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 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.
Claim 8 is 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation " the second surface " in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Line 9, then recites, “from a second surface”. It appears that these are the same two second surfaces, in which case, line 7 should be set forth as --a second surface-- and line 9 should be set forth as --the second surface--.
Claim 8 recites, “wherein the first surface mounts on top of the second surface.” It appears that the Applicant intended – wherein the second surface mounts on top of the first surface.-- As the second surface is part of the cartridge, and the first surface is part of the handle, and the cartridge sits on top of the handle.
Claim 15 recites the limitation " the ferromagnetic metal surface " in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-4, 9-12, 14-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avery et al. (U.S. Publication 2021/0086381), herein referred to as Avery in view of Abramsky (U.S. Publication 2022/0168912).
In regards to claim 1, Avery discloses a shaving system comprising: a handle (102) having a distal end and a proximal end, a shaving cartridge assembly (300) mounted on the proximal end of the handle, the shaving cartridge assembly (300) comprising a shaving surface (near blades); and a coupling interface (306/ 208) between the shaving cartridge assembly (300) and the handle (102); the coupling interface comprising: a first surface (interior rim 204) separable from the second surface ((planar bottom surface 306), the first surface defining a rinse cavity (e.g. the area around protuberance 208); and an appendage (sidewall 310) extending from a second surface (306) and into the rinse cavity (208), wherein the first surface (204) is flat, circular, and magnetically coupled (magnets 304,402) to the second surface (306).
Avery discloses that the first surface is obround and therefore does not disclose the claimed circular first surface. Abramsky discloses a grooming device, including a removable shaving head coupled to a housing through magnets or other removable connections (paragraph [0028]). The shaving head having a circular cap 12, circular blade 14 and circular housing 16. As Abramsky demonstrates that circular magnetic attachment interfaces were a known configuration for removable shaving heads, it would have been an obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first surface of Avery to have a circular geometry as substituting one known interface geometry (circular) for another (obround) would have been a predicable variation within the ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, it would have been a matter of design choice to make the different portions of the first surface and mating or corresponding surfaces of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
In regards to claim 2, the modified device of Avery discloses wherein the appendage (sidewall 310) defines an opening (312) in communication with the rinse cavity (208).
In regards to claim 4, the modified device of Avery discloses wherein the appendage is circular (310; as modified by Abramsky), and the rinse cavity is circular (208 as modified by Abramsky).
In regards to claim 9, the modified device of Avery discloses wherein the second surface (306) is a metal washer (see Figs. 8/9 and “may be formed from “from either polymeric and/or ferromagnetic materials such as iron, nickel and steel” paragraph [0057]).
In regards to claim 10, the modified device of Avery discloses wherein the first surface (interior rim 204 as modified by Abramsky) is rotatable relative to the second surface.
In regards to claim 11, Avery discloses wherein the first surface (204) is at the proximal end of the handle and the second surface (306) is on the shaving cartridge assembly.
In regards to claim 12, Avery discloses wherein the appendage (310) is substantially stationary relative to the rinse cavity during shaving.
In regards to claim 14, Avery shaving system comprising: a handle (102) with a proximal end having a first surface (204) that is circular and flat (as modified by Abramsky), the first surface (204) defining a rinse cavity (208) that is generally aligned with a center axis of the handle; a shaving cartridge assembly (300) mounted on the proximal end of the handle, the shaving cartridge assembly comprising a shaving surface (blades; paragraph [0005]) mounted to a housing, the shaving surface having a plurality of openings in communications with the rinse cavity (208), wherein the shaving cartridge assembly (300) is removably secured to the handle by a magnetic force (magnets 304) between the first surface (204) and a second surface on the housing (306) of the shaving cartridge assembly.
In regards to claim 15, the modified device of Avery discloses wherein the second surface (306) is a metal washer (see Figs. 8/9 and “may be formed from “from either polymeric and/or ferromagnetic materials such as iron, nickel and steel” paragraph [0057]).
In regards to claim 16, Avery wherein the shaving cartridge assembly comprises an appendage (310) extending into the rinse cavity (208).
In regards to claim 17, Avery discloses wherein the appendage defines an opening (310).
In regards to claim 19, Avery wherein the appendage is circular (310 as modified by Abramsky), and the rinse cavity (208 as modified by Abramsky) is circular.
In regards to claim 20, Avery wherein the shaving cartridge assembly is configured to rotate relative to the handle (as modified by Abramsky).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avery et al. (U.S. Publication 2021/0086381), herein referred to as Avery in view of Abramsky (U.S. Publication 2022/0168912). In regards to claim 3, the modified device of Avery discloses a shaving surface but does not set forth a plurality of circular openings. Abramsky discloses an alternative shaving system wherein the shaving surface comprises a plurality of circular opening (e.g. Figure 1). Paragraph [0027] further explains that the openings may be formed in a variety of shapes, sizes and configurations to permitting hair cutting while maintaining user safety. It would have been obvious to modify the shaving surface of Avery to include a plurality of circular openings as taught by Abramsky because circular perforated shaving foils were a known alternative shaving configuration for cutting hair. Substituting one known having aperture geometry for another would have been a predication variation that would have resulted in the same function of permitting hair entry for cutting while maintaining user safety.
Claims 5, 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avery et al. (U.S. Publication 2021/0086381), herein referred to as Avery in view of Abramsky (U.S. Publication 2022/0168912).
In regards to claim 5, the modified device of Avery discloses plurality of magnets (304) in the second surface 306 that attract to the first surface 204, rather than the inverse as claimed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to set the magnets in either the first or second surface because the relative placement of mating magnetic elements is a matter of design choice, provided the magnets remain magnetically coupled. Reversing the location of the magnetic elements would merely relocate the magnetic elements while yielding the same predictable magnetic attraction between the first and second surfaces.
In regards to claim 6, the modified device of Avery discloses wherein the first surface (as modified) defines a plurality of pockets (as shown in Figures 7/8), and a magnetic element (304) is positioned in each of the pockets.
In regards to claim 18, the modified device of Avery discloses wherein the at least one magnetic element comprises a plurality of magnets (304) each positioned within a corresponding pocket (see Figures 7/8) in the first surface (as modified) of the handle.
Claim 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avery et al. (U.S. Publication 2021/0086381), herein referred to as Avery in view of Abramsky (U.S. Publication 2022/0168912).
In regards to claim 7, the modified device of Avery does not set forth the area of the first surface and therefore does not disclose wherein the first surface has an area of about 100 mm2 to about 300 mm2. The are of the circular annular surface is determined by the selected inner and outer diameters of the angular surface. It would have been obvious to one having ordain skill in the art to select dimensions that provide a first surface area within the claimed range because the dimensions and its attachment interface are result-effective viables that would have been routinely optimized to achieve the desired shaving head size and shaving performance. Such optimizing would have involved only routine experimentation and yielded predictable results. Selecting dimensions that provide a surface area within the claimed range would have been a matter of routine optimization to achieve the desired shaving head size and performance.
In regards to claim 8, as best understood, Avery discloses wherein the first surface (204) mounts on top of the second surface (306).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avery et al. (U.S. Publication 2021/0086381), herein referred to as Avery in view of Abramsky (U.S. Publication 2022/0168912).
In regards to claim 13, the modified device of Avery does not expressly disclose does not disclose that the magnetic force between the first surface and the second surface is about 2 Newtons to about 10 Newtons. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select a magnetic force within the claimed range because the magnetic holding force is a results effective variable that would have been routinely optimized to provide sufficient retention of the removable shaving head while permitting the shaving head to be intentional detached by a user. Such optimization would have involved only routine experimentation and yielded predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA M LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-8339. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a.m.- 5p.m..
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.
/LAURA M LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights