DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1, 2, 18-31, 33, 34, 36, and 37 in the reply filed on 04/27 is acknowledged.
Regarding claims 33 and 34, the Examiner missed label the claims 33 and 34 in Group II. Group II should be read “claims 32 and 33-35” since claim 33-35 are process claims the same as claim 32. Therefore, claims 33-35 are considered as non-elected claims. Claims 1, 2, 18-31, 36, and 37 are examined in the merits. The Examiner apologizes for the confusion.
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.
Claims 1, 21, 22, 26-30, 36, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Quigley et al. (2012/0167401), hereinafter Quigley.
Regarding claim 1, Quigley teaches a shaver handle, wherein at least part of a surface 12 of the shaver handle comprises a first material, wherein the first material comprises a first polymer (thermoplastic polymer) and rubber particles, wherein the rubber particles comprise carbon black and wherein a core 14 of the shaver handle comprises a second material (thermoplastic polymer).
See Fig. 1 and para. [0022] and [0025].
Regarding claim 21, Quigley teaches a thermoplastic elastomer. See para. [0022].
Regarding claim 22, Quigley teaches a styrenic block copolymer. See para. [0022].
Regarding claim 36, the styrenic block copolymer comprising styrene-ethylene-butylene-styrene. See para. [0022].
Regarding claim 26, Quigley teaches a natural rubber. See para. [0025].
Regarding claim 27, Quigley teaches butyl rubber and chloroprene. See para. [0025].
Regarding claim 28, Quigley teaches fillers. See para. [0026]
Regarding claims 29-30, Quigley teaches a second polymer such as a thermoplastic polymer. See para. [0022].
Regarding claim 37, Quigley teaches polypropylene in para. [0022].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2, 18-20, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quigley et al. (2012/0167401), hereinafter Quigley, in view of Bohm et al. (2020/0255637), hereinafter Bohm.
Regarding claims 2 and 18, Quigley teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the rubber particles comprising devulcanized rubber particles.
Bohm teaches the use of devulcanized rubber. See the Abstract.
To select a well-known material such devulcanized rubber would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Quigley teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the rubber particles comprising devulcanized rubber particles.
Bohm teaches the use of devulcanized rubber. See the Abstract.
To select a well-known material such devulcanized rubber would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Bohm further teaches the devulcanized rubber including thiol-group such as butylthiol.
Regarding claim 25, Quigley teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the rubber particles comprising a recycled rubber particles.
Bohm teaches the use of devulcanized rubber. See the Abstract.
To select a well-known material such devulcanized rubber from tire would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quigley et al. (2012/0167401), hereinafter Quigley.
Regarding claim 23, Quigley teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the amount of rubber particles being about 5-60wt. -% of the total weight of the first material.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the amount of rubber particles being about 5-60wt. -% of the total weight of the first material for achieving a desire tackiness, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 24, Quigley teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the amount of the first polymer being about 40-90wt. -% of the total weight of the first material.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the amount of the first polymer being about 40-90wt. -% of the total weight of the first material for achieving a desire tackiness, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quigley et al. (2012/0167401), hereinafter Quigley, in view of Brown et al. (2003/0070309), hereinafter Brown.
Regarding claim 31, Quigley teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the thermoplastic polymer being a polyolefin.
Brown teaches a core of a razor handle made from polyolefin for slip resistance purpose. See para. [0028].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the core of the shave handle from polyolefin as taught by Brown for slip resistance purpose.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Razor handles of general interest are cited in form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHONG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4510. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5.
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.
/PHONG H NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights