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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-16) in the reply filed on 1/8/2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
functional components 9 (see at least claim 2)
bottom opening and top opening of said function head (see at least claim 5)
opening’s contour (see at least claim 7)
No new matter should be entered. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 23.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because it appears they fail to show frontal openings 17, 18 as described in the specification. It is noted that at least fig. 2 contains these reference characters, but does not appear to show the structural details such that it is understood that 17 and 18 constitute frontal openings. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). The drawings are further objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters “17” and “18” have been used to designate both “frontal openings” and “top/bottom end portions” (see pg. 18, line 32-pg. 19, line 1 of instant specification).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains legal phraseology such as “said”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1:
the preamble should be amended to read “A personal care device…”
at line 6, “opening” should read “at least one opening”
“plastic chassis member” appears to refer to the same structure as chassis element 31 (see at least pg. 19, lines 18-23 of instant specification); all instances of “plastic chassis member” in the claims should be amended to read “chassis element” to promote clarity between claims and specification
claim 1 requires that “at least one of said handle and said function head includes an outer metal shell”, i.e., the outer metal shell is optionally included on either the handle, the function head, or both. For purposes of examination, the structure encompassing the handle including the outer metal shell is selected. Thus, it does not appear that the plastic chassis member/chassis element 31 (see figs. 4b, 5b, and 7b) comprises a protrusion which extends through an opening of the outer metal shell. Based on the figures, it appears that at least one of the modules (other than the top module, which is formed by the function head per pg. 21, line 11) comprise the protrusion. Therefore, as best understood, it is interpreted that at least one of a front module, back module, and bottom module comprises the protrusion which extends through the outer metal shell, and has been treated as such for purposes of examination.
all instances of “metal shell” should be amended to read “outer metal shell” (Examiner notes that at least claims 6, 7, 9, 14, and 16 contain at least one mention of “metal shell”)
Claim 7: “the inner contour” should be amended to read “an inner contour”
Claims 9 and 14: as best understood, the term “ring-shaped cross-section” is used to describe the outer metal shell as having a circular cross section. The phrase “ring-shaped cross-section” should be amended to read “circular cross-section” to improve clarity
Claim 10: as best understood, the terms “ring-like” and “sleeve-like” are used to describe the outer metal shell as having a cylindrical shape. The phrase “ring-like or sleeve-like” should be amended to read “cylindrical” to improve clarity
Claim 12: “wherein characterized in that” should be amended to read either “wherein” or “characterized in that”
Claim 13: “surrounding shell portion” should be amended to read “surrounding metal shell section”
Claims 2-16: in the preamble, “personal care device” should be amended to read “The personal care device”
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 9 be found allowable, claim 14 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claims 3 and 4, there does not appear to be written support for the front module and back module, nor the top module and bottom module, being provided with the plastic chassis member extending through corresponding openings of said outer metal shell. Since these structural relationships were not described in sufficient detail in the specification, it is unclear how these structures relate to one another, particularly in the overall context of the invention. That is, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably understand, based on the specification, how the front module and back module or the top module and bottom module are constructed with respect to the plastic chassis member.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, it is interpreted that a hair cutter or toothbrush are merely examples of a personal care device.
Claims 2-16 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, it appears as though it is required that the handle includes an outer metal shell, since each claim recites that the plastic chassis member (which is provided with a module on the handle) extends through corresponding openings of the outer metal shell. However, claim 1 makes this structural relationship optional, reciting that “at least one of said handle and said function head includes an outer metal shell”. Therefore, it is understood that there are three options: the handle includes an outer metal shell, the function head includes an outer metal shell, or both the handle and the function head include an outer metal shell. However, it is not clear how claims 3 and 4 can require the handle including an outer metal shell when this structural relationship has been made optional in a preceding claim.
Regarding claim 5, it appears as though it is required that the function head includes an outer metal shell. As discussed above, claim 1 recites different options for the structural relationship of the outer metal shell to other components. Therefore, according to claim 1, it is not necessarily required for the function head to include the outer metal shell. However, it is unclear how the function head can have a plastic chassis member extending through a bottom opening and a top opening of the function head without an outer metal shell. It appears as though the function head should be formed from the plastic chassis member and the outer metal shell; otherwise, the plastic chassis member would simultaneously form top and bottom openings while also extending through the openings.
Regarding claims 7 and 13, the term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In regards to both claims, it is unclear how much variation is acceptable before the scope of the claims is no longer met. That is, how far can the protrusion deviate from being constant along the opening before the scope of the claim has changed (see claim 7)? Likewise, how much can the three-dimensionally shaped edge contour extend in a direction other than the perpendicular direction before the scope of the claim has changed (see claim 13)?
Regarding claims 7 and 16, the term “about” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Use of the term “about” to describe the ranges is indefinite because it is not clear how much deviation from the ranges is considered acceptable. Though the specification defines “about” as referring to the “functionally equivalent range surrounding that value” (see pg. 26, lines 16-19), it is unlikely a person of ordinary skill in the art would be apprised of the scope, since no explicit definition is provided for what constitutes a functionally equivalent range surrounding a value.
Regarding claim 16, the phrase "particularly" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, it is interpreted that the specific mass percentages of the recited elements are optional.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 recites that the metal shell has at least one opening, and further that the said plastic chassis member has a protrusion through said opening in said outer metal shell. Claims 3 and 4 require a front module and back module, or a top module and bottom module respectively, being provided with said plastic chassis member extending through corresponding openings of said outer metal shell. Therefore, it appears that claims 3 and 4 do not further limit the subject matter of claim 1, since both claims 3 and 4 appear to be requiring the same limitation as claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Arndt (US 20220184827).
Regarding claim 1, Arndt discloses a personal care device such as hair cutter or tooth brush (hair clipper 10; see fig. 1), comprising a handle (outer housing 20 and chassis 12 form a handle; see fig. 1) and a function head (bracket 106; see fig. 1) supporting at least one personal care tool (bracket 106 supports bladeset 26; see paragraph [0047] and fig. 1), said function head being attached to said handle (bracket 106 is received by blade guide channel 102 of chassis 12; see paragraphs [0046-0047] and fig. 6), wherein at least one of said handle includes an outer metal shell (outer housing 20 is made of metal, preferably cast and polished aluminum, or other metals; see paragraph [0038]), said metal shell having at least one opening (when upper housing 22 and lower housing 24 are combined into outer housing 20, several openings are formed; see annotated portion of fig. 2 below) wherein at least one plastic chassis member (chassis 12 is made from injection molded plastic or the like; see paragraph [0038] and figs. 2-3) is accommodated in said outer metal shell (chassis 12 is located within outer housing 20; see paragraph [0038] and fig. 2).
Examiner notes that the recitation regarding the plastic chassis member having a protrusion through said opening in said outer metal shell appears to be directed to the structural relationship between the plastic chassis member and the function head. Since the structure being examined is that of the handle including an outer metal shell, and it appears that the above recitation is drawn to the optional structure of the function head including an outer metal shell, the above recitation is likewise considered to be optional.
PNG
media_image1.png
889
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
497
508
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
578
449
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Arndt discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Arndt further discloses wherein said outer metal shell includes at least one lateral opening (a lateral opening is formed around grips 44 when outer housing 20 is assembled; see annotated portion of fig. 2 above) through which a functional component (one of grips 44 comprises ON/OFF switch 100; see paragraph [0045] and fig. 1) at least partly extending to and/or accessible from an outside of the outer metal shell (ON/OFF switch 100 extends towards outer housing 20 and is accessible from the outside; see fig. 1) is connected to another functional component accommodated inside said outer metal shell (ON/OFF switch 100 appears to be electrically connected to motor 50 such that it can turn hair clipper 10 on or off; see fig. 8).
Regarding claim 3, Arndt discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Arndt further discloses wherein the handle is provided with a front module and a back module (grips 44; see fig. 7) at opposing lateral sides thereof (grips 44 are each located on opposite sides of hair clipper 10; see figs. 2, 7, and 8) each module being provided with said plastic chassis member extending through corresponding openings of said outer metal shell (grips 44 both extend through the openings of outer housing 20; see annotated portion of figs. 2, 5, and 8 above).
Regarding claim 4, Arndt discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Arndt further discloses wherein the handle is provided with a top module (bracket 106; see fig. 1) and a bottom module (cord protector 42; see fig. 5) at opposing longitudinal sides thereof (bracket 106 and cord protector 42 are located at opposite sides of hair clipper 10; see fig. 5) each module being provided with said plastic chassis member extending through corresponding openings of said outer metal shell (both bracket 106 and cord protector 42 extend through the openings of outer housing 20; see annotated portion of figs. 1 and 2 above).
Examiner notes that the top module is interpreted to be formed by the function head, per pg. 21, line 11 of the instant specification. Therefore, the same structure has been cited in regards to both terms.
Regarding claim 5, claim 1 recites that “at least one of said handle and said function head includes an outer metal shell”, i.e., claim 1 makes it optional which structure includes an outer metal shell. Either the handle includes the outer metal shell, the function head includes the outer metal shell, or both the handle and the function head include the outer metal shell. For purposes of examination, the structure requiring the handle including the outer metal shell is selected from the above options. Thus, claim 5 is interpreted to be optional because it is understood to be dependent on selection of the option where the function head includes the outer metal shell. If Applicant intends to have the other structures examined (the function head including the outer metal shell or the handle and function head both including the outer metal shell), those limitations must be positively recited.
Regarding claim 6, Arndt discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Arndt further discloses wherein said protrusion includes a collar (peripheral edge 72; see figs. 1 and 2) overlapping said opening and/or seated onto said outer surface of said metal shell section surrounding the opening (peripheral edge 72 is dimensioned to be slightly oversized so that edges 74, 76 of outer housing 20 are covered; see paragraph [0043] and figs. 1 and 5).
Regarding claim 7, Arndt discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Arndt teaches wherein said protrusion projects beyond the outer surface of the metal shell by an amount which is substantially constant along the entire opening even when the opening's contour does not extend in one plane (the protrusion extends what appears to be a constant amount above the outer surface of outer housing 20; see fig. 1 and annotated portion of fig. 5 above).
Regarding claim 8, Arndt discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Arndt teaches wherein said protrusion is made from soft plastic (the protrusion is part of grip 44, which is made from a soft, rubber-like material that is compressible to accommodate outer housing 20; see paragraphs [0009-0010]) with an outer contour matching the inner contour of the opening in terms of shape and dimension (the protrusion extends outwardly in such a way that the shape and dimension accommodates the opening of outer housing 20; see paragraph [0010] and fig. 1) to provide for sealing and/or form-fitting and/or snap-fitting engagement of the protrusion with the metal shell (when assembled, upper housing 22 and lower housing 24 exert a compressive force on grips 44 in order to accommodate variations of outer housing 20; see paragraphs [0009, 0043]).
Regarding claims 9 and 14, Arndt discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Arndt further discloses wherein said metal shell has opposite end portions each defining a closed ring-shaped cross-section (when upper housing 22 and lower housing 24 are assembled, both the end near the blades and the end near the cord protector have a “ring-shaped cross-section”; see figs. 10 and 15-16), wherein an intermediate section between said opposite end portions includes at least one lateral opening and/or lateral perforation (a lateral opening is formed around the intermediate section of outer housing 20; see annotated portion of fig. 2 above) for accessing at least one functional component accommodated inside said outer metal shell (ON/OFF switch 100 is accessible through the lateral opening formed by outer housing 20, and is located at least partially within outer housing 20; see figs. 7 and 8).
Regarding claim 10, Arndt discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Arndt teaches wherein said outer metal shell is formed in one piece with an integral, homogeneous, seamless structure having a ring-like (outer housing 20 is one construction which contains “ring-shaped” cross-sections and is formed cylindrically such that it is “sleeve-like”; see figs. 10 and 15-16) with closed annular cross-sections (outer housing 20 includes a closed “ring-shaped”, annular cross-section; see figs. 10 and 15-16).
Regarding claim 12, Arndt discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Arndt further discloses wherein characterized in that said outer metal shell includes at least one undercut portion (at least lower housing 24 of outer housing 20 comprises an undercut, which is presumed to assist a user in gripping the device; see annotated portion of fig. 4 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
203
504
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Arndt discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Arndt further discloses wherein said outer metal shell includes at least one opening (lateral opening formed around the intermediate section of outer housing 20; see annotated portion of fig. 2 above) surrounded by a three-dimensionally shaped metal shell section (the lateral opening where grip 44 is positioned is surrounded by a portion of outer housing 20; see fig. 4), said opening having a three-dimensionally shaped edge contour (edges 74, 76; see figs. 4 and 5) extending substantially perpendicular to the surrounding metal shell section along the entire contour of the opening (edges 74, 76 extend at least partially in a direction perpendicular to the oval-shaped lateral opening; see fig. 5), said surrounding shell portion neighboring and surrounding said opening having a varying orientation changing along the opening (the portion of outer housing 20 which surrounds the opening varies slightly in orientation, i.e., edges 74, 76 curve in various portions so that they are not all oriented on the same axis; see fig. 4).
Regarding claim 15, Arndt discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Arndt further discloses wherein said outer metal shell has an elongated, hollow shape (outer housing 20 has an elongated, cylindrical shape which is hollow so as to enclose chassis 12; see paragraph [0038] and figs. 2, 5) with frontal openings at opposite axial end portions (outer housing 20 comprises openings at opposite ends near the blade and cord protector; see annotated portion of fig. 2 above), said axial end portions having closed annular cross-sections surrounding the openings (when assembled, outer housing 20 has closed annular cross-sections around the openings at each end; see figs. 5 and 10).
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arndt (US 20220184827) in view of Rose (DE 102011103661).
Regarding claim 11, Arndt discloses the limitations of claim 10 as described in the rejection above.
Arndt does not explicitly disclose wherein said outer metal shell is a hydraulic pressure-formed portion deformed by hydraulic pressure and/or a hydroformed portion.
Rose teaches that it is known to form small housings, particularly those of stainless steel, using hydroforming (see paragraph [0006]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Arndt in view of the teachings of Rose to make the outer metal shell using a hydroforming process. It is understood that the small housing as taught by Rose is reasonably similar to a housing that would be used for a hair clipper or personal care device. Further, Rose teaches that it is beneficial to produce small housings using hydroforming because it is more economical and results in a device that can be designed in a more aesthetically pleasing manner (see paragraph [0008]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would then reasonably apply the known technique of Rose to the similar device of Arndt in order to achieve the same benefits, including a more economical design that is more aesthetically pleasing to a user.
Examiner notes that the outer metal shell being a hydraulic pressure-formed portion deformed by hydraulic pressure and/or a hydroformed portion is interpreted as intended use since the method of producing the outer metal shell is disclosed as a process in the specification. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see MPEP 2113.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arndt (US 20220184827) in view of Jungnickel (US 20210220101).
Regarding claim 16, Arndt discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Arndt does not explicitly disclose wherein said metal shell is made from stainless steel or a steel containing chromium, nickel and molybdenum, particularly about 10-25 mass% Cr, about 5-20 mass% Ni and about 1-5 mass% Mo or about 16-18 mass% Cr, about 10-14 mass% Ni and about 2-3 mass% Mo.
Jungnickel discloses wherein said metal shell is made from stainless steel (metal tube housing 18 may be made from stainless steel and/or aluminum; see paragraph [0056] and fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Arndt in view of Jungnickel to make the outer metal shell from stainless steel since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416). Further, Arndt discloses that outer shell 20 may be made from other metals or composites known in the art (see paragraph [0038]), which would lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to consider the usage of other materials. Jungnickel discloses that making a housing from stainless steel and/or aluminum provides high durability and provides high quality perception and product appearance (see paragraph [0058]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the similar device of Arndt would receive the same benefits if modified to use stainless steel as disclosed by Jungnickel, thus making the modification obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 20190299438 to Erndt, drawn to an electric shaver; US 20100325892 to Nuber, drawn to a razor; US 20010017255 to Katsumi, drawn to an electric shaver; and US 5189792 to Otsuka, drawn to a reciprocatory electric shaver.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HALEIGH N WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3818. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 530AM-330PM EST.
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.
/HALEIGH N WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/JENNIFER S MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724