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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “first part” lacks antecedent basis, though the intended meaning is presumed to be understood. Claim 11 should be amended to read “a first part” or alternatively, amended such that it depends on claim 5. Appropriate correction is required.
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 3, 5, 7-12, 15, and 19-20 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 claims 3, 5, and 7-8, the phrase "more specifically" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Accordingly, claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to their dependency on claim 7.
Regarding claims 5, 7, 9-12, 15, and 19-20, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The usage of the phrases “more specifically” and “in particular” are considered to be exemplary language and as such, make the intended scope of the claims unclear. For purposes of examination, any limitations following the terms “more specifically” and “in particular” are considered to be optional and thus are not required by the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avalos (US 20200086474) in view of Young (US 5644843).
Regarding claim 1, Avalos discloses a shaver handle (adjustable length handle 10; see figs. 1-2; note that a ‘shaver handle’ is merely an intended use of the claimed apparatus – consistent MPEP 2111.02(II), the body of claim 1 fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claim invention’s limitations, such that “the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction”; note also that a shaver head having a square aperture is mountable on the handle of Avalos, even if Avalos does not expressly contemplate such a shaver head) comprising a first section (second handle member 18; see figs. 8-9) and a second section (first handle member 16; see figs. 8-9) translatable along a proximal-distal shaver handle axis relative to the first section (second handle member 18 can move longitudinally relative to first handle member 16; see paragraph [0068]), wherein the first section comprises a plurality of grooves (second handle member 18 comprises a length adjusting slot 60 and slots 62a-d; see fig. 8) and the second section comprises at least one protrusion (engaging member 58; see paragraph [0068] and fig. 9), wherein the first section and second section are connected by a sleeve (first end 36 of second handle member 18 acts as a sleeve that is connected to first handle member 16; see figs. 1 and 8-9) configured to transition between an extended and a collapsed conformation (adjustable length handle 10 is configured to move between retracted position 22 and extended position 24; see paragraph [0067] and figs. 1-2).
Avalos does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the plurality of grooves is configured to form a snap joint with the at least one protrusion.
Young discloses wherein each of the plurality of grooves is configured to form a snap joint with the at least one protrusion (notches 27 are configured to catch lip 45 of flexible arm 44 of blade carrier 40 such that the blade is locked at varying degrees of extension; see col. , lines and figs. 10-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Avalos in view of Young to include snap joints. Young teaches a more secure configuration for locking the protrusion into the grooves. Applying this teaching to the handle of Avalos would fix the protrusion (engaging member 58) into place such that there is decreased risk of inadvertent release into an unlocked position. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this combination in order to increase safety and reliability of the locking system, while still maintaining adjustability.
Regarding claim 2, Avalos as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Avalos as modified further discloses wherein each of the plurality of grooves is configured to form an annular or discontinuous annular snap joint with the at least one protrusion. (slots 62a-d are discontinuous such that engaging member 58 must exit one of the slots 62, then move along the length adjusting slot 60 in order to move into another slot 62; see figs. 8-9)
Regarding claim 4, Avalos as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Avalos as modified further discloses wherein the first section and the sleeve (first end 36 and second handle member 18 are formed as a single structure; see figs. 8-9) and/or the second section and the sleeve are integrally formed.
Regarding claim 5, Avalos as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Avalos as modified further discloses wherein the second section is at least partly disposed within the first section (first handle member 16 is partially located within second handle member 18; see fig. 9), more specifically wherein the second section comprises a first part and a second part (first handle member 16 has right end 30 and left end 28; see paragraph [0064]), wherein the first part is disposed within the first section (right end 30 of first handle member 16 is located within second handle member 18; see fig. 9), in particular, wherein the second part of the second section and the first section have the same outer diameter and wherein the first part of the second section has a smaller diameter than the second part.
Regarding claim 6, Avalos as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Avalos as modified further discloses wherein the plurality of grooves is disposed on an inner side of the first section (slots 62a-d are disposed on an inner side of second handle member 18; see figs. 8-9).
