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 the most recent amendment, Figure 4B was amended to remove the right occurrence of “9” however, this was the correct “9” as the remaining “9” is pointing at thew imaginary extension and not to the actual surface. It is recommended that a “9” be added back in and point at the surface and the current “9” in the Figure 4B be removed.
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 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.
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 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” and then all occurrences of the phrase “skin contacting surface” need to be replaced with “skin contacting plane”. The specification needs to be amended to utilize “skin contacting plane 250” if the language above is adopted.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the skin contacting surfaces" on lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims
It is to be noted that claims 1 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 6-18-26 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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.
13 July 2026
/Jason Daniel Prone/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights