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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed November 30th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 have been cancelled. New claims 21-27 and 29-40 are pending in the application. Claim 28 has been withdrawn as being drawn to an unelected species.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/30/2025 were filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Office Action on 8/29/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 28 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the claim recites that the handle includes indentations and depressions, which is disclosed to be a feature of a mutually exclusive species and is not disclosed to be drawn to the elected species. [0072]-[0077] disclose the relevant features of elected Species 4.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 28 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 8 states “wherein the sheath member is moveable connected to the handle”, and should instead read “wherein the sheath member is moveably connected to the handle”. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 21-25, 29, 30, 32, 36, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad Beck (US 0179255 A – hereinafter Beck) in view of Kimiyuki Sakai (US 6877229 B2 – hereinafter Sakai).
Regarding claim 21, Beck teaches an apparatus for cutting hair comprising: a blade (Fig. 1, Blade A) having opposing convex and concave edges (Fig. 1, the bottom edge of Blade A has convex portions and is considered by the examiner to therefore be a convex edge and the top edge of Blade A has concave portions and is considered by the examiner to therefore be a concave edge) and a substantially planar surface (Fig. 1, flat generally rectangular portion of the Blade A facing the viewer) between the convex and concave edges, wherein the convex and concave edges are substantially parallel to one another from a first end of the blade to a second end of the blade (Fig. 1, top and bottom edge of Blade A are parallel for most of the length of the blade); a handle (Fig. 1, Shank B) attached to the first end of the blade; and a sheath member (Fig. 1, Handle C) having a first portion with a first end, a second portion with a second end, and a midpoint between the first portion and the second portion, wherein the sheath member is moveable connected to the handle so that the sheath member can move between a closed configuration and an open configuration (Fig. 1, closed and open positions shown by dotted outlines of Blade A), wherein the convex edge of the blade is disposed within the sheath in the closed configuration and the convex and concave edges are outside of the sheath in the open configuration (Fig. 1), and wherein on a side of the sheath member that the convex and concave edges of the blade enter the sheath member, the sheath member has an arcuate or angled configuration with an obtuse angle formed between the first end, the midpoint, and the second end (Fig. 1, Handle C forms a generally obtuse angled convex edge on the side where the Blade A enters into a closed position).
Beck does not teach that both the convex and concave edges are disposed within the sheath in a closed configuration.
However, Sakai teaches a blade (Fig. 1, Blade 3) where both the top and bottom edges (which correspond to the convex and concave edges of the claimed invention and the invention of Beck) are disposed within a sheath (Fig. 5, Handle 1) in a closed configuration (Fig. 5, configuration shown). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the invention of Beck to include the limitations of claim 21 above as taught by Sakai. Doing so is beneficial as it is well known in the art that any sheathed portions of a blade remain protected when not in use, and including the concave edge in the sheath would increase the portion of the blade which is protected.
Regarding claim 22, Beck further teaches the apparatus of claim 21, wherein a distance between the convex and concave edges of the blade is greater than a distance between lateral sides of the handle (Fig. 1, the Blade A is wider at its widest point than the Shank B at its widest point).
Regarding claim 23, Beck further teaches the apparatus of claim 21, wherein the side of the sheath member generally conforms with sides of the obtuse angle formed between the first end, the midpoint, and the second end (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 24, the existing combination of Beck and Sakai already teaches the apparatus of claim 21, wherein the blade is entirely within the sheath in the closed configuration (Sakai; Fig. 5, Blade 3).
Regarding claim 25, Beck further teaches the apparatus of claim 24, wherein the handle is partially within and partially outside of the sheath in the closed configuration.
Regarding claim 29, Beck further teaches the apparatus of claim 21, wherein at least one of the convex and concave edges comprises a cutting edge that delineates an entirety of the at least one of the concave and convex edges (Fig. 1, where the convex edge is the cutting edge).
Regarding claim 30, Beck further teaches the apparatus of claim 21, wherein the blade with opposing convex and concave edges further configures an obtuse angular configuration on an edge portion of the substantially planar surface (Fig. 1, rightmost angle of the convex edge adjacent to Finger Rest 2).
Regarding claim 32, Beck further teaches the apparatus of claim 21, wherein the handle is pivotally coupled to the sheath member (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 36, the existing combination of Beck and Sakai already teaches the apparatus of claim 24, wherein the sheath member creates a continuous inner channel configured to fully receive an entirety of the convex edge and concave edges of the blade (Sakai; Fig. 5, Blade 3 and Recess 1a).
Regarding claim 39, Beck teaches a blade, comprising: opposing convex and concave edges (Fig. 1, the bottom edge of Blade A has convex portions and is considered by the examiner to therefore be a convex edge and the top edge of Blade A has concave portions and is considered by the examiner to therefore be a concave edge) with a substantially planar surface between the opposing convex and concave edges (Fig. 1, flat generally rectangular portion of the Blade A facing the viewer), wherein the convex and concave edges are substantially parallel to one another from a first end of the blade to a second end of the blade (Fig. 1, top and bottom edge of Blade A are parallel for most of the length of the blade); and wherein one of the opposing convex and concave edges has a cutting edge that extends from a first end of the blade to a second end of the blade (Fig. 1, where the convex edge is the cutting edge).
Claims 26, 27, 33-35, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad Beck (US 0179255 A – hereinafter Beck) in view of Kimiyuki Sakai (US 6877229 B2 – hereinafter Sakai) as applied to claims 21 and 39 above, and further in view of Samuel Kitchen (US 1187432 A– hereinafter Kitchen).
Regarding claim 26, the existing combination of Beck and Sakai does not teach The apparatus of claim 21, further comprising: a connection member covering a portion of the concave edge of the blade, wherein a first end of the connection member is adjacent to the handle, and a second end of the connection member is spaced a distance from the second end of the blade.
However, Kitchen teaches a blade (Fig. 1, Blade 2) with a connection member (Fig. 1, Plate 6) covering a portion of the top edge of the blade (the top edge of Kitchen corresponding to the concave edge of the claimed invention and the invention of Beck), wherein a first end of the connection member is adjacent to a handle (Col. 3, lines 3-5), and a second end of the connection member is spaced a distance from the second end (Fig. 1, leftmost tip of Blade 2) of the blade.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the invention of Beck and Sakai to include the features of claim 26 above as taught by Kitchen. Doing so is beneficial as it provides a strong support for the blade (Kitchen; Col. 3, lines 14-19).
Regarding claim 27, Beck further teaches the apparatus of claim 26, wherein a portion of the convex edge adjacent to the first end of the blade is exposed when the blade is attached to the handle (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 33, the existing combination of Beck and Sakai does not teach the apparatus of claim 21, wherein the convex and concave edges have a continuously curved profile from the first end of the blade to the second end of the blade.
However, Kitchen teaches a blade where the convex and concaves edges have a continuously curved profile from the first end of the blade to the second end of the blade (Fig. 1, Blade 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the invention of Beck and Sakai to include the features of claim 33 above as taught by Kitchen since it would require only a change in shape of the blade of Beck and Sakai and a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 34, the existing combination of Beck, Sakai, and Kitchen already teaches the apparatus of claim 21, wherein the convex and concave edges each follow a substantially continuous single radius at a curvature between 91 and 180 degrees along an entire length of the blade (Kitchen; Fig. 1, Blade 2).
Regarding claim 35, the existing combination of Beck, Sakai, and Kitchen already teaches the apparatus of claim 34, wherein the curvatures of the convex and concave edges are substantially concentric (Kitchen; Fig. 1, Blade 2).
Regarding claim 40, the existing combination of Beck and Sakai does not teach the blade of claim 39, wherein the other of the opposing convex and concave edges has a second cutting edge that extends the first end of the blade to the second end of the blade.
However, Kitchen teaches a concave edge (Fig. 1, Cutting Edge 3 of Blade 2) which has a cutting edge (Fig. 1, Cutting Edge 3) that extends the first end of the blade to the second end of the blade.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the invention of Beck and Sakai to include the limitations of claim 37 above as taught by Kitchen. Doing so is beneficial as it allows for any fibers to be cut closer to the surface from which they grow (Kitchen; Col. 2, lines 70-75).
Claims 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad Beck (US 0179255 A – hereinafter Beck) in view of Kimiyuki Sakai (US 6877229 B2 – hereinafter Sakai) as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of Kenneth Hegemann et al. (US 5199173 A– hereinafter Hegemann).
