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 .
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 1-9 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.
Claim 1, the last paragraph recites “the first microprocessor in the blade cartridge structured and disposed for storing the total area shaved to date and determining the maximum remaining area that can be shaved while maintaining a predetermined sharpness of the plurality of blades”.
These features were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the first microprocessor structured and disposed for storing the total area shaved to date and determining the maximum remaining area” (emphasis added). How is the “total area shaved” measured and determined? Where is the data of the “total area shaved” coming from?
Reading at page 5 of the original specification which discloses “the total area shaved to date is stored in the memory of the first processing element 24 before each shave, as measured by the microphone 70” which does not clear how the microphone can be used to measure the area (a space with 2 dimensions).
The last line of the summary of the invention recites “A microphone in the handle allows for measuring noise of the blade cartridge traveling over the skin surface to calculate wearing of the blades” (emphasis added).
The last line of page 4 of the original specification recites “The microphone 70 receives noise as the user shaves”.
There is no described or art-recognized correlation between the disclosed function of being able to position that the first microprocessor structured and disposed for storing the total area shaved to date and determining the maximum remaining area”.
All claims dependent from claim 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, as being dependent from the rejected parent claim.
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.
Claims 1-9 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 recites “the first microprocessor in the blade cartridge structured and disposed for storing the total area shaved to date and determining the maximum remaining area that can be shaved while maintaining a predetermined sharpness of the plurality of blades” that is unclear (the original specification does not clearly disclose how the total area shaped is measured and determined, see the discussion above). Is the first microprocessor for storing data of the total area, right? Which’s device is that the total area shaped is measured or generated, in order to the first microprocessor to store it? Another word, how is the data of the total area shaved coming from?
“the total area” is suggested to amend to –a total area—;and
“the maximum remaining area” is suggested to amend to –a maximum remaining area--.
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.
Examiner’s notice
Regarding claim 1, Robinson (US 10647011) shows a razor system (Figure 10) comprising:
a handle (1002, Figure 10 and see the details as discussed below);
a blade cartridge (1006) pivotally and removably attachable to the handle (Col. 9, lines 3-5 “a removeable and disposable razor cartridge and see it is pivotally in Figures 3D, 3E) and including a plurality of blades (see the cartridge 106; there are 5 blades 107), and the blade cartridge have a unique identification code (as it is written, it is unclear what the unique identification code is, therefore, Col. 21, lines 49-51 recites “can be an I.D. on the cartridge communicated to the handle by magnetic, electric or capacitive data communication; can be a physical I.D. such as a physical key on the cartridge 1006 that is sensed by the handle 1002” that meets this limitation);
a first microprocessor in the blade cartridge (for an example, Col. 21, lines 49-51 “can be an RFID tag on the cartridge sensed by an associated RFID reader on the handle” that means it has a microprocessor for communicating data to the handle) for collecting, receiving, storing, processing and transferring data (as it is written, it is unclear how long the data can be stored, therefore, Col. 21, lines 55-63 recites “a new razor cartridge 1006 is coupled to the handle 1002 (the new cartridge event) will begin the collection point for cumulative shave event data where that cumulative shave event data will be thereafter associated with the age of the new razor cartridge 1006. This cumulative shave event information can be used to calculate or estimate, for example, the sharpness of the associated blades contained within the cartridge 1006” that means the microprocessor is for collecting, receiving, storing, processing and transferring data the shave event data), and
the first microprocessor being structured and disposed for receiving, storing and transferring the unique identification code of the blade cartridge (see the discussion above) identifying the blade cartridge and the data (Col. 21, lines 61-64 “This cumulative shave event information can be used to calculate or estimate, for example, the sharpness of the associated blades contained within the cartridge 1006”);
a second microprocessor (1052, Figure 10) in the handle for collecting, receiving, storing, processing and transferring data (Col. 18, lines 40-45 “new cartridge detection sensors, and/or pressure sensor(s) associated with the handle 1002 and/or razor cartridge 1006. The shaving appliance 1003 may also include an appliance circuit 1052 connected to receive (via a data connection) sensor signals from the plurality of sensors contained within the razor appliance 1003”), and
the first microprocessor and the second microprocessor both structured for bidirectionally communicating with each other including sending and receiving the data therebetween (see the discussion in Col. 18, lines 40-45 );
a rechargeable power source (1118, Figure 10) in the handle for powering at least the second microprocessor;
a charging base (1301, Figure 10) structured for wireless charging of the rechargeable power source.
Robinson fails to discuss “the first microprocessor in the blade cartridge structured and disposed for storing a total area shaved to date and determining a maximum remaining area that can be shaved while maintaining a predetermined sharpness of the plurality of blades”, however, which lacks written description to support the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the total area shaved is achieved, measured or generated (see the discussion above). Therefore, Examiner does not know how the issues will be overcome. Therefore, there is no further art (none of art of record) can be applied to claims 1-9 at this time because it is not clear how the issues will be overcome and these claims cannot be considered to be “allowable” at this time due to the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) set forth in this Office action. Therefore, upon the claims being rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in this Office action, further consideration of these claims with respect to the prior art will be necessary.
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 teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. See the new issues have been arisen above.
However, if Applicant 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
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 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.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 1/8/2026