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
The Examiner acknowledges the cancellation of claims 2-3 and 20 and the amendments to claims 1, 4, and 15, the specification, and the drawings.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Regarding the claimed “cartridge casing” of claim 1, the specification as filed does not disclose a cartridge casing, however, a structure that would be reasonable understood as a “cartridge casing” is shown in Fig. 11 of the instant drawings. As the structure is now claimed the structure should be amended into the specification to provide proper antecedent for the claimed structure with care to avoid adding new matter.
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.
Claim 19 is 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.
Claim 19 recites, “A razor cartridge operatively adapted for use with a shaving apparatus according to claim 1.” Claim 1, however, already requires that the shaving apparatus includes a razor cartridge, since claim 1 requires that the cartridge opening is “operatively associated with a razor cartridge” and since claim 1 specifies features of the razor cartridge. Claim 19 is indefinite because it is unclear whether an additional razor cartridge is required by claim 19, or whether the razor cartridge already required by claim 1 can satisfy the feature of “A razor cartridge” as required by claim 1. The use of “A” in claim 19 suggests that a new cartridge is required; however, interpreting claim 19 in view of the present specification suggests that claim 19 is describing the cartridge already required by claim 1. For example, must the cartridge of claim 19 have a casing, even though claim 19 does not make that requirement explicit?
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.
(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, 4-9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cecil (US 2003/0033717 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cecil discloses a shaving apparatus (Cecil, Fig. 1-11, 10) including:
a base (Cecil, Fig. 1-11, 20) having a user holding face (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Cecil) below) and an opposing razor holding face (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Cecil) below), the razor holding face (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Cecil) below) defining a cartridge opening (Cecil, Fig. 4, 42) operatively adapted to associate with a razor cartridge (Cecil, Fig. 4, 30), the razor cartridge comprising (i) a cartridge casing (Cecil, Fig. 4, 30) and (ii) at least one razor blade held by the cartridge casing (Cecil, P. 0041, given the broadest reasonable interpretation of “cartridge casing” in view of the limitation “at least one razor blade held by the cartridge casing” being any structure capable of holding a razor blade the structure identified by Cecil as reference character 30 meets this definition as it is a structure that supports at least one razor blade), wherein the cartridge opening is operatively adapted to enclose the cartridge casing (Cecil, Fig. 4, 42 and 44, as can be seen in Fig. 4 of Cecil at least a portion of the cartridge casing is enclosed when assembled by the cartridge opening); and
a user holding formation (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Cecil) below) operatively associated with the base (Cecil, Fig. 1-11, 20) and outwardly extending from the user holding face (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Cecil) below) of the base (Cecil, Fig. 1-11, 20), the user holding formation (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Cecil) below) including a head (Cecil, Fig. 1-11, 22) laterally spaced apart from the base (Cecil, Fig. 1-11, 20), wherein the base (Cecil, Fig. 1-11, 20) is operatively adapted to be held by fingers of a user (Cecil, Fig. 10-11, P. 0002) located between the user holding face of the base and the head of the user holding formation (Cecil, P. 0002 and 0036).
PNG
media_image1.png
397
552
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Cecil discloses a shaving apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the user holding formation (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Cecil) above) is operatively attached to the base (Cecil, Fig. 1-11, 20), the user holder formation co-operating with the base to define a first finger position and a second finger position (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Cecil) above) respectively for receiving a first and a second finger of a hand of the user (Cecil, Fig. 4, 26, P. 0036), the first and second finger positions being separated from one another by a divider (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Cecil) above) of the user holding formation, the divider outwardly extending from the user holding face of the base (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Cecil) above).
Regarding claim 5, Cecil discloses a shaving apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the razor holding face (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Cecil) above) includes an elongate first base member (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Cecil) above) and a second laterally spaced apart and co-extending elongate second base member (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Cecil) above).
Regarding claim 6, Cecil discloses a shaving apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the cartridge opening (Cecil, Fig. 4, 42) is formed between the first and second base members (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Cecil) above).
Regarding claim 7, Cecil discloses a shaving apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the razor cartridge (Cecil, Fig. 4, 30) includes a cutting face (Cecil, Fig. 4, 32 and 34) and an opposing rear face (Cecil, Fig. 4, 31), the cartridge opening (Cecil, Fig. 4, 42) being configured so that a gap is formed between the razor holding face of the base and the rear face of the razor cartridge secured in the cartridge opening (Cecil, P. 0043, lines 19-25).
Regarding claim 8, Cecil discloses a shaving apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the first and second base members (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Cecil) above) define a cartridge holding formation (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Cecil) above) to secure the razor cartridge within the cartridge opening (Cecil, P. 0043).
Regarding claim 9, Cecil discloses a shaving apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the cartridge holding formation (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Cecil) above) includes a first set of openings (Cecil, Fig. 4, 29) in the first base member (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Cecil) above) and an opposing second set of openings (Cecil, Fig. 4, 29) in the second base member (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Cecil) above).
Regarding claim 19, Cecil discloses a razor cartridge (Cecil, Fig. 4, 30) operatively adapted for use with a shaving apparatus (Cecil, Fig. 1-11, 10) according to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cecil (US 2003/0033717 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Cecil teaches a shaving apparatus according to claim 9, wherein each opening of the first set of openings has a first shape while each opening of the second set of openings has a second shape
Cecil does not teach the configuration of the first shape being different to that of the second shape.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the shape of either the first set of openings or the second set of openings taught by Cecil such that one set were shaped differently from the other as such changes in shapes only requires routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). Here it would be a mere matter of design choice for a person of ordinary skill in the art to select any desirable shape for a set of openings.
Regarding claim 11, Cecil teaches a shaving apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the user holding face (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Cecil) above) of the base (Cecil, Fig. 1-11, 20) includes a gripping formation (Cecil, P. 0039) to facilitate purchase between the first and second fingers of the user and the base.
Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cecil (US 2003/0033717 A1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Greene (US 6,018,877 A).
Regarding claim 12, Cecil teaches a shaving apparatus according to claim 11.
Cecil does not teach wherein the gripping formation comprises a plurality of protrusions outwardly extending from the user holding face of the base, or a plurality of recesses.
Greene teaches a shaving apparatus (Greene, Fig. 1-6, 2) wherein a gripping formation (Greene, Fig. 1-6, 8, 14, and 24) comprises a plurality of protrusions (Greene, Fig. 1-6, 16) outwardly extending from the user holding face (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Cecil) above) of the base (Greene, Fig. 1-6, 4), or a gripping formation (Greene, Fig. 1-6, 8) comprises a plurality of recesses (Greene, Fig. 1-6, 10). Such structures help to improve friction retention with the fingers of a user (Greene, Col. 3, lines 33-46).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the gripping formation taught by Cecil such as to feature a plurality of protrusions and/or a plurality of recesses as taught by Greene to help improve the friction retention of the gripping formations with the fingers of a user.
Regarding claim 13, Cecil in view of Greene teaches a shaving apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the divider (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Cecil) above) includes a first wall and an opposing second wall (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Cecil) above), wherein the first and second wall curve inwardly (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Cecil) above) to accommodate the first and second fingers of the user respectively (Cecil, P. 0036).
Regarding claim 14, Cecil in view of Greene teaches a shaving apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the head (Cecil, Fig. 1-11, 22) is transversely orientated relative to the divider (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Cecil) above).
Regarding claim 15, Cecil in view of Greene teaches a shaving apparatus according to claim 14, wherein the base (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Cecil) above) and the head (Cecil, Fig. 1-11, 22) in use cooperate to attach the shaving apparatus to the first and second fingers of the user (Cecil, Fig. 10-11, P. 0035).
Regarding claim 16, Cecil in view of Greene teaches a shaving apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the base (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Cecil) above) and the head (Cecil, Fig. 1-11, 22) are adapted to cooperate to provide a three-point contact between each of the first and second fingers of the user and the shaving apparatus (Cecil, Fig. 10-11), the base and head of Cecil contact a finger in three places; the side, top and bottom of a finger.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cecil (US 2003/0033717 A1) in view of Greene (US 6,018,877 A) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Frisch et al. (US 8,141,258 B1), hereafter known as Frisch.
Regarding claim 17, Cecil in view of Greene teaches a shaving apparatus according to claim 16.
Cecil in view of Greene does not teach wherein the head includes a shaving direction indicator.
Frisch teaches a shaving apparatus (Frisch, Fig. 1-4, 10) wherein a shaving direction indicator (Frisch, Fig. 3, 58) is included on the base (Frisch, Fig. 1-4, 14) on either a top surface (Frisch, Fig. 3, 1, Col. 3, lines 6-10) or a (Frisch, Fig. 4, 18) to indicate a shaving direction (Frisch, Col. 3, lines 6-10).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the base or head or any desirable surface taught by Cecil in view of Greene as to include a shaving direction indicator as taught by Frisch as doing so allows for a visual indication of the shaving direction of the apparatus.
Response to Arguments
The applicant asserts that the prior art of recorded used for the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) anticipation rejection of record does not disclose the amended limitations of amended claim 1. The Examiner disagrees, the cartridge casing is not described by the instant specification and while not considered new matter (as it is disclosed by Fig. 11 of the instant drawings) the cartridge casing is defined by the claims which define it as a structure that holds at least one razor blade and at least partially enclosed by a cartridge opening. Therefore the BRI of “cartridge casing” is a blade support partially enclosed by the cartridge opening. This is anticipated by P. 0041 of Cecil which states “head 30 may have one or more blades oriented for unidirectional shaving, or may have a plurality of pairs of blades oriented in opposite directions to permit bi-directional shaving”. The paragraph then goes into examples of possible configurations for the head. In regards to enclosing the “cartridge casing” the instant drawings show only a portion of the cartridge casing being enclosed and the claims do not specify how the casing is enclosed therefore the BRI of the limitation is “at least partially enclosed”. As such, the head (30) of Cecil discloses all the amended limitations and the applicant’s assertion is unpersuasive.
The applicant asserts that the device disclosed by Cecil can’t be held as claimed in claim 1 due to the structure disclosed by Cecil. The Examiner disagrees, as claimed in claim 1 are user must only be capable of holding the device with their fingers between the user holding face of the base and the head of the user holding formation, the claim does not state how the fingers much hold the instant invention. As it is improper to import limitation from the specification (see MPEP 2111.01(II)) the Examiner applied the broadest reasonable interpretation to the claim which is much more broad than the applicant asserts as it does not require a particular orientation of the fingers only that a user may hold the device of Cecil by the fingers between the claimed structures. As such, the applicant’s assertions are unpersuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Robert D Cornett whose telephone number is (571)270-0182. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am-5:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROBERT D CORNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/EVAN H MACFARLANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights