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 Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 13 (lines 5 and 8), should recite “a main frame.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 8-20 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. Regarding claims 8 and 13, the phrase “trapezoidal prism-like” which is “or the like" phrase renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 9-12 and 14-20 dependent from claims 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent from a rejected parent claim.
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.
Claims 1, 5-8, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 20100058595 to Walker et al. in view of US Patent No. 5,600,887 to Olson.
In re claim 1, Walker teaches a handle comprising:
a main body (12);
a first substantially flat arm (11) having a first proximal portion (as shown in at least Figure 6) and a first distal end (as shown in at least Figure 6), the first proximal portion being rigidly coupled to the main body at a first location (Para 0017);
a second arm (13) having a second proximal portion (as shown in at least Figure 6) and a second distal end (shown in at least Figure 6), the second proximal portion being rigidly coupled to the main body at a second location (Para 0017); and
the first and second distal ends being in spaced relationship and having pivotally coupled therebetween a pivoting head (14, Para 0017).
Note, the preamble is directed to a handle, not the combination of a handle and a pivoting head. The handle merely has to be capable of having a pivoting head, which is taught by Walker.
In re claim 5, wherein the first and second arms are each rigidly coupled to the main body by a securement selected from the group consisting of welding, snap-fit, and frictional engagement (Para 0017).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Walker teaches a first and second arm, but does not teach the first arm is metal.
Olson teaches a handle having a first and second substantially flat metal arm (Col. 3, lines 29-33).
It would have been obvious to one before the effective filing date of the invention to construct the arms of Walker of a metal as taught by Olson to provide strong and rust-resistant arms (Col. 3, lines 29-33, Olson). Arm strength is important to sustain the pressure applied by the user on the razor head and rust-resistant features are important due to the wet environment in which razors are used.
In re claim 6, modified Walker teaches wherein the first and second arms (11,13, Walker) each comprise metal plates, each metal plate defining a plate plane, and wherein the first arm plate plane is generally co-planar with the second arm plate plane (as shown in at least 6, Walker).
In re claims 7 and 12, wherein the pivoting head comprises a face comprising an elastomeric material.
The preamble is directed to a handle, not the pivoting head. Walker merely has to teach a handle capable of having a pivoting head with a face comprising an elastomeric material.
In re claim 8, Walker teaches
a main body (12);
a first arm (11) having a first proximal portion and a first distal end, the first proximal portion being slidably interlocked at a first location of the main body (Para 0017);
a second arm (13) having a second proximal and a second distal end, the second proximal portion being slidably interlocked at a second location of the main (Para 0017); and
the first and second distal ends being in opposed relationship and having pivotally coupled therebetween a pivoting head (14), the pivoting head having a trapezoidal prism-like shape.
Note, the preamble is directed to a handle, not the combination of a handle and a pivoting head having a trapezoidal prism-like shape. The handle merely has to be capable of having a pivoting head, with a trapezoidal prism-like shape.
In re claim 11, modified Walker teaches wherein the first and second arms (11,13, Walker) each comprise metal plates, each metal plate defining a plate plane, and wherein the first arm plate plane is generally co-planar with the second arm plate plane (as shown in at least 6, Walker).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker in view of Olson, as applied to the above claims, and in further view of US Patent No. 5,044,077 to Ferraro.
In re claim 2, modified Walker teaches the first a pin member (86, Walker) connected to a first distal end and a second pin member (as shown in at least Figure 6, the second pin member is disposed on 13, Walker) is connected to a second distal end, but does not teach first and second pins are welded to the distal end of each of the respective arms.
Per Merriam Webster Dictionary, the term pin is defined as a piece of solid material (such as wood or metal) used especially for fastening things together or as a support by which one thing may be suspended from another.
Ferraro teaches in the art of razors, that it is known to weld cylindrical attachment pins (67) to the handle structure to mechanically attach the first and second handle portions (Col. 5, lines 1-6). This provides a teaching that pins can be welded to established a desired mechanical connection between two parts in the art of razors.
In light of the teachings of Ferraro, it would have been obvious to one before the effective filing date of the invention to attach the pins of modified Walker via welding as taught by Ferraro, which is advantageous for establishing a strong, durable, and permanent joint, to provide a secure connection between the pins and the arms to properly engage the rotational head. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize, that when constructing the razor there are mechanical connections which would permit the pins to be attached to the arms, and one of the connections, is welding. In the event one may argue the pins of Walker appear to be monolithic with the arms, Applicant is reminded that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Claims 3, 4, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker in view of Olson, as applied to the above claims, and in further view of US Patent Application Publication No. 20170021513 to Liberatore and in further view of Ferraro.
In re claims 3 and 9, modified Walker teaches wherein the first arm comprises a first pin member (86, Walker) at the first distal end and the second arm (as shown in at least Figure 6, Walker) comprises a second pin member to the second distal end, and wherein the first pin member and the second pin member reside in a coaxial relationship (as shown in at least Figure 6, Walker).
In re claims 4 and 10, modified Walker teaches wherein the first arm comprises a first pin member (86, Walker) at the first distal end and the second arm (as shown in at least Figure 6, Walker) comprises a second pin member to the second distal end, and wherein the first pin (is capable of) operatively engages a first receiving opening (87) in the pivoting head and the second pin (is capable of) operatively engages a second receiving opening (87) in the pivot head. and the second pin member reside in a coaxial relationship (as shown in at least Figure 6, Walker).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, modified Walker teaches a pin member, but does not teach a first cylindrical pin and a second cylindrical pin.
Liberatore teaches a first cylindrical pin member (22, left, Para 0065, 0067) at the first distal end and a second cylindrical pin member (22, right) at the second distal end. The cartridge (2) has a compartment (20) which receives the pins (22).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide modified Walker with a first and second cylindrical pin member and compartment arrangement as taught by Liberatore to prevent improper placement of the cartridge relative to the handle and configured to prevent over-rotation of the handle relative to the cartridge (Para 0073).
Regarding claims 3, 4, 9, and 10, Walker teaches the first and second pin member connected to a first and second distal end, but does not teach the first and second pin members are welded to the first distal and second distal ends.
Ferraro teaches in the art of razors, that it is known to weld attachment pins (67) to the handle structure to mechanically attach the first and second handle portions (Col. 5, lines 1-6). This provides a teaching that pins can be welded to established a desired mechanical connection between two parts in the art of razors.
In light of the teachings of Ferraro, it would have been obvious to one before the effective filing date of the invention to attach the pins of modified Walker via welding as taught by Ferraro, which is advantageous for establishing a strong, durable, and permanent joint, to provide a secure connection between the pins and the arms to properly engage the rotational head. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize, that when constructing the razor there are mechanical connections which would permit the pins to be attached to the arms, and one of the connections, is welding. In the event one may argue the pins of Walker appear to be monolithic with the arms, Applicant is reminded that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Claims 13 and 18-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker in view of Olson and in further view of US Patent Application Publication No. 20180370052 to Zaremba et al.
In re claim 13, Walker teaches a handle comprising:
a main body (12);
a first discrete arm (11) having a first proximal portion (as shown in at least Figure 6) and a first distal end (as shown in at least Figure 6), the first proximal portion being rigidly coupled to the main body at a first location (Para 0017);
a second discrete arm (13) having a second proximal portion (as shown in at least Figure 6) and a second distal end (shown in at least Figure 6), the second proximal portion being rigidly coupled to the main body at a second location (Para 0017); and
the first and second distal ends being in spaced relationship and having pivotally coupled therebetween a pivoting head (14, Para 0017), the pivoting head having a trapezoidal prism-like shape.
Note, the preamble is directed to a handle, not the combination of a handle and a pivoting head having a trapezoidal prism-like shape. The handle merely has to be capable of having a pivoting head, with a trapezoidal prism-like shape.
In re claim 18, wherein the first and second arms (11,13) are each rigidly coupled to the main frame by a securement selected from the group consisting of welding, snap-fit, and frictional engagement (Para 0017)
In re claim 20, wherein the pivoting head comprises a face comprising an elastomeric material.
The preamble is directed to a handle, not the pivoting head. Walker merely has to teach a handle capable of having a pivoting head with a face comprising an elastomeric material.
Regarding claim 13, Walker teaches a first and second arm, but does not teach the first arm is metal.
Olson teaches a handle having a first and second substantially flat metal arm (Col. 3, lines 29-33).
It would have been obvious to one before the effective filing date of the invention to construct the arms of Walker of a metal as taught by Olson to provide strong and rust-resistant arms (Col. 3, lines 29-33, Olson). Arm strength is important to sustain the pressure applied by the user on the razor head and rust-resistant features are important due to the wet environment in which razors are used.
Regarding claim 13, Walker teaches the first and second arms are rigidly coupled to the main body by a securement (Para 0017), including snap-fit coupling, but does not teach the securement comprising a protuberance on a main body. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize various shaped couplings can be utilized in a snap-fit arrangement to secure to corresponding structures; however, Walker does not teach explicitly teach the securement (snap-fit arrangement) comprising protuberances on a main frame.
Zaremba teaches in the art of coupling via snap fitting, two corresponding structures (38) and (28) which are coupled via a snap-fit arrangement. The structure (38) has a plurality of protuberances which are received within corresponding opening (28).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the snap fitting arrangement of Walker to have a protuberance and corresponding opening arrangement as taught by Zaremba to maintain properly securing the structures relative to one another to prevent unwanted movement. A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. MPEP 2143, Section I, Part E. The combination of modified Walker would have been obvious to try for the reasons set forth below:
(1) A finding that at the time of the invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve a problem.
The Examiner recognized there was a design need to secure the arms relative to the main body in Walker in view of the Zaremba to have a specific snap-fit arrangement to reduce the risk of unwanted movement between the blade and the arms, which could move the razor in an unwanted lateral or pivoting direction, injuring the user during shaving. Based on the teachings provided by Zaremba, the Examiner concluded the snap-fit arrangement of Zaremba maintains the desired securement between corresponding structures.
(2) a finding that there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem.
The Examiner recognized that Zaremba provided a teaching of a specific snap-fit arrangement of protuberances and openings. Based on the teachings of Zaremba, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found that there are a finite number of identified arrangements that the protuberance and non-circular openings could be placed to perform the intended snap fitting coupling. The snap-fitting structures of Zaremba, would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with a baseline value to being experimentation. In other words, one would have been prompted to try the protuberance on both the arms and the main frame and the corresponding openings on both the arms and main frame before arriving at the snap-fit arrangement which allows the integrity of the handle and pivoting head to be retained.
(3) A finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
The Examiner determined that based on the teachings of Zaremba, that the modified device of Walker could have a snap-fit arrangement as taught by Zaremba, since the snap-fit arrangement would not jeopardize the intended purpose of the device. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been knowledgeable that the expectation of success, of providing the arms with corresponding openings and the main frame with a snap fit securement in order for the device to perform its intended operation.
(4) Whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
The Examiner recognized that Zaremba teaches snap-fit arrangement, which is in view of the facts of the case under consideration. Therefore, based on the facts of the case, one would have been prompted to try various snap-fit arrangements on both the arms and the main frame as taught by Zaremba to find the arrangement that did not jeopardize the integrity of the device.
In re claim 19, modified Walker teaches wherein the first and second arms (11,13, Walker) each comprise metal plates, each metal plate defining a plate plane, and wherein the first arm plate plane is generally co-planar with the second arm plate plane (as shown in at least 6, Walker).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker in view of Olson and in further view of Zaremba et al., as applied to the above claims, and in further view of US Patent Application Publication No. 20200130209 to Maurer.
In re claim 14, modified Walker teaches a handle, but does not teach the handle weighs between 60 and 100 grams.
Maurer teaches a handle weighing around 40 to 60 grams (Para 0089).
It would have been obvious to one before the effective filing date of the invention to fabricate the handle of Walker having a weight of 60 grams as taught by Maurer to provide a handle that is easy to use and manipulate to at various angles without fatiguing the hand and/or arm of the user.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker in view of Olson and in further view of Zaremba et al., as applied to the above claims, and in further view of US Patent No. 5,044,077 to Ferraro.
In re claim 15, modified Walker teaches the first a pin member (86, Walker) connected to a first distal end and a second pin member (as shown in at least Figure 6, the second pin member is disposed on 13, Walker) is connected to a second distal end, but does not teach first and second pins are welded to the distal end of each of the respective arms.
Per Merriam Webster Dictionary, the term pin is defined as a piece of solid material (such as wood or metal) used especially for fastening things together or as a support by which one thing may be suspended from another.
Ferraro teaches in the art of razors, that it is known to weld cylindrical attachment pins (67) to the handle structure to mechanically attach the first and second handle portions (Col. 5, lines 1-6). This provides a teaching that pins can be welded to established a desired mechanical connection between two parts in the art of razors.
In light of the teachings of Ferraro, it would have been obvious to one before the effective filing date of the invention to attach the pins of modified Walker via welding as taught by Ferraro, which is advantageous for establishing a strong, durable, and permanent joint, to provide a secure connection between the pins and the arms to properly engage the rotational head. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize, that when constructing the razor there are mechanical connections which would permit the pins to be attached to the arms, and one of the connections, is welding. In the event one may argue the pins of Walker appear to be monolithic with the arms, Applicant is reminded that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker in view of Olson and in further view of Zaremba et al, as applied to the above claims, and in further view of US Patent Application Publication No. 20170021513 to Liberatore and in further view of Ferraro.
In re claim 16, modified Walker teaches wherein the first arm comprises a first pin member (86, Walker) at the first distal end and the second arm (as shown in at least Figure 6, Walker) comprises a second pin member to the second distal end, and wherein the first pin member and the second pin member reside in a coaxial relationship (as shown in at least Figure 6, Walker).
In re claim 17, modified Walker teaches wherein the first arm comprises a first pin member (86, Walker) at the first distal end and the second arm (as shown in at least Figure 6, Walker) comprises a second pin member to the second distal end, and wherein the first pin (is capable of) operatively engages a first receiving opening (87) in the pivoting head and the second pin (is capable of) operatively engages a second receiving opening (87) in the pivot head. and the second pin member reside in a coaxial relationship (as shown in at least Figure 6, Walker).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, modified Walker teaches a pin member, but does not teach a first cylindrical pin and a second cylindrical pin.
Liberatore teaches a first cylindrical pin member (22, left, Para 0065, 0067) at the first distal end and a second cylindrical pin member (22, right) at the second distal end. The cartridge (2) has a compartment (20) which receives the pins (22).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide modified Walker with a first and second cylindrical pin member and compartment arrangement as taught by Liberatore to prevent improper placement of the cartridge relative to the handle and configured to prevent over-rotation of the handle relative to the cartridge (Para 0073).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Walker teaches the first and second pin member connected to a first and second distal end, but does not teach the first and second pin members are welded to the first distal and second distal ends.
Ferraro teaches in the art of razors, that it is known to weld attachment pins (67) to the handle structure to mechanically attach the first and second handle portions (Col. 5, lines 1-6). This provides a teaching that pins can be welded to established a desired mechanical connection between two parts in the art of razors.
In light of the teachings of Ferraro, it would have been obvious to one before the effective filing date of the invention to attach the pins of modified Walker via welding as taught by Ferraro, which is advantageous for establishing a strong, durable, and permanent joint, to provide a secure connection between the pins and the arms to properly engage the rotational head. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize, that when constructing the razor there are mechanical connections which would permit the pins to be attached to the arms, and one of the connections, is welding. In the event one may argue the pins of Walker appear to be monolithic with the arms, Applicant is reminded that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER S MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)270-5843. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8am-4pm.
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.
/JENNIFER S MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights