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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/19/2026 has been entered.
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, 3-13 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 last paragraph “wherein the main surface does not define an opening between adjacent ribs, such that, during use of a hair cutter with the cap attached, the contact area between the hair cutter and the skin is reduced, and the friction between moist skin and the hair cutter is decreased accordingly, without compromising the hair cutting performance” is unclear. As claim 1 is written, it is directly to a cap; structures of the cap are positively claimed in the claim body, however, in the last paragraph of claim 1 “during use of a hair cutter with the cap…without compromising the hair cutting performance” is unclear because it appears that it claims a combination of the cap on the hair cutter which conflicts to the preamble (until claim 13). Also, “the hair cutting performance” should be read –a hair cutting performance--.
For examination purposes, as best understood, Examiner is interpreting the “issues above” as below and claim 3 dependent from claim 2 is ejected 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-10, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jepson (US 2608756).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Jepson shows a cap (see the issue above, this invention is directly to a cap, therefore, the cap or the comb guard 15, Figure 1, meets this limitation) for a hair cutter (13, Figure 3), comprising:
a body (a body of the cap 15) comprising a main surface (a surface where ribs or ridges 18 extend therefrom) arranged to face towards a subject during use (as this is written, it is unclear how it can be used and what it is “used” for in this situation, see this comb guard is for comb function. This cap can be used to guard the shaver 13 and faces towards any subject); and
a protrusion (18, Figure 1) protruding from the main surface along a first direction (a vertical direction, Figure 1) perpendicular to the main surface,
wherein the protrusion comprises a plurality of ribs (there are many ridges 18, Figure 1) extending along a second direction (a direction the width of the cap 15) perpendicular to the first direction (Figures 1-2), the plurality of ribs parallel to each other and spaced apart from each other in a third direction (a longitudinal direction of the cap) perpendicular to the first and second directions (Figures 1-2),
wherein the plurality of ribs is mirror-symmetrical through a plane, wherein the plane extends along the first and third directions and bisects the plurality of ribs (see Figures 1-2),
wherein the main surface has a length in the third direction that is greater than a width of the main surface in the second direction (see Figures 1, 3, 5, the length in the longitudinal direction is greater the length in the direction of the cap width);
wherein each of the plurality of ribs has a length in the second direction greater than a width of the each rib in the third direction (Figure 1); and
wherein the main surface does not define an opening between adjacent ribs (see Figures 1 and 3), such that, during use of the hair cutter with the cap attached (Figure 3), the contact area between the hair cutter and the skin is reduced, and the friction between moist skin and the hair cutter is decreased accordingly, without compromising the hair cutting performance (there are ridges on the cap or guard that cause the friction between the object and the hair cutter is reduced or decreased as discussed in Col. 3, lines 36-39 “Furthermore the surface contact friction is reduced by virtue of the line contact with the ridges 18 thereby causing foreign objects which might bump the guard to be deflected more readily”. Moreover, see MPEP 2112.01, under the heading "Product and Apparatus Claims - When the Structure Recited in the Reference is Substantially Identical to that of the Claims, Claimed Properties or Functions are Presumed to be Inherent". With regards to “the hair cutting performance” is unclear what it refers to since this invention is directly to structures of a cap, therefore, this guard can be used to comb prior or after the hair cutting performance and meets the limitation).
Regarding claim 4, Jepson shows that each of the plurality of ribs comprises a lateral surface (lateral left and right surface of each rib) adjacent to the main surface of the body, an angle between the lateral surface and the main surface ranging from 90 to 140 degrees (about 135-140 degrees, Figure 3).
Regarding claim 5, Jepson shows that the body comprises first and second side portions (two ends of the guard where the reference “17” is pointing to in Figure 1), wherein the first and second side portions are separated from each other along the third direction and each has a convex surface (see its convex or rounded top and edges) protruding outwardly from the main surface (as it is written, it is unclear what direction of the convex surface protruding outwardly from the main surface; therefore see many portions at the ends protruding outwardly from the main surface in the 3rd direction as seen in Figure 1).
Regarding claim 6, Jepson shows that the body comprises an intermediate portion (the connection portion between two adjacent ridges or the portion where the reference 16 is pointing to in Figure 1) connecting the first and second side portions, the main surface being provided on the intermediate portion (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 7, Jepson shows that each of the plurality of ribs comprises a top and a bottom (Figure 1), wherein a total surface area of the plurality of ribs at a section (P) at a distance (d) from the top is 10%-60% of a surface area of the main surface (as it is written, it is unclear how big of the section P, therefore, a top surface of some ridges 18 can be 10%-60% of a surface area of the main surface as seen in Figure 1).
Regarding claim 8, Jepson shows that the distance (d) is 0.2 mm (as this is written, it is unclear what is the distance (d) is measured from where to where. Looking at Applicant’s Figure 6, it is measured from the top of the rib to somewhere below to the top, therefore, Jepson has the distance of the ridge 18, Figure 3, is measured from the top of the ridge to somewhere below the top is 0.2mm and meets this limitation).
Regarding claim 9, Jepson shows that each of the convex surfaces is a portion of a circular surface (see Figure 1, any portion of the guard end is a portion of a circular surface since this is claimed a PORTION of a circular surface).
Regarding claim 10, Jepson shows that the plurality of the ribs are provided in parallel on the main surface with the same interval (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 13, Jepson shows that a hair cutter (Figure 3), comprising the cap (see the discussion in claim 1 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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newkirk (US 2006/0005394).
Regarding claim 1 and 13, as best understood, Newkirk shows a cap (a cap 12, Figures 1-2) for a hair cutter (a shaving cartridge 10), comprising:
a body (a body of the cap 12) comprising a main surface (a surface where ribs or guides 16-17 extend therefrom) arranged to face towards a subject during use (Figure 1); and
a protrusion (16-17, Figure 1) protruding from the main surface along a first direction (a vertical direction, Figure 1, see the guides 16-17 extends from a top of end portions of the main surface adjacent to a blade 13) perpendicular to the main surface,
wherein the protrusion comprises a plurality of ribs (there are 4 middle guides 16-17, Figure 1) extending along a second direction (a direction the width of the cap or the head 12. Please note that as it is written, it is not required to have ribs extending an entire of a cap width) perpendicular to the first direction, the plurality of ribs parallel to each other and spaced apart from each other in a third direction (a longitudinal direction of the cap) perpendicular to the first and second directions (Figure 1),
wherein the plurality of ribs is mirror-symmetrical through a plane, wherein the plane extends along the first and third directions and bisects the plurality of ribs (see Figure 1, both guides 16 and guides 17 are mirror-symmetrical through a vertical plane),
wherein each of the plurality of ribs has a length in the second direction greater than a width of the each rib in the third direction (Figure 1); and
wherein the main surface does not define an opening between adjacent ribs (see Figure 1), such that, during use of the hair cutter with the cap attached (Figure 1), the contact area between the hair cutter and the skin is reduced, and the friction between moist skin and the hair cutter is decreased accordingly, without compromising the hair cutting performance (there are guides on the cap that cause the friction between the skin and the hair cutter is reduced or decreased).
However, Newkirk silently discusses that the main surface has a length in the third direction that is greater than a width of the main surface in the second direction.
Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the art to have a rectangular shape of a razor cutting head (a longitudinal length of a main surface greater than a width of the main surface). Many examples can be provided if challenged, as they are numerous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have had a razor cutting head (a longitudinal length of a main surface greater than a width of the main surface), as is well known, in order to reduce unnecessary material cost (since extra width length is not necessary) and increase the longitudinal length to provide more cutting edges for shaving quicker.
Regarding claim 4, Newkirk shows that each of the plurality of ribs comprises a lateral surface (lateral left and right surface of each rib) adjacent to the main surface of the body, an angle between the lateral surface and the main surface ranging from 90 to 140 degrees (about 90 degrees, Figure 1).
Regarding claim 5, Newkirk shows that the body comprises first and second side portions (2 ends of the cutting head), wherein the first and second side portions are separated from each other along the third direction and each has a convex surface protruding outwardly from the main surface (see two end guides 16, 17, Figure 1).
Regarding claim 12, Newkirk shows the cap, however it is unclear whether it is made of a thermoplastic material or not.
A cap made by thermoplastic is well known in the art. The examiner takes official notice that it is known to have the cap to be made of a thermoplastic material. Examples can be provided if it is challenged. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the cap being thermoplastic material, in order to be easily molded, a lightweight, and Eco-friendly manufacturing.
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have the cap being made of thermoplastic, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 3, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newkirk (US 2006/0005394) in view of Wain (US 2011/0094108).
Regarding claim 3, Newkirk shows all of the limitations as stated above except that each of the plurality of ribs has a width in the third direction (the thickness of the guides 16-17) which decreases in a direction away from the main surface and along the first direction when view in a cross section perpendicular to the second direction.
Wain shows each of ribs has a width (the thickness of the ribs 16, Figure 2) which decreases in a direction away from the main surface and along a vertical direction when view in a cross section perpendicular to a width direction (Figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the ribs of Newkirk to have a top of each rib to be tapered as set by and as taught by Wain, in order to allow the ribs smoothly contact the user’s skin and avoid any cut or scratch to the skin.
Regarding claim 11, Newkirk shows all of the limitations as stated above except a coating is provided on the main surface.
Wain also shows a coating is provided on the main surface (Para. 15 “the cap may include a shaving aid composite to deliver a lubricious substance to the user’s skin”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the cap of Newkirk to have a coating, as taught by Wain, in order to provide a lubricious substance to the user’s skin to reduce any friction between the shaver and the user’s skin.
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 the new art above.
The drawing and specification (05/19/2026) have been amended. The amendments have been considered and entered.
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
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 5/28/2026
Prosecution Insights