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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s submission filed on May 27, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-9, and 11-17 were amended. Claims 21 and 22 were newly introduced. Claims 2 and 10 were canceled. Claims 1, 3-9, and 11-22 are pending. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection and 112b rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on March 20, 2025. Claims 1, 3-9, and 11-22 are examined in this action.
Claim Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities “attached to the blade portion below the blade portion” in line 2. This type of wording is a bit confusing. Examiner suggests “attached to a bottom side of the blade portion.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7-8, 11, 13-14, 18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 6243951 B1 by Oldroyd.
Regarding claim 1, Oldroyd discloses a razor cartridge (Oldroyd, col. 2, lines 52-53, “safety razor blade unit or cartridge”) comprising: a first cutting member (see Examiner annotated Oldroyd Figure 1A, hereinafter “EAOF1A”; 1st cutting member) having a blade portion (Oldroyd, Fig. 1A, blades 4) and a second cutting member (EAOF1A, 2nd cutting member) having a blade portion (Oldroyd, Fig. 1A, blades 4) disposed between a leading longitudinal side and a trailing longitudinal side of the razor cartridge in a shaving direction (EAOF1A, shaving direction) of the razor cartridge, wherein the second cutting member is disposed behind the first cutting member in the shaving direction, and wherein each cutting member faces in the shaving direction; and a control element (Oldroyd, Fig. 1A, integral comb elements 12) disposed between the first cutting member (EAOF1A, 1st cutting member) and the second cutting member (EAOF1A, 2nd cutting member), the control element (Oldroyd, Fig. 3, integral comb elements 12) having a rear portion (Oldroyd, Fig. 3, root portions 17 of elements 12) situated adjacent to and behind a central portion in the shaving direction (EAOF1A, shaving direction), wherein the control element (Oldroyd, Fig. 3, root portions 17, elements 12) is in contact with the blade portion (Oldroyd, Fig. 3, blade 4) of the second cutting member (see EAOF1A, 2nd cutting member; Oldroyd, Fig. 1A, elements 12).
PNG
media_image1.png
498
782
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Oldroyd discloses each blade portion (Oldroyd, Fig. 3, blade 4) with has a cutting edge (Oldroyd, col. 2, lines 57-59, “Mounted between the guard and cap are three parallel blades 4 with forwardly directed cutting edges positioned in series”), and each cutting member has a support portion (Oldroyd, Fig. 3, blade support 5), wherein the cutting edge faces in the shaving direction.
Regarding claim 8, Oldroyd discloses each blade portion (Oldroyd, Fig. 3, blade 4) has a cutting edge (Oldroyd, col. 2, lines 57-59, “Mounted between the guard and cap are three parallel blades 4 with forwardly directed cutting edges positioned in series”), and each cutting member has a support portion (Oldroyd, Fig. 3, blade support 5), wherein each support portion is located in a separate longitudinal holding slot of the razor cartridge (Oldroyd, col. 1, lines 43-47, “the blades being carried on respective blade supports for independent movement within the frame for varying the shaving geometry in accordance with forces…”).
Regarding claim 11, in the previous Non-Final Office Action mailed March 20, 2025, Examiner had initially stated Oldroyd did not explicitly teach an inclination of the rear portion corresponds to an inclination of the blade portion. However, after further consideration of the claim limitations and the prior art, Examiner now recognizes that Oldroyd does teach such a configuration of inclined surfaces between the rear portion and the blade portion.
This is because Oldroyd teaches an inclination (see Examiner annotated Oldroyd Figure 3, hereinafter “EAOF3”; inclination of comb element) of the rear portion (EAOF3, rear portion; Oldroyd, Fig. 3, root portions 17 of integral comb elements 12) corresponds (Oldroyd, col. 3, lines 16-20, “The root portions 17 of the elements 12 have upper surfaces which are inclined more steeply than the blade platform surface in order to follow closely the edge facet at the underside of the blade 4, although this is not essential”) to an inclination (EAOF3, inclination of blade) of the blade portion (Oldroyd, Fig. 3, blade 4) of the second cutting member (EAOF1A, 2nd cutting member).
To further clarify, the gap shown in Oldroyd Figure 3 is referring to “root portions 17 of the elements 12 have upper surfaces which are inclined more steeply.” However, as the rear portion is defined in EAOF3, the lower surfaces of the root portions 17 of the elements 12 does have a corresponding inclination to blade 4.
PNG
media_image2.png
530
424
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Oldroyd discloses the central portion (Oldroyd, Fig. 3, rounded noses 16) is configured to be in contact with a skin of a user during shaving (Oldroyd, col. 2, lines 25-28, “To ensure a gentle initial contact between the elements and the skin surface they can be provided with rounded nose portions at their forward ends, these nose portions leading smoothly into the upper surface portions”).
Regarding claim 14, in the previous Non-Final Office Action mailed March 20, 2025, Examiner had initially stated Oldroyd did not explicitly the rear portion is in contact with the cutting member on a lower side of the blade portion, such that the cutting edge of the blade portion is situated above the rear. However, after further consideration of the claim limitations and the prior art, Examiner now recognizes that Oldroyd does teach such a configuration of the rear portion and the cutting member.
This is because Oldroyd does teach the rear portion (Oldroyd, Fig. 3, root portions 17 of integral comb elements 12) is in contact with the cutting member (Oldroyd, Fig. 3, blade 4) on a lower side of the blade portion (EAOF3, inclination of blade), such that the cutting edge (EAOF3, cutting edge) of the blade portion is situated above the rear portion (Oldroyd, Fig. 3, root portions; EAOF3, rear portion) of the control element (Oldroyd, Fig. 3, integral comb elements 12).
Regarding claim 18, Oldroyd discloses the control element is fixedly attached (Oldroyd, col. 1, lines 47-52, “at least one of the blade supports having rigidly connected thereto elements spaced apart along the blade carried on said blade support and projecting forwardly of the blade edge, the elements having skin contacting portions…”) to the second cutting member (EAOF1A, 2nd cutting member & control element).
Regarding claim 20, Oldroyd discloses a shaving razor assembly comprising: a handle (Oldroyd, col. 1, line 8, “by means of a handle”); and a razor cartridge according to claim 1, wherein the razor cartridge is connected to the handle (Oldroyd, col. 1, lines 6-9, “a safety razor blade unit having at least one blade… by means of a handle to which the blade unit is attached”).
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.
Claims 3-5, 9, 12, 15-17, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6243951 B1 by Oldroyd in view of US 20200398449 A1 by Claus et al. (hereinafter “Claus”).
Regarding claim 3, Oldroyd does not explicitly disclose elongated apertures.
Claus, however, does teach that the central portion comprises a plurality of elongated apertures oriented parallel to the shaving direction (Claus, Fig. 4A, openings 86).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add elongated apertures to the central portion of the control elements of Oldroyd as taught by Claus in order to allow for easier cleaning and rinsing of debris (Claus, para. 38, “The openings 86, 88, and 90 may comprise a width W… of the respective skin support element 50, 60, and 70 to allow rinsing of shaving debris”).
Regarding claim 4, Oldroyd discloses the control element further comprises a front portion (Oldroyd, Fig. 6, forwardly projecting elements 22), wherein the front portion is situated adjacent to and before the central portion in the shaving direction (see EAO1A, shaving direction & control element). Oldroyd does not explicitly disclose a downwardly inclined front portion.
Claus, however, does teach that the front portion is inclined downward by an angle α between 0° and 90° relative to a shaving plane (Claus, para. 29, “The trailing section 53, which may be connected to the intermediate section 52 via a second curved connecting section 56, may extend substantially vertically downward (i.e. at an angle of about 90° with respect to a blade plane”; Claus, para. 56, “In other examples, the trailing section 353 may be sloped… at an acute angle (i.e., less than 90°) relative to the blade plane”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have the front portion of Oldroyd be inclined downward as taught by Claus as choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success (in this case, the front portion could either be oriented at an acute angle, fully vertical, or at an obtuse angle relative to the shaving plane while still maintaining enough distance and space for the inter-blade span of the cutting edges and rinsing; Claus teaches both an acute and a vertical orientation).
Regarding claim 5, Oldroyd does not explicitly disclose the angle of incline of the rear portion.
Claus, however, does teach the rear portion is inclined downward by an angle β between 0° and 90° relative to the shaving plane (Claus, para. 65, “The leading section 551 may extend substantially parallel to the surface of the blade support member 534a and may be connected to the intermediate section 552 via a first curved connecting section”; also see Claus, Figs. 4B, 8-11 for different configurations of the rear portion).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have the rear portion of Oldroyd be inclined downward as taught by Claus as choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success (in this case, the rear portion could either be oriented at an acute angle, fully vertical, or at an obtuse angle relative to the shaving plane while still maintaining enough distance and space for the inter-blade span of the cutting edges and rinsing; Claus teaches all three orientations, see Claus Figs. 7-8 & 11).
