DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Information Disclosure Statement
All of the I.D.S.’s have been considered. One of the I.D.S.’s has NPL documents that have been lined through. It is unclear how the objection/rejection/allowance of claims with different combination of limitations is relevant to the instant application. Without any reasoning provided by Applicant, these NPL documents have not be considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
In Figure 2A, there is two occurrences of the number “853”. Was one of these supposed to be a different number?
In Figure 2C, “824” references a second tab which does not appear to be in Figure 2C. Should “824” be replaced with “823”?
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.
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:
In Figure 4, item 63
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
With regards to claim 1, the phrase “inner rim configured to engage a portion of said applicator head” is unclear. Earlier claim 1 discloses the “cover configured to surround said applicator head and to cover said treatment sheet”. As written, the cover surrounds the head and covers the treatment sheet and the inner rim separately engages the head which is not supported. The “surround” and “cover” limitations need to be disclosed after the inner rim is introduced and be linked to the inner rim because it is the inner rim that surrounds and engages a portion of the head and covers the treatment sheet.
With regards to claim 1, as currently written, the inner rim of the cover is not engaged with the applicator head. The claim only requires that the cover be configured to surround and cover but does not positively disclose a relationship between the inner rim of the cover and the head. In order for the cover to be comprised by the product, the inner rim of the cover needs a relationship with the head as supported by the specification.
With regards to claim 1, the phrase “standing on a resting surface” is unclear. This function needs to utilize structures that are already claimed. As written, the standing function does not utilize the “planar outer surface of the base” being the structure on the resting surface which is not supported. Without the planar outer surface on the resting surface, how is the product able to stand?
With regards to claim 1, the resting surface disclosure is indefinite and needs further definition. A vertical or oblique wall can be a resting surface.
With regards to claim 2, the one or more tabs disclosure is unclear. As written, the tab is part of the cover in a way unrelated to the base, planar outer surface, and the outer rim which is not supported. The tab or tabs disclosure needs to acknowledge relationships with the previously claimed cover structures because this is the only way there is support. Claim 14 has the same issue.
With regards to claim 3, the tab or tabs have an infinite amount of lengths and the claim needs further definition of the length so it is clear which is being referenced. Claims 15 and 16 have the same issue.
With regards to claim 4, the housing disclosure is unclear. As written, the housing does not have a structural relationship with the head or the handle of claim 1 which is not supported. Claim 6 has the same issue with the housing and the handle.
With regards to claim 8, claim 1 now discloses a handle. As written, the product has more than one handle which is not supported.
With regards to claim 9, the phrase “handle joined t said housing” is unclear. Claim 4 discloses the housing is independent from the handle. The housing and the handle cannot have a structural relationship later on. Claim 4 needs to disclose the handle is joined to the housing because this is the only way there is support.
With regards to claim 9, what structure allows for the handle to join to the frame.
With regards to claim 10, the “angle” is indefinite as the handle defines an infinite amount of curves that all define a different angle. The claim needs further definition of the angle so it is clear which is being referenced. The handle should define a longitudinal axis which is oblique in relation to the planar outer surface.
With regards to claim 12, claim 1 appears to now disclose all of claim 12 limitations. It is unclear what Applicant’s intentions are for this claim.
With regards to claim 13, any line drawn through the handle can be an axis of the handle and the sheet has circle surfaces. It is unclear which handle axis and which sheet surface are being referenced.
With regards to claim 15, as written, the handle does not define the center of gravity which is not supported. Claim 15 needs to incorporate the handle now that claim 1 discloses the handle. Claim 16 has the same issue.
With regards to claim 15, the phrase “a resting surface” is unclear. Claim 1 now discloses a resting surface and it is unclear if the claim 15 resting surface is the same or a different surface than the claim 1 surface. Also, the resting surface is not positively claimed and is indefinite. The tab length is indefinite because it is dependent on the resting surface.
With regards to claim 15, the “projection of said center of gravity” is unclear. What structure allows for the center of gravity to be projected. A line (63) drawn from the center of gravity (60) that is perpendicular to a plane 860 defined by the planar outer surface. Claim 16 has the same issue.
With regards to claim 15, it is unclear what structure allows for the projection to be on the resting surface. Figure 4 clearly shows the projection being on the tab.
With regards to claim 17, the phrase “a cavity configured to receive the applicator head” is unclear in light of the claim 1’s “surround” and “cover” limitations. Claim 17 needs to further limit the claim 1 limitation because the claim 17 disclosure is part of the claim 1 functions.
With regards to claim 18, the phrase “when the applicator head is received in the cavity” is unclear. The term “when” is not proper. In order for the cover to be comprised by the product, the head must always be in the cavity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-14 and 20 are rejected, as best understood, under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Malkewich (2010/0257744) in view of Simms et al. (5,604,983) and further in view of Welsh et al. (4,964,214).
With regards to claims 1-3, 8, 10, 12-14, and 20, Malkewich discloses the invention including a personal care product (20 and 10) having a head with a treatment means (22) and a handle (21), a cover (10) configured to surround the head and to cover the treatment means (12), the cover having a base including a planar outer surface (Fig. 2), an outer rim around a perimeter of the planar outer surface (Fig. 3), an inner rim configured to engage a portion of the applicator head (12), the cover is one-piece having no hinges, springs, or movable components (Fig. 3), when standing on a resting surface without additional support and capable of allowing the drainage of the product (Fig. 3), a tab integral with the cover and extending beyond the inner rim (11), a tab length of the tab (Fig. 1), the handle is disposed at an angle relative to the planar outer surface (Fig. 3), an axis of the handle is not parallel to a surface of the treatment means (Fig. 3), the handle is angled towards the tab (Fig. 3), and the inner and outer rims are perpendicular to the planar outer surface (Fig. 1).
However, with regards to claims 1, 4-7, and 9, Malkewich fails to disclose the treatment means is a treatment sheet, the applicator head has a housing with a window, a frame surrounding the treatment sheet, and the handle is joined to the housing.
Simms et al. teach it is old and well known in the art of applicator heads (14) of razors (Fig. 2) to incorporate the treatment means being treatment sheet (16), the applicator head (14) has a housing with a window (15), a frame surrounding the treatment sheet (17), and the handle is joined to the housing (Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to have provided Malkewich with the razor, as taught by Simms et al., because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results and all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
With regards to claim 1, Malkewich in view of Simms et al. fail to disclose the treatment sheet is flat.
Welsh et al. teach it is old and well known in the art of treatment sheets of razors to incorporate a flat treatment sheet (2, Fig. 9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to have provided Malkewich in view of Simms et al. with a flat treatment sheet, as taught by Welsh et al., because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results and all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
However, with regards to claims 3 and 11, Malkewich in view of Simms et al. further in view of Welsh et al. fail to disclose the tab length range and the angle range.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the tab length within any reasonable range including the claimed range and to have made the angle within any reasonable range including the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the device of Malkewich in view of Simms et al. further in view of Welsh et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claims 3 and 11. The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malkewich (2010/0257744) in view of Simms et al. (5,604,983) and further in view of Welsh et al. (4,964,214) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liedblad (6,009,622).
With regards to claim 19, Malkewich in view of Simms et al. further in view of Welsh et al. disclose the polygonal shape (12 in Malkewich).
However, with regards to claims 17-19, Malkewich in view of Simms et al. further in view of Welsh et al. fail to disclose the cover has a planar inner surface that defines a cavity with the inner rim to receive the head and the planar inner surface is parallel with the treatment sheet when the head is in the cavity.
Liedblad teaches it is known in the art of razor covers to incorporate the cover with a planar inner surface (32) that defines a cavity with the inner rim to receive the head (Fig. 4) and the planar inner surface is parallel with the treatment sheet when the head is in the cavity (Fig. 1). The combination would keep the polygonal shape already taught by Malkewich. It would have been well within one’s technical skill to have made the treatment sheet engaging portion of the cavity of Malkewich any reasonable shape including a planar surface. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to have provided Malkewich in view of Simms et al. further in view of Welsh et al. with a planar inner surface, as taught by Liedblad, because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results and all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Claims
It is to be noted that claims 15 and 16 have not been rejected over prior art. It may or may not be readable over the prior art but allowability cannot be determined at this time in view of the issues under 35 USC § 112. Where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In reSteele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection is not specifically challenged in the argument.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON DANIEL PRONE whose telephone number is (571)272-4513. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 7:00 am-3:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer D Ashley can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
21 September 2026
/Jason Daniel Prone/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights