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 .
Detailed Action
The amendment filed on 04/13/2026 has been entered.
Objection to the Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
(1) At line 32 of page 2 and lines 27-28 of page 3, the stiffness is described as ranging from 0.05 N/m and 5N/mm. However, at line 31 of page 12 and lines 18-19 of page 18, the stiffness is described as ranging from 0.05 N/mm and 5N/mm. It appears the unit might be mixed up. Applicants are required to amend the specification for consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objection
Claims 3 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(1) In claims 3 and 19, it appears the stiffness “0.05N/m” should read
--0.05N/mm--. Note page 12, lines 31 and page 18, lines 18-19 of the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C. 112(a)
1. 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.
2. Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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.
(1) The newly added limitation in claims 1 and 19 has no support from the original specification and contradicts Figs.24 and 26 and pages 15-16 of the original specification. As shown in the Fig.24 and described on page 15 of the specification, the proximal portion 200, the medial portion 300 and the distal portion 400 are aligned along a longitudinal axis 701. Further, as seen in Fig.26, the hair removal surface 602 is parallel to a base longitudinal axis 703 which forms an angle 704 (e.g., between 5 to 80 degrees, see page 16, lines 29-30 of the specification) with the longitudinal axis 702. Thus, the longitudinal axis 702 is also at an angle 704 with respect to the hair removal surface 602 rather than substantially parallel to the hair removal surface as now claimed.
(2) In claim 1, line 13, it is not clear what includes a handheld portion.
(3) At line 14 of claim 1 and line 15 of claim 10, “substantially parallel to” is vague because the specification lacks some standard for measuring the degrees intended.
Prior Art Citations
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0068873 shows a hair removal device (see Fig.1) comprising a proximal portion (14), a medial portion (18) and a distal portion (20), including a handheld portion (16), aligned along a longitudinal axis, and the longitudinal axis being substantially parallel to a hair removal surface (32A) of the hair removal device as required by amended claims 1 and 10.
WO 2018/165757 shows a hair removal device (see Fig.14A) comprising a handle (12) and a cutting part (16) with its hair removal surface substantially parallel to a handle axis of the handle (12).
Remarks
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8, 10, 12, 14-17 and 19 have been considered but are moot in light of the above new ground(s) of rejection.
Action Made Final
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.
Point of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HWEI-SIU PAYER whose telephone number is (571)272-4511. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday from 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashley, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/HWEI-SIU C PAYER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights