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 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: a resiliently deformable element in claim 1; a blocker engageable with the sliding latch in the extended position to prevent the sliding latch from moving towards the retracted position; a second resiliently deformable element in claim 10.
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 4 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 4, “along its length,” is indefinite. It is unclear what “its” is referring to. The claims were examined as “its” was referring to the sliding latch. The claims were examined a best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-6, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2016/0263757 to Vandervelde.
In re Claim 1, Vandervelde teaches a personal hygiene tool (see Figs. 1-4) comprising:
a handle extending along a first axis and comprising an opening formed at a first end (see Figs. 1-4, and Fig. 3, opening in which #positioning apparatus #30 is located), where a plurality of recesses are formed within the opening (see Fig. 4, recessed #36 are located in the opening); and
a tool head attachment at least partially retained within the opening and rotatable with respect to the handle around a second axis (see Figs. 3-4, #16/.26 are located in the opening and rotatable about a second axis));
wherein the tool head attachment comprises a latching mechanism (see Figs. 3-4, #30) comprising:
- a sliding latch slideable between an extended position where the sliding latch protrudes into one of the plurality of recesses and a retracted position where the sliding latch is disengaged from the recesses (See Fig. 3, #38 and Para. 0012/0014);-
a resiliently deformable element arranged to urge the sliding latch towards the extended position (see Fig. 3, #39 and Para. 0014); and-
a first actuator configured to urge the sliding latch towards the retracted position against the resiliently deformable element (see Fig. 3, #39 and Para. 0014 which states: A spring biasing member 39 biases the stop into the locking position.)
In re Claim 4, Vandervelde teaches wherein the sliding latch is an elongate element slideable along its length in a plane perpendicular to the second axis (see Fig. 3-4, showing #38 movies perpendicular to the axis of rotation in Fig. 4).
In re Claim 5, Vandervelde teaches teaches wherein an outer edge of each recess and a protruding end of the sliding latch are beveled or rounded (see Fig. 3, showing #38 and 36 have corresponding angled surfaces or are ‘beveled’), and
wherein the first actuator is configured to urge the sliding latch to a point between the extended position and the retracted position where the sliding latch is partially engaged with one of the plurality of recesses (when #38 is halfway between the locking position and the unlocking position, the stop #38 is halfway in the slot #36).
In re Claim 6, Vandervelde teaches wherein the plurality of recesses and a protruding end of the sliding latch have a circular form(see Fig. 3, the tips of #38 and the ends of slots #36 have a circular -curved- form).
In re Claim 11, Vandervelde teaches wherein the plurality of recesses are arranged in an arc extending in a plane perpendicular to the second axis (see Fig. 3, #36, showing recesses #36 extending in a plane perpendicular to the axis of rotation illustrated in Fig. 4).
In re Claim 12 Vandervelde teaches wherein the tool head attachment define a third axis extending between the second axis and a working point of the tool, and the sliding latch is arranged to extend at 45 degrees to the third axis (see Fig. 3, when stope #38 is located in either of the “side” recesses #36, the blade is at a 45 degree angle relative to the direction of movement of actuator/stop #38).
In re Claim 13, Vandervelde teaches wherein the second axis is perpendicular to the first axis (see axis of rotation in Fig. 4 in view of the direction of latch #38 in Fig. 3).
In re Claim 14, Vandervelde teaches wherein the tool is a shaver, trimmer or scraper, and the tool head attachment comprises a blade or blade assembly (see Fig. 1, #10).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0263757 to Vandervelde in view of US 10,405,685 to Wong.
In re Claim 2, Vandervelde does not teach wherein the first actuator comprises a user-depressible button movable along the second axis.
However, Wong teaches that it is known in the art of rotating blades to provide a blade rotation mechanism wherein the user-depressible button is movable along the second axis. In the same field of invention, rotating blades in a hand-held device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to replace the blade rotation mechanism of Vandervelde with that of Wong. Doing is the substation of one known blade rotation locking mechanism with another known blade rotation locking mechanism to achieve the result of locking a blade relative to the handle (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, and 7-10 are 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.
The closest prior art is:
US 2016/0263757 to Vandervelde; and
US 10,405,685 to Wong.
In re Claim 3, Wong fails to teach a sliding latch. Both Wong and Vandervelde fail to teach the combination of a camming surface, on an actuator, set at an angle to a movement direction of the first actuator, and the camming surface is arranged to engage with the sliding latch and urge the sliding latch in a direction perpendicular to the movement direction of the first actuator. As such, Claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In re Claim 7, none of the cited prior art teach the structure of a blocker which is engageable with the sliding latch in the extended position to prevent the sliding latch from moving towards the retracted position. No reason was found to add this structure to Vandervelde. As such, Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Dependent Claims 8-10 are allowed by virtue of their dependence to Claim 7.
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