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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation reading “said assembly having one or more movable portions wherein said one or more movable portions, said one or more movable portions providing an angular” should read: “said assembly having one or more movable portions . Appropriate correction is required.
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 13.
With regard to the term “skin interconnect member”:
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 “skin interconnect” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the skin interconnect member.
Because this claim limitations is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is 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 § 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 1-3, 6-9 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPN 3593416, Edson.
Regarding Claim 1, Edson discloses a razor (title, fig 1-7) comprising a cartridge (11);
a handle (10) coupled to said cartridge (fig 1);
a loop shaped spring member (31) disposed in an assembly (16 and 21), said assembly having one or more movable portions (21 and 22) wherein said one or more movable portions, said one or more movable portions (21 and 22) providing an angular rotation of said handle to said cartridge (Col 2, lines 10-20).
Regarding Claim 2, in Edson said cartridge 11 and said handle 10 pivot relative to each other (Col 2, lines 10-20).
Regarding Claim 3, in Edson said loop shaped spring member comprises a ring shape (fig 1).
Regarding Claim 6, in Edson distal ends of said loop shaped spring member are spaced apart (annotated fig 5, shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
329
396
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, in Edson said loop shaped spring member has overlapping end portions (annotated fig 5, shown below).
PNG
media_image2.png
329
396
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8, in Edson first and second distal ends of said loop shaped spring member contact first and second stop walls of said assembly when said assembly is in a rest position (see annotated fig 5 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
329
398
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9, in Edson one or both distal ends (top end in annotated fig 5, shown above in claim 7 rejection) of said loop shaped spring member move away from one or more stop walls of said assembly during said angular rotation (since the top part of the spring, when being compressed by the part 11, moves partly away from a portion of the bottom stop wall, e.g. horizontally).
Regarding Claim 12, in Edson said loop shaped spring member is fully encompassed within said assembly (fig 5, since the spring is fully within part 16, even if not completely surrounded thereby).
Regarding Claim 13, in Edson the razor further comprising a skin interconnect member (part 14).
Claims 1-3, 6-9 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPN 20190152077, Kim.
Regarding Claim 1, Kim discloses a razor 100 comprising a cartridge 10;
a handle 30 coupled to said cartridge (fig 1B);
a loop shaped spring member 40 disposed in an assembly 20, said assembly having one or more movable portions (“pivot member”; 25)wherein said one or more movable portions, said one or more movable portions providing an angular rotation of said handle to said cartridge (par 0043).
Regarding Claim 2, in Kim, said cartridge and said handle pivot relative to each other (par. 0081).
Regarding Claim 3, in Kim, wherein said loop shaped spring member comprises a circle (fig. 8B).
Regarding Claim 6, in Kim, distal ends (41a and 41b) of said loop shaped spring member are spaced apart (fig 8B).
Regarding Claim 7, in Kim, said loop shaped spring member has overlapping end portions (41a and 41b, fig 8B).
Regarding Claim 8, in Kim, first and second distal ends of said loop shaped spring member contact first and second stop walls of said assembly when said assembly is in a rest position.
Regarding Claim 9, in Kim, one or both distal ends of said loop shaped spring member move away from one or more stop walls (26a-b) of said assembly during said angular rotation (par 0043, due to the compression of the spring).
Regarding Claim 12, in Kim, wherein said loop shaped spring member is fully encompassed within said assembly (fig 1C).
Regarding Claim 13, in Kim the razor further comprises a skin interconnect member 21.
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 4-5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edson as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of design choice considerations from legal precedent.
Regarding Claims 4-5, Edson lacks said loop shaped spring member having an overall length of 30 mm to 90 mm when straightened (claim 4), and a radii of curvature between about 1 mm to about 12 mm (claim 5).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make an overall length of the Edson spring, when straightened, of 30 mm to 90 mm (claim 4), and to make a radii of curvature of the spring be between about 1 mm to about 12 mm (claim 5), in order to have a proper spring size that can fit within a smaller space, since razor interiors are known to be smaller in size to be hand held, and 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).
Regarding Claim 14: Edson lacks said loop shaped spring member is comprised of a stainless steel.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to form the spring out of steel, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Also, it is well known in the art to make wave springs out of steel, see, USPGPUB 20180223947, par 0027, US 9618126 col 16 lines 55-65, and 20140265114, par. 0067.
Claims 4-5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of design choice considerations from legal precedent.
Regarding Claims 4-5, Kim lacks said loop shaped spring member having an overall length of 30 mm to 90 mm when straightened (claim 4), and a radii of curvature between about 1 mm to about 12 mm (claim 5).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make an overall length of the Kim spring, when straightened, of 30 mm to 90 mm (claim 4), and to make a radii of curvature of the spring be between about 1 mm to about 12 mm (claim 5), in order to have a proper spring size that can fit within a smaller space, since razor interiors are known to be smaller in size to be hand held, and 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).
Regarding Claim 14: Kim lacks said loop shaped spring member is comprised of a stainless steel.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to form the spring out of steel, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Also, it is well known in the art to make wave springs out of steel, see, USPGPUB 20180223947, par 0027, US 9618126 col 16 lines 55-65, and 20140265114, par. 0067.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edson as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of USPGPUB 20190084169, Bonk.
Regarding claim 10, Edson lacks said angular rotation being up to 25 degrees from a center of said assembly.
Bonk discloses, a shaver in the same field of endeavor as the shaver/shaving tool of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes a pivotal movement of the cartridge in a range of plus or minus 27 degrees from a center of said assembly (par 0031) in order to allow for an optimal predetermined amount of pressure, deflection and recovery for the bladed razor cartridge during use in shaving (par 0030, abstract).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the angular rotation be plus or minus 27 degrees from a center of said assembly, (which range falls within the Claimed range of up to 30 degrees, e.g. 0-30 degrees), in order to allow for an optimal predetermined amount of pressure, deflection and recovery for the bladed razor cartridge during use in shaving as taught by Bonk.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of USPGPUB 20190084169, Bonk.
Regarding claim 10, Kim lacks said angular rotation being up to 25 degrees from a center of said assembly.
Bonk discloses, a shaver in the same field of endeavor as the shaver/shaving tool of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes a pivotal movement of the cartridge in a range of plus or minus 27 degrees from a center of said assembly (par 0031) in order to allow for an optimal predetermined amount of pressure, deflection and recovery for the bladed razor cartridge during use in shaving (par 0030, abstract).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the angular rotation be plus or minus 27 degrees from a center of said assembly, (which range falls within the Claimed range of up to 30 degrees, e.g. 0-30 degrees), in order to allow for an optimal predetermined amount of pressure, deflection and recovery for the bladed razor cartridge during use in shaving as taught by Bonk.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edson as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of USPGPUB 20120260509, Fang.
Regarding Claim 11, Edson lacks wherein a stiffness coefficient of said angular rotation about said second axis is about 0.0833 N-mm/degree per unit distance from said first axis to said second axis.
Fang discloses a handheld cutting tool with a spring supported rotational axis of a pivoting head part (par 0039) which includes and discloses that such a system includes the angular pivoting being defined by a spring which is defined via a stiffness coefficient (par 0043).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Edson by including a stiffness coefficient of said angular rotation about said second axis being about 0.0833 N-mm/degree per unit distance from said first axis to said second axis in order to have the pivoting limited/controlled by the stiffness variable of said spring in Edson, and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of USPGPUB 20120260509, Fang.
Regarding Claim 11, Kim lacks wherein a stiffness coefficient of said angular rotation about said second axis is about 0.0833 N-mm/degree per unit distance from said first axis to said second axis.
Fang discloses a handheld cutting tool with a spring supported rotational axis of a pivoting head part (par 0039) which includes and discloses that such a system includes the angular pivoting being defined by a spring which is defined via a stiffness coefficient (par 0043).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim by including a stiffness coefficient of said angular rotation about said second axis being about 0.0833 N-mm/degree per unit distance from said first axis to said second axis in order to have the pivoting limited/controlled by the stiffness variable of said spring in Edson, and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edson as applied to claim 1 above, and evidenced by the teachings of US 20130064568 Fujiwara and US 20100109377, Calco.
Regarding Claim 15, Edson discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Edson also discloses the spring being flat (fig 2, showing the spring being flat).
Edson lacks the spring comprising wire.
Regarding the spring being wire, it is known to make compression springs out of wire across several art areas, for instance Calco discloses that a compression spring in the art of connectors is known to be made of wire (par 0025), and Fujiwara discloses that a compression spring in an image forming device is formed of metal wire.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Edson by making the spring thereof out of wire in order to make the spring out of a material widely known in the art to form compression springs, as evidenced by Fujiwara and Calco. Also, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to form the spring out of wire, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPNs/USPGPUBs1148429 3052979 0188601 20020007558 20170165853 1955460 20120260509 3311975 and 20120255185 disclose state of the art razors with pivoting portions and or handles. Thus, each of these references disclose elements relevant to the present invention/application.
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