REMARKS
`
`Upon entry of the present amendment, claims 1, 3, 6 and 8 will have been amended.
`
`Thus, claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8 and 10 are pending in the application.
`
`In View of the herein contained remarks, Applicants respectfully request reconsideration
`
`and withdrawal of the outstanding rejections set forth in the above-mentioned Official Action.
`
`Such action is now believed to be appropriate and proper and is thus respectfully requested, in
`
`due course.
`
`In the outstanding Official Action, claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly
`
`claim the subject matter which Applicants regard as the invention. In particular, the Examiner
`
`asserted that the recitation of claim I, “the sleeve surrounding each of the plurality of extractors
`
`is configure to protrude and retract in a direction generally perpendicular to the skin surface
`
`independently of one another,” is vague and unclear. The Examiner also asserted that “the
`
`sleeves” in claims 3 and 6 does not have sufficient antecedent basis.
`
`By the present response, Applicants have amended claim 1 to clarify the recitation noted
`
`by the Examiner. In particular, the language is clarified to indicate that a plurality of sleeves are
`
`provided (thus, the “sleeves” in claims 3 and 6 is provided with a proper antecedent basis), and
`
`that each of the plurality of sleeves (with a corresponding one of the plurality of extractors)
`
`protrudes and retracts independently of the other of the plurality of sleeves. Additionally,
`
`Applicants have amended the claims to eliminate any terminology that could possibly be
`
`considered to be lacking in proper or sufficient antecedent basis, and to further improve the
`
`language clarity. Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the outstanding rejection
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph is respectfully requested.
`
`{P33938 01181692.DOC}
`
`6
`
`
`
`Upon entry of the present amendment, claims 1, 3, 6 and 8 will have been amended.
`
`Thus, claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8 and 10 are pending in the application.
`
`In View of the herein contained remarks, Applicants respectfully request reconsideration
`
`and withdrawal of the outstanding rejections set forth in the above-mentioned Official Action.
`
`Such action is now believed to be appropriate and proper and is thus respectfully requested, in
`
`due course.
`
`In the outstanding Official Action, claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly
`
`claim the subject matter which Applicants regard as the invention. In particular, the Examiner
`
`asserted that the recitation of claim I, “the sleeve surrounding each of the plurality of extractors
`
`is configure to protrude and retract in a direction generally perpendicular to the skin surface
`
`independently of one another,” is vague and unclear. The Examiner also asserted that “the
`
`sleeves” in claims 3 and 6 does not have sufficient antecedent basis.
`
`By the present response, Applicants have amended claim 1 to clarify the recitation noted
`
`by the Examiner. In particular, the language is clarified to indicate that a plurality of sleeves are
`
`provided (thus, the “sleeves” in claims 3 and 6 is provided with a proper antecedent basis), and
`
`that each of the plurality of sleeves (with a corresponding one of the plurality of extractors)
`
`protrudes and retracts independently of the other of the plurality of sleeves. Additionally,
`
`Applicants have amended the claims to eliminate any terminology that could possibly be
`
`considered to be lacking in proper or sufficient antecedent basis, and to further improve the
`
`language clarity. Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the outstanding rejection
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph is respectfully requested.
`
`{P33938 01181692.DOC}
`
`6
`
`
`
`In the outstanding Official Action, claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§102(b), as being anticipated by Iwasaki et al. (US 5,810,843). Applicants disagree and
`
`respectfully traverse.
`
`Applicants’ claimed invention, as recited in claim 1,
`
`is directed to a plurality of
`
`extractors, each of which rotates on a first rotary axis extending in a direction generally parallel
`
`to a skin surface during epilation, each of the plurality of extractors having a tweezing
`
`mechanism for grasping hairs; a plurality of sleeves, each of which surrounds one 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 plurality of extractors; and
`
`a driver that turns each of the plurality of extractors in a corresponding one of the plurality of
`
`sleeves about a second rotary axis which is generally perpendicular to the skin surface. Each of
`
`the plurality of sleeves surrounding a corresponding one of the plurality of extractors is
`
`configured to protrude and retract in a direction generally perpendicular to the skin surface
`
`independently of the other of the plurality of sleeves, and the hair removal apparatus pulls the
`
`grasped hairs out of the skin surface when moved with the plurality of extractors held in contact
`
`with the skin surface.
`
`It is respectfully submitted that the cited reference does not disclose the combination of
`
`features recited at least in Applicants’ independent claim 1.
`
`As a non-limiting example, as shown in Figs. 3 and 4, and paragraphs [0021]— [0024] of
`
`US. publication Application No. 2008/0294176 of the present application, three plucking rollers
`
`21 and three sleeves 12, which respectively surround the three plucking rollers 21, are provided.
`
`One of the three sleeves 12 with a corresponding plucking roller 21 protrudes and retracts
`
`{P33938 01181692.DOC}
`
`7
`
`
`
`independently of the other of the three sleeves. Each plucking roller 21 rotates about the axis R,
`
`which is generally perpendicular to the skin surface S, in corresponding sleeve 12.
`
`Iwasaki et al. discloses a guide frame 30 that surrounds the plucking head 40. The
`
`Examiner asserts that the guide frame 30 corresponds to the sleeve as recited in the claims of the
`
`present application. The Examiner further asserts that the plucking head 40 and pinching blades
`
`43, 44-1 and 44—2 correspond to the plurality of extractors as recited in the claims of the present
`
`application. However, as clearly shown in the drawings of Iwasaki et al., Iwasaki et a1. discloses
`
`a single guide frame 30 that surrounds all of the plucking head 40 and pinching blades 43, 44-1
`
`and 44—2. Thus, Applicants submit that Iwasaki et a1. does not disclose a plurality of sleeves,
`
`each of which surrounds a corresponding one of the plurality of extractors, as recited in claim 1.
`
`Additionally, Iwasaki et a1. discloses that guide frame 30 is fitted within the head frame
`
`20 in such a manner that the guide frame 30 is vertically movable relative to the head frame 20
`
`(col. 7, lines 48-55 of Iwasaki et a1.) However, inherent in disclosure of only one guide frame
`
`30, Applicants submit that Iwasaki et al. does not disclose that each of the plurality of sleeves
`
`surrounding a corresponding one of the plurality of extractors protrudes and retracts in a
`
`direction generally perpendicular to the skin surface independently of the other of the plurality of
`
`sleeves, as recited in claim 1.
`
`Moreover, the Examiner asserted that Iwasaki discloses a cam cylinder 90 that turns on a
`
`axis which is generally perpendicular to the skin surface. However, Applicants submit that
`
`Iwasaki et al. does not disclose that each of the extractors turns in corresponding one of the
`
`sleeves, as recited in claim 1. Additionally, the cam cylinder 90 does not turn each of the
`
`extractors (i.e., plucking head 40 and pinching blades 43, 44-1 and 44-2, according to the
`
`{P33938 01181692.DOC}
`
`8
`
`
`
`Examiner’s interpretation), about the second rotary axis which is generally perpendicular to the
`
`skin surface.
`
`In View of each of the above noted distinction independently and even more so when
`
`considered together, Applicants submit that Iwasaki et a1. fails to disclose each and every feature
`
`of Applicants’ claimed invention, which is required to set forth an anticipation rejection. Thus,
`
`Applicants submit that claim 1 is allowable over Iwasaki et al., and respectfully request
`
`Withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. §102(b) rejection of the claim.
`
`The dependent claims in the present application are respectfully submitted to be
`
`patentable over the references relied upon based upon their dependence from a shown to be
`
`allowable base claim, as well as based upon their own additional recitations.
`
`Applicants note that the status of the present application is after final rejection and that
`
`Applicants do not have a right to amend an application once a final rejection has issued.
`
`Nevertheless, Applicants respectfully submit that entry of the present amendment is appropriate
`
`and proper as it is in full compliance with 37 CPR. §1.116. In particular, the present
`
`amendment merely clarify the language, and requires only cursory review by the Examiner and
`
`thus does not require an additional search. Additionally, in view of the herein contained
`
`remarks, the present amendments clearly place the present application in condition for
`
`allowance.
`
`Accordingly, Applicants respectfully request entry of the present amendment,
`
`reconsideration and withdrawal of the outstanding rejections, together with an indication of the
`
`allowability of the claims pending in the present application, in due course.
`
`{P33938 01181692.DOC}
`
`9
`
`
`
`SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
`
`Applicants have made a sincere effort to place the present application into condition for
`
`allowance and believe that they have now done so. Applicants have amended the claims to
`
`clarify the feature of the invention and to improve language clarity.
`
`Applicants have discussed the disclosure of the reference and pointed out the
`
`shortcomings thereof. Further, Applicants has, with respect to the explicit recitations of the
`
`pending claims, pointed out clear deficiencies in the disclosure of the reference applied
`
`thereagainst. Accordingly, Applicants have provided a clear and convincing evidentiary basis
`
`supporting the patentability of all of the claims in the present application and respectfully request
`
`an indication to such effect in due course.
`
`Applicants have additionally provided a basis for entry of the present amendment,
`
`although the status of present application is subject to final rejection.
`
`Should an extension of time be necessary to maintain the pendency of this application,
`
`including any extensions of time required to place the application in condition for allowance by
`
`an Examiner's Amendment, the Commissioner is hereby authorized to charge any additional fee
`
`to Deposit Account No. 19-0089.
`
`{P33938 01181692DOC}
`
`10
`
`
`
`Should the Examiner have any questions or comments regarding this Response, or the
`
`present application,
`
`the Examiner is invited to contact the undersigned at the below-listed
`
`telephone number.
`
`Respectfull Submitted,
`Tetsur
`‘ GUCHI et al.
`
`
`
`
`Bruce H. Bernstein
`
`Reg. No. 29,027
`
`William Pie
`prz
`R .N
`6%
`0- 33,630
`
`June 1, 2011
`GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C.
`1950 Roland Clarke Place
`Reston VA 20191
`’
`(703)716-1191
`
`{P33938 01181692DOC}
`
`1 1
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
