-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
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11154998 (hereafter “998”) (which stems from patent application 15/945,193). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: Claim 9, in one sense is s simply broader than Claim 1 of 998 and in another instance, merely adds an obvious feature absent from Claim 1 of 998. Once an applicant has received a patent for an obvious variant of the claimed invention said applicant is not entitled to a patent for the similar but not patentably distinct invention without maintaining common ownership and ensuring that the term of the latter issued patent will expire at the end of the original term of the earlier issued patent. See In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Also, once an applicant has received a patent for a species or a more specific embodiment, said applicant is not entitled to a patent for the generic or broader invention without maintaining common ownership and ensuring that the term of the latter issued patent will expire at the end of the original term of the earlier issued patent. This is because the more specific “anticipates” the broader. See In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Each of Claim 9 of the present invention and claim 1 of 998 require:
A dual sided razor/and cartridge comprising:
a) a handle and a cartridge attached to the handle, the cartridge having a first end adjacent the handle and a second end spaced apart from the handle by a length of the cartridge
b) a first shaving face and a second shaving face opposite the first shaving face;
c) a first plurality of razor blade edges at the first shaving face and a second plurality of razor blade edges at the second shaving face, the blade edges of the first plurality of razor blade edges and the second plurality of razor blade edges angled towards the first end of the cartridge such that a central axis of the cartridge and each blade edge simultaneously form acute angles in the direction of the first end of the cartridge; and
d) at least one handle engagement component for engagement of the cartridge with the razor handle.
Claim 1 of 998 additionally requires that shaving faces to be parallel to each other, which is not required by Claim 9 of the present invention. Thus, Claim 9 of the present invention is simply broader than Claim 1 of 998 in this respect, and thus, is subject to a double patenting rejection in view of claim 1 of 998.
Claim 9 is also rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of 998. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: Claim 9, is merely broader than Claim 15 of 998. Once an applicant has received a patent for a species or a more specific embodiment, said applicant is not entitled to a patent for the generic or broader invention without maintaining common ownership and ensuring that the term of the latter issued patent will expire at the end of the original term of the earlier issued patent. This is because the more specific “anticipates” the broader. See In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Each of Claim 9 of the present invention and claim 15 of 998 require:
A dual sided razor comprising:
a) a handle and a cartridge attached to the handle, the cartridge having a first end adjacent the handle and a second end spaced apart from the handle by a length of the cartridge
b) a first shaving face and a second shaving face opposite the first shaving face;
c) a first plurality of razor blade edges at the first shaving face and a second plurality of razor blade edges at the second shaving face, the blade edges of the first plurality of razor blade edges and the second plurality of razor blade edges angled towards the first end of the cartridge such that a central axis of the cartridge and each blade edge simultaneously form acute angles in the direction of the first end of the cartridge; and
d) at least one handle engagement component for engagement of the cartridge with the razor handle.
Claim 15 of 998 additionally requires that shaving faces to be parallel to each other, which is not required by Claim 9 of the present invention. Thus, Claim 9 of the present invention is simply broader than Claim 15 of 998 in this respect, and thus, is subject to a double patenting rejection in view of claim 15 of 998.
Finally, it is noted that Claim 1 of the present invention though similar to Claim 1 of 998, Claim 1 is not subject to a double patenting rejection, for the following reasons: Each of Claim 1 of the present invention and claim 1 of 998 require mostly the same features. However, Claim 1 of 998 additionally requires that shaving faces to be parallel to each other, which is not required by Claim 1 of the present invention. On the other hand, Claim 1 of the present invention requires wherein each of the first shaving face and the second shaving face have a width, and wherein the width of each shaving face is greater than a space between the first shaving face and the second shaving face, which is not required in claim 1 of 988. This makes the claims patentably distinct.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation reading “attached to a handle” should read: “attached to [[a]] the handle”.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation reading “relative to a handle” should read: “relative to [[a]] the handle”.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation reading “relative to a handle” should read: “relative to [[a]] the handle”.
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 1-8 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The limitations of Claim 1, reading: “a handle” in the third line of the claim and “a razor handle” in line 12, are indefinite. The claim appears to imply that the handle and razor handle are different parts. However, the figures only show one handle. For purposes of advancing prosecution, said limitation will be interpreted as the handle and razor handle being one and the same, as the invention is best understood.
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, 5, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPN 3262206, Tomek.
Regarding Claim 1, Tomek, discloses a dual sided razor cartridge (col. 1, 30-40) comprising:
a) a first shaving face and a second shaving face opposite the first shaving face (see annotated fig. 2 below), the cartridge having a first end (end closest to handle 2) adjacent a handle (2) and a second end (end at top, e.g. at part 4) spaced apart from the handle by a length of the cartridge (see annotated fig. 2 below);
b) a first plurality of razor blade edges at the first shaving face and a second plurality of razor blade edges at the second shaving face, each of the blade edges of the first plurality of razor blade edges and the second plurality of razor blade edges angled towards the first end of the cartridge (see annotated fig. 2 below)
such that a central axis of the cartridge and each blade edge simultaneously form acute angles in the direction of the first end of the cartridge (see annotated fig. 2 below); and
c) at least one handle engagement component (6) for engagement of the cartridge with a razor handle (2), wherein each of the first shaving face and the second shaving face have a width, and wherein
the width of each shaving face is greater than a space between the first shaving face and the second shaving face (see annotated fig. 1 below).
Regarding Claim 5, in Tomek said cartridge also comprises end caps 4 and 3, that retain portions of the first and second shaving faces together (fig 1; col. 2, 1-10).
Regarding Claim 9, Tomek discloses a dual sided razor (col. 1, 30-40) comprising:
a) a handle 2 and a cartridge (combination of parts 3-5) attached to the handle (see fig 3 and 1), the cartridge having a first end (end closest to handle 2) adjacent the handle (fig 3) and a second end (end at top, e.g. at part 4) spaced apart from the handle by a length of the cartridge (see annotated fig. 2 below);
b) a first shaving face and a second shaving face opposite the first shaving face (see annotated fig. 2 below);
c) a first plurality of razor blade edges at the first shaving face and a second plurality of razor blade edges at the second shaving face, the blade edges of the first plurality of razor blade edges and the second plurality of razor blade edges angled towards the first end of the cartridge such that a central axis of the cartridge and each blade edge simultaneously form acute angles in the direction of the first end of the cartridge (see annotated fig. 2 below); and
d) at least one handle engagement component 5 for engagement of the cartridge with the razor handle (fig 3, and col 2, lines 1-10).
PNG
media_image1.png
485
526
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
448
515
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomek, as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, in view of USPN 8745876 Hage.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Tomek discloses all the limitations of Claims 1 and 9 as discussed above.
Hayashi lacks at least one of a moisturizing strip and a gripping pad on each of the first and second shaving faces.
Hage discloses a dual sided safety razor cartridge (fig’s 1-4) with moisturizing strip and a gripping pad on each of the first and second shaving faces (col. 2, lines 25-55) to lift hairs prior to cutting (for the gripping pads) and to apply moisture to the skin after shaving (for the moisture strips), see col. 2 lines 30-55.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tomek by including at least one of a moisturizing strip and a gripping pad on each of the first and second shaving faces in order to lift hairs prior to cutting (for the gripping pads) and to apply moisture to the skin after shaving (for the moisture strips), as taught via Hage.
Claims 3, 7-8, 13-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomek, as applied to Claims 1 and 9 as discussed above, in view of US 20140109735, Shepperson.
Regarding Claims 3, 7-8, 13-15 and 17, Tomek lacks: wherein the cartridge is attached to a handle by a swivel arm connection on which the cartridge pivots relative to the handle, the swivel arm connection containing the handle engagement component (claim 3), wherein the engagement component is part of a mating part and socket connection or pin joint, and wherein the cartridge rotates relative to a handle (claim 7), wherein the engagement component is a socket for receiving a corresponding component of the razor handle (claim 8), wherein the engagement component is a mating part and socket or pin joint, and wherein the cartridge pivots relative to a handle by way of the engagement component (claim 13), wherein the engagement component is a socket in the cartridge for receiving a corresponding mating part fixed to or retained by the handle (claim 14), wherein the cartridge is attached to the handle by a swivel arm connection on which the cartridge pivots relative to the handle (claim 15), and the swivel arm connection further comprising abutment portions that limits the pivoting of the cartridge relative to the handle (claim 17).