Regarding claim 31, the existing combination of Beck and Sakai does not teach the apparatus of claim 30, wherein the obtuse angular configuration is located near a midpoint of the blade.
However, Hegemann teaches a blade where an obtuse angular configuration is located near a midpoint of the blade (Fig. 1a, blade defined by Cutting Edge 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the invention of Beck and Sakai to include the features of claim 31 above as taught by Hegemann since it would require only a change in shape of the blade of Beck and Sakai and a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Claims 37 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad Beck (US 0179255 A – hereinafter Beck) in view of Kimiyuki Sakai (US 6877229 B2 – hereinafter Sakai), Samuel Kitchen (US 1187432 A– hereinafter Kitchen), and Eliath Pineda (US 8806758 B2 – hereinafter Pineda).
Regarding claim 37, Beck teaches an apparatus for cutting hair, comprising: a cutting assembly, wherein the cutting assembly comprises: a blade unit (Fig. 1, unit comprised of Blade A) comprising: at least one first concave region (Fig. 1, the top edge of Blade A has concave portions and is considered by the examiner to therefore be a concave region); and at least one second convex region (Fig. 1, the bottom edge of Blade A has convex portions and is considered by the examiner to therefore be a convex edge) that is parallel (Fig. 1, top and bottom edge of Blade A are parallel for most of the length of the blade) to the first concave region, wherein the blade unit is operably coupled to a blade holder (Fig. 1, Shank B), the blade holder tapers into an elongated shaft (Fig. 1, Rest 3), terminating in an angled tip (Fig. 1, tip of Rest 3); and a sheath unit (Fig. 1, Handle C), comprising: a sheath with a first end, a second end and a curved intermediate portion located therebetween, wherein the first end tapers outwards to form the curved intermediate portion, and the curved intermediate portion tapers inwards forming the second end (Fig. 1); and wherein the sheath unit has a recess operably configured to removably receive the blade unit (Fig. 1); and wherein the sheath unit is operably coupled to the cutting assembly, the second end of the sheath unit is operably coupled to the elongated shaft (Fig. 1).
Beck does not teach that the first concave region has a cutting edge, wherein the cutting edge delineates an entirety of the concave region; wherein the recess is operably configured to receive the entirety of the blade unit, and that the angled tip of the elongated shaft of the blade unit is partially outside of the sheath when the sheath receives the entirety of the blade unit.
However, Sakai teaches a blade (Fig. 1, Blade 3) where the entirety of the blade is disposed within a recess of a sheath (Fig. 5, Handle 1 and Recess 1a) in a closed configuration (Fig. 5, configuration shown). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the invention of Beck to include the limitations of claim 37 above as taught by Sakai. Doing so is beneficial as it is well known in the art that any sheathed portions of a blade remain protected when not in use, and including the entirety of the blade in the sheath would increase the portion of the blade which is protected.
Additionally, Kitchen teaches a first concave region (Fig. 1, Cutting Edge 3 of Blade 2) which has a cutting edge (Fig. 1, Cutting Edge 3), wherein the cutting edge delineates an entirety of the concave region.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the invention of Beck and Sakai to include the limitations of claim 37 above as taught by Kitchen. Doing so is beneficial as it allows for any fibers to be cut closer to the surface from which they grow (Kitchen; Col. 2, lines 70-75).
Furthermore, Pineda teaches that an angled tip of an elongated shaft (Fig. 1, Shank 12) of the blade unit is partially outside of the sheath (Fig. 1, Handle 14) when the sheath receives the blade unit (Fig. 2, Blade 30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the invention of Beck, Sakai, and Kitchen to include the limitations of claim 37 above as taught by Pineda since it would require only a change in shape of the angled tip of the elongated shaft of Beck, Sakai, and Kitchen and a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 38, Beck further teaches the apparatus for cutting hair of claim 37, further comprising a cutting edge (Fig. 1, where the convex region comprises the cutting edge) delineating the entirety of the at least one convex region (Fig. 1, the bottom edge of Blade A has convex portions and is considered by the examiner to therefore be a convex edge) that is parallel to the first concave region.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 6, 8, and 10 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.
Conclusion
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 ELLA LORRAINE KEENA whose telephone number is (571)272-1806. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am - 5:00 pm ET.
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.
/ELLA L KEENA/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724