Regarding claim 7, Avalos as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Avalos as modified further discloses wherein the first section comprises a first motion limiter (sealing plate 74; see figs. 5-6) configured to prevent translation of the second section along the proximal-distal shaver handle axis in distal direction beyond a distal limit position (sealing plate 74 prevents first handle member 16 from being pulled out from first end 36; see paragraph [0071]), in particular wherein the first motion limiter is a protrusion disposed on the inside of the first section (sealing plate 74 protrudes from the inner surface of second handle member 18; see fig. 5); and/or wherein the first section comprises a second motion limiter configured (distal cap 90; see fig. 25) to prevent translation of the second section along the proximal-distal shaver handle axis in proximal direction beyond a proximal limit position (distal cap 90 seals right end 38 of second handle member 18 and prevents first handle member 16 from passing through second handle member 18 at right end 38; see paragraph [0084]), more specifically wherein the second motion limiter is a protrusion disposed on the inside of the first section (distal cap 90 comprises threading 91 which protrudes inside second handle member 18; see fig. 25), in particular wherein the second motion limiter is disposed in proximal direction of the first motion limiter (distal cap 90 is in the proximal direction of sealing plate 74; see figs. 6 and 25).
Regarding claim 9, Avalos as modified discloses the limitations of claim 7 as described in the rejection above.
Avalos as modified further discloses wherein the first motion limiter is configured to abut with the second section (sealing plate 74 abuts first handle member 16; see fig. 5), in particular the at least one protrusion, when the second section is translated into the distal limit position (engaging member 58 is blocked from passing out of first end 36 in an extended position 24; see paragraph [0071] and fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Avalos as modified discloses the limitations of claim 7 as described in the rejection above.
Avalos as modified further discloses wherein the second motion limiter is configured to abut with the second section when the second section is translated into the proximal limit position (first handle member 16 is blocked by distal cap 90 from extending through right end 38 of second handle member 18, and thus must abut distal cap 90 in retracted position 22), in particular wherein the second motion limiter is configured to abut with the at least one protrusion when the second section is translated into the proximal limit position (distal cap 90 prevents first handle member 16 from passing through second handle member 18 at right end 38; see paragraph [0084]).
Examiner notes that contact between the second section, particularly the protrusion, and the second motion limiter is considered to be implicit. Avalos discloses that one of the purposes for including distal cap 90 is to prevent first handle member 16 from passing completely through right end 38 of second handle member 18. As such, in order for distal cap 90 to prevent this unwanted movement, there must be some contact between the two elements when first handle member 16 is completely retracted.
Regarding claim 11, Avalos as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Avalos as modified further discloses wherein the sleeve is configured to enclose the first part of the second section (right end 30 of first handle member 16 is enclosed within first end 36 of second handle member 18; see figs. 1 and 9), in particular wherein the sleeve is tubular (first end 36 of second handle member 18 is formed in a tubular shape; see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Avalos as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Avalos as modified further discloses wherein the sleeve is configured to have a uniform outer diameter when the second section is in the distal limit position (first end 36 of second handle member 18 has a uniform diameter in both retracted position 22 and extended position 24; see figs. 1-2 and 8-9) and/or wherein the sleeve is configured to have non-uniform outer diameter when the second section is in the proximal limit position.
Claims 3 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avalos (US 20200086474) in view of Young (US 5644843), and further in view of Gratsias (US 20200039100).
Regarding claim 3, Avalos as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Avalos as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the sleeve comprises an elastic material, more specifically an elastomer and in particular an elastomeric silicone.
Gratsias discloses wherein the sleeve comprises an elastic material (handle 2 may be made of an elastomeric material; see paragraphs [0057-0058, 0091]), more specifically an elastomer and in particular an elastomeric silicone.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Avalos in view of Gratsias to make the sleeve an elastic material. It is known within the art to use elastomeric materials for razor handles, since elastomers have good durability and provide a surface texture that is easily held by a user. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416).
Regarding claim 15, Avalos as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Avalos as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the shaver handle comprises a plurality of layers, in particular a plurality of layers substantially parallel to each other.
Gratsias discloses wherein the shaver handle comprises a plurality of layers, in particular a plurality of layers substantially parallel to each other (the printing step can be completed by additive manufacturing, in particular material jetting or stereolithography; see paragraph [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Avalos in view of Gratsias to have the handle comprise a plurality of layers. It is commonly known in the art that additive manufacturing techniques such as 3D printing result in a layered structure. As such, it is expected that a handle produced using this technique would have a plurality of layers.
Regarding claim 16, Avalos as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Avalos as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the shaver handle is a one-piece part.
Gratsias discloses wherein the shaver handle is a one-piece part (shaver handle 2 can be manufactured as one piece; see paragraph [0090]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Avalos in view of Gratsias to make the shaver handle a one-piece part. Gratsias discloses that manufacturing elements as a single piece reduces costs and simplifies manufacturing since there is no additional handling or assembly of parts required (see paragraph [0015]). Further, it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art (see Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993)).
Examiner notes that as described in the instant specification, “one-piece” appears to refer to integrally forming multiple sections as one overall construction. As best understood in light of this definition, Gratsias fulfills the limitation as recited due to the teaching that the handle element can be made in one piece, even in the case where there are moving parts, as is the case in the device of the instant application (see paragraph [0015-0018]). As such, even though the primary reference of Avalos as modified includes a handle with two sections, they are formed into one overall construction that simply contains moving sections.
Regarding claim 17, Avalos as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Avalos as modified does not explicitly disclose a model of the shaver handle according to claim 1 for a computer-controlled manufacturing system, wherein the model is configured to be processed by the computer-controlled manufacturing system to manufacture the shaver handle.
Gratsias discloses a model of the shaver handle according to claim 1 for a computer-controlled manufacturing system (a customer can upload a 3D digital model on server 109; see paragraph [0081]), wherein the model is configured to be processed by the computer-controlled manufacturing system to manufacture the shaver handle (the uploaded model, which can be a shaver handle, can be fabricated using a 3D printer; see paragraphs [0012, 0081-0082]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Avalos in view of Gratsias. Gratsias discloses that data files including 3D drawings can be sent to individual printers in order to manufacture the unit. As such, the facility as a whole becomes versatile and can adapt to continuous changes in demand (see paragraphs [0011-0012, 0081]).
Regarding claim 18, Avalos as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Avalos as modified does not explicitly disclose a computer-readable medium, wherein the computer-readable medium comprises instructions configured to be processed by a computer-controlled manufacturing system to manufacture the shaver handle according to claim 1.
Gratsias discloses a computer-readable medium, wherein the computer-readable medium comprises instructions configured to be processed by a computer-controlled manufacturing system to manufacture (a data file and 3D drawings are sent to server 109 so that 3D printers 122 can fabricate the handle; see paragraph [0072]) the shaver handle according to claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Avalos in view of Gratsias to use a computer-readable medium with instructions to manufacture a shaver handle. Gratsias discloses that data files can be sent to individual printers in order to manufacture the unit. As such, the facility as a whole becomes versatile and can adapt to continuous changes in demand (see paragraphs [0011-0012]).
Regarding claim 19, Avalos as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Avalos as modified does not explicitly disclose a method for manufacturing the shaver handle according to claim 1 comprising: manufacturing the shaver handle using a computer-controlled manufacturing system, in particular additive manufacturing, even more particularly material jetting, fused filament fabrication, stereolithography and/or selective laser sintering.
Gratsias discloses a method for manufacturing the shaver handle according to claim 1 comprising: manufacturing the shaver handle using a computer-controlled manufacturing system (shaver handle 2 is manufactured by the system using 3D printers 122; see paragraph [0074]), in particular additive manufacturing, even more particularly material jetting, fused filament fabrication, stereolithography and/or selective laser sintering (the printing step can be completed by additive manufacturing, in particular material jetting or stereolithography; see paragraph [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Avalos in view of Gratsias to use a computer-based manufacturing system to manufacture a shaver handle. Gratsias discloses that manufacturing parts in this way reduces overall costs associated with other methods since no part molds must be designed, manufactured, or stored. Further, this process is more versatile since manufacturing a different part requires only a different data file (see paragraphs [0009-0012]).
Regarding claim 20, Avalos as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Avalos as modified does not explicitly disclose a computer-based manufacturing system for manufacturing the shaver handle of claim 1, comprising a control unit adapted to execute the method having the step: manufacturing the shaver handle using the computer-controlled manufacturing system, in particular additive manufacturing, even more particularly material jetting, fused filament fabrication, stereolithography and/or selective laser sintering.
Gratsias discloses a computer-based manufacturing system for manufacturing the shaver handle of claim 1, comprising a control unit (server 109 sends the 3D digital models to a 3D printer 122 where they are fabricated; see paragraphs [0074-0077] and figs. 1 and 5) adapted to execute the method having the step: manufacturing the shaver handle using the computer-controlled manufacturing system (shaver handle 2 is manufactured by the system using 3D printers 122; see paragraph [0074]), in particular additive manufacturing, even more particularly material jetting, fused filament fabrication, stereolithography and/or selective laser sintering (the printing step can be completed by additive manufacturing, in particular material jetting or stereolithography; see paragraph [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Avalos in view of Gratsias to use a computer-based manufacturing system to manufacture a shaver handle. Gratsias discloses that manufacturing parts in this way reduces overall costs associated with other methods since no part molds must be designed, manufactured, or stored. Further, this process is more versatile since manufacturing a different part requires only a different data file (see paragraphs [0009-0012]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avalos (US 20200086474) in view of Young (US 5644843), and further in view of Gratsias (US 20200039100), as evidenced by Sacks (US 20160031102).
Regarding claim 8, Avalos as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Avalos as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the first section or second section comprises a razor connector, wherein the razor connector is configured to engage a razor cartridge or wherein the razor connector is integrally formed with a razor cartridge, more specifically wherein the first section comprises the razor connector and in particular wherein the first section comprises the razor connector at its distal end.
Gratsias discloses wherein the first section or second section comprises a razor connector (head supporting portion 8 forms a head to handle attachment; see figs. 9-10 and paragraph [0093]), wherein the razor connector is configured to engage a razor cartridge (shaver head 3 can be engaged or released from head supporting portion 8; see paragraph [0093-0094]) or wherein the razor connector is integrally formed with a razor cartridge, more specifically wherein the first section comprises the razor connector and in particular wherein the first section comprises the razor connector at its distal end.
Examiner notes that as modified, the razor connector is disposed on the second section of the handle (left end 28 of first handle member 16, where work tool connector 86 is located; see fig. 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Avalos in view of Gratsias to include a razor connector and razor cartridge. Avalos discloses a generic adjustable handle that can be used for numerous purposes. As evidenced by Sacks, an adjustable length handle on a razor is desirable since conventional razor handles do not allow easy access to difficult to reach areas (see paragraph [0003]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a razor with an adjustable length handle.
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avalos (US 20200086474) in view of Young (US 5644843), and further in view of Schweers (US 4037726).
Regarding claim 12, Avalos as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Avalos as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the sleeve is foldable, in particular wherein the sleeve is configured to fold when the second section is translated towards the proximal direction relative to the first section, in particular wherein the sleeve is in a folded conformation when the second section is in the distal limit position and an unfolded conformation when the second section is in the proximal limit position.
Schweers discloses wherein the sleeve is foldable (rod cover 24 is expandable and collapsible; see col. 2, line 66-col. 3, line 2), in particular wherein the sleeve is configured to fold when the second section is translated towards the proximal direction relative to the first section, in particular wherein the sleeve is in a folded conformation when the second section is in the distal limit position and an unfolded conformation when the second section is in the proximal limit position (curtain rod 10 is configured to be expandable or collapsible, such that upon expansion, rod cover 24 is in the unfolded position, and when curtain rod 10 is collapsed, rod cover 24 will be in the folded position; see col 2, line 66-col. 3, line 2 and figs. 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Avalos in view of Schweers to include wherein the sleeve is a foldable, repeating structure comprising four repeating units. As shown by Schweers, it is advantageous to provide a cover on a telescoping structure in order to protect the telescoping mechanism (see col. 3, lines 7-14). Although Schweers discloses a cover for a telescoping curtain rod, the benefit would be the same if it were applied to a telescoping handle. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the handle of Avalos to include a sleeve that is capable of folding.
Regarding claim 14, Avalos as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Avalos as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the sleeve is a repeating structure comprising four repeating units, wherein a cross-section of the first and third repeating unit extends longitudinally along the proximal-distal shaver handle axis, wherein a cross-section of the second repeating unit is a quarter-circle and wherein a cross-section of the fourth repeating unit extends perpendicular to the proximal-distal shaver handle axis.
Schweers discloses wherein the sleeve is a repeating structure comprising four repeating units (see annotated portion of fig. 2 below), wherein a cross-section of the first and third repeating unit extends longitudinally along the proximal-distal shaver handle axis (the first and third units extend lengthwise along the axis of the handle; see annotated portion of fig. 2 below), wherein a cross-section of the second repeating unit is a quarter-circle (a plane can be drawn along which a cross-sectional shape of the second unit is a quarter-circle, such as if the plane is drawn obliquely into the page relative to Fig. 2 at a forty-five degree angle; alternatively, a cross-section can be taken in the form of a quarter-circle as indicated in the annotated portion of fig. 2 below) and wherein a cross-section of the fourth repeating unit extends perpendicular to the proximal-distal shaver handle axis (the fourth unit extends in a perpendicular direction from the axis of the handle; see annotated portion of fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
266
306
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Avalos in view of Schweers to include wherein the sleeve is a foldable, repeating structure comprising four repeating units. As shown by Schweers, it is advantageous to provide a cover on a telescoping structure in order to protect the telescoping mechanism (see col. 3, lines 7-14). Although Schweers discloses a cover for a telescoping curtain rod, the benefit would be the same if it were applied to a telescoping handle. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the handle of Avalos to include a sleeve that is capable of folding.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HALEIGH N WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3818. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 530AM-330PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Adam Eiseman can be reached at (571) 270-3818. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HALEIGH N WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/EVAN H MACFARLANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3724