Regarding claim 9, Oldroyd does not explicitly disclose an inter-blade span.
Claus, however, does teach an inter-blade span between the cutting edges of the first and the second cutting member is more than 1.5 mm (Claus, Fig. 3, S1; Claus, para. 27, “Each of the interblade spans S1 and S2 may be from about 2.0 mm to about 2.5 mm”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention for Oldroyd to have an inter-blade span that is great than 1.5 mm as taught by Claus in order to optimize the inter-blade span for an overall improved cutting experience that allows for a close cut while minimizing discomfort and still allowing for proper cleaning (Claus, para. 77-78, “in razor cartridges with multiple, closely spaced blades, the interblade span between the blades may be small… the closely spaced blades may interfere with removal of shaving debris… blades with a greater interblade span may allow skin bulge… Increased skin bulge can result in increased nicks, cuts, and overall discomfort. Thus, many factors must be balanced to obtain a design that achieves a close cut, while minimizing discomfort and damage to the skin”).
Regarding claim 12, Oldroyd does not explicitly disclose that the central portion is parallel to the shaving plane.
Claus, however, does teach that the central portion is parallel to a shaving plane (Claus, para. 55, “the generally planar portion of the intermediate section 35, may extend substantially parallel to the blade plane 394 and/or the shaving plane”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have a central portion that is parallel to the shaving plane as taught by Claus as simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (in this case, the rounded central portion of Oldroyd being replaced by the planar central portion of Claus for skin-contacting purposes).
Regarding claim 15, Oldroyd does disclose the rear portion (Oldroyd, Fig. 3, root portions 17) is in contact with the cutting member (Oldroyd, Fig. 3, blade 4). Oldroyd does not explicitly disclose that a portion is in contact with the upper side of the blade portion.
Claus, however, does teach a portion (Claus, Fig. 3, leading section 51) is in contact with the cutting member on an upper side of the blade portion (Claus, Fig. 3, first blade 18a), such that the cutting edge of the blade portion is situated below the portion of the control element (Claus, para. 37, “each of the skin support elements 50, 60, and 70 may be positioned such that its highest point(s) or surface, i.e., point(s) or surface located furthest from the bottom 29 of the cartridge housing 16, is at, above, or below the shaving plane P and/or one or more of the blade planes 94 and 98”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have the cutting edge of Oldroyd configured below a portion as taught by Claus in order to have a configuration between the cutting edge and the control element that produces a close shave while avoiding any injuries (Claus, para. 83, “a highest point or surface of the skin support element may be positioned between about 0.13 mm above the blade plane to about 0.07 mm below the blade plane, with a preferred position being slightly above (about 0.03 mm) the blade plane to facilitate cutting the hair close to, but not below, the skins surface and to relieve some of the pressure of the blade tips on the skin”).
Regarding claim 16, Oldroyd discloses the control element (Oldroyd, Fig. 1A, integral comb elements 12) is in contact with the second cutting member (EAOF1A, 2nd cutting member). Oldroyd does not explicitly disclose an exposure.
Claus, however, does teach the control element is in contact with the cutting member such that an exposure of the cutting edge of the blade portion is neutral or positive (para. 37, “A first blade plane or first blade tip plane 94 may be defined by a line extending tangent to and between the blade tip 18a-1 of the first blade 18a and the blade tip 18b-1 of the second blade 18b… the blades 18a to 18c are positioned such that the first and second blade planes 94 and 98 are substantially coplanar with and parallel to the shaving plane P. In other examples, one or more of the blade planes may be located above or below the shaving plane P”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the configuration of Oldroyd to have either a neutral or positive exposure as taught by Claus in order to optimize the closeness of the shave while still maintain comfort for the user (Claus, para. 83, “The position of the skin support element, with respect to the shaving plane and/or the blade plane, may be designed to determine the closeness and/or comfort of the shave… may lead to a closer shave, but comfort may be decreased for the reasons described herein… For example, a highest point or surface of the skin support element may be positioned between about 0.13 mm above the blade plane to about 0.07 mm below the blade plane…”)
Regarding claim 17, Oldroyd discloses the control element (Oldroyd, Fig. 1A, integral comb elements 12) is in contact with the second cutting member (EAOF1A, 2nd cutting member). Oldroyd does not explicitly disclose an exposure.
Claus, however, does teach the control element is in contact with the second cutting member such that an exposure of the cutting edge of the blade portion is negative (para. 37, “A first blade plane or first blade tip plane 94 may be defined by a line extending tangent to and between the blade tip 18a-1 of the first blade 18a and the blade tip 18b-1 of the second blade 18b… the blades 18a to 18c are positioned such that the first and second blade planes 94 and 98 are substantially coplanar with and parallel to the shaving plane P. In other examples, one or more of the blade planes may be located above or below the shaving plane P”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the configuration of Oldroyd to have a negative exposure as taught by Claus in order to optimize the closeness of the shave while still maintain comfort for the user (Claus, para. 83, “The position of the skin support element, with respect to the shaving plane and/or the blade plane, may be designed to determine the closeness and/or comfort of the shave… may lead to a closer shave, but comfort may be decreased for the reasons described herein… For example, a highest point or surface of the skin support element may be positioned between about 0.13 mm above the blade plane to about 0.07 mm below the blade plane…”).
Regarding claim 21, the Oldroyd/Claus combination is as detailed in the rejection of claim 3 above. Furthermore, Oldroyd discloses the control element (Oldroyd, Fig. 3, integral comb elements 12) comprises a front portion (Oldroyd, Fig. 3, rounded noses 16). Oldroyd does not explicitly disclose the plurality of elongated apertures extend into the front portion.
Claus, however, does teach the plurality of elongated apertures extend into the front portion (see Examiner annotated Claus Figure 6, hereinafter “EACF6”; front portion).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add elongated apertures to the front portion of the control elements of Oldroyd as taught by Claus in order to allow for easier cleaning and rinsing of debris (Claus, para. 38, “The openings 86, 88, and 90 may comprise a width W… of the respective skin support element 50, 60, and 70 to allow rinsing of shaving debris”).
PNG
media_image3.png
538
596
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6243951 B1 by Oldroyd in view of WO 2018019953 A1 by Brellis et al. (hereinafter “Brellis”).
Regarding claim 6, Oldroyd discloses the control element (Oldroyd, Fig. 3, integral comb elements 12). Furthermore, Oldroyd does not explicitly disclose a cutout or a plurality of apertures.
Brellis, however, does teach the control element (Brellis, Fig. 10b, masking foil 26) further comprises a cutout (see Examiner annotated Brellis Figure 10a; hereinafter “EABF10A”; cutout; Brellis, pg. 31, lines 11-24, “A masking foil 26 for a shaving cartridge (10), as shown for example in figure 3, can be made by using several methods, such as photo etching, laser cutting, stamping, electrical discharge machining, water jet cutting or electroforming… The strip material may pass through a stamping station performing holes in the strip, forming the pattern of the masking foil 26, as shown in figure 10a. After stamping station the masking foil 26 may pass through a bending station”) situated between the central portion (EABF10A, central portion) and the rear portion (EABF10A, rear portion), wherein the cutout is elongated perpendicularly to the shaving direction (EABF10A, cut out direction), and/or wherein a plurality of elongated apertures (EABF10A, apertures) of the central portion (EABF10A, central portion) are connected with the cutout (EABF10A, cutout).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add a cutout to the control element of Oldroyd as taught by Brellis as applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results (in this case, forming the cutout of Oldroyd through common manufacturing methods as detailed by Brellis in order to make a more efficient shaver), and further a plurality of apertures as taught by Brellis to alter the shaving geometry by partially covering the cutting edges with the plurality of apertures (Brellis, pgs. 9-10, lines 16-25, “A masking foil 26 may cover partially the cutting edge 15 of one or more blade(s) 12… These two other uncovered blades 12d, 12e, on the side of the back edge 22, may increase the shaving efficiency… This partial blade coverage may provide therefore two different shaving geometries. Thus, the shaving process and experience may be different than the ones with conventional wet shaving cartridges”).
PNG
media_image4.png
827
523
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6243951 B1 by Oldroyd in view of EP 3912772 A1 by Chatzigrigoriou et al. (hereinafter “Chatzigrigoriou”).
Regarding claim 19, Oldroyd does not explicitly disclose spring fingers.
Chatzigrigoriou, however, does teach elastic spring fingers (Chatzigrigoriou, Figs. 6A/6B, elastic fingers 49 & 51) arranged in the razor cartridge and configured to support and vertically move the cutting members (Chatzigrigoriou, para. 10, lines 32-34, “when focusing for example on the cantilever spring fingers that control the blade vertical movement”) and/or the control element during shaving, and/or wherein the control element and the second cutting member are supported by at least one elastic spring finger.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add elastic spring fingers to Oldroyd as taught by Chatzigrigoriou in order to move the blades to better contact the skin (Chatzigrigoriou, para. 2, lines 14-17, “the blades may be supported within the cartridge by means of elastic fingers so that the blades can retract into the cartridge to better adopt to the skin of a user”). Although Chatzigrigoriou does not teach that the elastic spring fingers also support the control element (since the razor of Chatzigrigoriou does not have a control element), because the control element is built integrally with the cutting member, it can be determined that when incorporating the elastic spring fingers of Chatzigrigoriou to the razor cartridge of Oldroyd, the spring fingers would also support the control element along with the cutting member.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6243951 B1 by Oldroyd in view of EP 3771532 A1 by Bozikis et al. (hereafter “Bozikis”).
Regarding claim 22, Oldroyd does not explicitly disclose the cutting edge is attached above the blade portion.
Bozikis, however, does teach the cutting edge (Bozikis, Fig. 9, cutting edges 30a-30d) of the first cutting member is attached to the blade portion (Bozikis, Fig. 10, blade mounting portion 70) below the blade portion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to attach the cutting edge of Oldroyd to be below the blade portion as taught by Bozikis for a more comfortable shave and to reduce injury (Bozikis, pg. 3, lines 35-48, “In conventional razor cartridges with three or more blades, the inter-blade span is typically measured to be constant in a range of about 1.05 to 1.5 mm (when the razor blade is mounted on top of the blade support, i.e. on a surface of the blade support that in use faces towards the shaving plane). A common drawback of conventional shaving heads with movable cutting elements with the blades on top of the support is that aggressive shaving, resulting in nicks and cuts, and an increased sense of irritation… An effect of a razor cartridge according to the first aspect is that the phenomenon of skin bulge between cutting members attached to a blade mounting portion is reduced, because there are more (double) points of contact for the same number of blades (compared to a prior-art cartridge with the same number of blades)”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks under header Section 102 and 103 Rejections beginning under pg. 7, filed May 27, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under USC 102 have been fully considered and are not considered persuasive. Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that with amended claim limitation “the rear portion of the control element is in contact with the blade portion of the second cutting member”, the previous combination of art does not teach all of the claim limitations. Applicant notes that Examiner stated in the previous Non-Final Office Action that Oldroyd does not disclose contact between the rear portion of the control element and the blade portion of the second cutting member. Examiner believes Applicant is referring to Non-Final Office Action filed on March 20, 2025 under the rejection of claim 11. However, this was a typographical error. Please refer back to the rejection of claim 10 in the previous Non-Final Office Action. Examiner explicitly notes that Oldroyd discloses the rear portion is in contact with the second cutting member (components have been reinterpreted in the rejection of claim 10 currently). For further details on how Oldroyd teaches claim 1, refer to the rejection of claim 1 above. Therefore, Oldroyd teaches all the claim limitations of claim 1 and applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Examiner also wants to address applicant’s arguments regarding prior art Claus. Applicant argues that Claus teaches away from independent claim 1. However, as noted above, primary reference Oldroyd already teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, all the rejections that utilize prior art Claus in this rejection do not rely on contact between the control element and the cutting member. The claim limitations that rely on Claus, with their own separate advantages and teachings to the contact portion, are distinctly a plurality of apertures, inclined portions of the control element, an inter-blade span, a cutting edge below the control element, and blade exposure. The advantages of each teaching not relying on this point of contact and further improve shaving performance through other means. Therefore, Oldroyd in view of Claus does teach independent claim 1 and its dependent claims.
Regarding the rejection of claim 6 under USC 103, applicant argues that with amended claim limitation “cutout”, the previous combination of prior art does not teach all of the claim limitations. However, applicant’s argument with respect to claim 6 have been considered but are moot because of the amended claim limitation. A new ground of rejection is made in view of WO 2018019953 A1 by Brellis, detailed in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Therefore, claim 1 and claim 6, and any subsequently dependent claims are rejected in regards to the newly added claim limitations in conjunction with the previously presented claim limitations as detailed above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEBORAH LIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5936. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 7:30am-5:00pm, every other Friday 7:30am-5:00pm.
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.
/DEBORAH LIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/ADAM J EISEMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724