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 .
Claim Interpretation
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: a protective member in Claims 5-7.
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.
Claims 5-7 and 11-13 are 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.
In re Claim 5, “the protective member is assembled from above on the front side wall and extended in the left-right direction of the head frame,” is indefinite. The claim appears to require a step of manufacturing; however, the claims are not method claims but apparatus claims claiming the structure of the shaver. As such, it is unclear how this method step further limits the claim. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 6, “joined together” ” is indefinite. The claim appears to require a step of manufacturing; however, the claims are not method claims but apparatus claims claiming the structure of the shaver. As such, it is unclear how this method step further limits the claim. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 2, 4, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2003/0204955 to Gilder in view of RU 2773360 C1.
In re Claim 1, Gilder teaches a shaver head (see Figs. 1-2), comprising
Blades(see Figs. 1-2, #11, 12, 13) and a head frame (see Fig. 1, #1) having an accommodating space, the blades being located in the accommodating space and extended along a left-right direction of the head frame (see Figs. 1-2), the blades being assembled in the head frame, and cutting edges of the blades facing a front of the head frame (see Figs. 1-2, the blades face #2 which is the front head of the frame);
the head frame being provided with a skin pressing contact zone (see Figs. 1-2,the top surface of #2) that is located in front of the blades for pressing down an elastic skin (see Figs. 1-2);
wherein a distance between a rear side of the skin pressing contact zone and a blade adjacent to the skin pressing contact zone in a front-back direction of the head frame is denoted as a (see Figs. 1-2, “S1” – see also Para. 0016 teaching the span s1 is from 0.5 to 1.5mm), and a distance between a front side of the skin pressing contact zone and the blade adjacent to the skin pressing contact zone in the front-back direction of the head frame is denoted as b (see Figs. 1-2, there is a distance between the edge of #11 and the “front” side of #2), wherein 0.30 mm greater or equal “a” equal or less than 1.75 mm (see Para. 0016 teaching S1 as 0.5 to 1.5mm).
Gilder is silent as to 2.61 mm greater or equal “b” equal or less than 10.51 mm.
However, RU 2773360 C1 teaches gap #66 in Fig. 5 to be 0.5mm to 3.0mm (see RU 2773360 C1, translation Pg. bottom 6 lines of Pg. 4 and top 10 lines of Pg. 5; see also Figs. 3-5). In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to make the length “b” of 3.0mm. Doing so is the may provide improved rinsing and allow longer cut hairs to be flushed out of housing (see RU 2773360 C1, translation Pg. bottom 6 lines of Pg. 4 and top 10 lines of Pg. 5).
In re Claim 2, modified Gilder, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein 0.39 mm greater than or equal a less than or equal 1.49 mm (see Para. 0016 teaching S1 as 0.5 to 1.5mm).
In re Clam 4, modified Gilder, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the head frame has a front side wall located corresponding to a front of the blades, and the skin pressing contact zone is formed by an upper surface of the front side wall (see annotated Fig. 1, below).
PNG
media_image1.png
394
613
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re Claim 8, modified Gilder, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the skin pressing contact zone is an arcuate curved surface area or a flat area (see annotated Fig. 1, above, showing the skin pressing zone having both a curved surface and a flat area).
In re Claim 9, modified Gilder, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the head frame further has a rear side wall located corresponding to the front of the blades (see annotated Fig. 1, above), and the blades are arranged separately in the front-back direction of the head frame (see Figs. 1-2).
In re Claim 10, modified Gilder, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein all the blades are arranged in an increasing height from front to back along the head frame (see Figs. 1-2, and Para. 0008 teaching “A steadily increasing blade exposure has been found most effective”), the blade adjacent to the skin pressing contact zone is lower than a straight line connecting a highest point on the upper surface of the rear side wall and a highest point of the skin pressing contact zone (see Fig. 2, showing 11 having a negative exposure – see also Para. 0006-0008), and another blade adjacent to the rear side wall is higher than the straight line connecting the highest point on the upper surface of the rear side wall and the highest point of the skin pressing contact zone (see e.g., Fig. 2, #13, having a positive exposure – see also Para. 0006-0008).
