (as illustrated in Fig 1);
a cutting component (11) comprising one or more cutting elements (12) (Col 2, Ln 16; as illustrated in Fig 2), the cutting component positioned adjacent to the inner surface of the cylindrical screen configured to cut hairs that pass through the plurality openings in the screen (Col 2, Ln 42-46; as illustrated in Fig 1); and an inner cradle (16) (Col 2, Ln 28; as illustrated in Fig 1) positioned within the inner cavity, said inner cradle is configured to collect cut hair (Col 2, It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to Ln 42-46; as illustrated in Fig 1).
Gutjahr is silent to two end elements comprising one or more apertures on a face of the end elements, said end elements are positioned perpendicularly to the cylindrical screen, at each end thereof.
Page teaches a head element of a shaving apparatus (as illustrated in Fig 6). Page further teaches two end elements (32) comprising one or more apertures (30) on a face of the end elements, said end elements are positioned perpendicularly to the cylindrical screen, at each end thereof (as illustrated in Fig 6). Page further teaches the purpose of the end elements in that they supply structure and support to the cylindrical screen (Col 2, Ln 54-55 and Col 3, Ln 1 ).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the head element of a shaving apparatus, as disclosed by Gutjahr, to include two end elements comprising one or more apertures on a face of the end elements, said end elements are positioned perpendicularly to the cylindrical screen, at each end thereof, as taught by Page, in order to supply structure and support to the cylindrical screen.
Schwab teaches a head element (4) (Col 1, Ln 47; as illustrated in Fig 1) of a shaving apparatus (Col 1, Ln 42; as illustrated in Fig 1 ). Schwab further teaches end elements (5) (Col 2, Ln 1-2; as illustrated in Fig 2) wherein the end elements are in the form of a wheel (Col 1, Ln 47; as illustrated in Fig.s 3/4) comprising one or more apertures (4a) (Col 1, Ln 54; as illustrated in Fig. 1 ), whereby the one or more apertures allow the movement or clearance of the cut hair from the cradle (12) (Col 2, Ln 20) in the inner cavity of the cylindrical screen (Col 1, Ln 47-48) outside of the inner cavity (Col 1, Ln 40-46).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the head element of a shaving apparatus, as taught by combined Gutjahr/Page, to include end elements wherein the end elements are in the form of a wheel comprising one or more apertures, whereby the one or more apertures allow the movement or clearance of the cut hair from the cradle in the inner cavity of the cylindrical screen outside of the inner cavity, as taught by Schwab, in order to trap hair between the cooperating rotating head element and cylindrical screen and act together to cut the trapped hair.
Regarding Claim 28, combined Gutjahr/Page/Schwab teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Gutjahr further discloses the end elements are substantially round (as illustrated in Fig 1).
Regarding Claim 29, combined Gutjahr/Page/Schwab teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Gutjahr further discloses the end elements are essentially similar thereto, in size, shape and/or composition (as illustrated in Fig 1).
Regarding Claim 30, combined Gutjahr/Page/Schwab teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Also as stated above, although Gutjahr is silent to apertures as claimed, Schwab further teaches end elements (5) (Col 2, Ln 1-2; as illustrated in Fig 2) wherein the end elements are in the form of a wheel (Col 1, Ln 47; as illustrated in Fig.s 3/4) comprising one or more apertures (4a) (Col 1, Ln 54; as illustrated in Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 31, combined Gutjahr/Page/Schwab teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Gutjahr is silent to the cylindrical screen is rotatable around a rotational axis. Schwab teaches the cylindrical screen is rotatable around a rotational axis (Col 1, Ln 52-53).
Gutjahr further discloses the cylindrical screen comprises a metal foil screen (Col 2, Ln 1), however Gutjahr is not explicit to aluminum, however aluminum is known to be resistant to corrosion and easily formable, as would be recognized by a skilled Artisan. Both attributes would suggest the use of aluminum as a metal to produce the foil from.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the head element of a shaving apparatus, as taught by combined Gutjahr/Page/Schwab, to include an aluminum foil screen, in order to make use of metal foil resistant to corrosion and easily formable for producing the desired shape required for the head element.
Regarding Claim 32, combined Gutjahr/Page/Schwab teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Gutjahr further discloses the openings of the cylindrical screen are cutting edge openings (Col 2, Ln 42-46).
Regarding Claim 33, combined Gutjahr/Page/Schwab teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Gutjahr is silent to the cutter comprises a gap between the end elements and the cutting component. Schwab teaches the cutter comprises a gap between the end elements and the cutting component (as illustrated in Fig 3).
Regarding Claim 34, combined Gutjahr/Page/Schwab teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Gutjahr further discloses the cutting component comprises a curved cutting foil (Col 2, Ln 1, Col 2, Ln 42-46; as illustrated in Fig 1).
Regarding Claim 35, combined Gutjahr/Page/Schwab teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Gutjahr further discloses the cylindrical screen comprises a metal foil screen (Col 2, Ln 1 ), however Gutjahr is not explicit to aluminum, however aluminum is known to be resistant to corrosion and easily formable, as would be recognized by a skilled Artisan. Both attributes would suggest the use of aluminum as a metal to produce the foil from.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the head element of a shaving apparatus, as taught by combined Gutjahr/Page, to include an aluminum foil screen, in order to make use of metal foil resistant to corrosion and easily formable for producing the desired shape required for the head element.
Regarding Claim 36, combined Gutjahr/Page/Schwab teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Gutjahr further discloses the cutting component comprises an array of semi-round slice cutter elements having a space therebetween (as illustrated in Fig.s 1/2) and wherein the cutting component is configured to oscillate along a linear axis to facilitate cutting of the hairs by the cutting elements (Abstract, Ln 4).
Regarding Claim 37, combined Gutjahr/Page/Schwab teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Gutjahr is not explicit to the cradle is rigid or semi rigid, however, as illustrated in Fig.s 1/2, the cradle supports the movable cutting component, and if it were not rigid, the function of the apparatus would not be expected to perform desirably.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the head element of a shaving apparatus, as taught by combined Gutjahr/Page, to include the cradle is rigid or semi rigid, in order to adequately support the movable cutting component.
Regarding Claim 38, combined Gutjahr/Page/Schwab teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Gutjahr is not explicit to the material of the cradle, however the handle is made from plastic (Col 1, Ln 64) and the foil is made from metal (Col 2, Ln 1 ), therefore both materials are in use in the apparatus and are available for use for construction of the cradle. No disclosure of Gutjahr prevents the use of either material for construction of the cradle.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the head element of a shaving apparatus, as taught by combined Gutjahr/Page, to include the cradle is made of plastic, metal, in order to provide a durable construction.
Regarding Claim 40, combined Gutjahr/Page/Schwab teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Gutjahr further discloses the apparatus further comprising a mount (8), (10), wherein the cutter is configured to be mounted or placed onto said mount (as illustrated in Fig 1) and wherein the mount comprises one or more collection chamber openings (16) (as illustrated in Fig 1) configured to receive cut hair from the ends of the inner cradle (Col 2, Ln 42-46).
Regarding Claim 41, combined Gutjahr/Page/Schwab teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Gutjahr is not explicit to the cutter is disposable, however, as illustrated in Fig 2, the cutter is removable and therefore disposable.
Claims 42-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combined Gutjahr/Page/Schwab, further in view of Fox (US 2,950,530), hereinafter Fox.
Regarding Claim 42, combined Gutjahr/Page/Schwab teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Gutjahr further discloses a shaving apparatus comprising: a handle, the head element according to claim 26, and an electrically operated drive mechanism (Col 1, Ln 64-65), which Examiner has interpreted to mean a motor, as would be recognized by a skilled Artisan, and evidenced by Fox (Col 2, Ln 9-10, 24-26). Further, Examiner notes the presence of an electrically operated drive mechanism, such as a motor, would require a power source, as would also be readily recognized by a skilled Artisan.
Regarding Claim 43, combined Gutjahr/Page/Schwab/Fox teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Gutjahr further discloses the head element is configured to be reversibly mounted on the handle (as illustrated by Fig.s 1/2). Examiner notes the coupling element (8) and base(10) appear to be symmetrical and detachable, which Examiner has interpreted to illustrate the head element is configured to be reversibly mounted on the handle.
Regarding Claim 44, combined Gutjahr/Page/Schwab/Fox teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Gutjahr is not explicit to the head element is disposable, however, as illustrated in Fig 2, the head element is removable and therefore disposable.
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gutjahr, in view of Schwab and Page.
