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 .
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 head housing including a first member provided with a locking part and the lid part including a second member provided with a hook part (see at least claims 10 and 11) and the lid part including a first member provided with a locking part and the head housing including a second member provided with a hook part (see at least claims 10 and 11) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 10, 11, and 14-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 10 and 11: “locking part” should be amended to read “locking projection”, since the specification designates a different element as the locking part (see elements 223 as described in at least paragraph [0035]) – for purposes of examination, the “locking projection” (see at least paragraph [0166]) is understood to be the intended structure as recited in the claims
Claim 11: “first surface” and “second surface” should be amended to read “upper surface” and “lower surface” respectively to maintain consistency with the specification
Claim 14: “parts protruding outward from the head housing” appears to refer to the structure previously referred to as the “operation part”; the claim should be amended such that this structure is only referred to as the “operation part” to improve clarity
Claim 15: it is not made explicitly clear what is intended by the claim limitation “where a part is exposed” – it is presumed to be intended that this “part” is the “blade part” as recited in claim 1, and has been treated as such for purposes of examination
Claim 16: at the last two lines, “coupling part” should be amended to read “coupling wall”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
• “coupling mechanism” as recited in at least claim 1 (first, “mechanism” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “coupling”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “coupling” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the mechanism)
• “link mechanism” as recited in at least claim 1 (first, “mechanism” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “link”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “link” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the mechanism)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 10 and 11 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 10 and 11, the “first member” and “second member” are not described in the specification. It is unclear which structures are intended to be designated by the first and second members, particularly because claims 10 and 11 provide an optional configuration where either the head housing or the lid part may include the first member and the head housing or lid part (whichever was not initially selected) may include the second member. The specification does not provide sufficient description to determine what the first and second members are, or if they are different depending on whether they are included as part of the head housing or the lid part. Additionally, if the head housing comprises the hook part and the lid part comprises the locking part, is the construction of the head housing and lid part different, or can the hook part and locking part be swapped without impacting the rest of the structure? If the hook part and locking part are swapped, are all of their constituent elements the same, e.g., the first and second inclined surfaces, the curved protruding surface, etc.? The specification is unclear in this regard, thus it is not known if different or additional structures are required for this alternate configuration.
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 and 11 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.
Because the “first member” and “second member” are not described in the specification, it is unclear what structures these terms are referring to. In the case that the head housing comprises the locking part and the lid part comprises the hook part as is shown in the drawings, is the entirety of the head housing considered to be the “first member”, while the lid part is considered to be the “second member”? That is, are the first and second members simply alternate terms for the head housing and lid part? It appears as though the structure of the first and second members is dependent on whether the head housing or the lid part comprises the locking part or hook part – additionally, would the locking part and hook part need to be formed differently depending on whether they are provided on the first member or second member? Because it is unclear what the first and second members are, and whether the locking part and hook part need to be formed differently depending on which member they are provided on, the scope of the claim cannot be readily determined.
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.
Claim 2 is 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 2 does not further limit the subject matter of claim 1, because claim 1 has already recited at lines 7-8 “the first direction being a front-back direction of the head part”. 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 § 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu (US 20160151922) in view of Otsuka (US 5463813), as evidenced by Ochiai (GB 2129732).
Regarding claim 1, Shimizu discloses a depilatory device (electric shaver 1; see paragraph [0032] and fig. 1) comprising: a body (body 10; see fig. 1); and a head part (head 20; see fig. 1), wherein: the head part comprises a blade part which is configured to cut hair (head part 20, which is for shaving hair, comprises blade blocks 30; see paragraph [0032] and fig. 1), the head part is supported by the body in a state where the head part is reciprocatable relative to the body in a first direction (head 20 is configured to swing on swing axis XA extending in the longitudinal direction of head 20; see paragraph [0047] and fig. 5), the first direction being a front-back direction of the head part (the first direction extends from a front to the rear of head 20; see fig. 5), the head part comprises a head housing provided inside with a space (head 20 comprises head case 21 which includes an interior space for accommodating blade blocks 30; see paragraph [0034] and fig. 2), the head part is supported by the body using a coupling mechanism (head supporting part 50 connects body 10 to head 20; see paragraph [0032] and fig. 5), the coupling mechanism comprises a link mechanism (swing supporting part 60; see figs. 4 and 5) that causes the head part to be swung in the first direction about a virtual axis with respect to the body (swing supporting part 60 supports head 20 so that it can be swung about swing axes XA, XB; see paragraph [0046]), the virtual axis extends in a second direction intersecting the first direction (swing axis XA extends in a second direction which intersects the first direction; see fig. 5), the link mechanism comprises a connection end connected to the head part (second support arms 64 are rotatably attached to head 20; see paragraph [0051] and figs. 4-5).
Shimizu does not explicitly disclose the head housing comprises a surface having an opening window communicating with the space, the opening window is covered with a lid part that is openable and attached to the head housing, the lid part is configured to slidably move along the surface of the head housing.
Otsuka discloses the head housing comprises a surface having an opening window (head frame 21 comprises a surface with opening 74; see figs. 2 and 4) communicating with the space (opening 74 communicates with an inner space of head frame 21; see fig. 4), the opening window is covered with a lid part that is openable and attached to the head housing (opening 74 is covered by slider handle 25, which is attached to head frame 21; see fig. 4), the lid part is configured to slidably move along the surface of the head housing (slider handle 25 is vertically slidable along the surface of head frame 21; see col. 8, lines 54-56 and fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shimizu in view of Otsuka to include a lid part. As evidenced by Ochiai, including lids on a shaving head allows a user to wash the interior of the head after use (see abstract). A person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably seek to modify Shimizu in view of Otsuka to provide the same benefit of providing a user a method for rinsing the shaving head.
Shimizu as modified discloses an opening and closing direction of the lid part intersects a trajectory drawn by the lid part when the head part is reciprocated relative to the body in the first direction (as modified to include a lid part, the opening/closing direction intersects the trajectory of the lid – see swinging axis XA; see fig. 5), the lid part exists inside a virtual circle about the virtual axis (as modified, the lid part exists at least partially inside the virtual circle; see annotated portion of fig. 5 below), and the virtual circle passes through the connection end when the head part is viewed in the second direction (the virtual circle passes through second support arms 64 when viewed from the second direction; see annotated portion of fig. 5 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
633
637
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Shimizu as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Shimizu as modified further discloses wherein the first direction is a front-back direction of the head part (the first direction extends from a front to the rear of head 20; see fig. 5).
Regarding claim 3, Shimizu as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Shimizu as modified further discloses wherein the head part is supported by the body in a state of being movable relative to the body in a direction intersecting the first direction (head 20 is configured to swing on swing axis XB which is perpendicular to swing axis XA; see paragraph [0055] and fig. 5).
Regarding claim 4, Shimizu as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Shimizu as modified further discloses wherein the head part is supported by the body in such a way that the head part is swung in the first direction (head 20 is configured to swing on swing axis XA extending in the longitudinal direction of head 20; see paragraph [0047] and fig. 5), and the head part has a rotation center with a distance from the lid part (as modified, head 20 has a rotation center at point XA that has a distance from the lid part; see fig. 5), the distance being shorter than a longest distance from the rotation center of the head part (the distance from point XA to the lid part is shorter than the distance from point XA to the longest distance to head 20; see fig. 5).
Regarding claim 6, Shimizu as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Shimizu as modified further discloses wherein the virtual axis is located outside the head part when the head part is viewed in the second direction (swing axis XA is located outside of head 20 when viewed in the second direction; see fig. 5).
Regarding claim 7, Shimizu as modified discloses the limitations of claim 6 as described in the rejection above.
Otsuka further discloses wherein the opening window is formed in the head housing so as to open in the first direction (opening 74 is formed in the first direction; see fig. 4).
