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 Group I claims 8-15 in the reply filed on 6 January 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6 January 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15 recites “A method of claim 7…”. However, claim 7 is an apparatus and recites the same claim limitations as are found in claim 15. It appears this claim should be depended from claim 8 and will be examined as such in an effort for compact prosecution.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 10-12, 14, and 15 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.
The term “substantially” in claim 10 line 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the mechanism" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In the instant case, several “mechanisms” are clamed, i.e. first, second, pivot, manually operable mechanism, this is indefinite which mechanism is being referred to.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the force mechanism" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the elongated bodies" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The terms “substantially” in claim 12 lines 1 and 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, 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.
The term “substantially” in claim 14 line 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, 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.
The term “substantially” in claim 15 line 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, 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.
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 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman (US 2011/0225833 A1) as evidenced by US 2007/0193042 A1 to Worrick et al .
As to claim 8, Hoffman discloses a method, comprising:
joining a protective material (#20) to a first pressure head on an end of a first body on a surface of the first body (#16 where the materials is inherently on a surface of the first body 16) facing a second pressure head on an end of a second body (#14);
adapting a first mechanism between the first and the second bodies enabling the bodies to separate and to close together, separating and closing the first and the second pressure heads (biasing springs 18);
adapting a second mechanism between the first and the second bodies providing force urging the pressure heads together (other #18);
providing a manually operable mechanism adapted to counteract the force mechanism to separate the pressure heads (#22 levers);
manipulating the manually operable mechanism, separating the pressure heads; positioning the second pressure head above a shaving head of a safety razor with the first pressure head having the protective materials below the shaving head, on a side of the shaving head having blades; and manipulating the manually operable mechanism allowing the pressure heads to close, the protective material urged against the blades in the shaving head of the safety razor. ([0027] “The levers 22 are provided to enable a user to apply a force to the razor blade protection system 10 to overcome the bias provided by the biasing springs 18. Accordingly, the levers 22 may be configured and adapted to take any form that enables a user to counteract the bias force. The clam shell design provided in the example illustrated in FIG. 1 has the advantage of being easy to manipulate using one hand, freeing the other hand for holding the razor blade 26.” and as seen in Fig. 1-3).
Hoffman discloses the protective material prevents corrosion of the blade and need not be an absorbent material. ([0025]) Hoffman fails to explicitly disclose the use of a sacrificial anode as a protective materials.
However, Hoffman, in describing the background of the invention, incorporates by reference US 2007/0193042 A1 that discloses using dissimilar metals such as aluminum as a sacrificial anode to protect the steel razor blades ([0003]).
The prior art recognized different materials to use in order to prevent corrosion of the steel razor blades. The difference between the explicit disclosure of Hoffman’s embodiments and the instant claims is the specific substitution of the protection material being a sacrificial anode made of aluminum. Hoffman’s own disclosure recognized this particular component, i.e. an aluminum sacrificial anode, as a particular material that enables the specific function of preventing corrosion of the steel razor blades.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used an aluminum sacrificial anode as the protective material as disclosed in Hoffman in place of the generic protective material in the explicit embodiment of Hoffman because the sacrificial aluminum anode is a recognized material used for the protection of steel razor blades when in contact with said blades (Worrick [0073]) which provides the clear, predictable result of providing a recognized protective material urged in contact with the blade to prevent corrosion of said razor blade. See MPEP 2143 B and 2144.07.
As to claim 9, while Hoffman doesn’t explicitly state “leaving the pressure heads clamped to the shaving head, protecting the razor blades from corrosion, until the razor is again required for use”, such a limitation is necessarily met because the device in Hoffman is removable a number of times between uses irrespective as to the length of time between uses where the removal before using the razor again is an obvious manipulation of the device to enable one to use said razor.
As to claim 10, Hoffman discloses wherein the manually operated mechanism comprises the first and the second body as elongated bodies joined by a pivot mechanism, manipulating the mechanism comprising pressing the elongated bodies toward one another on an end of the apparatus opposite the pressure heads. (handles #22). As to the location of the pivot mechanism, Hoffman fails to disclose the pivoting mechanism is at a substantially central point. However, changing the location of a pivot from the outside, where the hinges are shown in the drawing, to the center is a prima facie rearrangement of parts to provide an expected result of a pivot location of the first and second bodies. See MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
As to claim 11, Hoffman further discloses wherein the force mechanism is a spring engaging the elongated bodies urging the pressure heads together, the spring force urging the pressure heads closed. ([0024]).
As to claim 12, Hoffman fails to explicitly disclose a circular shape. However, Hoffman discloses the shape of the device may be adapted to any shape of the blade or head ([0021]). Therefore, such a change in shape would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used a different shape as required as a matter of choice to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 IV B.
As to claim 13, Hoffman further discloses wherein the first and second elongated bodies are symmetrical about a long axis and the pressure heads and the sacrificial anode are adapted to approximate the shape of a head of a safety razor, each having a greater dimension at a right angle to the long axis and a smaller dimension in the direction of the long axis. (See Fig. 1 #10 the shape of the protection device with shape of the razor 24).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Roberts et al (US 9,988,132 B1).
As to claims 14 and 15, Hoffman fails to disclose using zinc or magnesium as the sacrificial anode material.
Roberts discloses using magnesium or zinc as a sacrificial anode in water environments (col. 2 lines 36-44) for steel (col. 2 lines 35).
Thus, the prior art Hoffman differs from the instant claims by the specific material of the sacrificial anode. Metals for use of sacrificial anodes to protect steel are known from Roberts.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used either magnesium or zinc for the metal of the sacrificial anode as taught by Roberts as the specific materials for the sacrificial anode in Hoffman because such as modification amounts to an obvious substitution of materials to achieve the predicable result of their use as a sacrificial anode for steel. See MPEP 2143 B and 2144.07.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOUIS J RUFO whose telephone number is (571)270-7716. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9 am to 5 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, Luan Van can be reached at 571-272-8521. 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.
/LOUIS J RUFO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795