Regarding Claim 45, combined Gutjahr/Page teaches a method of shaving a skin surface (Col 2, Ln 42-46). Gutjahr is not explicit to the method comprising: pressing a head element of a shaving apparatus onto a skin surface.
Schwab teaches a method of shaving a skin surface, the method comprising:
pressing a head element of a shaving apparatus onto a skin surface (Col 2, Ln 36-40).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the head element of a shaving apparatus, as disclosed by Gutjahr, to include pressing a head element of a shaving apparatus onto a skin surf ace, as taught by Schwab, in order to cleanly remove hair from the skin surface.
Gutjahr further discloses said head element (2) (Col 1, Ln 65; as illustrated in Fig 1) comprises a cutter (11) (Col 2, Ln 9; as illustrated in Fig 2), said cutter comprises:
a cylindrical screen (5) (Col 2, Ln 1-2; as illustrated in Fig 1) comprising a
plurality of openings (6) (Col 2, Ln 2; as illustrated in Fig 1), an outer surface and an inner surface defining an inner cavity (as illustrated in Fig 1);
a cutting component (11) comprising one or more cutting elements (12) (Col 2, Ln 16; as illustrated in Fig 2), the cutting component positioned adjacent to the inner surf ace of the cylindrical screen cutting hairs that pass through the openings in the screen by the cutting component (Col 2, Ln 42-46; as illustrated in Fig 1 ); and
an inner cradle (16) (Col 2, Ln 28; as illustrated in Fig 1) positioned within the inner cavity and facing an inner surface of the cutting component, said inner cradle is configured to collect cut hair (Col 2, Ln 42-46; as illustrated in Fig 1), such that cut hair is collected in the inner cradle (Col 2, Ln 42-46).
Gutjahr is silent two end elements comprising one or more apertures on a face of the end elements, said end elements are positioned perpendicularly to the cylindrical screen, at each end thereof.
As stated above, Page teaches a head element of a shaving apparatus (as illustrated in Fig 6). Page further teaches two end elements (32) comprising one or more apertures (30) on a face of the end elements, said end elements are positioned perpendicularly to the cylindrical screen, at each end thereof (as illustrated in Fig 6). Page further teaches the purpose of the end elements in that they supply structure and support to the cylindrical screen (Col 2, Ln 54-55 and Col 3, Ln 1).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art beta re the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the head element of a shaving apparatus, as taught by combined Gutjahr/Schwab, to include two end elements comprising one or more apertures on a face of the end elements, said end elements are positioned perpendicularly to the cylindrical screen, at each end thereof, as taught by Page, in order to supply structure and support to the cylindrical screen.
Schwab further teaches end elements (5) (Col 2, Ln 1-2; as illustrated in Fig 2) wherein the end elements are in the form of a wheel (Col 1, Ln 47; as illustrated in Fig.s 3/4) comprising one or more apertures (4a) (Col 1, Ln 54; as illustrated in Fig. 1 ), whereby the one or more apertures allow the movement or clearance of the cut hair from the cradle (12) (Col 2, Ln 20) in the inner cavity of the cylindrical screen (Col 1, Ln 47-48) outside of the inner cavity (Col 1, Ln 40-46).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the head element of a shaving apparatus, as taught by combined Gutjahr/Schwab/Page, to include end elements wherein the end elements are in the form of a wheel comprising one or more apertures, whereby the one or more apertures allow the movement or clearance of the cut hair from the cradle in the inner cavity of the cylindrical screen outside of the inner cavity, as taught by Schwab, in order to trap hair between the cooperating rotating head element and cylindrical screen and act together to cut the trapped hair.
Finally, as the Gutjahr/Schwab/Page combination is used to cut hair, and has the structure as claimed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that in use the combination would cut hairs that pass through the openings in the screen with the cutting component and collect the hairs in said inner cradle (examiner notes that the optional limitation, by definition, is not required by the claim, so there need not being any teaching that the hair is moved/cleared from the cradle to a collection chamber).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2,363,849 to Bailey teaches a head element for a shaving apparatus having two end elements comprising one or more apertures on a face of the end elements, said end elements are positioned perpendicularly to the cylindrical screen, at each end thereof.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fred C Hammers whose telephone number is (571)272-9870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 0080-1700.
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, Adam Eiseman can be reached at (571) 270-3818. 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.
/FRED C HAMMERS/
Examiner
Art Unit 3724
/ADAM J EISEMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights