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, 14 and 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2, 4, 9 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, the claim states “wherein the first detachable connector of the surface treatment head and the second detachable connector of the first interconnector comprise a mechanical connection or a magnetic connection” in lines 1-3 of the claim, claim 1 states “wherein the first detachable connector of the surface treatment head and the second detachable connector of the first interconnector comprise a magnetic connection” in lines 7-8 of the claim. As claim 2 is dependent upon claim 1 these limitations require a first detachable connector of the surface treatment head and the second detachable connector of the first interconnector that has both a magnetic connection and a mechanical connection which is not disclosed by the instant disclosure and is considered new matter.
Regarding claim 4, the claim states “wherein the first detachable connector of the surface treatment head, the second and third detachable connectors of the first interconnector, and the fourth detachable connector of the end interconnector comprise a mechanical connection or a magnetic connection” in lines 1-4 of the claim, claim 1 states “wherein the first detachable connector of the surface treatment head and the second detachable connector of the first interconnector comprise a magnetic connection” in lines 7-8 of the claim. As claim 4 is dependent upon claim 1 these limitations require a first detachable connector of the surface treatment head and the second detachable connector of the first interconnector that has both a magnetic connection and a mechanical connection which is not disclosed by the instant disclosure and is considered new matter.
Regarding claim 9, the claim states “wherein the first detachable connector of the surface treatment head, the second and third detachable connectors of the first interconnector, the fourth and fifth detachable connectors of the at least one second interconnector, and the sixth detachable connector of the end interconnector comprise a mechanical connection or a magnetic connection” in lines 1-5 of the claim, claim 1 states “wherein the first detachable connector of the surface treatment head and the second detachable connector of the first interconnector comprise a magnetic connection” in lines 7-8 of the claim. As claim 9 is dependent upon claim 1 these limitations require a first detachable connector of the surface treatment head and the second detachable connector of the first interconnector that has both a magnetic connection and a mechanical connection which is not disclosed by the instant disclosure and is considered new matter.
Regarding claim 17, the claim states “wherein the first detachable connector of the one or more surface treatment heads, the second and third detachable connectors of the plurality of first interconnectors, the fourth and fifth detachable connectors of the plurality of second interconnectors, and the sixth detachable connector of the one or more end interconnectors comprise a mechanical connection or a magnetic connection” in lines 1-5 of the claim, claim 1 states “wherein the first detachable connector of the one or more surface treatment heads, the second and third detachable connectors of the plurality of first interconnectors, the fourth and fifth detachable connectors of the plurality of second interconnectors, and the sixth detachable connector of the one or more end interconnectors comprise a magnetic connection” in lines 13-17 of the claim. As claim 17 is dependent upon claim 14 these limitations require the connectors to have both a magnetic connection and a mechanical connection which is not disclosed by the instant disclosure and is considered new matter.
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 2, 4, 9 and 17 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 2, the claim states “wherein the first detachable connector of the surface treatment head and the second detachable connector of the first interconnector comprise a mechanical connection or a magnetic connection” in lines 1-3 of the claim, claim 1 states “wherein the first detachable connector of the surface treatment head and the second detachable connector of the first interconnector comprise a magnetic connection” in lines 7-8 of the claim. As claim 2 is dependent upon claim 1 these limitations require a first detachable connector of the surface treatment head and the second detachable connector of the first interconnector that has both a magnetic connection and a magnetic connection. It is unclear if this limitation requires a second magnetic connection or if this is just a restatement of the magnetic connection of claim 1 and thus fails to further limit the connectors.
Regarding claim 4, the claim states “wherein the first detachable connector of the surface treatment head, the second and third detachable connectors of the first interconnector, and the fourth detachable connector of the end interconnector comprise a mechanical connection or a magnetic connection” in lines 1-4 of the claim, claim 1 states “wherein the first detachable connector of the surface treatment head and the second detachable connector of the first interconnector comprise a magnetic connection” in lines 7-8 of the claim. As claim 4 is dependent upon claim 1 these limitations require a first detachable connector of the surface treatment head and the second detachable connector of the first interconnector that has both a magnetic connection and a magnetic connection. It is unclear if this limitation requires a second magnetic connection or if this is just a restatement of the magnetic connection of claim 1 and thus fails further limit the connectors.
Regarding claim 9, the claim states “wherein the first detachable connector of the surface treatment head, the second and third detachable connectors of the first interconnector, the fourth and fifth detachable connectors of the at least one second interconnector, and the sixth detachable connector of the end interconnector comprise a mechanical connection or a magnetic connection” in lines 1-5 of the claim, claim 1 states “wherein the first detachable connector of the surface treatment head and the second detachable connector of the first interconnector comprise a magnetic connection” in lines 7-8 of the claim. As claim 9 is dependent upon claim 1 these limitations require a first detachable connector of the surface treatment head and the second detachable connector of the first interconnector that has both a magnetic connection and a magnetic connection. It is unclear if this limitation requires a second magnetic connection or if this is just a restatement of the magnetic connection of claim 1 and thus fails to further limit the connectors.
Regarding claim 17, the claim states “wherein the first detachable connector of the one or more surface treatment heads, the second and third detachable connectors of the plurality of first interconnectors, the fourth and fifth detachable connectors of the plurality of second interconnectors, and the sixth detachable connector of the one or more end interconnectors comprise a mechanical connection or a magnetic connection” in lines 1-5 of the claim, claim 1 states “wherein the first detachable connector of the one or more surface treatment heads, the second and third detachable connectors of the plurality of first interconnectors, the fourth and fifth detachable connectors of the plurality of second interconnectors, and the sixth detachable connector of the one or more end interconnectors comprise a magnetic connection” in lines 13-17 of the claim. As claim 17 is dependent upon claim 14 it is unclear if this limitation requires a second magnetic connection for each of the connectors or if this is just a restatement of the magnetic connection of claim 17 and thus fails to further limit the connectors.
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 1-4, 8-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallace (US 913,076 A) in view of Wilson et al. (US 2013/0312272 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wallace teaches a modular personal care implement (Wallace, Fig. 1-4) comprising: a surface treatment head (Wallace, Fig. 1-4, 1) having a first end (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (Wallace) below) with an applicator (Wallace, Fig. 1 and 3-4, 2) and a second end (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (Wallace) below) with a first detachable connector (Wallace, Fig. 3, 10); and a first interconnector (Wallace, Fig. 1 and 3-4, 11) having a first end (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (Wallace) below) with a second detachable connector (Wallace, Fig. 3, 12) and a second end (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (Wallace) below) with a third detachable connector (Wallace, Fig. 3, 13), wherein the second detachable connector (Wallace, Fig. 3, 12) is removably attached to the first detachable connector of the surface treatment head (Wallace, Pg. 1, lines 86-89).
Wallace does not teach wherein the first detachable connector of the surface treatment head and the second detachable connector of the first interconnector comprise a magnetic connection.
Wilson teaches a modular personal care implement (Wilson, Figs. 1-5B, 10) comprising a surface treatment head (Wilson, Figs. 1-5B, 102) and a first interconnector (Wilson, Figs. 1-5B, 121) wherein a first detachable connector (Wilson, Figs. 1-5B, 105) of the surface treatment head and a second detachable connector (Wilson, Figs. 1-5B, 107) of the first interconnector comprise a magnetic connection (Wilson, P. 0036). Such a magnetic connection allows for the surface treatment head to be removed and replacement more easily (Wilson, P. 0020).
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 first detachable connector of the surface treatment head and a second detachable connector of the first interconnector such that they comprise a magnetic connection like that taught by Wilson as doing so allows for the surface treatment head to be more easily removed and replaced.
PNG
media_image1.png
567
559
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Wallace in view of Wilson teaches the modular personal care implement of claim 1, wherein the first detachable connector (Wilson, Figs. 1-5B, 105) of the surface treatment head and the second detachable connector (Wilson, Figs. 1-5B, 107) of the first interconnector comprise a magnetic connection (Wilson, P. 0036).
Regarding claim 3, Wallace in view of Wilson teaches the modular personal care implement of claim 1, further comprising: an end interconnector (Wallace, Fig. 1 and 3-4, 11a) having a first end (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (Wallace) above) with a fourth detachable connector (Wallace, Fig. 3, 12), wherein the fourth detachable connector is removably attached to the third detachable connector of the first interconnector (Wallace, Pg. 1, lines 90-95).
Regarding claim 4, Wallace in view of Wilson teaches the modular personal care implement of claim 3, wherein the first detachable connector (Wilson, Figs. 1-5B, 105) of the surface treatment head, the second (Wilson, Figs. 1-5B, 107) and third (Wallace, Fig. 3, 13) detachable connectors of the first interconnector (Wallace, Fig. 1 and 3-4, 11), and the fourth detachable connector (Wallace, Fig. 3, 12) of the end interconnector (Wallace, Fig. 1 and 3-4, 11a) comprise a mechanical connection or a magnetic connection (Wallace, Pg. 1, lines 86-95 and Wilson, P. 0036).
Regarding claim 8, Wallace in view of Wilson teaches the modular personal care implement of claim 1, further comprising: at least one second interconnector (Wallace, Fig. 1 and 3-4, 11a) having a first end (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (Wallace) above) with a fourth detachable connector (Wallace, Fig. 3, 12) and a second end (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (Wallace) above) with a fifth detachable connector (Wallace, Fig. 3, 13), wherein the fourth detachable connector is removably attached to the third detachable connector of the first interconnector (Wallace, Pg. 1, lines 90-95); and an end interconnector having a first end with a sixth detachable connector, wherein the sixth detachable connector is removably attached to the fifth detachable connector of the at least one second interconnector (Wallace, Pg. 1, lines 86-95), the device taught by Wallace may have several additional handle sections as Wallace does not specifically limit the number of interchangeable sections (Wallace, Pg. 1, lines 90-95).