Regarding claim 12, Shimizu as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Otsuka further discloses wherein the lid part comprises a lid body that is openable and configured to cover the opening window (slider handle 25 forms a lid body that is openable and covers opening 74; see fig. 4), and a guide that guides movement of the lid body in the opening and closing direction (the walls of head frame 21 that are above and below opening 74 form a guide that guides movement of slider handle 25 in a vertical opening/closing direction; see fig. 4).
Regarding claim 13, Shimizu as modified discloses the limitations of claim 12 as described in the rejection above.
Otsuka further discloses wherein the lid body has an elongated shape in an intersecting direction intersecting the opening and closing direction of the lid part (the lid body of slider handle 25 has an elongated shape in a transverse direction which intersects the vertical opening/closing direction; see fig. 4), the lid body is provided in the intersecting direction with an operation part configured to open and close the lid part (an operation part is formed on the lid body which is configured to help a user grip slider handle 25; see annotated portion of fig. 2 below), and the guide is formed near each of the operation parts (the guide is formed near the operation part; see fig. 4).
PNG
media_image2.png
372
499
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Otsuka does not explicitly disclose multiple operation parts provided on opposite sides of the lid body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Shimizu in view of Otsuka to make the singular operation part into two operation parts provided on opposite sides of the lid body since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art (see Nerwin v. Erlicnrnan, 168 USPQ 177, 179). In the instant case, the singular operation part of Otsuka can be separated into two separate operation parts without changing the overall function of the device. In this way, two operation parts are provided, each on an opposite side of the lid body.
Regarding claim 14, Shimizu as modified discloses the limitations of claim 13 as described in the rejection above.
Otsuka further discloses wherein the lid part is attached to the head housing in a state where at least a part of the lid body protrudes outward from the head housing (at least a portion of the lid body of slider handle 25 protrudes from head frame 21; see fig. 4), the lid body includes parts protruding outward from the head housing on the respective opposite sides of the lid body in the intersecting direction (as modified to include two separate operation parts, the lid body includes a pair of operation parts that protrude outwardly from head frame 21 in the intersecting direction; see fig. 4 and annotated portion of fig. 2 above), the parts each serving as the operation part that opens or closes the lid part by being hooked with a finger (the operation parts can be actuated by a user’s finger in order to open or close slider handle 25; see col. 8, lines 54-56 and fig. 4), and one of the parts on which the finger is hooked when the lid part is operated in the opening direction has a first amount of protrusion from the head housing (the first operation part has a first amount of protrusion from head frame 21; see fig. 4).
Otsuka does not explicitly disclose that the first amount of protrusion is smaller than a second amount of protrusion of another of the parts on which the finger is hooked when the lid part is operated in the closing direction from the head housing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Shimizu in view of Otsuka to make the first amount of protrusion smaller than the second amount of protrusion since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). In the instant case, although it appears the difference in protrusions is intended to contribute to preventing unintentional opening of the lid (see paragraphs [0154-0155] of instant specification), it is not clear as to how the differences in the protrusions achieve this effect. Further, it appears as though Shimizu as modified would not perform differently – that is, it would still provide a lid part that is capable of being opened and closed. Therefore it is understood that as modified, Shimizu would perform the same as a device that has a first protrusion smaller than a second protrusion as recited.
Regarding claim 15, Shimizu as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Shimizu as modified further discloses wherein the head part includes a head base part supported by the body (head 20 includes bottom head case 21B, which is supported by body 10; see paragraph [0034] and figs. 2 and 5), and a head cover part that is detachably attached to the head base part to cover the blade part in a state where a part is exposed (top head case 21A at least partially covers blade blocks 30; see fig. 2).
Shimizu as modified does not explicitly disclose that the lid part is attached to the head cover part.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Shimizu to make the lid part attached to the head cover part since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70). In the instant case, the lid part could reasonably be attached to either the head cover part or the head base part without changing an overall function of the device.
Regarding claim 16, Shimizu discloses a depilatory device (electric shaver 1; see paragraph [0032] and fig. 1) comprising: a body (body 10; see fig. 1); and a head part (head 20; see fig. 1), wherein: the head part comprises a blade part which is configured to cut hair (head part 20, which is for shaving hair, comprises blade blocks 30; see paragraph [0032] and fig. 1) and supported by the body in a state where the head part is reciprocatable relative to the body in a first direction (head 20 is configured to swing on swing axis XA extending in the longitudinal direction of head 20; see paragraph [0047] and fig. 5); the head part comprises a head housing provided inside with a space (head 20 comprises head case 21 which includes an interior space for accommodating blade blocks 30; see paragraph [0034] and fig. 2).
Shimizu does not explicitly disclose that the head housing comprises a surface having an opening window communicating with the space, the opening window is covered with a lid part that is openable and attached to the head housing, the lid part is configured to slidably move along the surface of the head housing the lid part includes a lid body that is openable and configured to cover the opening window, the lid body includes a front wall, a rear wall and a coupling wall, the coupling wall coupling the front wall to the rear wall, a groove part is provided between the front wall and the rear wall, a part of the head housing is inserted in the groove part when the opening window is opened by operating the lid part, an upper end of the groove part constitutes a part of a lower surface of the coupling wall, the groove part includes an opening part at the lower end thereof, the front wall extends in a down direction from a front part of the lower surface of the coupling wall so as to face a front surface of the rear wall, the rear wall extends in the down direction from a rear part of the lower surface of the coupling wall so as to face a rear surface of the front wall, and a part of the lower surface of the coupling wall constituting the upper end of the groove part is located between the front part of the lower surface of the coupling part and the rear part of the lower surface of the coupling part.
Otsuka discloses that the head housing comprises a surface having an opening window (head frame 21 comprises a surface with opening 74; see figs. 2 and 4) communicating with the space (opening 74 communicates with an inner space of head frame 21; see fig. 4), the opening window is covered with a lid part that is openable and attached to the head housing (opening 74 is covered by slider handle 25, which is attached to head frame 21; see fig. 4), the lid part is configured to slidably move along the surface of the head housing (slider handle 25 is vertically slidable along the surface of head frame 21; see col. 8, lines 54-56 and fig. 4), the lid part includes a lid body that is openable and configured to cover the opening window (slider handle 25 forms a lid body that is openable and covers opening 74; see fig. 4), the lid body includes a front wall, a rear wall and a coupling wall (see annotated portion of fig. 4 below), the coupling wall coupling the front wall to the rear wall (the coupling wall connects the front wall to the rear wall; see annotated portion of fig. 4 below), a groove part is provided between the front wall and the rear wall (the groove part is located between the front and rear walls; see annotated portion of fig. 4 below), a part of the head housing is inserted in the groove part when the opening window is opened by operating the lid part (a portion of head frame 21 is inserted into the groove part; see annotated portion of fig. 4 below), an upper end of the groove part constitutes a part of a lower surface of the coupling wall (the upper end of the groove part constitutes a lower surface of the coupling wall; see annotated portion of fig. 4 below), the groove part includes an opening part at the lower end thereof (see annotated portion of fig. 4 below), the front wall extends in a down direction from a front part of the lower surface of the coupling wall so as to face a front surface of the rear wall (the front wall extends out from a front end of the lower surface of the coupling wall so that it faces the rear wall; see annotated portion of fig. 4 below), the rear wall extends in the down direction from a rear part of the lower surface of the coupling wall so as to face a rear surface of the front wall (the rear wall extends out from a rear end of the lower surface of the coupling wall so that it faces the front wall; see annotated portion of fig. 4 below), and a part of the lower surface of the coupling wall constituting the upper end of the groove part is located between the front part of the lower surface of the coupling part and the rear part of the lower surface of the coupling part (the upper end of the groove part is located between the front end of the lower surface and the second end of the lower surface; see annotated portion of fig. 4 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
655
398
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shimizu in view of Otsuka to include a lid part. As evidenced by Ochiai, including lids on a shaving head allows a user to wash the interior of the head after use (see abstract). A person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably seek to modify Shimizu in view of Otsuka to provide the same benefit of providing a user a method for rinsing the shaving head.
Shimizu as modified discloses an opening and closing direction of the lid part intersects a trajectory drawn by the lid part when the head part is reciprocated relative to the body in the first direction (as modified to include a lid part, the opening/closing direction intersects the trajectory of the lid – see swinging axis XA; see fig. 5).
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu (US 20160151922) in view of Otsuka (US 5463813), further in view of Burca (US 20070131530), as evidenced by Ochiai (GB 2129732).
Regarding claim 8, Shimizu as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Shimizu as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the lid part has a first operation load in an opening direction of the lid part, the first operation load being different from a second operation load in a closing direction of the lid part.
Burca teaches wherein the lid part has a first operation load in an opening direction of the lid part (cover member 14 has a first operation load in an “opening” direction; see fig. 3), the first operation load being different (due to locking tabs 20, 30, the amount of force required to remove cover member 14 from base member 12 is different; see paragraph [0016]) from a second operation load in a closing direction of the lid part (cover member 14 has a second operation load in a “closing” direction; see fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Shimizu in view of Burca to make the first and second operation loads different from one another. It is known that providing locking tabs can prevent unintended opening of a container. This is achieved by a difference in operation loads, where the locking tabs make it more difficult to “open” the lid (thus a higher operation load is needed to open it). As shown in figs. 2 and 3, corresponding recesses 22, 32 must be pulled free from locking tabs 20, 30 in order to “open” the lid (cover member 14). When “closing” the lid, the curved nature of locking tabs 20, 30 facilitate connection such that recesses 22, 32 easily slide over locking tabs 20, 30 (see fig. 2). In this way, the operation load when closing the lid is reduced. Therefore, in order to prevent undesired opening of the lid, such a modification would be obvious.
Regarding claim 9, Shimizu as modified discloses the limitations of claim 8 as described in the rejection above.
Burca further teaches wherein the first operation load in the opening direction of the lid part is larger than the second operation load in the closing direction of the lid part (the first operation load is larger than the second operation load – cover member 14 must be pulled free of locking tabs 20, 30, whereas during a “closing” operation, the curved nature of locking tabs 20, 30 facilitate a smooth movement as they slide into recesses 22, 32; see paragraph [0016] and figs. 2, 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Shimizu in view of Burca to make the first operation load larger than the second operation load. It is known that providing locking tabs can prevent unintended opening of a container. This is achieved by a difference in operation loads, where the locking tabs make it more difficult to “open” the lid (thus a higher operation load is needed to open it). As shown in figs. 2 and 3, corresponding recesses 22, 32 must be pulled free from locking tabs 20, 30 in order to “open” the lid (cover member 14). When “closing” the lid, the curved nature of locking tabs 20, 30 facilitate connection such that recesses 22, 32 easily slide over locking tabs 20, 30 (see fig. 2). In this way, the operation load when closing the lid is reduced. Therefore, in order to prevent undesired opening of the lid, such a modification would be obvious.
Regarding claim 10, Shimizu as modified discloses the limitations of claim 9 as described in the rejection above.
Burca further teaches wherein at least one selected from the group consisting of the head housing and the lid part includes a first member provided with a locking part (base member 12 comprises locking tabs 20, 30; see figs. 2 and 3) having a curved protruding surface and capable of locking the lid part in a closed state (locking tabs 20, 30 have a curved surface that enables connection of base member 12 and cover member 14; see paragraph [0016]), at least another selected from the group consisting of the head housing and the lid part includes a second member provided with a hook part (cover member 14 comprises recesses 22, 32; see figs. 2 and 3) capable of climbing over the curved protruding surface when the lid part is opened or closed (recesses 22, 32 must climb over the protruding surface of locking tabs 20, 30 in order to “open” and “close”; see paragraph [0016] and figs. 2, 3), the hook part includes a first inclined surface (see annotated portion of fig. 3 below) that comes into contact with the curved protruding surface before climbing over the curved protruding surface when the lid part is moved from the closed state to the open state (the first inclined surface contacts the protruding surface of locking tab 20 when moving from the “closed” state to the “open” state; see annotated portion of fig. 3 below), and a second inclined surface (see annotated portion of fig. 3 below) that comes into contact with the curved protruding surface before climbing over the curved protruding surface when the lid part is moved from the open state to the closed state (the second inclined surface comes into contact with the protruding surface of locking tab 20 when moving from the “open” state to the “closed” state; see annotated portion of fig. 3 below), and the first inclined surface has a first inclination angle with respect to the opening and closing direction of the lid part (the first inclined surface has a first inclination angle; see annotated portion of fig. 3 below), and a second inclination angle of the second inclined surface with respect to the opening and closing direction of the lid part (the second inclined surface has a second inclination angle; see annotated portion of fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
497
333
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Burca does not explicitly disclose wherein the first inclination angle is larger than the second inclination angle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Shimizu in view of Burca to make the first inclination angle larger than the second inclination angle since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). In the instant case, the device of Shimizu as modified would not perform differently if modified to have the recited angles. That is, as long as the lid is still capable of opening under a larger operation load than is required to close the lid, modifying the inclination angles would be obvious.
Regarding claim 11, Shimizu as modified discloses the limitations of claim 9 as described in the rejection above.
Burca further teaches wherein at least one selected from the group consisting of the head housing and the lid part includes a first member provided with a locking part (base member 12 comprises locking tabs 20, 30; see figs. 2 and 3) having a curved protruding surface and capable of locking the lid part in a closed state (locking tabs 20, 30 have a curved surface that enables connection of base member 12 and cover member 14; see paragraph [0016]), at least another selected from the group consisting of the head housing and the lid part includes a second member provided with a hook part (cover member 14 comprises recesses 22, 32; see figs. 2 and 3) capable of climbing over the curved protruding surface when the lid part is opened or closed (recesses 22, 32 must climb over the protruding surface of locking tabs 20, 30 in order to “open” and “close”; see paragraph [0016] and figs. 2, 3), the hook part includes a first inclined surface (see annotated portion of fig. 3 above) that comes into contact with a first surface on one side of the curved protruding surface before climbing over the curved protruding surface when the lid part is moved from the closed state to the open state (the first inclined surface contacts the first surface of locking tab 20 when moving from the “closed” state to the “open” state; see annotated portion of fig. 3 above), and a second inclined surface (see annotated portion of fig. 3 above) that comes into contact with a second surface on another side of the curved protruding surface before climbing over the curved protruding surface when the lid part is moved from the open state to the closed state (the second inclined surface contacts the second surface of locking tab 20 when moving from the “open” state to the “closed” state; see annotated portion of fig. 3 above).
Burca does not explicitly disclose that the first surface has a smaller curvature radius than the second surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Shimizu in view of Burca to make the first surface have a smaller curvature radius than the second surface since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). In the instant case, the device of Shimizu as modified would not perform differently if modified to have the recited radii of curvature. That is, as long as the lid is still capable of opening under a larger operation load than is required to close the lid, modifying the radii of curvature would be obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4 and 6-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 8479397 to Sato, drawn to an electric shaver; US 6935029 to Morisugi, drawn to a dry shaver with a trimmer; US 20070227007 to Fukutani, drawn to an electric shaver; WO 2018198640 to Shimoda, drawn to an electric shaver; US 4969266 to Poganitsch, drawn to a dry-shaving apparatus comprising a slidable shutter; and US 4891880 to Poganitsch, drawn to a dry-shaving apparatus comprising at least one slidable shutter.
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 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights