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, 4-5, 8, and 10-14 and the addition of new claims 16-20.
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 1-7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makabi (US 2020/0198162 A1) in view of Mahler (US 4,038,986 A).
Regarding claim 1, Makabi teaches an interconnecting mechanism for engaging a blade assembly to a razor handle (Makabi, Fig. 2A-2B) comprising:
an adaptor (Makabi, Fig. 2A-2B, 14 and 22) extending between a handle engaging portion (see annotated image of Fig. 2B (Makabi) below) and a cartridge engaging portion (see annotated image of Fig. 2B (Makabi) below),
a connector (see annotated image of Fig. 2B (Makabi) below) configured to be coupled with the handle engaging portion, the connector comprising one or more outer threads (Makabi, P. 0028),
a rotatable element (Makabi, fig. 2A-2B, 14) comprising one or more inner threads (Makabi, P. 0027),
wherein the inner threads of the rotatable element are configured to mate with the outer threads of the connector (Makabi, P. 0027).
Makabi does not teach wherein the connector comprises a pair of hooks fixedly attached to the handle engaging portion.
Mahler teaches a mechanism (Mahler, Fig. 1-4) featuring an adaptor (Mahler, Fig. 1-4, 42 and 52), a connector (Mahler, Fig. 1-4, 42) configured to be coupled with a handle engaging portion (Mahler, Fig. 2, 52) that comprises outer threads (Mahler, Col. 3, lines 29-32) for connecting to a handle (Mahler, Fig. 1-4, 16 and 46), the connector comprising a pair of hooks (Mahler, Fig. 2, 48 and 50) fixedly attached to the handle engaging portion (Mahler, Fig. 2, 48, 50 and 52). Such a connector allows for a blade assembly to be securely attached to a handle and prevents relative moment between a blade assembly and the handle (Mahler, Col. 4, lines 12-17).
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 connector taught by Makabi to feature a pair of hooks fixedly attached to the handle engaging portion like that taught by Mahler as such structure allows for a blade assembly to be securely attached to a handle and prevents relative moment between a blade assembly and the handle.
PNG
media_image1.png
351
374
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Makabi in view of Mahler teaches the mechanism of claim 1, wherein the connector (Mahler, Fig. 1-4, 42) comprises a solid portion (Mahler, Fig. 2, 52) that comprises the outer threads (Mahler, Col. 3, lines 29-32) and a deformable portion (Mahler, Fig. 1-4, 48 and 50) extending form the solid portion.
Regarding claim 3, Makabi in view of Mahler teaches the mechanism of claim 2, wherein the deformable portion (Mahler, Fig. 1-4, 48 and 50) of the connector (Mahler, Fig. 1-4, 42) comprises one or more elastic projections (Mahler, Fig. 1-4, 48 and 50).
Regarding claim 4, Makabi in view of Mahler teaches the mechanism of claim 1, wherein the connector is fixedly attached to an inner wall of the handle engaging portion of the adaptor (Mahler, Fig. 2, 48, 50 and 52).
Regarding claim 5, Makabi in view of Mahler teaches the mechanism of claim 3.
Makabi in view of Mahler as modified does not teach wherein the rotatable element comprises an inner area that is configured such that when the rotatable element is rotated in an engagement direction, the inner area deforms the elastic projections thereby connecting the handle.
Mahler teaches an adaptor (Mahler, Fig. 1-4, 14, and 42) and a rotatable element (Mahler, Fig. 1-4, 44) comprising an inner area (Mahler, Col. 3 line 63 – Col. 4 line 2) that is configured such that when the rotatable element is rotated in an engagement direction, the inner areas deforms the elastic projections (Mahler, Fig. 1-4, 48 and 50) thereby connecting the rotatable element to the adaptor and the handle (Mahler, Col. 3 line 63 – Col. 4 line 2). Such a connection allows for the adaptor to be securely attached to a rotatable element and prevents relative moment between the adaptor and the handle (Mahler, Col. 4, lines 12-17).
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 mechanism taught by Makabi with the rotatable connector taught by Mahler as such a rotatable element allows for a connection that prevent relative moment between components.
Regarding claim 6, Makabi in view of Mahler teaches the mechanism according to claim 1, wherein the rotatable element (Makabi, fig. 2A-2B, 14) has a ring shape (see annotated image of Fig. 2B (Makabi) above).
Regarding claim 7, Makabi in view of Mahler teaches the mechanism of claim 3, wherein the elastic projections (Mahler, Fig. 1-4, 48 and 50) extend outwardly from the solid portion of the connector (Mahler, Fig. 1-4, 42).
Regarding claim 19, Makabi in view of Mahler teaches the mechanism according to claim 1, wherein the adaptor (Mahler, Fig. 1-4, 42 and 52) and the connector (Mahler, Fig. 1-4, 42) form a single piece.
Claims 8-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makabi (US 2020/0198162 A1) in view of Mahler (US 4,038,986 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Malliaros et al. (US 2021/0187770 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Makabi in view of Mahler teaches the mechanism according to claim 1.
Makabi does not teach the handle engaging portion of the adaptor comprises an inner wall, wherein the hooks are configured to be coupled to the inner wall.
Malliaros teaches a connector (Malliaros, Fig. 1A-4, 50) comprising a pair of hooks (Malliaros, Fig. 3A-4, 54c and 54d) and a facet (Malliaros, Fig. 3A-4, 56) and an adaptor (Malliaros, Fig. 1A-4, 20, 30, and 50) comprising a handle engaging portion (Malliaros, Fig. 4, 22a and 22b) comprising an inner wall (Malliaros, Fig. 4, 22a and 22b), wherein the hooks are configured to be couple to the inner wall (Malliaros, Fig. 4, 22a and 54c and 54d). Such a connection helps to better secure the connector to the adaptor (Malliaros, 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 hooks and adaptor taught by Makabi in view of Mahler such that the connector includes a pair of hooks configured to be coupled to an inner wall, a facet and a handle engaging portion of the adaptor included an inner wall as taught by Malliaros as such connectors help to provide a more secure connection between the connector and adaptor.
Regarding claim 9, Makabi in view of Mahler and Malliaros teaches the mechanism according to claim 8, wherein at least one hook (Malliaros, Fig. 3A-4, 54c or 54d) of the pair of hooks (Malliaros, Fig. 3A-4, 54c and 54d) comprises a finger (Malliaros, Fig. 3A-4, 54c and 54d) having an angled profile with a bearing length and at least one chamfer (Malliaros, Fig. 3A-3B, 52c and 52d), wherein the at least one chamfer is engaged to the inner wall (Malliaros, Fig. 4, 52c and 22b).
Regarding claim 10, Makabi in view of Mahler teaches the mechanism according to claim 1.
Makabi in view of Mahler does not teach wherein the adaptor comprises a stop structure that is configured to limit the movement of the connector inside the adaptor, the stop structure comprising a substantially flat surface and a projection extending from the flat surface. While the threaded recess for the connector of Makabi in view of Mahler may have a stop structure, Makabi does not specifically refer or show such a structure.
Malliaros teaches an adaptor (Malliaros, Fig. 1A-4, 20, 30, and 50) comprising a stop structure (Malliaros, Fig. 4, 22) that is configured to limit the movement of the connector (Malliaros, Fig. 4, 50) inside the adaptor (Malliaros, P. 0056), the stop structure comprising a flat surface (Malliaros, Fig. 4, 22a), as some point the circular surface of Malliaros is flat further it should be noted that while Malliaros considers a spherical shape they do not require that it be fully spherical (Malliaros, P. 0056), and a projection (Malliaros, Fig. 4, 22b) extending from the flat surface. This helps to better secure the connector to the adaptor (Malliaros, 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 adaptor taught by Makabi in view of Mahler to feature the stop structure taught by Malliaros as doing so allows for a better connecting between the connector and the adaptor.
Regarding claim 11, Makabi in view of Mahler and Malliaros teaches the mechanism according to claim 10, wherein when the adaptor and the connector are in an engaged position (Malliaros, Fig. 4, 20 and 50), at least a part of a bearing length of a finger of at least one of a pair of hooks (Malliaros, Fig. 4, 54c and 54d) is in contact with the flat surface of the stop structure (Malliaros, Fig. 4, 22a).
Regarding claim 12, Makabi in view of Mahler and Malliaros teaches the mechanism according to claim 8, wherein at least one hook (Malliaros, Fig. 3A-4, 54c or 54d) of the pair of hooks (Malliaros, Fig. 3A-4, 54c and 54d) comprises a raised portion (Malliaros, Fig. 3A-4, 52c and 52d) arranged facing the other hook of the pair of hooks, at least some portion of the raised portion of Malliaros face each other, and configured to prevent movement of a distal end of the razor handle when the distal end of the handle is inserted in to the adaptor (Mahler, Col. 4, lines 12-17), here when the raised portions of Malliaros are spread apart by the elastic force of the connector the hooks connect the handle to the adaptor as can be seen in Fig. 4 of Malliaros.
Regarding claim 13, Makabi in view of Mahler and Malliaros teaches the mechanism according to claim 12, wherein the raised portion (Malliaros, Fig. 3A-4, 52c and 52d) comprises at least one facet (Malliaros, Fig. 3A-4, 56), wherein the at least one facet is adapted to engage a protrusion of the razor handle (Malliaros, Fig. 4, 48).
Regarding claim 14, Makabi in view of Mahler teaches the razor handle (Makai, Fig. 2A-2B, 16) extending between a distal end (see annotated image of Fig. 2B (Makabi) above) and a proximal end (see annotated image of Fig. 2B (Makabi) above) and the handle comprising the mechanism according to claim 1 coupled at the distal end of the handle (refer to the prior art rejection of claim 1).
Makabi in view of Mahler does not teach wherein the distal end comprises a protrusion having a first coupling region and a second coupling region that is structurally different from the first coupling region, the handle comprising the mechanism according to claim 1 coupled at the distal end of the handle.
Malliaros teaches a handle (Malliaros, Fig. 2 and 4, 40) extending between a distal end (Malliaros, Fig. 2 and 4, 40a) and a proximal end (Malliaros, Fig. 2, 40b) wherein the distal end comprises a protrusion (Malliaros, Fig. 2 and 4, 42) having a first coupling region (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 2 (Malliaros) below) and a second coupling region (Malliaros, Fig. 2 and 4, 44a) that is structurally different from the first coupling region, as can be seen in Fig. 2 of Malliaros below the first coupling region is a recess while the second coupling region is an exterior surface which function differently. These regions help to securing connect the handle to the connector (Malliaros, 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 handle taught by Makabi in view of Mahler to feature a protrusion having a first coupling region and second coupling region that are functionally different from each other as taught by Malliaros so as to provide a secure attachment between the handle and the connector.
PNG
media_image2.png
352
545
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Makabi in view of Mahler and Malliaros teaches the razor handle according to claim 14, wherein the first coupling region (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 2 (Malliaros) above) comprises a cut-out surface (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 2 (Malliaros) above), given the broadest reasonable interpretation of “cut-out surface” as any surface cut out from another surface this would include recesses like the one taught by Malliaros, and the second coupling region (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 2 (Malliaros) above) comprises a conical surface (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 2 (Malliaros) above), as can be seen in Fig. 2 of Malliaros the end of the protrusion has a conical shape.
Regarding claim 20, Makabi in view of Mahler and Malliaros the mechanism according to claim 9, wherein the at least one chamfer (Malliaros, Fig. 3A-3B, 52c) includes a first chamfer (Malliaros, Fig. 3A-3B, 52c) and a second chamfer (Malliaros, Fig. 3A-3B, 56a), a first chamber connected to the second chamfer (Malliaros, Fig. 3A-3B, 52c and 56a), and wherein the second chamfer configured to engage with an indent of the inner wall (Malliaros, Fig. 2, 46).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-18 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 16, the claim requires the cut-out surface to “slide within an opening of the connector” this is different than the surface taught by Makabi in view of Mahler and Malliaros which is a recessed area into which structure is slide into. This frustrates the combination of Makabi in view of Mahler and Malliaros as it would be unlikely to be obvious to further modify the structure taught by Makabi in view of Mahler and Malliaros without affecting any advantageous properties of the prior art’s designs.
Regarding claim 17, as the claim depends from and thereby requires all the limitations of claim 16 the reasons for indication of allowable subject matter for claim 17 is the same as claim 16.
Regarding claim 18, the claim requires the connection to feature “a first portion and a second portion, the first portion including a pair of hooks and the outer threads, the second portion including one or more elastic projections extending from the first portion, wherein the pair of hooks of the first potion is received within a receptacle of the handle engaging portion, and wherein the outer threads and the one or more elastic projections do not extend within the receptacle of the handle engaging portion”. The prior art of Makabi in view of Mahler and Malliaros teaches pairs of hooks which are elastic projections. The claim distinguishes the pair of hooks from the elastic projections and requires the structures to be a part of different portions of the connector. While it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add more of the hooks, it is unlikely that they would modify Makabi in view of Mahler and Malliaros to be part of a different portion of the connector.
Response to Amendment
The applicant asserts that the replacement sheets overcome the drawing objection of record. The Examiner agrees, the replacement sheets properly show reference sign 22 and, as such, the Examiner withdraws the drawing objection of record.
The applicant asserts that the claim 10 has been amended such that it now overcome the claim objection of record. The Examiner agrees with withdraws the drawing objection of record.
The applicant asserts that claims 5, 11 and 13 have been amend such that they now overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) indefiniteness rejections of record. The Examiner agrees and withdraws the indefiniteness rejections of record.
The applicant asserts that the amendments to claim 1 overcome the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) anticipation type rejection of record for claim 1. The Examiner agrees, however, as the applicant has amended the claim the Examiner has provided a 35 U.S.C. 103 obviousness type prior art rejection over Makabi in view of Mahler for claim 1.
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner would suggest the applicant consider amending part of claim 18, regarding the first and second portions and elastic projections, into claim 1 and to consider amending the limitation “extending from the first portion” to “extending from the first portion in a direction opposite the pair of hooks” or the like in the suggested amendment to claim 1.
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