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 .
It appears the inventor filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the flat rectangular portion, smaller sides, rectangular border portions, gap, threaded insert, second rectangular portion, unthreaded hole, threaded connector, fastener, fastener top, pressure clip, blade attachment, and finger sized divots must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "102" and "204" have both been used to designate the head. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 306. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 reads in lines 14-15: “wherein wherein the second rectangular portion” should read “wherein the second rectangular portion”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 4 and 6-9 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 4, the claim states “the spacer is biodegradable” in line 2 of the claim. In p. 0033 of the instant specification it states “The blades would be separated by spacers that are made of a biodegradable material that can withstand being in contact with a liquid. The biodegradable material would ideally be a wood pump or other organic material that would break down quickly after the user recycles the cartridge.” The scope of “biodegradable” is not disclosed by the instant disclosure and as such it cannot be determined what the applicant would consider to be a biodegradable material. Further, “quickly” is a relative term in regard to the degradation of a material, while one material may degrade “quickly” in a matter of seconds another material may degrade “quickly” over a period of many years. As the scope of the claim cannot be determined the claim fails to meet the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and is rejected as such.
Regarding claims 6-7, the claims are also rejected as failing to meet the written description requirement due to their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, the claim states “the razor blades are attached to the head with a pressure clip” in line 2 of the claim. The claimed pressure clip or a similar known structure and the attachment of the blades to the head by the clip are not disclosed by the instant specification and drawings. As such the scope of the claim cannot be determined as the written description fails to disclose the structure of the pressure clip such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be well informed as to what the applicant is claiming. Therefore the claim fails to meet the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and is rejected as such.
Regarding claim 9, the claim states “a blade attachment” in line 2 of the claim. A blade attachment is not disclosed by the instant specification and the drawings, while the specification discloses a cartridge the blade attachment and cartridge are not clearly linked and no structure is disclosed for either the blade attachment or the cartridge. As such the scope of the claim cannot be determined, the claim fails to meet the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and is rejected as such.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim includes the structures “a flat rectangular portion, smaller sides, rectangular border portions, one or more razor blades, thread insert, second rectangular portion, unthreaded hole, threaded connector, and threaded hole” which are not present in the specification. While the structures may be present in the drawings the structures are not clearly marked. This makes the scope of the claim unclear as it is unknown as to what structures the applicant is referring. Further, in line 4 of the claim it states “the razor handle is of a cylindrical or cuboid shape that is uniform in width”. It is unclear how the razor handle is uniform in width as the handle shown in Fig. 1-3 has an end that is curved or tapered while in Fig. 13-18 a handle is shown with both a curved or tapered end and a second end with a smaller width.
Regarding claims 2-19, these claims are rejected as indefinite due to their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the claim states “the razor head is able to incorporate one to four razor blades at a single time” in line 2 of the claim. It is unclear as to how the razor head “incorporates” one to four razor blades as the specification does not disclose incorporating razor blades and the drawings do not show razor blades or incorporated razor blades. As such, it is unclear as to what the scope of the claim is and the claims is rejected as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding claims 3-8, these claims are rejected as indefinite due to their dependency on claim 2.
Regarding claim 4, the claim states “the spacer is biodegradable” in line 2 of the claim. In p. 0033 of the instant specification it states that the “blades would be separated by spacers that are made of a biodegradable material that can withstand being in contact with a liquid. The biodegradable material would ideally be a wood pump or other organic material that would break down quickly after the user recycles the cartridge.” It is unclear as to what the applicant considers biodegradable as the term is not sufficiently defined by the instant specification. Further, the term “quickly” is a relative term that does not define a specific period of time. As such, it is unclear as to what the scope of the claim is and the claims is rejected as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding claims 6-7, these claims are rejected as indefinite due to their dependency on claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, the claim states “the razor blades are secured via a fastener that screws into the threaded hole” in line 2 of the claim. First, it is unclear as to what the applicant considers a “fastener” as the claim does not disclose structure for a fastener and the instant specification and drawings do not disclose a fastener. In p. 0032 a screw and bolt are referred to but it is unclear if these structure are the claimed fastener. Second, it is unclear how the razor blades are secured as the drawings do not show a razor blade let alone such a configuration. As such, it is unclear as to what the scope of the claim is and the claims is rejected as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding claim 8, the claim states “the razor blades are attached to the head with a pressure clip” in line 2 of the claim. It is unclear as to what the applicant considers the pressure clip as the instant claims, specification and drawings fail to sufficiently disclose the structure of the pressure clip or similar structures known in the art. As such, it is unclear as to what the scope of the claim is and the claims is rejected as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding claim 9, the claim states “a blade attachment” in line 2 of the claim. It is unclear as to what the applicant considers the blade attachment as the instant claims, specification and drawings fail to sufficiently disclose the structure of the blade attachment or similar structures known in the art. As such, it is unclear as to what the scope of the claim is and the claims is rejected as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 1-3, 5, 10-12, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedman (US 11,648,696 B1), in view of Stone (US 3,823,471 A) and Miller (US 3,699,653 A).
Regarding claim 1, Friedman teaches a shaving system, comprising:
a razor (Friedman, Fig. 1-14, 100) comprising a handle (Friedman, Fig. 1-3, 104) and head (Friedman, Fig. 1-8, 102);
the razor handle (Friedman, Fig. 1-3, 104) is of a cylindrical or cuboid shape that is uniform in width, wherein the razor head is positioned at an angle on one end of the handle (Friedman, Fig. 3, 102 and 104);
the head (Friedman, Fig. 1-8, 102) comprising a flat rectangular portion (Friedman, Fig. 4, 112) positioned at the angle at the end of the handle, wherein:
the smaller sides (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Friedman) below) of the rectangular portion having rectangular border portions (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Friedman) below) protruding from the rectangular portion; wherein
the border portions are divided in the middle (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Friedman) below), which provides a gap for one or more razor blades (Friedman, Fig. 3 and 7, 118 and 118b) to be placed flat on the rectangular portion;
the razor head and handle (Friedman, Fig. 1-3, 102 and 104) containing a threaded insert (Friedman, Fig. 6, 112a and 122, Col. 3, lines 52-59) for placing a second rectangular portion (Friedman, Fig. 4, 110) that is placed on top of the one or more blades.
Friedman does not teach the razor being made of a single uniform material and the second rectangular portion has an unthreaded hole, which allows for a threaded connector to be inserted through the second rectangular portion and into the threaded hole in the razor to attach the second rectangular portion to the razor.
Stone teaches a razor (Stone, Fig. 1-2) comprising a handle (Stone, Fig. 1-2, B) and a head (Stone, Fig. 1-2, 3), the razor being made of a single uniform material (Stone, Col. 2, lines 39-53). Doing so allows for the razor to be constructed in a single piece or in a plurality of pieces (Stone, Col. 1, lines 47-56).
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 razor of Friedman such that the razor was made of a single uniform material as taught by Stone as it allows for the razor to be constructed as a single piece or as a plurality of pieces.
Miller teaches a second rectangular portion (Miller, Fig. 1-2, 10) which has an unthreaded hole (Miller, Col. 2, lines 43-48), which allows for a treaded connector (Miller, Fig. 1-2, 30) to be inserted through the second rectangular portion and into a threaded hole (Miller, Fig. 2, 32) in the rectangular portion (Miller, Fig. 1-2, 12) to attach the second rectangular portion to the rectangular portion (Miller, Col. 2, lines 43-48).
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 razor of Friedman such that the second rectangular portion had an untreaded hole which allows for a treaded connector to be inserted through the second rectangular portion and into the threaded hole in the rectangular portion as doing so ensures the blades are secured between the rectangular portion and the second rectangular portion during use. As such, claim 1 is rejected as obvious over Friedman in view of Stone and Miller.
PNG
media_image1.png
649
541
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Friedman in view of Stone and Miller teaches the shaving system of claim 1, wherein: the razor head (Friedman, Fig. 1-8, 102) is able to incorporate one to four razor blades (Friedman, Fig. 4, 118) at a single time (Friedman, Col. 2 line 64 – Col. 3 line 34). Friedman teaches one or more blades and shows a razor head in Fig. 4 with 3 blades.
Regarding claim 3, Friedman in view of Stone and Miller teaches the shaving system of claim 2, wherein: the blades (Friedman, Fig. 4, 118) are separated by a spacer (Friedman, Fig. 4, 120).
Regarding claim 5, Friedman in view of Stone and Miller teaches the shaving system of claim 3, wherein: the razor blades (Friedman, Fig. 4, 118) are secured via a fastener (Miller, Fig. 1-2, 30)) that screws into the threaded hole (Miller, Fig. 2, 32).
Regarding claim 10, Friedman in view of Stone and Miller teaches the shaving system of claim 1.
Friedman in view of Stone and Miller does not teach wherein; the angle between the handle and the head is between 40 and 55 degrees. However, Friedman does teach a handle with a head at an angle relative to the handle (Friedman, Fig. 3, 102 and 104) but does not teach a specific angle or range of angles for this relationship. As the instant disclosure fails to provide a nexus of criticality for the claimed range 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 razor taught by Friedman in view of Stone and Miller to be within any desirable range or to be any desirable angle as Friedman teaches that razor heads may be angled in relation to the handle. As doing so would be a matter of routine optimization (see MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)) as it is already well known in the art to angle the head of a razor in relation to the handle the selection of a specific range or angle would be only a matter of routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 11, Friedman in view of Stone and Miller teaches the shaving system of claim 10.
Friedman in view of Stone and Miller does not teach wherein: the angle between the handle and the head is 48 degrees. However, Friedman does teach a handle with a head at an angle relative to the handle (Friedman, Fig. 3, 102 and 104) but does not teach a specific angle or range of angles for this relationship. As the instant disclosure fails to provide a nexus of criticality for the claimed range 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 razor taught by Friedman in view of Stone and Miller to be within any desirable range or to be any desirable angle as Friedman teaches that razor heads may be angled in relation to the handle. As doing so would be a matter of routine optimization (see MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)) as it is already well known in the art to angle the head of a razor in relation to the handle the selection of a specific range or angle would be only a matter of routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 12, Friedman in view of Stone and Miller teaches the shaving system of claim 10.
Friedman in view of Stone and Miller does not teach wherein: the angle between the handle and the head is 45 degrees. However, Friedman does teach a handle with a head at an angle relative to the handle (Friedman, Fig. 3, 102 and 104) but does not teach a specific angle or range of angles for this relationship. As the instant disclosure fails to provide a nexus of criticality for the claimed range 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 razor taught by Friedman in view of Stone and Miller to be within any desirable range or to be any desirable angle as Friedman teaches that razor heads may be angled in relation to the handle. As doing so would be a matter of routine optimization (see MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)) as it is already well known in the art to angle the head of a razor in relation to the handle the selection of a specific range or angle would be only a matter of routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 18, Friedman in view of Stone and Miller teaches the shaving system of claim 1.
Friedman in view of Stone and Miller as modified does not teach wherein: the razor is molded from plastic.
Stone further teaches a razor molded from plastic (Stone, Col. 1, lines 47-56). Such construction allows for a razor with a desired flexibility (Stone, Col. 1, lines 52-56).
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 razor taught by Friedman in view of Stone and Miller such as to be constructed by a molded plastic as further taught by Stone as to allow for the razor to have a desirable flexibility.
Regarding claim 19, Friedman in view of Stone and Miller teaches the shaving system of claim 1.
Friedman in view of Stone and Miller as modified does not teach wherein: the razor is molded from injected plastic.
Stone further teaches a razor molded from injected plastic (Stone, Col. 1, lines 47-56 and Col. 2, lines 39-52). Such construction allows for a razor with a desired flexibility (Stone, Col. 1, lines 52-56).
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 razor taught by Friedman in view of Stone and Miller such as to be constructed by a molded plastic as further taught by Stone as to allow for the razor to have a desirable flexibility.
Claims 4, 6-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedman (US 11,648,696 B1), in view of Stone (US 3,823,471 A) and Miller (US 3,699,653 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Iderosa (US 5,412,872 A).
Regarding claim 4, Friedman in view of Stone and Miller teaches the shaving system of claim 3.
Friedman in view of Stone and Miller does not teach wherein: the spacer is biodegradable. As the applicant has not sufficiently defined the term biodegradable but has indicated in the instant specification (p. 0033) that the spacer may be made from “wood pump or other organic material”. To expedite prosecution the Examiner has best understood biodegradable as being made from wood or another organic material.
Iderosa teaches a razor head (Iderosa, Fig. 1-2) with spacers (Iderosa, Fig. 1-3, 40) between the razor blades (Iderosa, Fig. 1-2, 30 and 50) made of wood (Iderosa, Col. 3, lines 51-66). This allows for the spacers to be made of a material that may absorb moisture without falling apart (Iderosa, Col. 3, lines 51-66).
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 spacer of Friedman in view of Stone and Miller such that the spacer were made of wood as taught by Iderosa as doing so would allow for the spacers to absorb moisture without falling apart.
Regarding claim 6, Friedman in view of Stone, Miller and Iderosa teaches the shaving system of claim 4, wherein: the fastener top (Miller, Fig. 1-2, 30) is slotted.
Regarding claim 7, Friedman in view of Stone, Miller and Iderosa teaches the shaving system of claim 4.
Friedman in view of Stone, Miller and Iderosa does not teach wherein: the fastener top is a solid smooth object.
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 top of the fastener taught by Friedman in view of Stone, Miller and Iderosa to be a solid smooth object as such changes in shape only require a level of general skill in the art for a worker in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B) “Changes in Shape”, 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.). Here Miller shows that a slotted fasterner top is known in the art and Friedman teaches fasteners (Friedman, Fig. 4, 114) whose top is a smooth solid object (Friendman, Fig. 4, 110). As such, claim 7 is rejected as obvious over Friedman in view of Stone, Miller and Iderosa.
Regarding claim 9, Friedman in view of Stone and Miller teaches the shaving system of claim 1, wherein: a blade attachment (Friedman, Fig. 4, 110) with the blades (Friedman, Fig. 4, 118) already attached can be used instead of the individual blades, the blades of Friedman can be mounted to the blade attachment or second rectangular portion before attachment to the rectangular portion. Wherein the blades (Friedman, Fig. 4, 118) are separated by spacer (Friedman, Fig. 4, 120).
Friedman in view of Stone and Miller does not teach wherein the blades are separated by biodegradable spacers. As the applicant has not sufficiently defined the term biodegradable but has indicated in the instant specification (p. 0033) that the spacer may be made from “wood pump or other organic material”. To expedite prosecution the Examiner has best understood biodegradable as being made from wood or another organic material.
Iderosa teaches a razor head (Iderosa, Fig. 1-2) with spacers (Iderosa, Fig. 1-3, 40) between the razor blades (Iderosa, Fig. 1-2, 30 and 50) made of wood (Iderosa, Col. 3, lines 51-66). This allows for the spacers to be made of a material that may absorb moisture without falling apart (Iderosa, Col. 3, lines 51-66).
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 spacer of Friedman in view of Stone and Miller such that the spacer were made of wood as taught by Iderosa as doing so would allow for the spacers to absorb moisture without falling apart.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedman (US 11,648,696 B1), in view of Stone (US 3,823,471 A) and Miller (US 3,699,653 A) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Duncan (US 2,720,697 A).
Regarding claim 8, Friedman in view of Stone and Miller teaches the shaving system of claim 3.
Friedman in view of Stone and Miller does not teach wherein: the razor blades are attached to the head with a pressure clip.
Duncan teaches a razor (Duncan, Fig. 1-7) wherein the razor blades (Duncan, Fig. 1-3, 1) are attached to the head (Duncan, Fig. 1-7, 4, 14 and 21) with a pressure clip (Duncan Fig. 2-3, 14). Such a clip ensures the blade is securely maintained during shaving (Duncan, Col. 2, lines 57-63).
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 razor taught by Friedman in view of Stone and Miller to feature a pressure clip as taught by Duncan as such clips allow for the blades to be securely held to the head during shaving.
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedman (US 11,648,696 B1), in view of Stone (US 3,823,471 A) and Miller (US 3,699,653 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wattam et al. (US 2020/0114535 A1), hereafter known as Wattam.
Regarding claim 13, Friedman in view of Stone and Miller teaches the shaving system of claim 1.
Friedman in view of Stone and Miller does not teach wherein: the razor is manufactured from metal.
Wattam teaches that it is well known in the art of razors to use metals including steel, brass and stainless steel (Wattam, P. 0041) in the construction of razors.
In the same field of razors it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify the razor taught by Friedman in view of Stone and Miller by manufacturing the razor from metal as taught by Wattam, 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 Wattam teaches that metal is a known material used in the construction of razors, the designation of a specific material does nothing to enhance the patentability of a design.
Regarding claim 14, Friedman in view of Stone, Miller and Wattam teaches the shaving system of claim 13, wherein: the metal used in manufacturing is steel (Wattam, P. 0041).
Regarding claim 15, Friedman in view of Stone and Miller teaches the shaving system of claim 13, wherein: the metal used in manufacturing is brass (Wattam, P. 0041).
Regarding claim 16, Friedman in view of Stone and Miller teaches the shaving system of claim 13, wherein: the metal used in manufacturing is stainless steel (Wattam, P. 0041).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedman (US 11,648,696 B1), in view of Stone (US 3,823,471 A) and Miller (US 3,699,653 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rolling (US 2019/0389085 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Friedman in view of Stone and Miller teaches the shaving system of claim 1.
Friedman in view of Stone and Miller does not teach wherein: the handle is has finger sized divots on a single side.
Rolling teaches a handle (Rolling, Fig. 2-4, 250) with finger sized divots (Rolling, Fig. 2, 252) on a single side. Such divots help to facilitate gripping of the handle by the user (Rolling, P. 0028). Although Rolling is not a razor it is related to the field of invention in that it is a device for trimming hair and performs cutting in a similar motion and as such a person of ordinary skill in the art would be well appraised of such a device.
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 handle of Friedman in view of Stone and Miller to include finger sized divots as taught by Rolling as doing so helps to facilitate gripping of the handle by the user.
Conclusion
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, 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.
/ROBERT D CORNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /SEAN M MICHALSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724