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 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation reading “wherein end portions”, should read “wherein the end portions”.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation reading “wherein one or more retarding structures on said loop shaped ring member is disposed generally opposite said overlapping portion”, should read “wherein the one or more retarding structures on said loop shaped ring member is or are disposed generally opposite said overlapping portion”.
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.
Claim 12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention
The limitation of Claim 12 reading: “the razor of claim 11 wherein said knob comprises a curved profile.” Claim 11 delimits: “said loop shaped spring member comprises one or more -retarding structures, said one or more retarding structures comprising a knob, protrusion, recess, notch, divot, or point of any size and structure having a curved or linear profile or my combination thereof”. In this limitation the knob is an optional structure of the retarding structure of claim 11. Thus, Claim 11, and claim 12 do not require a knob.
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 1-19, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 3653123, King, in view of USPGPUB 20220000554, Hancock and the USPGPUB 20180141225, Zucker.
Regarding Claim 1, King discloses a razor (abstract, “razor”, col. 1, 65-70) comprising a loop shaped spring member (spring 24, which is loop shaped in that portions thereof are in the shape of a loop, see annotated fig 1 below, which show the portions of the spring 24 which are in the shape of a loop[s]), the loop shaped spring member disposed in an assembly (2) with a movable member (carrier 12), the assembly with the movable member comprising of a button (30/32) designed to travel forward towards a cartridge (cap 6, pin 8, blades 42) a distance (portion 32 of the button moves toward the cartridge, fig 6 compare to fig 3), wherein said loop shaped spring member comprises a diameter (see annotated fig 4 below) that extends in a plane parallel to a longitudinal axis of said assembly with said movable member (fig 4 annotated fig. 4, below), wherein said loop shaped spring member is fully encompassed within said assembly (2) with said movable member (see fig 3), wherein said loop shaped spring member is disposed within a track (see fig. 7), wherein said loop shaped spring member comprises two end portions, each of said end portions having a respective free distal end.
King lacks the distance traveled being from about 2.5 mm to about 10mm
Zucker discloses a razor in the same field of endeavor as the razor of the present invention and discloses that in such an assembly it is known to limit the distance that a pushrod 512 travels to effect an ejecting motion may be limited to a certain distance relative to the body of the razor via guide slots 592 (par 0043) and Hancock discloses that in a pushrod assembly, involved with the same problem of pushing an actuator 238 along a body 216 of a device 214 that the pushrod may be limited in movement along the body to a distance of 4 to 10 mm (par 0015).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify King by having the pushrod 40 which is integrally connected to and directly actuated by the pushbutton 20 thereof be limited in movement by a certain distance (As taught in Zucker to be known in the razor art), and to have the distance be of 4 to 10 mm (as shown in Hancock to be a known distance to limit a travel movement of an actuator in the handheld tool art) in order to limit the distance required by a user to push the pushrod of the Efthimiadis assembly.
PNG
media_image1.png
902
955
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, in King the movable member button 30 is an ejection button (col, 2, 40-50).
Regarding Claim 3, in King said movable member assembly moves a razor cartridge in one or more directions relative to a razor handle (e.g. at least portion 6 of the cartridge, col. 2, 40-50).
Regarding Claim 4, in King said movable member assembly is a portion of the razor handle (fig 3, col. 2, 10-15).
Regarding Claim 5, in King the track is a circular shape (at least partially circular, see annotated fig 3 above).
Regarding Claim 6, in King one or both of said distal ends are curved (see annotated fig 3 below).
Regarding Claim 7, in King said curved distal ends curve into a center of said loop shaped spring member (see annotated fig 3 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
525
560
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8, in King one or both of said distal ends is unsupported (top curved end in annotated fig 3 above).
Regarding Claim 9, in King said two distal ends are spaced apart (see annotated fig 3 above).
Regarding Claim 10, in King [the] end portions of said loop shaped spring member overlap forming an overlapping portion (see annotated fig 3 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
732
1028
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11, in King said loop shaped spring member comprises one or more -retarding structures, said one or more retarding structures comprising a knob, protrusion, recess, notch, divot, or point of any size and structure having a curved or linear profile or my combination thereof (see annotated fig 3 below, the retarding structure being a knob/ protrusion/ linear and curved).
PNG
media_image4.png
284
635
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 12, in King said knob comprises a curved profile (see annotated fig 3 above).
Regarding Claim 13, in [the] King one or more retarding structures on said loop shaped ring member is disposed generally opposite said overlapping portion (of one of the ends, see annotated fig 3 above).
Regarding Claim 14, in King said one or more retarding structures extend into a center of said loop spring member, extends out from a circumference of said loop spring member, or a combination thereof (see annotated fig 3 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
297
636
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 15, in King said loop shaped spring member is a substantially closed loop (At least at the portion 24).
Regarding Claim 16, in King said loop shaped spring member comprises an oval, circle, elliptical, ring shape, modified V-shape, tear drop shape, or any combination thereof (the spring member can be said overall to be a modified V-shape, or a tear drop shape, and is circular and elliptical).
Regarding Claims 17-18, the King device modified by Binmoeller, discloses all the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above.
King lacks said loop shaped spring member having an overall length of 30 mm to 90 mm when straightened (claim 17), and a radii of curvature between about 1 mm to about 12 mm (claim 18).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make an overall length of the spring, when straightened, of 30 mm to 90 mm, and to make a radii of curvature of the spring be between about 1 mm to about 12 mm, 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 19, in King said loop shaped spring member is comprised of a flat wire (at least in the bottom portion in fig 3, and the portions of the spring which extend into the page are also flat, as is necessary to fulfill their function of pressing against part 12; and see cross section of spring 24 shown in fig 4, which is shown as being flat).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPNs/USPGPUBs 4428116 0851341 2210767 5347717 4198746 20090313837 1025120 1571523 11759964 11247358 20190152077 20170165853 20100313426 5033152 6311400 7526869 11161263 6854188 8205343 5533263 4266340 5157834 and disclose state of the art razors with springs, and 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