Regarding claim 9, Wallace in view of Wilson teaches the modular personal care implement of claim 8, wherein the first detachable connector (Wilson, Figs. 1-5B, 105) of the surface treatment head, the second (Wilson, Figs. 1-5B, 107) and third (Wallace, Fig. 3, 13) detachable connectors of the first interconnector (Wallace, Fig. 1 and 3-4, 11 and 11a), the fourth (Wallace, Fig. 3, 12) and fifth (Wallace, Fig. 3, 13) detachable connectors of the at least one second interconnector (Wallace, Fig. 1 and 3-4, 11a), and the sixth detachable connector (Wallace, Fig. 3, 12) of the end interconnector (Wallace, Fig. 1 and 3-4, 11 and 11a) comprise a mechanical connection or a magnetic connection, the detachable connectors taught by Wallace are threaded studs and recesses which when threaded together form what is known commonly in the art as a mechanical connection while the detachable connectors taught by Wilson are magnetic (Wilson, P. 0036). It should be noted the device taught by Wallace may have several additional handle sections as Wallace does not specifically limit the number of interchangeable sections (Wallace, Pg. 1, lines 90-95).
Regarding claim 11, Wallace in view of Wilson teaches the modular personal care implement of claim 1, wherein the surface treatment head (Wallace, Fig. 1-4, 1) comprises a shaving razor cartridge and the applicator (Wallace, Fig. 1 and 3-4, 2) comprises at least one blade (Wallace, Fig. 1, 3-4, and 6, 2).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallace (US 913,076 A) in view of Wilson (US 2013/0312272 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gratsias et al. (US 2008/0141536 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Wallace in view of Wilson teaches the modular personal care implement of claim 3, wherein the first interconnector comprises a first cross-sectional shape (Wallace, Fig. 3, 11 and 11a).
Wallace in view of Wilson does not teach wherein at least a portion of the end interconnector comprises a second cross-sectional shape that is different from the first cross-sectional shape.
Gratsias teaches a handle (Gratsias, Fig. 2, 2) wherein the end of the handle (Gratsias, Fig. 2, 4) has a cross sectional shape (Gratsias, Fig. 13A) that is different from the cross sectional shape of other sections of the handle (Gratsias, Fig. 13B-13L). Such shapes improve the ergonomics (Gratsias, P. 0015-0018), comfort (Gratsias, P. 0051) and allow for different grasping positions (Gratsias, P. 0049).
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 end interconnector taught by Wallace in view of Wilson such that at least a portion of the interconnector had a cross-sectional shape that is different from the cross-sectional shape of a first interconnector like that taught by Gratsias as such a shape allows for improved the ergonomics, comfort and allow for different grasping positions and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to shape their device however desirable or expedient at the time (see MPEP 2144.04(V)(A)). In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallace (US 913,076 A) in view of Wilson (US 2013/0312272 A1) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Lin (US 2020/0009712 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Wallace in view of Wilson teaches the modular personal care implement of claim 3.
Wallace in view of Wilson does not teach wherein the first interconnector comprises a first material and the end interconnector comprises a second material that is different from the first material.
Lin teaches a handle (Lin, Fig. 1, 20) wherein a first section (Lin, Fig. 1, 210) is comprises a first material (Lin, P. 0038) and a second section (Lin, Fig. 1, 320) comprises a second material that is different from the first material (Lin, P. 0046).
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 first interconnector taught by Wallace in view of Wilson to comprise a first material and the end interconnector to comprise a second material different from the first material like the end interconnector taught by Lin since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known component or material on the basis of suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious mechanical design expediency. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Also see MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. states "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.). Since it is well known in the art to use different materials for different sections of a handle, the designation of a different material for different parts of the handle does nothing to enhance the patentability of a design.
Regarding claim 7, Wallace in view of Wilson teaches the modular personal care implement of claim 3, wherein an outer surface of the first interconnector comprises a plurality of gripping protrusions (Wallace, Fig. 1 and 3-4, 11 and 11a)
Wallace in view of Wilson does not teach an outer surface of the end interconnector is smooth.
Lin teaches a handle wherein the outer surface of the end interconnector is smooth (Lin, Fig. 1, 210).
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 end interconnector taught by Wallace in view of Wilson to feature a smooth surface like that taught by Lin since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to shape their device however desirable or expedient at the time (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)). In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. Since it is well known in the art to provide both smooth and rough surfaces on different sections of a handle for a razor the mere presence of such structure does not distinguish the instant invention over the prior art.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallace (US 913,076 A) in view of Wilson (US 2013/0312272 A1) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Mackay (GB 517,780 A) .
Regarding claim 10, Wallace in view of Wilson teaches the modular personal care implement of claim 8, wherein the first interconnector comprises a first length, a first width, a first material, a first mass, a first hardness, and a first color and the at least one second interconnector comprises a second length, a second width, a second material, a second mass, a second hardness, and a second color (Wallace, Fig. 1 and 3-4, 11 and 11a)
Wallace in view of Wilson does not teach wherein at least one of the second length, second width, second material, second mass, second hardness, or second color is different from a corresponding one of the first length, first width, first material, first mass, first hardness, or first color, the interconnectors taught by Wallace are best understood as having the same material characteristics.
Mackay teaches a handle (Mackay, Fig. 1 and 3, B and C) wherein at least one of the second length, second width, second material, second mass, second hardness, or second color is different from a corresponding one of the first length, first width, first material, first mass, first hardness, or first color, here it can be seen that the length of the first interconnection (Mackay, Fig. 2-3, C) is different than the length of the second interconnector (Mackay, Fig. 1 and 3, B).
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 length of either the first or the second interconnector taught by Wallace in view of Wilson such that one interconnector had a different length like the interconnectors taught by Mackay since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to specify a size or range between the elements of a device. See In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.) and MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). Since, it is known in the art to have handle sections of different lengths specifying such a difference does nothing to enhance the patentability of a design.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallace (US 913,076 A) in view of Wilson (US 2013/0312272 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen (US 4,813,138 A).
Regarding claim 12, Wallace in view of Wilson teaches the modular personal care implement of claim 1.
Wallace in view of Wilson does not teach wherein the surface treatment head comprises a brush head and the applicator comprises a plurality of bristles.
Chen teaches a modular personal care implement (Chen, Fig. 1-5) wherein the surface treatment head comprises a brush head (Chen, Fig. 3-4, 2) and the applicator comprises a plurality of bristles (Chen, Fig. 3, 21). Such a brush allows for convenient and hygienic using of cream (Chen, Col. 3, lines 34-36).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to modify the modular personal care implement taught by Wallace in view of Wilson to feature surface treatment head comprising a brush head and an applicator comprising a plurality of bristles like that taught by Chen as doing so allows for the convenient distribution of shaving cream.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallace (US 913,076 A) in view of Wilson (US 2013/0312272 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Metcalf et al. (US 2017/0087733 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Wallace in view of Wilson teaches the modular personal care implement of claim 1.
Wallace in view of Wilson does not teach wherein the surface treatment head further comprises a release mechanism positioned between the first and second end of the surface treatment head, the release mechanism comprising an actuator button configured to eject a portion of the surface treatment head comprising the applicator.
Metcalf teaches a modular personal care implement (Metcalf, Fig. 1a-6b) wherein the surface treatment head (Metcalf, Fig. 2a-2c, 100 and 300) further comprises a release mechanism (Metcalf, Fig. 2a-2c, 130) positioned between the first and second end of the surface treatment head, the release mechanism comprising an actuator button (Metcalf, P. 0043) configured to eject a portion of the surface treatment head comprising the applicator (Metcalf, Fig. 2a-2c, 300, P. 0044). Such a mechanism allows for the applicator to be easily removed from the surface treatment head (Metcalf, P. 0026).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to modify the surface treatment head taught by Wallace in view of Wilson such that the surface treatment head further comprises a release mechanism positioned between the first and second end of the surface treatment head, the release mechanism comprising an actuator button configured to eject a portion of the surface treatment head comprising the applicator like that taught by Metcalf as doing so allows for the applicator to be easily removed from the surface treatment head.
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallace (US 913,076 A) in view of Wilson (US 2013/0312272 A1) and Lee (US 2015/0097815 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Wallace teaches a method of providing a modular personal care implement, the method comprising: providing one or more surface treatment heads (Wallace, Fig. 1-4, 1) each having a first end (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (Wallace) above) with an applicator (Wallace, Fig. 1 and 3-4, 2) and a second end (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (Wallace) above) with a first detachable connector (Wallace, Fig. 3, 10); providing a plurality of first interconnectors (Wallace, Fig. 1 and 3-4, 11 and 11a) each having a first end (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (Wallace) above) with a second detachable connector (Wallace, Fig. 1 and 3-4, 12) and a second end (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (Wallace) above) with a third detachable connector (Wallace, Fig. 1 and 3-4, 13); providing a plurality of second interconnectors (Wallace, Fig. 1 and 3-4, 11 and 11a), the interconnectors of Wallace are interchangeable and are capable of having addition interconnectors connected to them, each having a first end (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (Wallace) above) with a fourth detachable connector (Wallace, Fig. 1 and 3-4, 12) and a second end (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (Wallace) above) with a fifth detachable connector (Wallace, Fig. 1 and 3-4, 13); providing one or more end interconnectors (Wallace, Fig. 1 and 3-4, 11 and 11a), while Wallace only shows two interconnectors the disclosure of Wallace does not limit the number of interconnectors, each having a first end (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (Wallace) above) with a sixth detachable connector (Wallace, Fig. 1 and 3-4, 12); and removably attaching the second detachable connector of one first interconnector of the plurality of first interconnectors to the first detachable connector of one surface treatment head of the one or more surface treatment heads (Wallace, Pg. 1, lines 86-95).
Wallace does not teach wherein the first detachable connector of the one or more surface treatment heads, the second and third detachable connectors of the plurality of first interconnectors, the fourth and fifth detachable connectors of the plurality of second interconnectors, and the sixth detachable connector of the one or more end interconnectors comprise a magnetic connection
Wilson teaches a modular personal care implement (Wilson, Figs. 1-5B, 10) comprising a surface treatment head (Wilson, Figs. 1-5B, 102) and a first interconnector (Wilson, Figs. 1-5B, 121) wherein a first detachable connector (Wilson, Figs. 1-5B, 105) of the surface treatment head and a second detachable connector (Wilson, Figs. 1-5B, 107) of the first interconnector comprise a magnetic connection (Wilson, P. 0036). Such a magnetic connection allows for the surface treatment head to be removed and replacement more easily (Wilson, P. 0020).
Lee teaches a modular hand tool (Lee, Figs. 5A-5B) comprising addition connectors (Lee, Fig. 5B, 126 and 128) comprising magnetic connections (Lee, P. 0050). Such connectors allows for the device to be easily broken down (Lee, P. 0050).
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 first detachable connector of the surface treatment head and a second detachable connector of the first interconnector such that they comprise a magnetic connection like that taught by Wilson as doing so allows for the surface treatment head to be more easily removed and replaced and for any additional connectors to also comprise magnetic connections as taught by Lee to include magnetic connections for third, fourth, fifth and sixth connectors as such connections allows for the device to be easily broken down.
Regarding claim 15, Wallace in view of Wilson and Lee teaches the method of claim 14, further comprising: removably attaching the sixth detachable interconnector of one of the one or more end interconnectors to the third detachable connector of the one first interconnector (Lee, Fig. 5B, 126 and 128).
Regarding claim 16, Wallace in view of Wilson and Lee teaches the method of claim 14, further comprising: removably attaching the fourth detachable connector of one second interconnector of the plurality of second interconnectors to the third detachable connector of the one first interconnector (Wallace, Pg. 1, lines 86-95); and removably attaching the sixth detachable interconnector of one of the one or more end interconnectors to the fifth detachable connector of the one second interconnector (Wallace, Pg. 1, lines 86-95).
Regarding claim 17, Wallace in view of Wilson and Lee teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the first detachable connector (Wallace, Fig. 3, 10) of the one or more surface treatment heads (Wallace, Fig. 1-4, 1), the second (Wallace, Fig. 1 and 3-4, 12) and third (Wallace, Fig. 1 and 3-4, 13) detachable connectors of the plurality of first interconnectors (Wallace, Fig. 1 and 3-4, 11 and 11a), the fourth (Wallace, Fig. 1 and 3-4, 12) and fifth (Wallace, Fig. 1 and 3-4, 13) detachable connectors of the plurality of second interconnectors (Wallace, Fig. 1 and 3-4, 11 and 11a), and the sixth detachable connector (Wallace, Fig. 1 and 3-4, 12) of the one or more end interconnectors (Wallace, Fig. 1 and 3-4, 11 and 11a) comprise a mechanical connection or a magnetic connection, the detachable connectors of Wallace are threaded studs and recesses which when threaded together form what is known commonly in the art as a mechanical connection and Lee also teaches magnetic connections for connectors (Lee, Fig. 5B, 126 and 128 and P. 0050).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallace (US 913,076 A) in view of Wilson (US 2013/0312272 A1) and Lee (US 2015/0097815 A1) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Metcalf (US 2017/0087733 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Wallace in view of Wilson and Lee teaches the method of claim 14.
Wallace in view of Wilson and Lee does not teach wherein the one or more surface treatment heads each further comprise a release mechanism positioned between the first and second end of the surface treatment head, the method further comprising: actuating the release mechanism to eject a portion of the one surface treatment head comprising the applicator.
Metcalf teaches a modular personal care implement (Metcalf, Fig. 1a-6b) wherein the surface treatment head (Metcalf, Fig. 2a-2c, 100 and 300) further comprises a release mechanism (Metcalf, Fig. 2a-2c, 130) positioned between the first and second end of the surface treatment head, the release mechanism comprising an actuator button (Metcalf, P. 0043) configured to eject a portion of the surface treatment head comprising the applicator (Metcalf, Fig. 2a-2c, 300, P. 0044). Such a mechanism allows for the applicator to be easily removed from the surface treatment head (Metcalf, P. 0026).
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 surface treatment head of Wallace in view of Wilson and Lee such that the one or more surface treatment heads each further comprise a release mechanism positioned between the first and second end of the surface treatment head, the method further comprising: actuating the release mechanism to eject a portion of the one surface treatment head comprising the applicator as taught by Metcalf as doing so allows for the applicator to be easily removed from the surface treatment head.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallace (US 913,076 A) in view of McGarry et al. (US 2021/0259384 A1), Wilson (US 2013/0312272 A1) and Lee (US 2015/0097815 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Wallace teaches a kit comprising: a first surface treatment head (Wallace, Fig. 1-4, 1) comprising a shaving razor cartridge, the first surface treatment head having a first end (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (Wallace) above) with an applicator (Wallace, Fig. 1 and 3-4, 2) and a second end (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (Wallace) above) with a first detachable connector (Wallace, Fig. 3, 10), wherein the applicator comprises at least one blade (Wallace, Fig. 1, 3-4, and 6, 2); at least one first interconnector (Wallace, Fig. 1 and 3-4, 11 and 11a) having a first end (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (Wallace) above) with a second detachable connector (Wallace, Fig. 3, 12) and a second end (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (Wallace) above) with a third detachable connector (Wallace, Fig. 3, 13); at least one end interconnector (Wallace, Fig. 1 and 3-4, 11 and 11a) having a first end (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (Wallace) above) with a fourth detachable connector (Wallace, Fig. 3, 12).
Wallace does not teach a case comprising a top portion and a bottom portion; and an insert comprising one or more cavities configured to receive the first surface treatment head, first interconnector, and end interconnector, wherein the bottom portion of the case defines a compartment configured to removably receive the insert within the bottom portion, and wherein the first detachable connector of the first surface treatment head, the second and third detachable connectors of the at least one first interconnector, and the fourth detachable connector of the at least one end interconnector comprise a magnetic connection.
McGarry teaches a case (McGarry, Fig. 1-9, 10) comprising a top portion (McGarry, Fig. 1A, 14) and a bottom portion (McGarry, Fig. 1A, 16) and an insert (McGarry, Fig. 1A, 18) comprising one or more cavities (McGarry, Fig. 1A, 38 and 38’) configured to receive various components of a personal care implement (McGarry, Fig. 1A, 20, P. 0019) and wherein the bottom portion of the case defines a compartment configured to removably receive the insert within the bottom portion (McGarry, P. 0004). It should be noted that while McGarry does not disclose or show any interconnectors, McGarry does consider providing cavities for additional elements as shown in Fig. 9 and disclosed in P. 0019. Such cases provide for reusable and durable storage for the personal care implement (McGarry, P. 0030).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to modify the kit taught by Wallace as to include a case and insert as taught by McGarry as such cases provide reusable and durable storage for a personal care implement.
Wilson teaches a modular personal care implement (Wilson, Figs. 1-5B, 10) comprising a surface treatment head (Wilson, Figs. 1-5B, 102) and a first interconnector (Wilson, Figs. 1-5B, 121) wherein a first detachable connector (Wilson, Figs. 1-5B, 105) of the surface treatment head and a second detachable connector (Wilson, Figs. 1-5B, 107) of the first interconnector comprise a magnetic connection (Wilson, P. 0036). Such a magnetic connection allows for the surface treatment head to be removed and replacement more easily (Wilson, P. 0020).
Lee teaches a modular hand tool (Lee, Figs. 5A-5B) comprising addition connectors (Lee, Fig. 5B, 126 and 128) comprising magnetic connections (Lee, P. 0050). Such connectors allows for the device to be easily broken down (Lee, P. 0050).
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 first detachable connector of the surface treatment head and a second detachable connector of the first interconnector such that they comprise a magnetic connection like that taught by Wilson as doing so allows for the surface treatment head to be more easily removed and replaced and for any additional connectors to also comprise magnetic connections as taught by Lee to include magnetic connections for third, fourth, fifth and sixth connectors as such connections allows for the device to be easily broken down.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallace (US 913,076 A) in view of McGarry (US 2021/0259384 A1), Wilson (US 2013/0312272 A1) and Lee (US 2015/0097815 A1) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Chen (US 4,813,138 A).
Regarding claim 20, Wallace in view of McGarry, Wilson, and Lee teaches the kit of claim 19, comprising at least one second interconnector (Wallace, Fig. 1 and 3-4, 11 and 11a) having a first end (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (Wallace) above) with a fifth detachable connector (Wallace, Fig. 3, 12) and a second end (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (Wallace) above) with a sixth detachable connector (Wallace, Fig. 3, 13), wherein the insert (McGarry, Fig. 1A, 18) further comprises one or more cavities (McGarry, Fig. 1A, 38 and 38’) configured to receive the second surface treatment head and the at least one second interconnector, the insert as taught by McGarry may feature additional cavities capable of receiving another portion of a personal care implement (McGarry, P. 0019)
Wallace in view of McGarry, Wilson, and Lee does not teach the kit further comprising: a second surface treatment head comprising a brush head, the second surface treatment head having a first end with an applicator and a second end with a first detachable connector, wherein the applicator comprises a plurality of bristles.
Chen teaches a modular personal care implement (Chen, Fig. 1-5) wherein the surface treatment head comprises a brush head (Chen, Fig. 3-4, 2) and the applicator comprises a plurality of bristles (Chen, Fig. 3, 21). Such a brush allows for convenient and hygienic use of shaving cream (Chen, Col. 3, lines 34-36).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to modify the modular personal care implement taught by Wallace in view of McGarry, Wilson, and Lee to feature surface treatment head comprising a brush head and an applicator comprising a plurality of bristles like that taught by Chen as doing so allows for convenient and hygienic use of shaving cream.
Response to Arguments
The applicant asserts that the instant amendment to claim 1 overcomes 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) anticipation type prior art rejection of claim 1. The Examiner agrees, however, as the applicant has amended the claim the claim now stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Wallace in view of Wilson which teaches that a magnetic connection type is known in the art.
The applicant asserts that claims 2-13, 15-18 and 20 are allowable as the prior art rejections of record for claims 1, 14 and 19 do not teach the amended limitation. The Examiner disagrees. As discussed above claim 1 is now rejected over Wallace in view of Wilson which teaches that a magnetic connection type is known in the art, similarly, claims 14 and 19 are now rejected over Wallace in view of Wilson and Lee and Wallace in view of McGarry, Wilson and Lee, respectively, which teaches a magnetic connection type for additional connectors. As such, the applicant’s assertion is unpersuasive.
The applicant asserts that the 35 U.S.C. 103 obviousness type prior art rejection of record of claim 5 is, first, improper as the rejection of record relies on improper hindsight and, second, it would not be obvious due to the different in cross-sectional shapes “providing an ergonomic shape that transition from semi-circular to substantially circular to assist with gripping”. The Examiner disagrees.
First, the applicant should be aware that "[a]ny judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper." In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, 170 USPQ 209, 212 (CCPA 1971). Claim 5 states “wherein the first interconnector comprises a first cross-sectional shape and at least a portion of the end interconnector comprises a second cross-sectional shape that is different from the first cross-sectional shape”. The Examiner has already established that interconnectors are known in the art and since these interconnectors form a handle the Examiner turns to Gratsias which teaches that different cross-sectional shapes are known in the art for handles which Gratsias teaches in Figs. 13A-13L. Here the Examiner only relies on what is taught by the art in that Gratsias teaches various cross-sectional shapes for different sections of a razor handle which shows that a person of ordinary skill in the art would “shape their device however is desirable of expedient”. This is not improper as the Examiner only considers what is taught by the art. The applicant’s assertion is thus unpersuasive.
Second, the applicant asserts that because the instant disclosure teaches “providing an ergonomic shape that transition from semi-circular to substantially circular to assist with gripping” the difference in cross-sectional shapes would not be obvious. The claim does not include this functional limitation. In fact, it would be improper for the Examiner to import such a limitation into a claim as "[t]hough understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment." Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (see MPEP 2111.01(II)). The language of the claim is broader than what the applicant is asserting. If the applicant considers this limitation important it should be amended into the claim. As it has not been amended into claim 5 the applicant’s assertion is thus unpersuasive.
The applicant asserts that the 35 U.S.C. 103 obviousness type prior art rejection of record of claims 6-7 are improper as claims 6 and 7 are “key aspects of the user-configurable design, providing a synergistic effect not achieved by a mere substitution of parts” and the “specific combination of features provides a unique look and feel”. The Examiner disagrees. Claim 6 states “wherein the first interconnector comprises a first material and the end interconnector comprises a second material that is different from the first material” and claim 7 states “wherein an outer surface of the first interconnector comprises a plurality of gripping protrusions and an outer surface of the end interconnector is smooth”. A “user-configurable design”, “synergistic effect” and “a unique look and feel” are not claimed in claims 1, 3, 6 and 7 and appear to be limitations the from the instant specification which would be improper to import into the claims without the applicant amending them into the claims. The Examiner’s rejection of record is drawn to the broad limitations contained in the claims. As such, the applicant’s assertion is unpersuasive.
The applicant asserts that the 35 U.S.C. 103 obviousness type prior art rejection of record of claim 10 is improper as the rejection of record relies on improper hindsight. The Examiner disagrees. The limitation of concern states “the at least one second interconnector comprises a second length, a second width, a second material, a second mass, a second hardness, and a second color, and wherein at least one of the second length, second width, second material, second mass, second hardness, or second color is different from a corresponding one of the first length, first width, first material, first mass, first hardness, or first color. The limitation only requires that at least one of the stated properties of the handle be different. The limitations of claim 10 and the claims it depends from do not include the limitation “broad modular customization” or any mentions of customization. In other words, the claims are broader than the applicant asserts and allows for Mackey to read on the device. Moreover, the applicant undercuts the teachings of Mackey, both explicitly and implicitly, which is both modular and customizable in that it offers two handle sections of different lengths that can be used separately or together. For instance, Mackey teaches explicitly using the razor handle in a configuration shown in Fig. 1 and 3 but implicitly a worker in the art would recognize that the handle section C could be used alone with the razor head A or that the head could be used without either of the handle sections. As the limitation for the claim only requires that one interconnector differ from another in at least one property from a list of properties that may differ which includes length and Mackey teaches two interconnectors that differ in length such a modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill as modifying the lengths of different elements of a device only requires routine skill in the art. As such, the applicant’s assertion is unpersuasive.
The applicant asserts that the 35 U.S.C. 103 obviousness type prior art rejection of record of claims 12 and 20 are improper as the prior art of record teaches away from the modification of record and is incompatible. The Examiner disagrees. The applicant supposes a literal modification of the brush head taught by Chen in place of the razor head taught by Wallace which is not what the modification of record does and not how obviousness type rejections work. The modification of record, instead, teaches that is it known in the art to provide surface treatment heads that comprise a brush head and for the applicator to comprise a plurality due to the teachings of Chen and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Wallace to provide a surface treatment head comprising a brush head and an applicator comprising bristles. In other words, the modification of record does not require the exact brush head of Chen to be modified for Wallace. The case law is clear regarding obviousness: "It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements." In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332, 103 USPQ2d 1219, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859, 225 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc)) ("Etter's assertions that Azure cannot be incorporated in Ambrosio are basically irrelevant, the criterion being not whether the references could be physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole."). See also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981) ("The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art."); In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review."); and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973) ("Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures."). The Examiner would also point out that the purpose of the brush head taught by Chen in Col. 3 lines 34-36, “shaving cream is directly and immediately distributed into the brush bristles by merely push button operation for convenient and hygienic using of cream”, restated by the Examiner as “to provide convenient distribution of shaving cream”. Upon review of this restatement the Examiner recognizes this restatement may lead to some confusion, to promote clarity of record the Examiner has restated the reasoning above to be “for convenient and hygienic using of shaving cream” which applies to the bristles of Chen. As such, the applicant’s assertion is unpersuasive.
The applicant asserts that the 35 U.S.C. 103 obviousness type prior art rejection of record of claims 13 and 18 are improper as the rejections of record rely on improper hindsight. The Examiner disagrees.
First, the applicant asserts that:
“The Examiner's rationale oversimplifies the claimed invention as merely adding a "release mechanism" to a head. The claims are far more specific. Claim 13 recites:
"...a release mechanism positioned between the first and second end of the surface treatment head, the release mechanism comprising an actuator button configured to eject a portion of the surface treatment head comprising the applicator."
This language, supported by the specification at page 4, lines 1-4, describes a specific and novel two-part head structure. The "surface treatment head" (e.g., 14) is not a single piece. It comprises a first portion (14A) which is the consumable applicator (e.g., the razor cartridge) and a second portion (14B) which is the permanent base containing the detachable connector (22). The claimed release mechanism (actuator button 50) acts to separate these two portions of the head. The technical advantage is significant: it allows a user to replace only the consumable part (14A) while retaining the more durable and expensive connector part (14B).”
This assertion by the applicant includes limitations that are not part of claims 13 or 18 and the claims from which they depend. Specifically, the surface treatment heads as claimed do not require a first portion and a second portion. Instead, the structures of the surface treatment head, as claimed, include the limitations “the surface treatment head has a first end with an applicator and a second end with a first detachable connector” and “a portion of the surface treatment head comprising the applicator”. It is unclear how this is an oversimplification as this is the exact language of the claim. However, the applicant assertions are an attempt to improperly import more narrow limitations from the specification directly into the broader language of the claims without properly amending the claims. While the Examiner refers to the instant specification to further the Examiner’s understanding of the instant invention the limitations of the claims are given their plain meaning as set forth in MPEP 2111.01. As such, the applicant’s assertion is unpersuasive.
Second, regarding the properness of the modification of record, the limitation of claim 13 not taught by Wallace requires “a release mechanism positioned between the first and second end of the surface treatment head, the release mechanism comprising an actuator button configured to eject a portion of the surface treatment head comprising the applicator”. These limitations only require that a release mechanism comprising an actuator button be positioned between the first and second end of the surface treatment head and for this button to be configured to eject a portion of the surface treatment head comprising the applicator. The question when combining references for modification is not how the exact structures of the secondary reference would be modified into the structure of the base reference, it is instead drawn to what is known in the art and whether there is motivation for such a modification. "The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art."; In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Here, the surface treatment element taught by Wallace requires a user to manipulate retaining clips to remove the applicator while Metcalf teaches a push button mechanism that ejects an applicator. Metcalf then provides motivation for such a modification in that such a mechanism allows for the applicator to be easily removed from the surface treatment head (Metcalf, P. 0026). As such, the applicant’s assertion is unpersuasive.
Third, the applicant asserts that the Examiner has re-engineered and re-architeched the device taught by Wallace to allow for the modification taught by Metcalf. The Examiner disagrees, the Examiner has not proposed significant structural modification to Wallace. A portion of the surface treatment head is defined by the instant specification as an applicator (Pg. 19, line 5). An applicator as defined by the instant specification as at least one blade (Pg. 2, line 10) or bristles (Pg. 6, line 21). As such, the blade attached to the head of Wallace qualifies an applicator although it should be noted that the limitations of the claims are broader than the instant disclosure and do not require the applicator to be a blade allowing for the retaining clips of Wallace to also qualify as applicators. The head taught by Wallace meets the instant limitation for a surface treatment head. Therefore, the blade of Wallace is both an applicator and a portion of the surface treatment head as claimed by the instant invention. As such, the applicant’s assertion is unpersuasive.
Fourth, the applicant asserts that Metcalf does not teach the surface treatment head as claimed. The Examiner disagrees. As discussed above, a portion of the surface treatment head is defined by the instant specification as an applicator (Pg. 19, line 5) and an applicator as defined by the instant specification is at least one blade (Pg. 2, line 10) or bristles (Pg. 6, line 21). The adaptor with cartridge attached taught by Metcalf reads on the instant surface treatment head while the cartridge reads on the applicator. However, the Examiner is not modifying Wallace with these structures as Wallace lacks the surface treatment head further comprises a release mechanism positioned between the first and second end of the surface treatment head, the release mechanism comprising an actuator button configured to eject a portion of the surface treatment head comprising the applicator. Metcalf teaches the release mechanism and actuator button and shows that such structures are well known in the art. Adding this structure between the surface treatment head and the applicator would also not change their functions. As such, the applicant’s assertion is unpersuasive.
While the limitations of claim 18 are somewhat different the above responses to the assertions regarding the rejection of record of claim 13 also apply to the assertions regarding the rejection of record of claim 18.
The applicant asserts that the 35 U.S.C. 103 obviousness type prior art rejection of record of claim 19 is improper as the prior art of McGarry does not teach any interconnectors. The Examiner disagrees. While McGarry does not specifically teach interconnectors McGarry shows that it is well known in the art to provide a case with inserts comprising cavities for the different elements of the kit. As such, the applicant’s assertion is unpersuasive.
The applicant asserts that the 35 U.S.C. 103 obviousness type prior art rejection of record of claim 20 improper as the rejection of record relies on improper hindsight. The Examiner disagrees. As discussed above regarding the rejection of record for claim 19 is proper and in the response to the assertions regarding the rejection of record of claim 12 the combination of Wallace in view of Chen is proper. Again, an obviousness type rejection is not drawn to modifying the exact structures of the references into each other but instead showing what is taught by the art and providing motivation for such a modification. Here is would be to provide a way using shaving cream. The Examiner has updated this motivation in the rejection of claim 20 above to be more clearly stated as “for convenient and hygienic use of shaving cream”. 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