DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
In Figure 4B, the left occurrence of “9” should be deleted as it is not pointing at the first surface. The left occurrence is pointing at the imaginary extension.
In Figures 3A and 4A, lines A, B, C, and D in the Figures (shown below) are currently dashed lines. This is incorrect as each of these lines are not hidden lines. Lines A, B, C, and D need to go back to their original solid line form.
PNG
media_image1.png
486
490
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
476
410
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore:
The blade with a tertiary bevel in combination with the clearance angle α between the primary bevel and the skin contacting surface of the housing, of claim 3
The blade with a tertiary bevel in combination with the clearance angle α between the secondary bevel and the skin contacting surface of the housing, of claim 3
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 16 lines 13-14, the phrase “wedge angle Ө1 between the first surface and the primary bevel” does not correspond with what is shown in the Figures. The Figures show Ө1 is defined between an imaginary extension of first surface 9 and the primary bevel 7 and as an acute angle. If Ө1 was defined between surface 9 and bevel 7, the angle would be obtuse. The specification needs to be amended to include the “imaginary extension” language to provide support for the “imaginary extension” limitation of claim 1. Page 17 lines 2-3 have the same issue.
Page 16 lines 20-21 and page 17 lines 7-9 of the specification, the “projected” language needs to be amended in the same manner as claim 6 was in the previous response to provide support for the language currently utilized by claim 6.
The range for angle α needs to be amended to incorporate “between 0 and 11° to provide support for claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With regards to the specification and claim 1, the “skin contacting surface 250” disclosure is unclear. In the Figures, line 250 is not and cannot be a surface of the shaving device. Line 250 cannot be a surface that defines a plane. There is not a structure comprised by the device that defines a surface defined by line 250. 210 has a skin contacting surface and 220 has a skin contacting surface but there is no structure that allows for these surfaces to be different parts of the same surface. Line 250 is a plane that is defined by the skin contacting surfaces of 210 and 220 and the specification and the claims need to be amended to incorporate this disclosure. The specification and claims need to be amended to remove any disclosure that 250 is a surface of the shaving device.
With regards to the specification and claims 1 and 3, the tertiary bevel in combination with angle α being between the skin contacting surface and the primary bevel does not appear to be discussed. The structural setup of the blade with the tertiary bevel in combination with the angle α being between the skin contacting surface and the primary bevel is not clear. What is the relationship between the tertiary bevel 6 and the remaining components of the housing 200? Figure 6A is believed to be associated with angle α being between the skin contacting surface and the primary bevel. Using Figure 6A, does the housing have a space to accommodate tertiary bevel 6? It is unclear what structure the housing must incorporate to house this blade in this orienation.
With regards to the specification and claims 1 and 3, the tertiary bevel in combination with angle α being between the skin contacting surface and the secondary bevel does not appear to be supported. Claim 1 allows for the tertiary bevel to be in combination with either version of angle α. Using Figure 6B, it is believed that this Figure is associated with angle α being between the skin contacting surface and the secondary bevel. If the blade is in this orientation as claimed, it is unclear how tertiary bevel 6 is able to sit in the housing as it appears bevel 6 would occupy the same space as 220 (see circle 6 in the Figure below). It is unclear what structure the housing must incorporate to house this blade in this orienation.
PNG
media_image3.png
354
574
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With regards to the specification and the claim 3, definition of Ө3 is unclear. The specification discloses Ө3 on page 17 but does not disclose the bottom boundary that defines the angle. Figure 3 shows the bottom boundary as Ө3 as an unlabeled line (see Figure 4B below) but this line is clearly not the first surface 9. Claim 3 discloses Ө3 has a bottom boundary that is the first surface 9 which is clearly not shown in Figure 4B.
PNG
media_image4.png
494
698
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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, 3, 4, 6, and 7 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regards to claim 1 lines 2-3, the “housing with a skin contacting surface 250 defined as a plane connecting the skin contacting surfaces of the forward skin support and the rearward skin support” disclosure is unclear. In the Figures, line 250 is not and cannot be a surface of the shaving device or a surface defining a plane. There is not a structure comprised by the device that defines a surface defined by line 250. 210 has a skin contacting surface and 220 has a skin contacting surface but there is no structure that allows for these surfaces to be different parts of the same surface. Line 250 is a plane that is defined by the skin contacting surfaces of 210 and 220. The clearance angle and the effective cutting angle are both indefinite because they are both defined using the unclear skin contacting surface. The issue is the application referring to 250 as a surface when 250 can only be a plane defined by skin contacting surfaces of 210 and 220. The phrase should be replaced with “housing having a forward skin support and a rearward skin support, skin contacting surfaces of the forward skin support and the rearward skin support define a skin contacting plane”. The claims and specification need to be amended to utilize “skin contacting plane 250” if the language above is adopted.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the forward skin support" on line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the rearward skin support" on line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the intersection" on line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
With regards to claim 1 line 11, the phrase “angle Ө1 between an imaginary extension of the first surface” is indefinite. The specification does not appear to disclose the imaginary extension when explaining angle Ө1 but the Figures utilize a dashed line which is believed to be the extension. However, this limitation is indefinite as the imaginary extension is not defined. The first surface extends in an infinite number of directions and it is not clear which direction defines the imaginary extension.
With regards to claim 1 line 17, the phrase “angle α between the skin contacting surface and the primary bevel or the secondary bevel” is unclear. It is unclear what structure defines the position of the blade. Figure 6A shows an orientation where bevel 7 faces the 250 and an angle α between the primary bevel 7 and surface/plane 250 but that does not mean an angle between 250 and 5 does not exist. Figure 6A inherently have an angle between 250 and 7 and an angle between 250 and 5 both of which can be angle α which makes the limitation unclear. Figure 6B shows angle α between the secondary bevel 5 and surface/plane 250 but that does not mean an angle between 250 and 7 does not exist. Figure 6BA inherently have an angle between 250 and 7 and an angle between 250 and 5 both of which can be angle α which also makes the limitation unclear. The angle α can be defined with either bevel regardless of how the blade sits. There needs to be further blade definition explaining which bevel surface is facing the skin contacting plane/surface for each situation so each angle is clear.
With regards to claims 1 and 3, it is unclear what structure allows for the tertiary bevel in combination with both versions of angle α that are required by claim 1 (see rejections above).
With regards to claim 3, definition of Ө3 is unclear. The specification discloses Ө3 on page 17 but does not disclose the bottom boundary that defines the angle. Figure 3 shows the bottom boundary as Ө3 as an unlabeled line (see Figure 4B below) but this line is clearly not the first surface 9. Claim 3 discloses Ө3 has a bottom boundary that is the first surface 9 which is clearly not shown in Figure 4b.
Claims
It is to be noted that claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7 have not been rejected over prior art. It may or may not be readable over the prior art but allowability cannot be determined at this time in view of the issues under 35 USC § 112. Where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In reSteele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1-29-26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regards to surface 250, the specification does not provide support for 250 to be considered a surface. A surface cannot have portions completely separated from each other with a space as 210 and 220 do not touch. 250 is a plane defined by the contact surfaces of 210 and 220. With regards to the tertiary bevel, the specification and Figures fail to provide an insight of the housing structures required to house a blade with the tertiary bevel. In the Figure above, this tertiary bevel appears to intersect the 220 and claim 1 incorporates structure 220. With regards to Ө3, there is no support the unlabeled bottom boundary line of Ө3 has a parallel relationship with surface 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON DANIEL PRONE whose telephone number is (571)272-4513. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:00 am-3:00 pm.
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 D 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.
16 March 2026
/Jason Daniel Prone/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724