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
Claims 2-13, 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/10/2025.
Applicant elected group V, claims 14-16.
Upon search and consideration, claims 2, 12, 13 are not considered burdensome, and are therefore rejoined.
Claims 1, 2, 12-16 are pending and rejected. Claims 3-11, 17-20 are withdrawn.
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, 2, 12-16 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.
Claim 1 requires an “applicator head” which is indefinite. It is not clear what structure is being required by the claim. Applicant’s response essentially says—look at 600 in the figures, which is consistently called an “applicator head” therefore it cannot be indefinite. This is not persuasive. Terms without a special definition are given their plain meaning. Here “applicator head” means something to do with “application” “applying” or being capable of application of something. The “something” is not specified, nor is there an art recognized boundary to what is and is not an “applicator head.” All the words in a claim must mean something. Here, if the term “applicator” is extraneous, then it should be cancelled, since the use of a meaningless term that does not modify “head” in any way is confusing and inappropriate. Similarly, examiner may not import a vague or unbounded notion of what is implied by the figures. Does the applicator have to be round? Relatively planar? Completely smooth? Capable of applying paste? What structure is being claimed is not plain from the disclosure.
"While we have held many times that a patentee can act as his own lexicographer to specifically define terms of a claim contrary to their ordinary meaning," in such a situation the written description must clearly redefine a claim term "so as to put a reasonable competitor or one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the patentee intended to so redefine that claim term."); Hormone Research Foundation Inc. v. Genentech Inc., 904 F.2d 1558, 15 USPQ2d 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Accordingly, when there is more than one meaning for a term, it is incumbent upon applicant to make clear which meaning is being relied upon to claim the invention. Until the meaning of a term or phrase used in a claim is clear, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph is appropriate. (MPEP 2173.05(a) III). Because applicant has used words contrary to their plain meaning without explicitly defining them, the claims are indefinite as set forth.
Here, Rather than clarify the nature of what scope applicant intends to protect by the term “applicator head” applicant deflects in order to deny clarity to the record. It would be a simple matter for applicant to declare what they mean by the term, but applicant is choosing not to define the term in response to a reasonable requirement for clarity of what is being claimed.
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(s) 1-2, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 2016/0121495) in view of Simms et al (US 5,604,983).
Regarding claim 1, Johnson discloses A hair removal device (shaving razor—figure 2) comprising: a base (16 figure 2); a multi-angle deflector coupled to the base (20 and 40 interact as a multi-angle deflector, as claimed: “and a magnetic cartridge element 40. The magnetic cartridge element 40 is a generally flat shape and is affixed to the housing 32 of the removable razor cartridge 30. The magnetic cartridge element 40 is affixed to a surface of the housing 32 that is opposite the shaving plane of the removable razor cartridge 30. The magnetic cartridge element 40 may exert an attractive force on the magnetic handle element 20. Alternatively, the magnetic handle element 20 may exert an attractive force on the magnetic cartridge element 40. The magnetic cartridge element 40 is releasably engaged with the magnetic handle element 20 to replaceably secure the removable razor cartridge 30 in pivotable relation to the proximal end portion 16 of the handle 12. The removable razor cartridge 30 may pivot about an axis that is generally transverse to the handle 12. The removable razor cartridge 30 may pivot about the magnetic handle element 20.” ).
Johnson further discloses an applicator head (32, the frame of the cartridge is the applicator head—as best understood, analogous to applicant’s element 600) which is coupled to the multi-angle deflector(see 40 mounted on 32 figure 2). Johnson further discloses a hair removal surface (comprised of blades 38 figure 1) coupled to the applicator head (shown assembled therein in figure 1 38 within and bound to 34, 32, etc).
Johnson further discloses wherein the multi-angle deflector is adapted to provide a multidirectional deflection connection of the applicator head and the hair removal surface relative to the base, wherein the multidirectional deflection connection is enabled to pivot in three dimensions (See discussion of Johnson supra, which discloses the obvious fact that the ball magnet portion can rotate relative to the plate in and about multiple axes around the point of contact between 20 and 40, consistent with and anticipatory of the requirement for ‘multi-directional deflection in three dimensions.
Johnson lacks ‘wherein the hair removal surface comprises a plurality of enclosed, non-linear cutting edges,’ as claimed—as the blades of Johnson are linear.
Simms et al (US 5,604,983) discloses an analogous razor cartridge wherein the hair removal surface comprises a plurality of enclosed, non-linear cutting edges (See 40 figure 6: “The blade 16, as shown in FIGS. 6 through 9, is manufactured of a steel foil sheet in the area of 0.10 millimeters in thickness and has a plurality of apertures 40 formed in a substantially arcuate elongate surface 42. The perimeter of each of the apertures 40 forms a cutting edge 41…”) as claimed.
It would have been obvious to replace the straight linear blades of Johnson with the circular blades of Simms, since Simms suggests that circular/encloses blades are advantageous when a shaver is being moved in ‘all directions’ : “Thus, as the blade is moved in all directions over the surface to be shaved, each of the cutting edges 41 of the apertures 40 will contact the skin surface as the body member 14 is moved during the shaving process.”
Claim 2 is obvious over the same art as claim 1, as set forth above, since the requirement of pivoting in ‘three dimensions’ is apparently met by Johnson’s omni-directional magnetic ball point coupling.
Claims 12 and 13 are met by the same art. All hair removing surfaces are capable of removing ‘hair’ as set forth in claim 12. The applicator head of Johnson shown in the figures clearly surrounds the blade surface, and the comparable frame of Simms surrounds Simms’ hair removal surface as well—in either event, the component frame ‘applicator’ clearly shows the obviousness of claim 13 being present in the same manner in both references.
3. Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 2016/0121495) in view of Simms et al (US 5,604,983) as applied to claims 1-2, 12-13, and further in view of Nunez (US 2013/0152400).
As discussed above with respect to claims 1-2, and 12-13, Johnson and Simms renders obvious the details of the nature of a pivoting structure for a shaving device, as claimed. With respect to claims 14-16, Johnson and Simms does not discuss the use of a telescoping handle, or the nature of the axial alignment of the telescoping handle with the head structures, including the shaving plane.
Nunez discloses most relevantly: [0025] Also shown in FIG. 1 is a telescoping rod 114 having a threaded female element 112 that screws onto a threaded male element 202 located at the bottom end of the handle 102. The telescoping rod 114 may be extended, as shown in FIG. 1, to provide an elongated handle that may be used by an individual to shave difficult-to-reach places, such as an individual's back. The base 116 of the telescoping rod 114 may be a circular planar element that may be used as a stand for the device 100 or may be used as a hold for extending or retracting the telescoping rod 114. FIG. 2 is an illustration of the shaving device 100 of FIG. 1 showing the telescoping rod 114 in a retracted position.”
Nunez therefore is showing a reason to add a telescoping handle to extend the handle of a shaving device.
Nunez discloses regarding claim 14. a hair removal device (See title: “personal shaving…”) further comprising a proximal portion (116 and portion close thereto), a distal portion (102, 110 etc. figure 1), and a medial portion (202, 114 figure 1-3) disposed therebetween,
Nunez discloses wherein the distal portion comprises the base, (102, 104 are ‘base’ as they are understood—they are analogous to the base shown in Johnson—that is to say, Johnson shows a Base—and the portion of Nunez that is of interest is the portion which is below its base, since infra, the portion below the base in Johnson will be modified by Nunez to achieve a telescoping arrangement in the handle for obvious benefit.
Nunez discloses wherein the medial portion comprises at least one telescoping segment (See figure 1). Nunez at [0025] conveniently discusses the reason to modify handles to include such telescoping arrangements: “to provide an elongated handle that may be used by an individual to shave difficult-to-reach places, such as an individual's back.”
Nunez discloses wherein the proximal portion comprises a handle (the terminal portion of the Nunez device is leading to 116, and is the final portion of 114—as noted in the excerpt above, the whole of 102/ 114 in every segment is handle per se, since it is intended for gripping, and is provided explicitly for that purpose—the extension of 114 would not be a benefit for allowing back shaving if only 102 could be considered ‘handle’).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to replace or modify Johnson’s handle base portion with a portion designed in view of Nunez—having coupling features for instance, and also containing a series or ‘medial portion’ segments forming a telescoping arrangement, since doing so is suggested in Nunez as providing a way to enable shaving hard to reach areas such as a user’s back.
Regarding claim 15, Nunez discloses the medial portion is extendable, retractable, foldable, or compressible (See at least figures 1 and 3 of Nunez showing relative extension and retraction, or compression, per se).
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 2016/0121495) in view of Simms et al (US 5,604,983) and Nunez (US 2013/0152400) as applied to claims 14-15 above, and further in view of Dryfhout (US 10,315,322)
Regarding claim 16, by the claim limitations thereof, applicant alleges that selecting arbitrary angled conditions between known components renders the combination patentable. This is not persuasive in the context of shaving razors, which are known to adapt the angle between handle and shaving surface to every different condition. Nunez shows wherein the proximal portion and the medial portion extend along a first longitudinal axis.
PNG
media_image1.png
380
904
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Johnson shows generally how its base, the multi-angle deflector, and the applicator head extend along an alignment axis. These are shown at some angle relative to the base thereof— and due to the breadth of the claim, it appears the base of Johnson reads on / is the same as applicant’s claim, though not the same type of angle as applicant is intending to claim and therefore possession of the concept over:
PNG
media_image2.png
509
628
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, noted above, Johnson shows at least a portion of the base extends along a second longitudinal axis that is orthogonal to an alignment axis (Immediately supra, as annotated).
It was noted that the breadth of the claim is what permitted the above interpretation of Johnson’s relative angles meeting this claim limitation. IN order to promote compact prosecution, consider further that Dryfhout shows at least a portion of the base extends along a second longitudinal axis that is orthogonal to an alignment axis in a back shaving arrangement, as below annotated.
PNG
media_image3.png
801
1028
media_image3.png
Greyscale
IN both Johnson and Dryfhout, wherein the first longitudinal axis is disposed at an angle relative to the second longitudinal axis—as annotated above and or/ below:
PNG
media_image4.png
510
639
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(Johnson figure 2, annotated).
As seen from above, the art clearly shows the arrangement of first and second longitudinal axes which intersect, when they are defined as in the claim, specifically in Johnson and or Dryfhout. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the relative angles of the handle of Johnson and the ‘base’ of Johnson, as taught by Dryfhout and/or Nunez, since it has been held that discovering an optimum result of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In all of Nunez, Dryfhout and Johnson, the angle of the razor to the shaving surface and/or the hand is shown to be of interest, and is therefore a recognized variable to optimize. Picking which angle to place the blade at is not an inventive effort—especially as here, where Dryfhout suggests essentially the same arrangement as applicant—having a base along and behind a shaving surface, perpendicular thereto, which is especially adapted to be convenient for back shaving—which is the reason an elongated handle was added to Johnson. IN the alternative—APPLICANT may readily notice that starting with Dryfhout, the rigid handle thereof may be replaced by a Nunez style to permit collapsing, and the intersection of cartridge and base of Dryfout may be replaced by the pivotability enabler of Johnson and the non-linear blades of Simms, since each of those elements is recognized for those specific benefits in the art, as noted above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 SEAN M MICHALSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-6752. The examiner can normally be reached Typically M-F 6a-3:30p East Coast Time.
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.
SEAN M. MICHALSKI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3724
/SEAN M MICHALSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724