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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show
1). "a first position", "a second position", "a first distance" and "a second distance", as required by Claim 1;
2). "a latching member having a fan–shaped cross section" as required by Claim 2, as described in the specification (Para [0064]).
Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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 1, 12, 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 1, the limitation "first coupling portions". As there are no "second coupling portions", Examiner suggests "coupling portions".
Regarding Claim 12, the limitation "configured to provide the restoring force for restoring the two first coupling portions which move to the second position to the first position" (Emphasis added by Examiner). Examiner suggests "from the first position".
Regarding Claim 16, the limitation "pressing protrusion is inserted into one surface of the holder". Examiner suggests "pressing protrusion is configured to be inserted into one surface of the holder".
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: "detaching member configured to adjust a distance between the two first coupling portions" in claim 1.
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 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 1-16 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.
Regarding Claim 1:
all recitations of the limitation "portion" are indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim what constitutes a "portion". In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the limitation "portion" to mean a structural component, and not a smaller part of an integral whole, consistent with the plain English definition of "portion";
Ln 6, the limitation "a second surface extended while being inclined inwardly forward" is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the frame, or frames, of reference for "inwardly" and forward". In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the limitation to mean a second surface, not the first surface, of the latching portion, which is oriented at some angle relative to the latching portion.
Regarding Claims 2, Ln 1-2, and Claims 4-10, the limitation "wherein the latching portion has a fan-shaped cross-section" is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim exactly what constitutes a fan-shaped cross-section, since neither the SPECIFICATION nor the DRAWINGS explain or illustrate this feature, leaving the aspect unclear as to the metes and bounds of the claim. Therefore this claim will not be examined at this time. This claim may be examined at a later time if and when the claims are amended to provide sufficient structural definition to distinguish the aspect from the prior art.
Claims 4-10 will be examined as dependent upon Claim 1, since the dependent claims 4-10 fail to positively recite the limitation of Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 3, Ln 1-2, the limitation "the razor cartridge includes a third surface configured to face the first surface" lacks antecedent basis in the claims. Further, since the razor cartridge has not been positively recited in the independent claim, Claim 1, this limitation cannot be understood within the context of the claims for the razor handle, since the razor cartridge is not understood to be a structural component necessary for the razor handle. Therefore, in order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the claim to exclude the limitation references to the razor cartridge.
Regarding Claim 4, Ln 2-3, the limitation "a pivot axis is formed which passes a front end of the latching portion" is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim a frame of reference for front. In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the claim to mean the latching portion exists relative to a pivot axis.
Regarding Claim 6, Ln 3, the limitation "forward" is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim a frame of reference for forward. In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the claim to mean the plunger is not coplanar with the holder.
Regarding Claim 11, Ln 1-2, the limitations "inclined angle" are indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim exactly what constitutes an "inclined" angle and how this angle is different from any other angle, and for failing to positively recite a frame of reference for the angle. Failing to do so renders the metes and bounds of the claims unclear and therefore they cannot be examined at this time. In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the claim to mean that an angled surface, relative to another plane of the handle, exists, and would, when and if a razor cartridge was attached to the handle, be able to coincide with a surface of the razor cartridge.
Regarding Claim 14, Ln 3-4, the limitation "providing an elastic force to each first coupling portion" is indefinite for claiming a method step in an apparatus claim. In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the claim to mean intended use, as follows: "wherein the second restoring force providing unit…is configured to provide an elastic force to each first coupling portion".
Regarding Claim 15, Ln 3-4, the limitation "rear of the first surface" is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim a frame of reference for "rear". In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the claim to mean that a surface, configured to contact another element.
Regarding Claim 16, Ln 2-3, the limitation "the pressing protrusion moves forward and backward" is indefinite for claiming a method step in an apparatus claim. Further the claims is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim a frame of reference for "forward and backward".
In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the claim to mean intended use, as follows: "the pressing protrusion is configured to move in two opposite directions".
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Efthimiadis, et alia (US2011/0239475) hereinafter Efthimiadis.
Regarding Claim 1, Efthimiadis discloses a razor handle (12) configured to be coupled to a razor cartridge (16) (Para [0023], Ln 1-3; as illustrated in at least Fig 2), comprising:
a holder (20) (Para [0024], Ln 1-2; as illustrated in at least Fig 2);
two first coupling portions (26), (27) (Para [0027], Ln 1-2; as illustrated in at least Fig 2), at least a part of the two first coupling portions disposed in the holder (as illustrated in at least Fig 1B), the two first coupling portions comprising:
a latching portion (26) (Para [0027], Ln 2-9; as illustrated in at least Fig 4A) including a first surface extended in a direction perpendicular to a direction in which the razor handle is coupled to the razor cartridge (Examiner notes the contact surface between elements [26] and [28], parallel to the long axis of the razor cartridge has been interpreted as the first surface, as illustrated in at least Fig 4A & FIG EX–1), and a second surface extended while being inclined inwardly forward from an end of the extended first surface (FIG EX–1); and
PNG
media_image1.png
886
928
media_image1.png
Greyscale
FIG EX–1 (annotated Efthimiadis Fig 4A)
a detaching member (24) [left], (24) [right], (34) (Para [0030], Ln 2; as illustrated in at least Fig 1B) configured to adjust a distance between the two first coupling portions (Para [0030], Ln 3-6), the detaching member having a first position in which the distance between the two first coupling portions is a first distance and a second position in which the distance between the two first coupling portions is a second distance shorter than the first distance.
Examiner notes that the razor cartridge has not been positively recited and has not been interpreted as a component which comprises the razor handle, having merely been recited to be a configuration of the razor handle.
Regarding Claim 3, Efthimiadis discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Efthimiadis further discloses the first surface is configured to move with respect to the razor cartridge. Examiner notes that, as stated above, element (34) is configured to move both elements (26) and as illustrated in FIG.S 4A/4B, reference elements D56 and D58.
Regarding Claim 4, Efthimiadis discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Efthimiadis further discloses a pivot axis (A–A) (Para [0023], Ln 9; as illustrated in at least FIG 4A) is formed which passes a front end of the latching portion.
Regarding Claim 5, Efthimiadis discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Efthimiadis further discloses a first restoring force providing unit configured to provide a restoring force for restoring the razor cartridge rotated about the pivot axis to a rest position (Para [0029], Ln 1-5). Examiner notes elements [26] are disclosed as flexible (Para [0025, Ln 5), which has in turn been interpreted to mean when they are engaged in retaining the razor cartridge, they provide a restoring force.
Regarding Claim 6, Efthimiadis discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Efthimiadis further discloses the first restoring force providing unit includes:
a plunger (31) (Para [0028]; Ln 9) of which at least a part protrudes forward of the holder (Para [0028], Ln 7-13; as illustrated in at least FIG 1B), and which is configured to be disposed between the two first coupling portions (as illustrated in at least FIG 2), and transmit the restoring force by cam-actuating with at least a part of the razor cartridge (Para [0029], Ln 1-4), and
a first elastic member (30) configured to provide an elastic force to the plunger (Para [0028]; Ln 1-3).
Regarding Claim 7, Efthimiadis discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Efthimiadis further discloses one side of the first elastic member adjacent to the razor cartridge is connected to the plunger (as illustrated in at last FIG 2), and the other side of the first elastic member spaced apart from the razor cartridge is connected to the detaching member (Examiner notes that when assembled, holder [20], comprising detaching member [34] is connected to the handle and therefore to the other side of the first elastic member spaced apart from the razor cartridge, as illustrated in at least FIG 4B).
Regarding Claim 8, Efthimiadis discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Efthimiadis further discloses a plunger guard (34) (as illustrated in at least FIG 4B) extended forward from the holder to be disposed between the two first coupling portions.
Regarding Claim 9, Efthimiadis discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Efthimiadis further discloses a front end edge of the plunger guard does not protrude forward beyond the front end edge of the plunger (as illustrated in at least FIG 4B).
Regarding Claim 11, Efthimiadis discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Efthimiadis further discloses a inclined angle of the second surface corresponds to an inclined angle formed by a surface of the razor cartridge, which is in contact with the second surface when the first coupling portion is coupled to the razor cartridge (as illustrated in at least FIG 3A).
Examiner notes the razor cartridge has not been positively recited, and as such the combination of the razor handle and the razor cartridge has been interpreted as intended use and not a structural limitation.
Regarding Claim 12, Efthimiadis discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Efthimiadis further discloses a second restoring force providing unit (Para [0031], Ln 1) configured to provide the restoring force for restoring the two first coupling portions which move to the second position [from] [sic] the first position (Para [0039], entire paragraph).
Regarding Claim 13, Efthimiadis discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Efthimiadis further discloses the second restoring force providing unit includes a second elastic member (36) (Para [0031], Ln 5) configured to be disposed between the two first coupling portions, and provide an elastic force (Para [0031], entire paragraph).
Regarding Claim 14, Efthimiadis discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Efthimiadis further discloses the second restoring force providing unit includes two second elastic members connected to a part of a wall surface of the holder, and the two first coupling portions, respectively, and providing an elastic force to each first coupling portion. Examiner notes that elements (26) are elastic, and move in cooperation with elements (20) and (36), as stated above.
Regarding Claim 15, Efthimiadis discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Efthimiadis further discloses the two first coupling portions comprise pressing surfaces (50) (Para 0039], Ln 3; as illustrated in at least FIG 4B) formed in the rear of the first surface
wherein the detaching member comprises a pressing protrusion (52) (Para 0039], Ln 4; as illustrated in at least FIG 4B) configured to press the pressing surface, and
wherein the pressing protrusion is configured to press the pressing surface, so the distance between the two first coupling portions is changed (Para 0039], entire paragraph).
Regarding Claim 16, Efthimiadis discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Efthimiadis further discloses the holder further includes a rail groove (40) (Para [0031], Ln 7-8; as illustrated in FIG 5) formed so that the pressing protrusion is inserted into one surface of the holder and the pressing protrusion moves forward and backward (Para [0039], entire paragraph).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Efthimiadis.
Regarding Claim 10, Efthimiadis discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Efthimiadis is silent to two plunger guards extended from the holder, wherein the two plunger guards are disposed at a left side of the plunger and a right side of the plunger, respectively based on a protruding direction of the plunger, however, Efthimiadis discloses a single plunger guard, as stated above. Examiner notes the limitation "two plunger guards" is not critically recited, and has been interpreted as a result affected variable, resulting from routine engineering and experimentation, yielding an optimized result.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the razor handle, as disclosed by Efthimiadis to include two plunger guards, in order to optimize the design and create a more robust product.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Motta (US 4,797,998) teaches a razor handle.
Kopelas, et alia (US 2020/0039098) teaches a razor handle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fred C Hammers whose telephone number is (571)272-9870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 0080-1700.
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.
/FRED C HAMMERS/
Examiner
Art Unit 3724
/JENNIFER S MATTHEWS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724