DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1, 3-8, and 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 10631613 granted to Totonelly in view of U.S. Patent 4941492 granted to Morgan and U.S. Patent Application Publication 20200114319 by Galbreath-O’Leary et al.
As to claim 1, Totonelly teaches a shaving razor cleaning system comprising a housing securable to a faucet (col. 4, ll. 37-40); and a razor housing to receive a razor (fig. 1A), the razor housing including a bottom portion defining an opening 52 to receive a head of the razor (fig. 1A); and a top portion defining a jet 22 (fig. 5) to discharge water from the faucet toward the razor.
Totonelly teaches that its cleaning system may be attached to a faucet, but does not teach an aerator housing securable to the faucet. However, Morgan teaches a razor cleaning system having an aerator housing 25 that secures to a faucet (fig. 1). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have an aerator housing since aerators were well-known and common in the art for their established purpose and also since Morgan teaches its use in a razor cleaning system.
The combination Totonelly and Morgan does not teach an aerator housing including a pair of slots and a pair of bosses insertable into the slots to secure the razor housing. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have a securing means comprising slots and bosses. Galbreath-O’Leary teaches a fitting coupling means, in particular in an aerator system, in which the components are secured using slots and bosses (fig. 12, para. 43). An arrangement of bosses and slots would require the bosses to be on one of the aerator housing and razor housing, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious that either configuration would function as intended. Furthermore, a reversal of parts has been held to be an obvious modification (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(A)). One of ordinary skill in the art would have thus recognized as obvious to configure the aerator housing with a pair of slots and the razor housing with a pair of bosses insertable into the slots to secure the housing based on the teachings of Galbreath-O’Leary that demonstrate the suitability of such coupling means.
Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 3, Totonelly teaches a collar 20 connected to the top portion that defines a collar bore (fig. 4). Upon the obvious modification discussed above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious that the collar bore would receive at least a portion of the aerator housing at least partially within (see also Morgan, fig. 1, which teaches a collar bore to receive an aerator housing).
As to claim 4, upon the obvious modification discussed above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to connect the bosses to the collar of the razor housing of Totonelly.
As to claim 5, Totonelly does not teach an aerator gasket within the collar and engageable with an aerator housing. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the use of a gasket was well-known and common in the art for its established purpose of sealing to prevent leakage; Morgan explicitly teaches a razor cleaning system having a gasket 4 within a collar that engages with an aerator housing (fig. 1; col. 2, ln. 60 – col. 3, ln. 5).
As to claim 6, Totonelly teaches that the jet is surrounded by the collar. Upon the obvious modification to have an aerator gasket, the jet would be surrounded by the gasket in its expected placement.
As to claim 7, Totonelly teaches that its jet is defined by a single opening 22 (fig. 5). While Totonelly teaches that the width of the jet may be “about 2.0mm” (col. 12, ll. 35-46; note that Totonelly describes the dimension as a depth, but it corresponds to a width as defined in the present disclosure), one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have a with between 0.4mm and 1mm as a design choice variable to achieve a desired flow with expected results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have well-understood the fluid flow dynamics and would have had reason to choose a width in the claimed range, for example to achieve an optimal pressure or flow characteristic.
As to claim 8, Totonelly teaches that the bottom portion includes a lip extending around a perimeter of the opening (fig. 8A).
As to claim 10, upon the obvious modification discussed above, the slots would be formed into an outer surface of the aerator housing and be angled.
As to claim 11, Morgan teaches an aerator inserted into its aerator housing (fig. 1; col. 2, ln. 60 – col. 3, ln. 5).
As to claim 12, while Morgan does not explicitly teach the internal structure of its aerator housing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious that a chamfer engageable with an aerator to orient the aerator was the common and well-known structural means in which an aerator is fitting into a housing in a faucet application.
As to claim 13, Totonelly teaches a shaving razor cleaning system comprising a housing securable to a faucet (col. 4, ll. 37-40); and a razor housing to receive a razor (fig. 1A), the razor housing including a bottom portion defining an opening 52 to receive a head of the razor (fig. 1A); and a top portion including an upper wall defining a jet 22 (fig. 5) to discharge water from the faucet toward the razor.
Totonelly teaches that its cleaning system may be attached to a faucet, but does not teach an aerator housing securable to the faucet. However, Morgan teaches a razor cleaning system having an aerator housing 25 that secures to a faucet (fig. 1). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have an aerator housing since aerators were well-known and common in the art for their established purpose and also since Morgan teaches its use in a razor cleaning system.
The combination Totonelly and Morgan does not teach one or more projections engageable with an aerator housing to releasably secure the razor housing to the aerator housing and the faucet. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have a securing means comprising projections. Galbreath-O’Leary teaches a fitting coupling means, in particular in an aerator system, in which the components are secured using projections and corresponding slots (fig. 12, para. 43). An arrangement of projections and slots would require the projections to be on one of the aerator housing and razor housing, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious that either configuration would function as intended. Furthermore, a reversal of parts has been held to be an obvious modification (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(A)). One of ordinary skill in the art would have thus recognized as obvious to configure the aerator housing with a pair of slots and the razor housing with one or more projections insertable into the slots to secure the housing based on the teachings of Galbreath-O’Leary that demonstrate the suitability of such coupling means.
Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 14, Totonelly teaches a collar 20 connected to the top portion that defines a collar bore (fig. 4). Upon the obvious modification discussed above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious that the collar bore would receive at least a portion of the aerator housing at least partially within (see also Morgan, fig. 1, which teaches a collar bore to receive an aerator housing).
As to claim 15, upon the obvious modification discussed above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to configure the projections to extend radially inward from the collar in order to be inserted into slots on an aerator housing.
As to claim 16, Totonelly does not teach an aerator gasket within the collar and engageable with the upper wall, the collar, and an aerator housing. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the use of a gasket was well-known and common in the art for its established purpose of sealing to prevent leakage; Morgan explicitly teaches a razor cleaning system having a gasket 4 within a collar that engages with an aerator housing (fig. 1; col. 2, ln. 60 – col. 3, ln. 5).
As to claim 17, Totonelly teaches that the jet is surrounded by the collar. Upon the obvious modification discussed above, the jet would be surrounded by the collar when an aerator housing in its expected placement.
As to claim 18, Totonelly teaches that the bottom portion includes a lip extending around a perimeter of the opening, the lip capable of deflecting water from the jet away from the opening (fig. 8A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As to claim 2, Totonelly teaches a top portion and a bottom portion as integrated parts of the razor housing. Nothing in the prior art of record or rationale based on the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art would support an obvious modification to separate the portions such that a seal would be necessary and a housing gasket would be engageable with the portions to provide such seal. As to claim 9, Totonelly teaches a top portion and a bottom portion as integrated parts of the razor housing. Nothing in the prior art of record or rationale based on the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art would support an obvious modification to separate the portions such that they would require a means to be secured, such as slots and tabs.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Spencer Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-9888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 6:30pm.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571.272.1414. 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.
/SPENCER E. BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711