Shepperson discloses a shaving razor and cartridge in the same field of endeavor as the shaving razor and cartridge device of the present invention and of Tomek, and includes: wherein the cartridge 16 is attached to a handle 11 by a swivel arm connection (20 and 14) on which the cartridge pivots relative to the handle (in direction B-B, see fig 32B), the swivel arm connection containing a handle engagement component (32) (claim 3), wherein the engagement component is part of a mating part and socket connection (fig 32B, since the part 32 is a socket into which enlarged end 31 of the handle is inserted), and wherein the cartridge rotates relative to a handle (about axis 26) (claim 7), wherein the engagement component is a socket for receiving a corresponding component of the razor handle (fig 32B, since the part 32 is a socket into which enlarged end 31 of the handle is inserted) (claim 8), wherein the engagement component is a mating part and socket or pin joint, and wherein the cartridge pivots relative to a handle by way of the engagement component (fig 32B, since the part 32 is a socket into which enlarged end 31 of the handle is inserted) (claim 13), wherein the engagement component is a socket in the cartridge for receiving a corresponding mating part fixed to or retained by the handle (fig 32B, since the part 32 is a socket into which enlarged end 31 of the handle is inserted) (claim 14), wherein the cartridge is attached to the handle by a swivel arm connection on which the cartridge pivots relative to the handle (in direction B-B, see fig 32B) (claim 15), and the swivel arm connection further comprising abutment portions that limits the pivoting of the cartridge relative to the handle (members 98, which limit the pivotal movement, par 0092 - 0093)(claim 17), in order to permit the blade holder/cartridge to move pivotally relative to the body around a first and second axis which second axis is orientated differently to the first axis (par. 0007) and to provides biasing means which bias the head/cartridge part 14 to the neutral condition, par 0093.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tomek by replacing the non-pivoting and rotating handle engagement portion thereof with the handle engagement device of Shepperson, which includes wherein the cartridge is attached to a handle by a swivel arm connection on which the cartridge pivots relative to the handle, the swivel arm connection containing the handle engagement component (claim 3), wherein the engagement component is part of a mating part and socket connection or pin joint, and wherein the cartridge rotates relative to a handle (claim 7), wherein the engagement component is a socket for receiving a corresponding component of the razor handle (claim 8), wherein the engagement component is a mating part and socket or pin joint, and wherein the cartridge pivots relative to a handle by way of the engagement component (claim 13), wherein the engagement component is a socket in the cartridge for receiving a corresponding mating part fixed to or retained by the handle (claim 14), wherein the cartridge is attached to the handle by a swivel arm connection on which the cartridge pivots relative to the handle (claim 15), and the swivel arm connection further comprising abutment portions that limits the pivoting of the cartridge relative to the handle (claim 17), in order to permit the blade holder/cartridge to move pivotally relative to the body around a first and second axis which second axis is orientated differently to the first axis and to provides biasing means which bias the head/cartridge part to the neutral condition, as taught by Shepperson.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomek, as applied to claim 9 as discussed above, in view of US 9132560, Shimizu.
Regarding Claims 10-11, Tomek lacks wherein the handle engagement component further comprises an interrupt defined between the first shaving side and the second shaving side that inhibits the inadvertent switching of the cartridge between the first and second shaving sides during normal use of the razor (claim 10), further comprising a handle extension defined between the handle engagement component and the handle, wherein the interrupt interacts with the handle extension to inhibit the inadvertent switching of the cartridge between the first and second shaving sides during normal use of the razor (claim 11),
Shimizu discloses a hair remover apparatus in the form of a multi-positional razor and discloses that in such an assembly that it is beneficial to position a cartridge in different positions relative to a handle of the apparatus and discloses that such a positioning may be performed through a structure wherein a cartridge 47 comprises a handle engagement component (17) which comprises a connector 15/31 which allows the cartridge 47 to be positioned securely in various orientations relative to the handle 10 and which assembly also comprises an interrupt (fig. 7, slots 67) defined between a first side and a second side of the cartridge, (see fig 7) that inhibits the inadvertent switching of the cartridge between the first and second sides during normal use of the razor (since the interrupt/slots engage with the key 69a, as shown in fig 6, to hold the head in position, col. 10, 25-34) (Claim 10), wherein the razor assembly includes a handle extension (69a) defined between the handle 3 and the handle engagement component 17 (see fig 7), wherein the interrupt interacts with the handle extension to inhibit the inadvertent switching of the cartridge between the first and second sides during normal use of the razor (since the interrupt engages with the extension to hold the head in position), (claim 11) wherein the handle engagement component further comprises an interrupt defined between the first shaving side and the second shaving side that inhibits the inadvertent switching of the cartridge between the first and second shaving sides during normal use of the razor (claim 10), further comprising a handle extension defined between the handle engagement component and the handle, wherein the interrupt interacts with the handle extension to inhibit the inadvertent switching of the cartridge between the first and second shaving sides during normal use of the razor (claim 11), in order to allow a user to firmly hold a razor head in place in a multitude of positions relative to the handle (col. 10, 25-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tomek by having the handle engagement component further comprise a structure wherein the razor comprises a handle engagement component which comprises a connector which allows the cartridge to be positioned securely in various orientations relative to the handle and which assembly also comprises an interrupt defined between the first shaving side and the second shaving side that inhibits the inadvertent switching of the cartridge between the first and second shaving sides during normal use of the razor (claim 10), further comprising a handle extension defined between the handle engagement component and the handle, wherein the interrupt interacts with the handle extension to inhibit the inadvertent switching of the cartridge between the first and second shaving sides during normal use of the razor (claim 11), in order to allow a user to firmly hold a razor head in place in a multitude of positions relative to the handle, as taught in Shimizu.
As applied above, the interrupt added to the Tomek device would include the interrupt being be between the first and second shaving sides of Tomek, to inhibit switching from the first to the second shaving side since in Tomek the engagement component is attached to the cartridge between first and second shaving sides, and the modification to include the handle engagement component allowing the cartridge to be positioned at various positions relative thereto via the interrupts includes the handle engagement component being in the middle of the cartridge and thus between the first and second shave sides thereof.
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomek, as applied to Claim 5 as discussed above, in view of US 3675323, to Braginetz.
Regarding Claim 6 Tomek lacks wherein the end caps further comprise a cover that extends above and around the dual sided razor cartridge.
Braginetz discloses a razor in the same field of endeavor as the razor of the present invention and discloses that in such an assembly an end cap portion 10 and 13 includes a cover 50, 51, and 61 that extends above and around the dual sided razor cartridge (figs 1-3) in order to provide a protective guard to protect the blades prior to usage (col 1 lines 15-38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tomek by having the end caps further comprise a cover that extends above and around the dual sided razor cartridge in ore to provide a protective guard to protect the blades prior to usage as taught in view of Braginetz.
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomek over Shepperson as applied to claims 3 and 15, as discussed above, and further in view of Shimizu.
Regarding Claims 4 and 16, the Tomek device modified by Shepperson lacks the swivel arm connection being attached to the cartridge to form an assembly, the assembly being detachable from the handle for switching the cartridge relative to the handle between the first and second shaving sides.
Shimizu discloses a hair remover apparatus in the form of a multi-positional razor in the same field of endeavor as the multi-positional razor of the present invention and discloses that in such an assembly that it is beneficial to position a cartridge in different positions relative to a handle of the apparatus and discloses that such a positioning may be performed through a structure wherein a cartridge 47 comprises a handle engagement component (17) which includes a connector 15/31 which allows the cartridge 47 to be positioned securely in various orientations relative to the handle 10 and which assembly also comprises wherein the swivel arm connection being attached to the cartridge to form an assembly (fig 1-7), the assembly being detachable from the handle (at least in part, via since the interrupt/slots engaging and being disengageable with the key 69a, as shown in fig 6) for switching the cartridge relative to the handle between the first and second positions, to hold the head in position, col. 10, 25-34, in order to allow a user to firmly hold a razor head in place in a multitude of positions relative to the handle (col. 10, 25-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tomek further by having handle engagement component further comprise by having the handle engagement component further comprise a structure wherein the razor comprises a handle engagement component which comprises a connector which allows the cartridge to be positioned securely in various orientations relative to the handle 10 and which assembly also comprises the swivel arm connection being attached to the cartridge to form an assembly, the assembly being detachable (at least in part) from the handle for switching the cartridge relative to the handle between the first and second sides in order to allow a user to firmly hold a razor head in place in a multitude of positions relative to the handle, as taught in Shimizu.
As applied above, the switching of the positions to present different sides and positions of the razor cartridge would include presenting different shaving sides, since as applied to Tomek, the cartridge thereof which includes two shaving sides would present a different side depending on the position of said cartridge.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomek over Shepperson as applied to claim 15, as discussed above, and further in view of Braginetz.
Regarding Claim 18 Modified Tomek (as modified by Shepperson) lacks wherein the end caps further comprise a cover that extends above and around the dual sided razor cartridge.
Braginetz discloses a razor in the same field of endeavor as the razor of the present invention and discloses that in such an assembly an end cap portion 10 and 13 includes a cover 50, 51, and 61 that extends above and around the dual sided razor cartridge (figs 1-3) in order to provide a protective guard to protect the blades prior to usage (col 1 lines 15-38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tomek by having the end caps further comprise a cover that extends above and around the dual sided razor cartridge in ore to provide a protective guard to protect the blades prior to usage as taught in view of Braginetz.
Regarding Claim 19-20, Tomek as modified by Shepperson and Braginetz discloses all of the limitations of claim 18 as discussed above.
Modified Tomek lacks the swivel arm connection is attached to the cartridge by way of the handle engagement component.
Shepperson discloses a shaving razor and cartridge in the same field of endeavor as the shaving razor and cartridge device of the present invention and of Tomek, and includes: wherein the cartridge 16 is attached to a handle 11 by a swivel arm connection (20 and 14) on which the cartridge pivots relative to the handle (in direction B-B, see fig 32B), the swivel arm connection containing a handle engagement component (32), and the swivel arm connection is attached to the cartridge by way of the handle engagement component (fig 32B-C) (Claim 19) the swivel arm connection is attached to the cartridge by way of the handle engagement component. and the handle engagement component is retained by the swivel arm connection and engages the cartridge (FIG 32C)(Claim 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tomek by replacing the non-pivoting and rotating handle engagement portion thereof with the handle engagement device of Shepperson, which includes the cartridge attached to a handle by a swivel arm connection on which the cartridge pivots relative to the handle, the swivel arm connection containing the handle engagement component the swivel arm connection containing a handle engagement component, and the swivel arm connection attached to the cartridge by way of the handle engagement component (Claim 19) the swivel arm connection is attached to the cartridge by way of the handle engagement component and the handle engagement component is retained by the swivel arm connection and engages the cartridge (Claim 20) in order to permit the blade holder/cartridge to move pivotally relative to the body around a first and second axis which second axis is orientated differently to the first axis and to provide biasing means which bias the head/cartridge part to the neutral condition, as taught by Shepperson.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPNs/USPGPUBs 2505493 3262206 2741839 9259846 20090013534 1049909
7937837 20100170094 3865150 7168173 64992218 20050223568 5133131 7086160 7681320 3777396 4925553 20080216329 6493950 2668350 2309549 4125939 3262206 11628580 2395272 9902078 0868697 3685150 1933186 disclose state of the art two side razors assemblies while US 20160288348 20150328787 20150283716 disclose state of the art razors with pivot assemblies. 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