Claims 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2003/0204955 to Gilder in view of RU 2773360 C1, and further in view of US 2010/0218381 to Follow.
In re Claim 3, modified Gilder, in re Claim 1, is silent as to wherein the skin pressing contact zone is further extended continuously or discontinuously in the left-right direction of the head frame. However, Follo teaches that it is known in the art of razor cartridges, to provide a guard integrated into the frame with protrusions (see However, RU 2773360 C1 teaches a discontinuous skin pressing contact zone (see RU 2773360 C1 Fig. 3a and Para. 0039). In the same field of invention, razor cartridges, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add a guard with protrusions to the frame of modified gilder. Doing so improves comfort and safety (see Follo, Para. 0017).
In re Claim 5, modified Gilder, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the head frame has a front side wall located corresponding to a front of the blades (see annotated Fig. 1, above),
However, modified Gilder, in re Claim 1, is silent as to is silent a protective member, the protective member is assembled from above on the front side wall and extended in the left-right direction of the head frame, the skin pressing contact zone is formed by an upper surface of the protective member, or, a part of the skin pressing contact zone is formed by the upper surface of the protective member, a remaining part of the skin pressing contact zone is formed by the upper surface of the front side wall located between the protective member and the blades.
However, Follo teaches that it is known in the art of razor cartridges, to provide a guard, or, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a protective member, the protective member is assembled from above on the front side wall and extended in the left-right direction of the head frame (see Follo Fig. 1-4, #22), the skin pressing contact zone is formed by an upper surface of the protective member (the skin contacts guard #22 of Follo – see Figs. 1-4, #22), or, a part of the skin pressing contact zone is formed by the upper surface of the protective member (see Follo, Figs. 1-4, #22), a remaining part of the skin pressing contact zone is formed by the upper surface of the front side wall located between the protective member and the blades (see Follow, Figs. 1-7A).
In the same field of invention, razor cartridges, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add a guard with protrusions to the frame of modified gilder. Doing so improves comfort and safety (see Follo, Para. 0017).
In re Claim 6, modified Gilder, in re Claim 5, teaches wherein the upper surface of the front side wall located between the protective member and the blades is joined together with the upper surface of the protective member (see Gilder, Figs. 1-2 in view of Follo #22).
In re Claim 7, modified Gilder, in re Claim 5, teaches wherein the upper surface of the front side wall located between the protective member and the blades is lower than the upper surface of the protective member (see Gilder, Figs. 1-2, in view of #22 of Follo the guard #22 would be embedded in #2 of Gilder).
In re Claim 11, modified Gilder, in re Claim 5, teaches wherein the skin pressing contact zone is an arcuate curved surface area or a flat area (see annotated Fig. 1, above, showing the skin pressing zone having both a curved surface and a flat area).
In re Claim 12, modified Gilder, in re Claim 5, teaches wherein the head frame further has a rear side wall located corresponding to the front of the blades (see annotated Fig. 1, above), and the blades are arranged separately in the front-back direction of the head frame (see Gilder, Figs. 1-2).
In re Claim 13, modified Gilder, in re Claim 5, teaches wherein all the blades are arranged in an increasing height from front to back along the head frame (see Gilder, Figs. 1-2, and Para. 0008 teaching “A steadily increasing blade exposure has been found most effective”), the blade adjacent to the skin pressing contact zone is lower than a straight line connecting a highest point on the upper surface of the rear side wall and a highest point of the skin pressing contact zone (see Gilder, Fig. 2, showing 11having a negative exposure – see also Para. 0006-0008), and another blade adjacent to the rear side wall is higher than the straight line connecting the highest point on the upper surface of the rear side wall and the highest point of the skin pressing contact zone (see Gilder, e.g., Fig. 2, #13, having a positive exposure – see also Para. 0006-0008).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN RILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 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.
/JONATHAN G RILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights