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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/07/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 5, 12 and 17 and the cancelation of claims 4, 11, 16 and 19.
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, 5-10, 12-15 and 17 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 claim states “wherein the base and the head are configured such that in use there is a three-point contact between the shaving apparatus and the hand of the user in which (i) the base abuts the anterior proximal phalanx of the first and second fingers of the hand; (ii) the posterior surface of the first proximal interphalangeal (PIP) join of the first and second fingers abuts an operative lower surface of the head; and (iii) the anterior distal phalanx pad of the first and second fingers abut the base” in lines 20-25 of the claim. It is unclear if the preamble of claim 1 is incorrect as the above limitations are drawn to a method of use for an apparatus while claim 1 is currently claimed as an apparatus. As best understood by the Examiner the claim is drawn to an apparatus, as such, the limitations will be treated as functional limitations. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (see MPEP 2114).
Regarding claims 5-10, 12-15 and 17, these claims are rejected as indefinite due to their dependency on claim 1.
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 and 5-9 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 hold a razor cartridge (Cecil, Fig. 4, 30); 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),
wherein 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, in use, 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),
wherein the base (i) is substantially parallel to the head of the user holding formation (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Cecil) below), as the term “substantially” is not defined by the applicant the common definition is applied being to a great extent or for the most part or essentially and given the instant drawings (see Fig. 4 and 6) the base and head of the user holding formation disclosed by Cecil are substantially parallel, and (ii) includes a gripping formation (Cecil, P. 0039) to facilitate purchase between the first and second fingers of the user and the base; and
wherein the base and the head are configured such that in use there is a three-point contact between the shaving apparatus and the hand of the user in which (i) the base abuts the anterior proximal phalanx of the first and second fingers of the hand; (ii) the posterior surface of the first proximal interphalangeal (PIP) join of the first and second fingers abuts an operative lower surface of the head; and (iii) the anterior distal phalanx pad of the first and second fingers abut the base, as Cecil discloses the prior art apparatus as being used by two fingers (Cecil, Figs. 10-11; P. 0010-0011) as a user with some difficulty would be capable of holding the device disclosed by Cecil according to the claimed intended use and as Cecil discloses all of the structural limitations of the claim the intended use of the device does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus (see MPEP 2114(II)).
PNG
media_image1.png
397
552
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Cecil discloses a shaving apparatus according to claim 1, 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).
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.
Claim 10 is 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.
Claims 12-15 are 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).
Regarding claim 12, Cecil teaches a shaving apparatus according to claim 1.
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).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cecil (US 2003/0033717 A1) in view of Frisch et al. (US 8,141,258 B1).
Regarding claim 17, Cecil in view of Greene teaches a shaving apparatus according to claim 1.
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 inclusion of drawn to a method of holding the device overcome the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) anticipation type prior art rejection of record. The Examiner disagrees. First, as claim 1 is an apparatus claim and Cecil discloses all of the limitations for the structure of the instant invention while also disclosing being capable of being used by two fingers a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” (see MPEP 2114(II)). Second, the applicant in their assertion refers to properties regarding their claimed structures that are not claimed. Specifically the applicant states “[t]he geometry of the handle provides inherent stability through its design and natural contact with the fingers, providing multi-directional stability, including lateral, fore-and-aft, and rotational stability, allowing control while the hand remains in its natural functional position”. The claims do not contain limitations drawn to the geometry of the device. Instead the claims are drawn to a broad recitation of the relative position of the claimed structures. For instance, the applicant asserts that the base disclosed by Cecil is not broad enough for the claimed function, however, the claim does not define the claimed base of the instant invention to include such a property. As such, the applicant’s assertion is unpersuasive
Conclusion
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 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights