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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/03/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
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 2nd acute angle in claim 1 (Figure 16 is shown, but not label it) 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 language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract, line 1 the language “The present invention relates to” should be deleted since it won’t help readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The lengthy specification (25 pages) has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 1 “Cutter system” should read –A cutter system--;
Claims 2-16, line 1 “Cutter system” should read –The cutter system--;
Claims 18-19, line 1 “Cutter system” should read –A cutter system--;
Claim 20, line 1 “Cutter system” should read –The cutter system--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1, the preamble recites “Cutter system for an electric shaver and or trimmer” and the body claim mainly recites structures of a pair of cooperating cutter blades… Is this invention about a pair of cooperating cutter blades, right (not a cutter system)? If this invention is structures of a pair of cooperating cutter blades, the preamble “Cutters system” should be amended to “A blade set” or “A pair of cooperating cutter blades…” or equivalent for avoiding a confusion. Claims 2-16 have the same issue.
Claim 1, lines 2-3 “one of said cutter blades…the other of said cutter blades” is unclear whether the one of said cutter blades refers to one of the pair of cooperating cutter blades or not. If it is the same, Applicant should amend the same terminology throughout the claims.
Lines 6-7 of claim 1 “said cooperating cutter blades” has the same issue above.
Claim 1, line 10 “a skin surface” is unclear since it claims to require “a skin surface” which can’t be claimed (living matter).
Claim 1, line 8 “a skin contact surface of the cutter system” is unclear because as the claim is written, the system is a blade set (2 blades); it is unclear whether the skin contact surface refers to the stationary blade or the movable blade. To make it more clearer, it should be amended –a skin contact surface of the stationary cutter blade.
Claim 1, line 9 “the cutter blades” has the same issue above. it should be –the pair of cooperating cutter blades—
Claim 1, lines 11-12 “… said skin contact surface …a surface of said stationary cutter blade facing away from said moveable cutter blade” that is unclear. If the a distance comb attached to said stationary cutter blade, there is no skin contact surface of the stationary cutter blade. Thus, it is unclear. Examiner note that the language “or by a surface of a distance comb…”; Examiner can interpreted a skin contact surface of the stationary cutter blade (without the comb), right?
Claim 1, the very last sentence “so the tooth tip intersects said virtual plane only at the cutting surface” is unclear whether tooth tip refers to the stationary blade or the movable blade.
As claim 1 is written, it is too crowded that makes confusing what it is being claimed. Examiner suggests to break the claim into small pieces for easily reading.
Claim 4 “define a pyramid contour” is unclear. Looking at Figures 9c and 10, the tooth is not a pyramid contour. It is a general pyramid contour because it has 4 sides or surfaces as seen in Figure 9c. therefore, the “pyramid” contour is unclear.
For examination purposes, as best understood, Examiner is interpreting the “issues above” as below and all claims dependent from claim 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent from the rejected parent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 8-10, 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yasuo (JP 2003103072 A and Translation).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Yasuo shows a system (blades, Figures 6, 7, 10) for an electric shaver, comprising a pair of cooperating cutter blades each having at least one row of cutting teeth (Figures 1a, 1b, 5, 10), wherein one of the pair of cooperating cutter blades is a stationary cutter blade (12) and the other one of said pair of cooperating cutter blades is a movable cutter blade (13, Figure 10) movable relative to said stationary cutter blade in a cutting direction along a cutting surface defined between said pair of cooperating cutter blades,
said cutting teeth each having pairs of lateral cutting edges tapering towards a tooth tip (see all teeth in Figures 1 and 5),
wherein the tooth tips of at least the movable cutter blade are provided with a flattened, beveled tip surface (see the tip having a sliding surface 13a and many flattened surfaces at a tip portion 29 of the blade 13, Figures 9-10), and
wherein a skin contact surface of the stationary blade (12) has an inclined forward end portion (see Figure 10 below) for guiding the pair of cooperating cutter blades in the region of said tooth tips over “a skin surface” and defining a first acute angle (see Figure 10 below) to said cutting surface,
said skin contact surface being defined by a surface of said stationary cutter blade facing away from said movable cutter blade (see Figure 10 below, the bottom surface of the blade 12),
wherein said flattened, beveled tip surface is inclined to a virtual plane at a second acute angle (see Figure 10 below), said virtual plane extending parallel to said cutting direction and perpendicular to said skin contact surface of said stationary cutter blade, so the tooth tip of the stationary blade intersects said virtual plane only at the cutting surface with a “substantially” wedge-shaped void between the flattened beveled tip surface and said virtual plane (see Figure 10 below).
Regarding claim 2, Yasuo shows that said second acute angle of inclination of the flattened beveled tip surface to the virtual plane ranges from about 100 to about 400 (see Figure 10 below, the second acute angle is about 150).
Regarding claim 3, Yasuo shows that said tooth tips of the movable cutter blade, in cross-sectional planes parallel to the cutting surface, define linear contours parallel to the cutting direction (see Figure 10 below, any cross-section parallel to the surface 13a is parallel to the cutting surface or surface 13a).
PNG
media_image1.png
468
926
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Yasuo shows that the cutting teeth of the movable cutter blade, at the tooth tips, define a pyramid contour with three inclined, planar surfaces joining each other, one of said inclined, planar surfaces being formed by the flattened, beveled tip surface and the other two inclined, planar surfaces being formed by the lateral cutting edges of the cutting tooth (see Applicant’s tooth 12, Figure 9c, there are two lateral surface 9, an end surface 12, and a top surface where the reference 11 is. If the tooth in Figure 9c, is a pyramid contour, therefore, the tooth 20, Figure 13 of Yasuo also is a pyramid contour).
Regarding claim 8, Yasuo shows that said first acute angle of the inclined forward end portion of the skin contact surface to the cutting surface ranges from about 5° to about 250 (about 200, see Figure 10 above) and said second acute angle of the flattened beveled tip surface to the virtual plane ranges from about 100 to about 300 (see claim 2 above).
Regarding claim 9, Yasuo shows that a tip angle between the flattened, beveled tip surface and the cutting surface ranges from about 30 to about 700 (see Figure 10 above, it is about 650).
Regarding claim 10, Yasuo shows that said flattened beveled tip surfaces of the cutting teeth of the movable cutter blade are inclined to the forward end portion of the skin contact surface at an angle ranging from about 50 to about 850 (see Figure 10 above, it is about 750).
Regarding claim 12, Yasuo shows that said lateral cutting edges, when considering a cross sectional view transverse to a longitudinal tooth axis of the respective cutting tooth, have a wedge-shaped configuration with a wedge angle ranging from about 35 to about 600 (see Figure 10 above, it is about 400).
Regarding claim 13, Yasuo shows that a sum of a tip angle between the flattened, beveled tip surface and the cutting surface (see claim 9, it is about 650) and a wedge angle between one of said lateral cutting edges and said cutting surface (see Figure 13, it is about 450) is less than about 1200.
Regarding claim 14, Yasuo shows that an opening angle defined by pairs of cutting edges of neighboring cutting teeth facing each other, ranges from about 10 to about 300 (see Figure 9, it is about 250).
Regarding claim 15, Yasuo shows that a sum of a wedge angle between one of said lateral cutting edges and said cutting surface (see Figure 13, it is about 450) and an opening angle defined by pairs of cutting edges of neighboring cutting teeth facing each other (see Figure 9, it is about 250) is less than about 800.
Regarding claim 16, Yasuo shows that a sum of a tip angle between the flattened, beveled tip surface and the cutting surface (see claim 9, it is about 650) and a wedge angle between one of said lateral cutting edges and said cutting surface (see Figure 13, it is about 450) and an opening angle defined by pairs of cutting edges of neighboring cutting teeth facing each other (see Figure 9, it is about 250) is less than about 1500.
Regarding claim 17, Yasuo shows the Electric shaver and/or trimmer comprising the cutter system which is configured as stated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, Yasuo shows the cutter system for an electric shaver and/or trimmer, comprising “a pair of cooperating cutter blades each having at least one row of cutting teeth, wherein one of said cutter blades is a stationary cutter blade and the other one of said cutter blades is a movable cutter blade movable relative to said stationary cutter blade in a cutting direction along a cutting surface defined between said cooperating cutter blades, said cutting teeth each having pairs of lateral cutting edges tapering towards a tooth tip, wherein the tooth tips of at least the movable cutter blade are provided with a flattened, beveled tip surface, wherein at least one tooth of the movable cutter blade has a width of the flattened, beveled tip surface that is largest at a distal end of the flattened, beveled tip surface and less at an end of the flattened, beveled tip surface nearest a root portion of the tooth (see the discussion in claims above and Figures 8-10).
Regarding claim 19, Yasuo shows the cutter system for an electric shaver and/or trimmer, comprising “a pair of cooperating cutter blades each having at least one row of cutting teeth, wherein one of said cutter blades is a stationary cutter blade and the other one of said cutter blades is a movable cutter blade movable relative to said stationary cutter blade in a cutting direction long a cutting surface defined between said cooperating cutter blades, said cutting teeth each having pairs of lateral cutting edges tapering towards a tooth tip, wherein the tooth tips of at least the movable cutter blade are provided with a flattened, beveled tip surface wherein the flattened, beveled tip surface extends to the cutting surface of the cutting teeth with a tip angle between the flattened, beveled tip surface and the cutting surface ranging from 300 to 700, wherein said lateral cutting edges, when considering a cross sectional view transverse to a longitudinal tooth axis of the respective cutting tooth, have a wedge- shaped configuration with a wedge angle ranging from 35-600 and wherein a sum of the tip angle and the wedge angle is less than 1200” (see all claims discussions above).
Regarding claim 20, Yasuo shows that said tooth tips of the movable cutter blade, in cross-sectional planes parallel to the cutting surface, define linear contours parallel to the cutting direction (see claim 3 above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 5-7, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuo.
Regarding claim 5, Yasuo shows that said flattened, beveled tip surface is “substantially” planar with an angular transition to each of said lateral cutting edges, said angular transition having a radius of curvature of less than “about” 50 µm (said flattened, beveled tip surface meets this limitation because as this limitation is written, it is “substantially”…and a radius of curvature of less than “about” 50 µm as seen in see Figures 9-10, 13).
If one argues that said flattened, beveled tip surface does not meet this limitation. Examiner note that as the applicant had not pointed out the criticality of why the angular transition having a radius of curvature should be less than “about” 50 µm. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention to have the radius of curvature of any reasonable range including the claimed range less than 50 µm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The claimed range would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within technical grasp. These are known discovering the optimum or workable ranges depending on the size, shape, and sharpen of the blade, and the cutting plane orientation of the shaving cartridge requirements to be manufactured for cutting or shaving hair.
Regarding claims 6-7, the cutter system of Yasuo shows all of the limitations stated above including said cutting teeth have a tip width ranging from about 1/6 to about 2/3 of a rear width of the cutting teeth at a rear end of the lateral cutting edges which extend from said rear end to the tooth tip along a straight line (Figure 5) and wherein said cutting teeth have a tip width ranging from about 1/9 to about 1/3 of a toothing pitch which is the distance from a center of a tooth to the center of a next tooth (Figures 5, 9-10, 13).
If one argues that the tooth does not meet this limitation. Examiner note that as the applicant had not pointed out the criticality of why the tip width ranging from about 1/6 to about 2/3 of a rear width of the cutting teeth at a rear end of the lateral cutting edges which extend from said rear end to the tooth tip along a straight line and said cutting teeth have a tip width ranging from about 1/9 to about 1/3 of a toothing pitch which is the distance from a center of a tooth to the center of a next tooth.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention to have the tip width of any reasonable range including the claimed range above, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The claimed range would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within technical grasp. These are known discovering the optimum or workable ranges depending on the size, shape, and sharpen of the blade teeth for guiding or lifting-up hair and cutting or shaving hair.
Regarding Claim 11, the cutter system of Yasuo shows all of the limitations stated above wherein said flattened beveled tip surface defines a maximum tip width ranging from about 150 to about 400µm.
Examiner note that as the applicant had not pointed out the criticality of why the maximum tip width should be ranging from about 150 to about 400µm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention to have the maximum tip width of any reasonable range including the claimed range above, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The claimed range would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within technical grasp. These are known discovering the optimum or workable ranges depending on the size, shape, and sharpen of the blade teeth for guiding or lifting-up hair and cutting or shaving hair.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. See new art above.
However, if Applicant still believes that the claimed invention’s apparatus/method different from the prior art’s apparatus/method or needs to discuss the rejections above or suggestion amendments that can be overcome the current rejections, Applicant should feel free to call the Examiner to schedule an interview.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. WO 9847673 A1 discusses a tapered tooth of movable and stationary blades .
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM EST.
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 Ashley can be reached at (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.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 7/27/2026
Prosecution Insights