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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
the “skin interconnect member” in claim 14.
With regard to the term “skin interconnect member”, in claims 1-2, 5-6, and 7:
first, the term “member” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “skin interconnect”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “member” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the skin interconnect member.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The limitation of Claim 1, reading: “said rigid member platform having a width to thickness ratio from about 7 to about 60” is indefinite. It is not clear what the metes and bounds of the limitation “about” 7 to 60 are. For example, since the range 7-60 is large in proportion, it would appear that the term “about” with reference to said range, could encompass dimensions of plus or minus 10% of the range. With such an interpretation a range of 7-60, +/- 10% would be a range of 2-65 [60-7 = 53; 53*.1 = 5]. For purposes of advancing prosecution, this is how said limitation will be interpreted, as best understood in light of the specification, since no definition is provided for the term, “about”, and since a range of +/- 10% is typical in mechanical engineering terms.
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 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPN 20170129116 Gratsias.
Regarding Claim 1, Gratsias discloses a razor handle 2 comprising:
a first member 9H;
a rigid member 9E (par 0087, comprised of a wall of rubber and thus is rigid) disposed below said first member (in the orientation of annotated fig 8A below), said rigid member comprising a rigid member platform (portion of member 9E which contacts the recessed portion of the part 9H, and thus is a platform), said rigid member platform having a width to thickness ratio from about 7 to about 60 (par. 0016-0018, since the cavity, and thus the part 9E is said to have a width of 5 to 15 mm and a height of 5 to 15 mm; thus having a W to H ratio of 3, when the W = 15 and the H = 5, and 3 can be considered to be about 7; see 35 USC 112 interpretation above); and a second member disposed below said first member (in the orientation shown below).
Regarding Claim 6, in Gratsias the rigid member platform has a width transverse a longitudinal axis of said razor handle greater than 12 mm (see interpretation above, and cited portion above).
Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPGPUB 20130081290, Murgida.
Regarding Claim 1, Murgida discloses: A razor handle (combination of 20, 22, 43, 48 and 44) comprising:
a first member (top bar 144, see annotated fig 13 below);
a rigid member (cantilever tail 140, see annotated fig 13, which can be formed of metal, par 0153, and par. 0007, and par 0056) disposed below said first member (annotated fig 13) said rigid member comprising a rigid member platform (bar 142)
said rigid member platform having a width to thickness ratio from about 7 to about 60 (par. 0056, the stem 68, which is also represented as part 142 in fig. 13, is disclosed to have a “thickness at its widest point, of about 1.2mm” (thus the width is about 1.2 mm), and a height (e.g. thickness), of 0.2 to about 5 times the height of the stem 67, which has a height of 0.5 – 8 mm; thus the thickness of the part 68 is in a range of 0.5mm*0.2 – 8mm* 5 or 0.1 mm – 40mm; thus the resultant ratio of the Width to the thickness of the bar 68 is 1.2/0.1 (12) to 1.2/40 (.25), which is within the claimed range of about 7 – 60),
and a second member (144 at bottom in annotated fig 13 below) disposed below said first member (see annotated fig 13, below).
PNG
media_image1.png
418
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, in Murgida, said rigid member platform has a length to thickness ratio from about 7 to about 60 (par. 0056, the stem 68, which is also represented as part 142 in fig. 13, is disclosed to have a length of about 3.2mm and height (e.g. thickness), of 0.2 to about 5 times the height of the stem 67, which has a height of 0.5 – 8 mm; thus the thickness of the part 68 is in a range of 0.5mm*0.2 – 8mm* 5 or 0.1 mm – 40mm; thus the resultant ratio of the length to the thickness of the bar 68 is 3.2/0.1 (32) to 3.2/40 (.08), which is within the claimed range of about 7 – 60).
Regarding Claim 4, in Murgida said rigid member platform has a hydraulic diameter from about 8mm to about 50 mm. (the hydraulic diameter is disclosed in the present specification as four times the area divided by the perimeter, in Murgida the area is 1.2*3.2*[0.1mm-40mm] or .384 – 153; and a perimeter is the length of the line of a closed geometric feature, thus in this case it is the length of both sides plus the height of the both sides, here, 1.2 +1.2 +3.2 +3.2 = 8.8; thus the hydraulic diameter is four times the area [4 x (.384-40)/ the perimeter 8.8 = 17.5, which falls within the claimed range).
Regarding Claim 5, in Murgida said first member or said second member comprise one or more movable elements (since the whole device, including the first and second members may be lifted and moved during use).
Regarding Claim 7, in Murgida said rigid member platform (142, fig 13) is partially enclosed by a wall 144, said wall having a height ranging from about 1.5 mm to about 18 mm (the thickness dimension of the platform, shown as Height, H, in fig. 8, is shown to be covered by walls 144, having an almost identical height, and thus the walls are around 0.2-13mm; e.g. the height of the bar 68/142).
Regarding Claim 8, in Murgida said rigid member platform comprises at least one location feature (174/176, fig 14).
Regarding Claim 9, in Murgida said location features comprise protrusions and or pockets (fig 14, since the parts 176 are concave).
Regarding Claim 10, in Murgida said location feature (174. 176) provides at least one or more attachment point for a product integrity feature (128/138, fig 12A).
Regarding Claim 11, in Murgida said rigid member comprises metal or combinations thereof (par 0063, metal).
Regarding Claim 12, in Murgida said first member and said second member (144) are coupled together at an interface (fig 3 and fig 13 and par 0062).
Regarding Claim 13, in Murgida said coupling is about said rigid member platform (see fig. 13).
Regarding Claim 14, in Murgida said razor handle of claim 1 comprises a skin interconnect member (e.g. parts 48 or part 50, which rotate with respect to the handle, par 0044).
Regarding Claim 15, in Murgida said skin interconnect member comprises a trapezoidal prism shape (since a trapezoid is geometrically a quadrilateral with at least one pair of parallel sides and since a prism is geometrically is a solid geometric figure whose two end faces are similar, equal, and parallel rectilinear figures, and whose sides are parallelograms; and see annotated fig 4 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
545
476
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 16, in Murgida said first and second members (top and bottom members 144 in annotated fig 13, above) comprise a movable member assembly 140 and bearing surfaces (surfaces of parts 144 which contact the part 142) to support a motion of said movable member assembly (since the surfaces of parts 144 which contact part 142 limit the motion of the part 142 in part).
Regarding Claim 17, in Murgida said rigid member platform comprises at least one location feature (portion(s) of parts 142 which contacted by the members 144, and thus located part 142 in the assembly).
Regarding Claim 18, in Murgida said bearing surfaces are located within about 1 mm from at least one location feature (e.g. since said bearing surfaces, as defined herein, contact the location feature, as defined herein). y
Regarding Claim 19, in Murgida said razor handle comprises a spring member (tail 165, said to be resilient; see par 163).
Regarding Claim 20, in Murgida said spring member is attached to said rigid member (see fig 13 annotated).
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 of this title, 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 1 and 6 are rejected (in the alternative) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 20170129116 Gratsias.
Regarding Claim 1, Gratsias discloses a razor handle 2 comprising:
a first member 9H;
a rigid member 9E (par 0087, comprised of a wall of rubber and thus is rigid) disposed below said first member (in the orientation of annotated fig 8A below), said rigid member comprising a rigid member platform (portion of member 9E which contacts the recessed portion of the part 9H, and thus is a platform), said rigid member platform having a width to thickness ratio from about 7 to about 60 (par. 0016-0018, since the cavity, and thus the part 9E is said to have a width of 5 to 15 mm and a height of 5 to 15 mm; thus having a W to H ratio of 3, when the W = 15 and the H = 5, and 3 can be considered to be about 7; see 35 USC 112 interpretation above); and a second member disposed below said first member (in the orientation shown below).
Regarding Claim 6, in Gratsias the rigid member platform has a width transverse a longitudinal axis of said razor handle greater than 12 mm (see interpretation above, and cited portion above).
Although in Gratsias the ratio of 3 is about 7, under the 35 USC 112 interpretation taken in this Action, this interpretation is also obviated in view of Gratsias and in view of design choice considerations, as further discussed below. As noted above, Gratsias discloses that the ratio of the Width to the Height of the rigid member platform is about 3 (par 0039). In view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill to have modified Gratsias to have when the ratio be about 7 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). Thus, in view of the teachings of Gratsias and of the recited legal precedent it would have been obvious as a matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gratsias by having said ratio be about 7 to 60.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5093991, Hendrickson, in view of USPN 5333382, Buchbinder.
Regarding Claim 1, Hendrickson discloses: a razor handle (combination of parts 10, 20, 22, 32, and 30) comprising:
a first member (parts 32 and 30);
a rigid member (rigid member 10) disposed below said first member (when oriented as shown in annotated fig 1, below) said rigid member comprising a rigid member platform (12, see annotated fig. 1, below),
and a second member (22) disposed below said first member (see annotated fig 1, below).
PNG
media_image3.png
646
654
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Hendrickson lacks said rigid member platform having a width to thickness ratio from about 7 to about 60.
Buchbinder discloses a razor like the razor of Hendrickson and discloses that in such an assembly it is known to have a handle member thereof (handle 14) comprise a width to thickness ratio from 7 to 60 (since the width of the handle 14 [fig 9, and col. 8, 0-65] is said to be between about 0.2 and 5 cm, and the thickness is said to be between 0.5cm to 10cm, which includes a width to thickness ratio of 7 to 60; e.g. when the width is 5 cm and the thickness is 0.6 cm the ratio is 8; col. 8 lines 60-70).
Thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have the handle of Hendrickson, and thus the platform member thereof which is within the handle of Hendrickson comprise this ratio in order to ensure that the handle and the platform within the handle can be held within a hand of a human when using the device, since Buchbinder discloses that the handle thereof is designed to be held by a human hand (col. 8, lines 45-50). In addition, to select the width to thickness ration as specified above is a matter of routine skill in the art, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 2, in Hendrickson, the said first member and second member are disposed within said rigid member platform (since a portion of the part 30, is disposed within part 12, and a part of the part 22, at teeth 24, is disposed within a portion of the part 12, see fig. 2)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPNs/USPGPUBs 8978258 8745877 6308413 3254971 10406706 20070033806 20210394382 20140295236 20180297225 20200070374 20220176577 20140295236 and 20140295236 disclose State of the art razors with rigid members that are in between other members, and thus disclose features of the present invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FERNANDO A AYALA whose telephone number is (571)270-5336. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Eastern standard.
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 on 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.
/FERNANDO A AYALA/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights