DETAILED ACTION
This application for reissue is a broadening reissue which has been filed to present additional embodiments of the design.
This application discloses the following embodiments:
Original Embodiments:
Embodiment 1 – Figs. 1 through 7 drawn to a shaver handle
Embodiment 2 – Figs. 8 through 14 drawn to a shaver handle having a slightly modified top end
Embodiment 3 – Figs. 15 through 21 drawn to a shaver handle having a line pattern on the main body
Embodiment 4 – Figs. 22 through 28 drawnt to a shaver handle having a slightly modified body
Embodiment 5 – Figs. 29 through 35 drawn to a shaver handle having a line pattern on both the main body and the top surface.
Newly Added Embodiments:
Embodiment 6 – Figs. 36 through 42 drawn to a shaver handle wherein the top button is reduced to broken line form.
Embodiment 7 – Figs. 43 through 49 drawn to a shaver handle wherein the top button is reduced to broken line form.
Embodiment 8 – Figs. 50 through 57 drawn to a shaver handle wherein the top button and the line pattern on the body are reduced to broken line form.
Embodiment 9 – Figs. 58 through 64 drawn to a shaver handle wherein the top button is reduced to broken line form.
Embodiment 10 – Figs. 65 through 70 drawn to a shaver handle wherein the top button and the line pattern on the body are reduced to broken line form.
Embodiment 11 – Figs. 71 through 77 drawn to a shaver handle wherein the all of the buttons are reduced to broken line form.
Embodiment 12 – Figs. 78 through 84 drawn to a shaver handle wherein the all of the buttons are reduced to broken line form.
Embodiment 13 – Figs. 85 through 91 drawn to a shaver handle wherein the all of the buttons and the line pattern on the handle are reduced to broken line form.
Embodiment 14 – Figs. 92 through 98 drawn to a shaver handle wherein the all of the buttons are reduced to broken line form.
Embodiment 15 – Figs. 99 through 105 drawn to a shaver handle wherein the all of the buttons and the line pattern on the handle are reduced to broken line form.
Embodiment 16 – Figs. 106 through 112 drawn to a shaver handle wherein the all of the buttons are reduced to broken line form.
Embodiment 17 – Figs. 113 through 119 drawn to a shaver handle wherein the all of the buttons are reduced to broken line form.
Embodiment 18 – Figs. 120 through 126 drawn to a shaver handle wherein the all of the buttons and the line pattern on the handle are reduced to broken line form.
Embodiment 19 – Figs. 127 through 133 drawn to a shaver handle wherein the all of the buttons are reduced to broken line form.
Embodiment 20 – Figs. 134 through 140 drawn to a shaver handle wherein the all of the buttons and the line pattern on the handle are reduced to broken line form.
Designs which involve a change in scope may be included in the same design application only if they are patentably indistinct. However, design patent protection does not extend to patentably distinct segregable parts of a design. Ex parte Sanford, 1914 C.D. 69, 204 O.G. 1346 (Comm’r Pat. 1914); Blumcraft of Pittsburgh v. Ladd, 238 F. Supp. 648, 144 USPQ 562 (D.D.C. 1965).
The above identified embodiments are considered by the examiner to present overall appearances that are basically the same. Furthermore, the difference in scope between embodiments is considered minor and patentably indistinct. Accord-ingly, they are deemed to be obvious variations and are being retained and examined in the same application. Any rejection of one embodiment over prior art will apply equally to all other embodiments. Ex parte Appeal No. 315-40, 152 USPQ 71 (Bd. App. 1965). No argument asserting patentability based on the differences between the embodiments will be considered once the embodiments have been determined to comprise a single inventive con-cept. Failure of applicant to traverse this determination in reply to this Office action will be considered an admission of lack of patentable dis-tinction between the embodiments.
Understanding of the Claim Scope under 35 USC 112(b)
The specification appropriately includes the following language disclaiming the broken line manner.
PNG
media_image1.png
75
675
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conversely, any area of the design that is not shown by or enclosed in broken lines is read as claimed matter. Whiles areas at the bottom are shown in broken line form and thus read as unclaimed matter, the semi-triangular area at the top is not enclosed by broken lines so it must be read as a claimed surface. The present examiner consulted with the examiner who issued the original patent, and both examiners came to the same conclusion that the surface at the top must be viewed as a flat surface.
PNG
media_image2.png
276
536
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
268
337
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
303
270
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The present examiner is concerned that this understanding may neither be accurate nor in the best interests of the patentee. The aforementioned area at the top of the handle is located where the shaving head mounts to the handle. Viewing the area as a flat surface may be detrimental to the understanding of the design because it does not appear look like this on the real article. If the patentee is okay with the present portrayal of their design, then an affirmative response confirming their approval is all that is needed. If the applicant does not mean for the area to be read as a flat surface or does not wish to claim the area for any reason, then the area can be disclaimed by adding a broken line along the its outer boundary. This issue applies to every embodiment of the shaver handle in this application.
Conclusion
This application is in condition for allowance except for the following formal matters: noted above.
Prosecution on the merits is closed in accordance with the practice under Ex parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213, (Comm’r Pat. 1935).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire TWO (2) MONTHS from the mailing date of this letter. Extensions of time may be granted under 37 CFR 1.136 but in no case can any extension carry the date for reply to this Office action beyond the maximum period of SIX MONTHS set by statute (35 U.S.C. 133).
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to PHILIP S. HYDER at telephone number (571)272-2621.
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 contact the examiner directly or 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, Justin Jonaitis can be reached on 571-270-5150.
/Philip S. Hyder/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2924
June 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights