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 .
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 3, 7 and 23-26.
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 Second pivoted position according to claim 3 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-3, 6-7, 12-19, and 21-26 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, the claim states “the second end is positioned above the guard plane” in line 11 of the claim and states “the second end is position below the guard plane” in line 13 of the claim. It is unclear as to what is above and below the guard plane as the applicant has not defined a specific orientation for the device and as the device is a handheld the device that may be rotated such that what may be above the plane from one perspective is below the plane from another perspective..
Regarding claims 2-3, 6-7, 12-19, and 21-26, these claims are rejected as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, the claim states “wherein the at least one blade forms an angle with the guard plane in the neutral position and wherein the angle is between 20-30 degrees, wherein a maximum positive angle between the guard plane and the blade plane is between 0 and 50 degrees, and wherein a maximum negative angle between the guard plane and the blade plane is between 0 and -50 degrees” in lines 3-7 of the claim. It is unclear from the language of the claim if the range between the guard plane and the blade plane is limited to the smaller range of 20-30 degrees or if it is instead limited to between 0 and 50 degrees or between 0 and -50 degrees. The claim does not include limitations drawn to these changes in ranges occurring due to the blade assembly pivoting and instead appears to be claiming a narrower range before claiming a broader range for the same structure. As best understood the Examiner understands the claim as requiring the narrower limitation.
Regarding claim 26, this claim is rejected as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to its dependency on claim 7.
Regarding claim 25, the claim states “wherein in the first pivoted position a blade angle is smaller than a nominal blade angle in the neutral position, and wherein in the second pivoted position the blade angle is greater than the nominal blade angle in the neutral position” in lines 1-4 of the claim. It is unclear as to what forms the blade angle. While a blade angle is known in the art as the angle at which a blade is positioned relative to a defined structure or identified axis, plane, line, etc.. the applicant has not defined a structure from which the angle is measured.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 10, 13, 15-17, 19, 22-23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiddle et al. (WO 2014/139655 A2), hereafter known as Hiddle I, in view of Efthimiadis et al. (US 11,224,982 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Hiddle I teaches a shaving unit (Hiddle I, Figs. 1a-4, 4 and 6), comprising:
a guard base (Hiddle I, Figs. 1a-4, 41), including a guard bar (Hiddle I, Figs. 1a-4, 46) and defining a guard plane (Hiddle I, Figs. 1a-4, 46), and
a blade assembly (Hiddle I, Figs. 1a-4, 6) having a first end and a second end (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Hiddle I) below), the first end being positioned nearer to the guard base than the second end (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Hiddle I) below), the second end being positioned opposite to the first end (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Hiddle I) below), the blade assembly including at least one blade (Hiddle I, Figs. 1a-4, 61) extending in a blade direction and defining a blade plane (Hiddle I, Figs. 1a-4, 67), and a body (Hiddle I, Figs. 1a-4, 68) to which the at least one blade is mounted (Hiddle I, Figs. 1a-4, 61 and 68),
wherein the blade assembly is pivotable with respect to the guard base about a first pivot axis parallel to the blade direction (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 2b (Hiddle I) below), and pivotable between a neutral position in which the blade plane is parallel with or coincides with the guard plane (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Hiddle I) below), a first pivoted position in which the second end is positioned above the guard plane (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Hiddle I) below).
Hiddle I does not teach a second pivoted position in which the blade plane forms a negative angle with the guard plane.
Efthimiadis teaches a blade assembly (Efthimiadis, Figs. 3A-3C, 1) having a first end and a second end (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3B (Efthimiadis) below), wherein the blade assembly is pivotable between a neutral position (Efthimiadis, Fig. 3B), a first pivoted position (Efthimiadis, Fig. 3C) in which the second end is positioned above the guard plane (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3C (Efthimiadis) below), and a second pivoted position (Efthimiadis, Fig. 3A) in which the second end is positioned below the guard plane (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3A (Efthimiadis) below), as the guard plane of Efthimiadis angles in relation to the blade plane which does not move both a positive and negative angle between the planes is formed, and wherein an elastic member (Efthimiadis, Figs. 3A-3C, 4) provides an elastic force to return the blade assembly to a neutral position from both the first pivoted position and the second pivoted position (Efthimiadis, Col. 5, lines 32-39). This allows the cartridge to adapt to changes of shape while shaving (Efthimiadis, Col. 6, lines 19-27).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modifying the blade assembly taught by Hiddle I such as to include a second pivoted position in which the blade plane forms a negative angle with the guard plane and an elastic member like that taught by Efthimiadis as doing so allows the cartridge to adapt to changes of shape while shaving.
PNG
media_image1.png
480
585
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
722
626
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
411
499
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
359
493
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
379
556
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Hiddle I in view of Efthimiadis teaches the shaving unit of claim 1, wherein the guard bar is adjacent to the at least one blade (Hiddle I, Fig. 2a, 46 and 61).
Regarding claim 10, Hiddle I in view of Efthimiadis teaches the shaving unit of claim 1, wherein an angle (φ) between the guard plane (Hiddle I, Fig. 4, β) and the blade plane is manually adjustable (Hiddle I, Pg. 7, Description, lines 24-27), the angle between the guard plane and the blade plane shown by Hiddle I is capable of manual adjustment.
Regarding claim 13, Hiddle I in view of Efthimiadis teaches the shaving unit of claim 1, comprising a connecting portion (Hiddle I, Figs. 1a-3b, 47), connected or connectable to a shaver handle (Hiddle I, Figs. 1a-4, 2).
Regarding claim 15, Hiddle I in view of Efthimiadis teaches a shaver (Hiddle I, Figs. 1a-4, 1), comprising:
a shaver handle (Hiddle I, Figs. 1a-4, 2), and
the shaving unit of claim 1 (Hiddle I, Figs. 1a-4, 4 and 6).
Regarding claim 16, Hiddle I in view of Efthimiadis teaches the shaving unit of claim 1, wherein the guard bar (Hiddle I, Figs. 1a-4, 46) extends in the blade direction (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 2b (Hiddle I) above).
Regarding claim 17, Hiddle I in view of Efthimiadis teaches the shaving unit of claim 1, wherein the at least one blade (Hiddle I, Figs. 1a-4, 61) includes a plurality of blades (Hiddle I, Pg. 8, Description, lines 48-58).
Regarding claim 19, Hiddle I in view of Efthimiadis the shaving unit of claim 1, wherein a clearance is dimensioned such as to allow that blade assembly to be inserted into the guard base and be angled with respect to the guard base (Hiddle I, Pg. 8, Description, lines 51-53).
Hiddle I in view of Efthimiadis does not teach the clearance greater than 0.5 mm is provided between an upstream surface of the blade assembly and the guard base and/or between a downstream surface of the blade assembly and the guard base.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the clearance between the blade assembly and the guard base taught by Hiddle I in view of Efthimiadis such that the spacing distance were greater than 0.5 mm or any desirable distance so as to allow the blade assembly to be inserted into the guard base as it is a matter of routine skill in the art to determine the size or spacing of a structure (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit 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. As the instant invention lacks a showing of criticality for the claimed range and Hiddle I in view of Efthimiadis shows that it is known in the art to space the claimed structures as to allow for the blade assembly to be inserted into the base and allow for the blade assembly to be angled the same as the instant invention and a different range than what is claimed would not alter the function of the claimed structure such a modification would have been a matter of obvious choice to a worker in the art.
Regarding claim 22, Hiddle I in view of Efthimiadis teaches the shaving unit of claim 1, wherein in the first pivoted position (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Hiddle I) above) a blade exposure is decreased relative to the neutral position, as best understood the angle at of the blades in relation to the guard plane is decreased and thus the exposure is decreased which is shown in Fig. 4 of Hiddle I, and wherein in the second pivoted position (Efthimiadis, Fig. 3A) the blade exposure is increased relative to the neutral position, as shown by Efthimiadis when in the second pivoted position the angle between an angle of a blade and a plane formed by the guard (Efthimiadis, Fig. 3A, 6) would increase and thus the exposure of the blades would also increase.
Regarding claim 23, Hiddle I in view of Efthimiadis teaches the shaving unit of claim 1, wherein, in the first pivoted position or the second pivoted position, the blade assembly is spring-loaded with respect to the guard base and is configured to automatically return to the neutral position (Efthimiadis, Figs. 3A-3C, 4, Col. 5, lines 32-39).
Regarding claim 25, Hiddle I in view of Efthimiadis teaches the shaving unit of claim 1, wherein in the first pivoted position a blade angle (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Hiddle I) above) is smaller than a nominal blade angle in the neutral position, although Hiddle I does not show the angle of the blade when at a nominal blade angle since Fig. 4 of Hiddle I shows the blade assembly and angle of the blades when in the first pivoted position thus when the blade assembly is in a neutral position represented in Fig. 4 of Hiddle I the blade angle would increase in relation to the guard plane (Hiddle I, Fig. 4, 48) and thus the nominal blade angle would be greater than the blade angle in the first position, and wherein in the second pivoted position the blade angle is greater than the nominal blade angle in the neutral position, it should be understood that the second position as modified in claim 1 would pivot the blades further from the nominal blade angle and thus would be greater in relation to a guard plane (Hiddle I, Fig. 4, 48) as the blade angle in the first position would be smaller.
Claims 3 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiddle I (WO 2014/139655 A2) in view of Efthimiadis (US 11,224,982 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Robertson et la. (US 2021/0276210 A1), Hiddle et al. (DE 20 2013 003 009 U1), hereafter known as Hiddle II and Motta (US 2003/0213130 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Hiddle I in view of Efthimiadis teaches the shaving unit of claim 1, wherein the guard base (Hiddle I, Figs. 1a-4, 4) is a rectangular frame including a socket (Hiddle I, Fig. 2b, 49) in which the blade assembly is mounted, and wherein the first pivot axis (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 2b (Hiddle I) above) extends within the blade assembly, wherein the blade assembly comprises a slot (Hiddle I, Fig. 2b, 69 and 70) and the blade assembly comprises a pair of lateral surfaces (Hiddle I, Fig. 2b, 63), wherein at least one or each of the lateral surfaces of the guard base (Hiddle I, Fig. 2b, 51) comprises a pin (Hiddle I, Fig. 2b, 52) that is snap-fitted in the slot of the blade assembly (Hiddle I, Pg. 9, Description, lines 9-11), thereby forming the first pivot axis (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 2b (Hiddle I) above), and wherein an upstream clearance is provided between each of an upstream surface of the blade assembly and the guard base (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Hiddle I) above) and a downstream clearance is provided between the downstream surface of the blade assembly and the guard base (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Hiddle I) above), the upstream clearance and the downstream clearance enabling the blade assembly to pivot (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Hiddle I) above).
Hiddle I does not teach wherein the first pivot axis extends in a middle of the blade assembly, wherein the guard base comprises a slot, wherein at least one or each of the lateral surfaces of the blade assembly comprises a pin, and wherein the upstream clearance and the downstream clearance enabling the blade assembly to pivot to both the first pivoted position and the second pivoted position.
Robertson teaches a shaving unit (Robertson, Figs. 1A-2, 10) wherein the first pivot axis (Robertson, Figs. 1A-2, PA) extends in the middle of the blade assembly (Robertson, Figs. 1A-2, 30). Such a configuration allows for the blade assembly to pivot up to 360° (Robertson, P. 0260).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the shaving unit taught by Hiddle I such that the first pivot axis extends in the middle of the blade as taught by Robertson as to allow the blade assembly to rotate up to 360°.
Hiddle II teaches a shaving unit (Hiddle II, Figs. 1a-3, 20, 40, and 60), wherein the guard base (Hiddle II, Figs. 1a-3, 20) comprises a slot (Hiddle II, Figs. 1a-3, 26) and the blade assembly (Hiddle II, Figs. 1a-3, 40 and 60) comprises a pair of lateral surfaces (Hiddle II, Figs. 1a-3, 50), and wherein at least one or each of the lateral surfaces of the blade assembly comprises a pin that is engaged in the slot of the guard base (Hiddle II, Figs. 1a-3, 50).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the shaving unit taught by Hiddle I such that the pin of the guard base and the slot of the blade assembly were instead located such that the pin was on the blade assembly and the slot was located on the guard base as taught by Hiddle II as doing so would only require routine skill in the art as such reversal of part is a matter of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(A). In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) (Prior art disclosed a clock fixed to the stationary steering wheel column of an automobile while the gear for winding the clock moves with steering wheel; mere reversal of such movement, so the clock moves with wheel, was held to be an obvious modification.). Here the reversal of parts would not alter the function of the device and would provide the same benefit regardless of position.
Efthimiadis further teaches the blade assembly (Efthimiadis, Figs. 3A-3C, 1) wherein an upstream clearance is provided between each of an upstream surface of the blade assembly and the guard base (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3B (Efthimiadis) above) enabling the blade assembly to pivot to the first pivoted position and the second pivoted position (Efthimiadis, Figs. 3A and 3C). This allows the cartridge to adapt to changes of shape while shaving (Efthimiadis, Col. 6, lines 19-27).
Motta teaches a shaving unit (Motta, Figs. 1-5, 10) comprising a blade assembly (Motta, Figs. 1-5, 18) and a guard base (Motta, Figs. 1-5, 14), the blade frame having a first end (see annotated images 1 of Figs. 2A-2C (Motta) below) and second end (see annotated images 1 of Figs. 2A-2C (Motta) below), wherein a downstream clearance is provided between a downstream surface of the blade assembly and the guard base (), wherein the downstream clearance enabling the blade assembly to pivot to bot the first pivoted position and the second pivoted position (Motta, Fig. 2C).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the shaving unit taught by Hiddle I in view of Efthimiadis such that the upstream clearance and upstream clearance enabled the blade assembly to pivot to both the first pivoted position and the second pivoted position like the clearances taught by Motta and further by Efthimiadis as providing such clearances allow for the blade assembly to pivot at a wider range of angles which allows the shaving unit to better conform to a user’s face.
PNG
media_image6.png
402
616
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
335
614
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
320
517
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 24, Hiddle I in view of Efthimiadis, Robertson, Hiddle II and Motta teaches the shaving unit of claim 3, wherein the upstream clearance between the upstream surface of the blade assembly and the guard base enables the blade assembly to pivot to the first pivoted position (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Hiddle I) above).
Hiddle I in view of Efthimiadis, Hiddle II, Robertson and Motta teaches does not teach wherein the downstream clearance between the downstream surface of the blade assembly and the guard base enables the blade assembly to pivot to the second pivoted position.
While Hiddle I in view of Efthimiadis, Hiddle II, Robertson and Motta does not teach a clearance for a second pivoted position as Hiddle I does not include a second pivoted position and Efthimiadis which teaches a second pivoted position but does not include a blade assembly and guard base like that of Hiddle I, Efthimiadis does show structure (Efthimiadis, Figs. 3A-3C, 8) which is adapted to provide clearance to allow the blade assembly to pivoted between a first pivoted position and a second pivoted position (Efthimiadis, Figs. 3A and 3C, 8). Additionally it should be appreciated that for blade assemblies like that taught by Hiddle I which have structures on both the upstream and downstream side that are not directly connected to the blade assembly, a clearance must be provided on both the upstream and downstream sides to allow the blade assembly to pivot to the first pivoted position. As such, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the blade assembly and guard base taught by Hiddle I in view of Efthimiadis, Robertson, Hiddle II and Motta to provide a clearance that would allow the blade assembly to pivot to a second pivoted position which would be in an opposite direction of the first pivoted position as such changes of shape would require only an regular level of skill for a worker in the art.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiddle I (WO 2014/139655 A2) in view of Efthimiadis (US 11,224,982 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Andrews (US 6,161,288 A).
Regarding claim 6, Hiddle I in view of Efthimiadis teaches the shaving unit of claim 1, wherein the blade assembly is mounted on the guard base (Hiddle I, Figs. 1a-4, 6 and 41), wherein the blade assembly is spring-loaded toward the neutral position such that when the blade plane forms an angle with the guard plane, a force is generated that returns the blade assembly toward the neutral position (Efthimiadis, Figs. 3A-3C, 4, Col. 5, lines 32-39)
Hiddle I in view of Efthimiadis as modified in claim 1 does not teach a guard base including an elastomeric guard bar.
Andrews teaches a shaving unit (Andrews, Figs. 69-70), wherein the guard base (Andrews, Fig. 70, 980) is a beam (Andrews, Fig. 70, 980) including an elastomeric guard bar (Andrews, Fig. 70, 966, Col. 41, lines 4-6). Such elastomeric structures provide for better skin gripping during shaving (Andrews, Col. 11, lines 52-57).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the beam taught by Hiddle I in view of Efthimiadis to include a elastomeric guard bar like the one taught by Andrews as such guard bars allow for better skin gripping during shaving.
Regarding claim 14, Hiddle I in view of Efthimiadis teaches the shaving unit of claim 1.
Hiddle I in view of Efthimiadis as modified in claim 1 does not teach wherein the guard bar is elastomeric and includes a plurality of ribs.
Andrews teaches a shaving unit (Andrews, Figs. 69-70), wherein the guard bar (Andrews, Fig. 70, 966) is elastomeric (Andrews, Col. 41, lines 4-6) and includes a plurality of ribs (Andrews, Fig. 70, 976F and 976R). Such elastomeric structures provide for better skin gripping during shaving (Andrews, Col. 11, lines 52-57).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify guard bar taught by Hiddle I in view of Efthimiadis to be an elastomeric guard bar which includes a plurality of ribs like the one taught by Andrews as such guard bars allow for better skin gripping during shaving.
Claims 7 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiddle I (WO 2014/139655 A2) in view of Efthimiadis (US 11,224,982 B2), Robertson et la. (US 2021/0276210 A1), Hiddle II (DE 20 2013 003 009 U1) and Motta (US 2003/0213130 A1) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Gilder et al. (US 6,216,349 B1).
Regarding claim 7, Hiddle I in view of Efthimiadis, Hiddle II and Motta teaches the shaving unit of claim 3.
Hiddle I in view of Efthimiadis, Hiddle II and Motta does not teach wherein the upstream clearance and the downstream clearance in the neutral position is between 0.05-5mm, wherein the at least one blade forms an angle with the guard plane in the neutral position and wherein the angle is between 20-30 degrees, wherein a maximum positive angle between the guard plane and the blade plane is between 0 and 50 degrees, and wherein a maximum negative angle between the guard plane and the blade plane is between 0 and -50 degrees.
Gilder teaches a shaving unit (Figs. 1-2) wherein the at least one blade (Figs. 1-2, 11, 12 and 13) forms an angle (A) with the guard plane (P) in a neutral position and wherein the angle is between 20-30 degrees (Gilder, Col. 2, lines 44-52). Such an angle helps to improve shaving performance (Gilder, Col. 2, lines 53-56).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the device taught by Hiddle I in view of Efthimiadis, Hiddle II and Motta such that the at least one blade forms an angle with the guard plane in the neutral position and wherein the angle is between 19-28 degrees like the blades taught by Gilder as such an angle improves shaving performance.
While the Hiddle I in view of Efthimiadis, Hiddle II and Motta does not teach a specific dimension for the clearance Efthimiadis does teach a distance LC (Efthimiadis, Fig. 5, LC) which is between 6.5 mm and 10 mm, as the clearance taught by Efthimiadis is between the axis that define this distance the clearance must be less than 6.5 mm and greater than 0 mm. As such, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the both the upstream clearance and downstream clearance such that they were between 0 mm and 6.5 mm like the clearance taught by Efthimiadis as to provide enough space between the blade assembly and guard base to smoothly pivot.
Regarding claim 26, Hiddle I in view of Efthimiadis, Hiddle II, Motta and Gilder teaches the shaving unit according to claim 7, wherein the maximum positive angle and the maximum negative angle are determined by the upstream clearance and the downstream clearance between the blade assembly and the guard assembly, as shown by Hiddle I, Efthimiadis, Hiddle II and Motta the maximum positive or negative angle for the blade plane relative to the guard plane depends on the clearance provided between the guard base and the blade assembly.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiddle I (WO 2014/139655 A2) in view of Efthimiadis (US 11,224,982 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Follo (US 2003/0217472 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Hiddle I in view of Efthimiadis teaches the shaving unit of claim 1.
Hiddle I in view of Efthimiadis as modified does not teach the shaving unit comprising a lubricant strip, wherein the lubricant strip is provided downstream of the at least one blade.
Follo teaches a shaving unit (Follo, Fig. 1, 10) comprising a lubricant strip (Follo, Fig. 1, 78), wherein the lubricant strip is provided downstream of the at least one blade (Follo, Fig. 1, 20 and 78). This helps to improve the shaving process (Follo, P. 0005).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the shaving unit taught by Hiddle I to include a lubricant strip provided downstream of the at least one blade as taught by Follo as to enhance the shaving process.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiddle I (WO 2014/139655 A2) in view of Efthimiadis (US 11,224,982 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gilder et al. (US 6,295,734 B1).
Regarding claim 18, Hiddle I in view of Efthimiadis discloses the shaving unit of claim 1, wherein the blade assembly (Hiddle I, Figs. 1a-4, 6) is spring-loaded with respect to the guard base (Hiddle I, Pg. 4, Description, lines 3-4).
Hiddle I in view of Efthimiadis as modified in claim 1 does not teach wherein the at least one blade is mobile in the blade assembly.
Gilder teaches a shaving unit (Gilder, Figs. 1-11) wherein each of the at least one blade (Gilder, Figs. 2-5, 11, 12, and 13) is mounted on the blade assembly (Gilder, Figs. 2-5, 2) via a spring-loaded attachment section (Gilder, Figs. 2-5, 19 and 24) which allows the blades to move within the assembly (Gilder, Col. 3, lines 26-47). These springs help to keep the blades in a desired blade geometry and allow the blades to move during shaving (Gilder, Col. 3, lines, 47-65).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the blade assembly and blades taught by Hiddle I in view of Efthimiadis such that each of the at least one blade is mounted on the blade assembly via a spring-loaded attachment section like the one taught by Gilder as such spring-loaded attachment sections allow for the blade to move during shaving while also helping to keep the blades in a desired blade geometry.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiddle I (WO 2014/139655 A2) in view of Efthimiadis (US 11,224,982 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lembke (US 7,200,938 B2).
Regarding claim 21, Hiddle I in view of Efthimiadis teaches the shaving unit of claim 1, wherein the first pivoted position (Efthimiadis, Fig. 3C) is adapted to follow a concave skin curvature (Efthimiadis, Fig. 4A, Col. 6, lines 28-40) and the second pivoted position (Efthimiadis, Fig. 3A) is adapted to follow a convex skin curvature (Efthimiadis, Fig. 4B, Col. 6, lines 40-55) such that damage to the skin while shaving uneven skin surfaces is prevented.
Hiddle I in view of Efthimiadis does not teach wherein the first pivoted position is adapted to follow a convex skin curvature and the second pivoted position is adapted to follow a concave skin curvature.
Lembke teaches a blade assembly (Lembke, Figs. 1-5, 14) with a first pivoted position (Lembke, Fig. 7) adapted to follow a convex skin curvature (Lembke, Fig. 7, A-A) and a second pivoted position (Lembke, Fig. 9) adapted to follow a concave skin curvature (Lembke, Fig. 9, A-A). This allows the blade to engage skin with non-uniform contours (Lembke, Col. 2, lines 38-48).
While Efthimiadis teaches a first pivoted position adapted to follow a convex skin curvature and a second pivoted position to follow a concave skin curvature which is opposite of what Lembke teaches. The motivations for this difference comes down to the desire of Efthimiadis prevent damage to a user’s skin while shaving uneven skin surfaces and Lembke’s is provi desire to provide an even shave across uneven skin surfaces. As such it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to adapt the first pivoted position taught by Hiddle I in view of Efthimiadis such that it follows a convex skin curvature and adapt the second pivoted position taught by Hiddle I in view of Efthimiadis such that it follows a concave skin curvature as Lembke teaches that such an adaption would be desirable to provide an even shave across uneven skin curvatures.
Response to Amendment
The Applicant asserts that a drawing showing a “second pivoted position” is not necessary for understanding by one of ordinary skill in the art due to the disclosures found in P. 0069, 0077 and 0078 and the content shown in Figs. 6, 8 and 9 as according to MPEP 608.02 the statutory requirement only requires that an “applicant shall furnish a drawing where necessary for the understanding of the subject matter to be patented”. The Examiner disagrees. Any structural detail that is of sufficient importance to be described should be shown in the drawing. (Ex parte Good, 1911 C.D. 43, 164 OG 739 (Comm’r Pat. 1911).) (see MPEP 608.02(d)). Here the second pivoted position is directly referred to in claims 1, 3 and 21-25 and must have an angle and clearance such as to allow the blade assembly to pivot in relation to the guard base as claimed in claim 7. As this is central to the claimed subject matter the particular configuration of claim 3 should be shown in the drawings. As such, the applicant’s assertion is unpersuasive and the objection of record for the second pivoted position according to claim 3 is thus maintained.
The Applicant asserts that claim 23 have been amended such that it overcomes the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) new matter rejection of record for the claim. The Examiner agrees and withdraws the new matter rejection of record for claim 23.
The Applicant asserts that claim 1 has been amended such that it overcomes the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) indefiniteness rejection of record. The Examiner agrees and withdraws the indefiniteness rejection of record for claim 1 and the claims rejected solely due to their dependence, however the newly amended limitations bring up new indefiniteness issues as the applicant has not defined an orientation of the device such that above and below the guard plane would be sufficiently understood for a hand tool.
The Applicant asserts that claims 7 and 26 has been amended such that it overcomes the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) indefiniteness rejection of record. The Examiner agrees and withdraws the indefiniteness rejection of record for claims 7 and 26.
The Applicant asserts that claim 25 have been amended such that it overcomes the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) indefiniteness rejection of record. The Examiner disagrees, the claim now recites “wherein the first pivoted position a blade angle is smaller the blade angle in the second pivoted position” while as best understood by the Examiner this limitation should include the term “than” even with the term included this does not overcome the issue discussed in the indefiniteness rejection of record in that the applicant has not defined a blade angle in relation to another structure. As such the applicant’s assertion is unpersuasive and the indefiniteness rejection of record is maintained.
The Applicant asserts that claim 1 overcomes the prior art of record as the prior art of record does not teach the newly amended limitations. The Examiner disagrees, the prior art of Efthimiadis at least teaches an end of the blade assembly above a plane in one pivot position and below a plane in a different pivot position which renders the claim obvious over the prior art of record. As such, the applicant’s assertion is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Robert D Cornett whose telephone number is (571) 270-0182. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am-5:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/ROBERT D CORNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights