REMARKS
`
`Applicants would like to thank the Examiner for the detailed Office Action provided, for
`
`acknowledgement that the drawings filed on February 12, 2008, are accepted by the Examiner,
`
`for acknowledgement of Applicants’ Claim for Priority and Receipt of the certified copy of the
`
`priority documents, and for considering the materials cited in the Information Disclosure
`
`Statements filed in the present application on May 12, 2008, June 20, 2008, and December 8,
`
`2008, by the return of each signed and initialed Form PTO-1449 attached to the above-noted
`
`Information Disclosure Statements.
`
`Upon entry of the present paper, claims 1, 3 and 6 will have been amended. Independent
`
`claim 1 will have been amended to generally incorporate the features of claim 2. Claims 3 and6
`
`will have been amended merely for purposes of consistency and clarity (and to reflect the
`
`amendments made to independent claim 1), and thus should not be considered to have been made
`
`for purposes related to the patentability of the present application.
`
`In this regard, no new matter
`
`is believed to have been introduced by the present amendments. Claims 2, 5, 7, 9 and 11 will
`
`have been canceled without prejudice or disclaimer. Accordingly, claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8 and 10 are
`
`currently pending for consideration by the Examiner.
`
`Applicants
`
`respectfiilly request
`
`reconsideration and withdrawal of the outstanding rejection of the claims pending in the present
`
`application. Such action is respectfully requested and is now believed to be appropriate.
`
`Anticipation Rejection under 35 USC §1021b2
`
`In the Official Action, the Examiner rejected claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as
`
`being anticipated by SUEYOSHI et al. (US. Pat. No. 6,322,569). Applicants respectfiJlly
`
`traverse each of the rejections and requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the same for at
`
`least the following reasons.
`
`{P33938 01065907.DOC}
`6
`
`

`

`Initially, Applicants note that independent claim 1 has been amended to generally include
`
`the features of now canceled claim 2 and to clarify that the sleeve (which surrounds each of the
`
`plurality of extractors) is configured to protrude and retract in a direction generally perpendicular
`
`to the skin surface independently of one another so as to further distinguish the present
`
`application from SUEYOSHI. Accordingly, without agreeing to the propriety of the Examiner’s
`
`rejections, and solely to expedite the prosecution of the present application, Applicants submit
`
`that SUEYOSHI at
`
`least fails to disclose each and every feature, as recited in amended
`
`independent claim 1.
`
`Specifically, Applicants submit that SUEYOSHI at least fails to disclose a hair removal
`
`apparatus including, inter alia, a plurality of extractors, and a sleeve which surrounds each of the
`
`plurality of extractors and projects outward toward the skin surface at least to a point where an
`
`outer end of the sleeve becomes flush with an extreme outer part of each of the extraCtor's,
`
`wherein the sleeve surrounding each of the plurality of extractors is configured to protrude and
`
`retract in a direction generally perpendicular to the skin surface independently of one another
`
`such that the hair removal apparatus pulls the grasped hairs out of the skin surface when moved
`
`with the extractors held in contact with the skin surface, as generally recited in amended
`
`independent claim 1.
`
`In the Official Action, the Examiner asserts that SUEYOSHI discloses all the features of
`
`the claim including that plucking heads 2a correspond to the extractors, as generally recited, and
`
`that a motor 11 and a pinion gear 12 correspond to the driver, as generally recited. With respect
`
`to the plucking heads 2a, it appears that the Examiner has interpreted movable blades 3 as being
`
`the element of the plucking heads 2a that is “configured to protrude and retract in a direction
`
`{P33938 01065907.DOC}
`7
`
`

`

`generally perpendicular to the skin surface”. The Examiner further asserts that a head frame 5
`
`corresponds to the sleeve, as generally recited.
`
`Applicants respectfully disagree with the Examiner’s assertions. Nevertheless, without
`
`agreeing to the propriety of the Examiner’s rejections and solely to expedite the prosecution Of
`
`the present application, Applicants have amended independent claim 1, and thus submit that
`
`SUEYOSHI at least fails to disclose the hair removal apparatus of amended independent claim 1.
`
`Specifically, Applicants submit that the plucking heads 2a and the head frame 5 of SUEYOSHI
`
`cannot reasonably be considered to correspond to the plurality of extractors and their respective
`
`sleeves, as generally recited in amended independent claim 1.
`
`In this regard, Applicants note that according to a non-limiting embodiment of the present
`
`application, a sleeve 12 is provided for each of a plurality of plucking rollers 21 (i.e.,
`
`the
`
`plurality of extractors, as generally recited), and that each of the sleeves 12 is positioned within
`
`the hair removal apparatus such that they protrude, retract and swing relative to one another (as
`
`well as relative to the main body of the hair removal apparatus). See e.g., FIGS. 5, .9 and 10; see
`
`also Specification page 9, lines 11-24. Specifically, as shown in FIG. 5, the slot 2a/pin 13
`
`arrangement of the apparatus enables such sleeve movements, and because the extractors are
`
`housed by each of the sleeves 12, the extractors are also able to protrude, retract and swing
`
`relative to one another to pull grasped hairs out of the skin surface.
`
`In contrast, both plucking heads 2a of SUEY'OSHI are housed by a single head frame 5,
`and are not individually/separately housed, as generally recited. See e.g., FIGS. 1-3.
`In addition,
`
`because SUEYOSHI only discloses a single head frame 5, and not separate frames for each
`
`plucking head 2a, Applicants submit that the head frame 5 cannot be construed as being
`
`configured as a plurality of sleeves that protrude and retract
`
`in a direction generally
`
`{P33938 01065907.DOC}
`8
`
`

`

`perpendicular to the skin surface independently of one another, as also generally recited.
`
`Further, Applicants note that the plucking heads 2a do not move independently of one another.
`
`Instead, the movement of one plucking head 2a is dependent on the movement of the other. See
`
`e. g., col. 4, lines 6-26. Thus, for at least all of the above-mentioned reasons, Applicants submit
`
`that SUEYOSHI at least fails to anticipate the plurality of extractors and their respective sleeves,
`
`as generally recited in amended independent claim 1.
`
`Therefore, absent a disclosure in a single reference of each and every element recited in
`
`a claim, a prima facie case of anticipation cannot be made under 35 U.S.C. § 102. At least
`
`because the SUEYOSHI disclosure fails to disclose the plurality of extractors and their
`respective sleeves, as generally recited in amended independent claim 1, as discussed above,
`
`independent claim 1
`
`is not anticipated thereby. Accordingly,
`
`the Examiner is respectfully
`
`requested to withdraw the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
`
`With respect to dependent claims 3, 6, 8 and 10 (claims 2, 5, 7, 9 and 11 having been
`
`canceled without prejudice or disclaimer), at least because of their dependencies, either directly
`
`or indirectly, from allowable independent claim 1, which is allowable for at least the reasons
`
`discussed supra, these dependent claims are also allowable for at least the reasons discussed
`
`supra.
`
`Further, all dependent claims set forth a filrther combination of elements neither
`
`disclosed, nor rendered obvious, by any of the references of record.
`
`Thus, for each 70f the above-noted reasons and certainly for all of the above-noted
`
`reasons,
`
`it
`
`is respectfully submitted that
`
`the Examiner's rejections are inappropriate and
`
`improper. Accordingly, Applicants respectfully request reconsideration and withdrawal of each
`
`of the outstanding rejections together with an action indicating the allowability of all the claims
`
`{P33938 01065907.DOC}
`9
`
`

`

`pending in the present application. Such action is respectfully requested and is now believed to
`
`be appropriate and proper.
`
`{P33938 01065907.DOC}
`10
`
`

`

`mm
`
`Applicants submit
`
`that
`
`the present application is
`
`in condition for allowance, and
`
`respectfully request an indication to that effect. Applicants have argued the allowability of the
`
`claims and pointed out deficiencies of the applied reference. Accordingly, reconsideration of the
`
`outstanding Official Action and allowance of the present application and all the claims therein
`
`are respectfully requested and is now believed to be appropriate.
`
`Applicants note that
`
`this amendment
`
`is being made to advance prosecution of the
`
`application to allowance, and should not be considered as surrendering equivalents of the
`
`territory between the claims prior to the present amendment and the amended claims. Further,
`
`no acquiescence as to the propriety of the Examiner’s rejection is made by the present
`
`amendment. All other amendments to the claims which have been made in this amendment, and
`
`which have not been specifically noted to overcome a rejection based upon the prior art, should
`
`be considered to have been made for a purpose unrelated to patentability, and no estoppel should
`
`be deemed to attach thereto.
`
`Should there be any questions, the Examiner is invited to contact the undersigned at the
`
`below-listed telephone number.
`
`Respectfiilly Submitted,
`Tetsuro HASHIGUCHI et al.
`
`K513 ‘
`
`Bruce H. Bernstein
`
`Reg. No. 29,027
`
`December 9, 2010
`GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C.
`1950 Roland Clarke Place
`Reston, VA 20191
`
`(703) 716-1191
`
`'
`
`.
`Steven B. Poihcoff
`Reg. NO. 60,31 1
`
`{P33938 01065907.DOC}
`1 l
`
`