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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “is provided” should be avoided. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “each fixation wall" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Linden (U.S. Publication 2025/0083349).
In regards to claim 1 and 13, Linden discloses electric shaver system, comprising: an electric shaver (“This versatility ensures a secure grip on a broad range of shaving devices, such as hair trimmers, body groomers, shavers, lady shavers, manual razors, and more”; paragraph [0047]);
and a holder (100) configured to releasably receive and engage the electric shaver (not shown), wherein the holder comprises a grip section (arm 122) and a head section (static arm 109/adjustable arm 112) configured to receive the electric shaver (30), the head section including: a stationary base (static arm 109); and an adjustable base (adjustable arm 112) movably coupled to the stationary base to allow for insertion of the electric shaver into a space (between 108/110) defined by walls (e.g. 108/110) of the stationary and adjustable bases.
In regards to claim 2, Linden discloses a top section (120) connected to the head section, wherein the top section is pivotably coupled (at rotary joint 121) to the grip section (122).
In regards to claim 3, Linden discloses a locking mechanism (push button 126) at a pivot joint (121) between the top section (120) and the grip section (122), wherein the locking mechanism (126) allows for selective adjustment and locking of an angle between the top section and the grip section ([0051] By pressing button 126, the proximal part of arm 122 becomes adjustable, initiating a folding sequence in respect to distal part of arm 120. Releasing the designated button locks the upper part of the arm into its current relative position. Additionally, there are other established folding and locking mechanisms in the field that can function as suitable alternatives to the one outlined here.)
In regards to claim 4, Linden discloses wherein the walls of the stationary base (109) include a top wall connected to a fixation wall, and a side wall connected to the fixation wall (walls annotated below).
PNG
media_image1.png
554
870
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 5, Linden discloses wherein the top wall, the fixation wall and the side wall extend perpendicularly from the stationary base and define a substantially C-shaped configuration (as shown above and in Figure 2, the walls are C-shaped).
In regards to claim 7, Linden discloses wherein the walls of the adjustable base (112) include a top wall connected to a fixation wall, and a side wall connected to the fixation wall (as annotated above).
In regards to claim 8, Linden discloses wherein the walls of the stationary base (109) and the adjustable base (112) each include a fixation wall extending on opposing sides of the space (as annotated above).
In regards to claim 9, Linden discloses wherein each fixation wall includes an inwardly directed flange at a top edge of the fixation wall, the inwardly directed flange extending over the space (as annotated above).
In regards to claim 14, Linden discloses wherein the walls of the stationary base and the adjustable base each include a top wall connected to a fixation wall, and a side wall connected to the fixation wall (as annotated above; the walls of the stationary base are all connected and the walls of the adjustable base are all connected)
In regards to claim 16, Linden discloses wherein the walls of the stationary base (109) and the adjustable base (112) each include a fixation wall extending on opposing sides of the space (as annotated above).
In regards to claim 20, Linden discloses method of shaving, comprising: moving an adjustable base (112) of a head section of a holder relative to a stationary base (109) to increase a width between walls of the adjustable base and the stationary base (see Fig 2); positioning an electric shaver (paragraph [0047]) into a space defined by the walls of the stationary base and the adjustable base (between 108/110; shaver not shown); and moving the adjustable base (112) towards the stationary base (109) to secure the electric shaver in the space between the walls of the stationary base and the adjustable base (112 and 109 are a clamp, in which the adjustable arm is moved away from the static arm 109, the shaver is inserted and then the adjustable arm is moved toward the static arm to clamp the shaver; see paragraphs [0042-0044]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linden (U.S. Publication 2025/0083349)
In regards to claim 6 and 15, Linden discloses the claimed invention except for and is silent as to the heights of the fixation, top and side walls, such that it cannot be ascertained if a height of the fixation wall is dimensioned greater than a height of the top wall and the side wall, and the height of the side wall is dimensioned greater than the height of the top wall. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have increased or decreased the heights of the top, side and fixation walls, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 10-12 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linden (U.S. Publication 2025/0083349) in view of Siegman (U.S. Publication 2020/0288853).
In regards to claim 10 and 17 Linden discloses the claimed invention except wherein each fixation wall (108/110; as annotated above) includes a cutout extending therethrough. Linden does disclose that the gripping elements 108, 110 are just an example of a suitable clamping mechanism and that other configurations could be used (paragraphs [0047-0048]. Thus, it would be apparent that providing a removable connection on the gripping elements 108/110 to allow for replacement or substitution of other gripping elements with different configurations would be beneficial as discussed by Linden. Attention is further directed to the Siegman tool head clamping device that allows for the interchangeability of various cleaning tool accessories. The accessories are connected to the handle by a clip assembly. The clip connection allows for easy removal and attachment of the different accessories. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated a clip assembly onto the fixation walls 108/110 of Linden such as demonstrated by Siegman to provide for easy removal and replacement of various gripping element configurations as needed or desired by the user. Thereby the modified device of Linden discloses a cutout (e.g. a lateral window 12/13 as modified by Siegman) in the fixation wall.
In regards to claim 11 and 18, the modified device of Linden discloses comprising a fixation clip (e.g. 3 as modified by Siegman) configured to be at least partially inserted into and engaged with the cutout (lateral window 12/13 as modified by Siegman) of each fixation wall.
In regards to claim 12 and 19, the modified device of Linden discloses wherein the fixation clip (3 as modified by Sigeman) includes a fixation platform (e.g. 2 Siegman / curved surface of108/110 Linden) configured to engage with a surface of the electric shaver to prevent removal of the electric shaver from the space.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA M LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-8339. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a.m.- 5p.m..
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.
/LAURA M LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724