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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they contain new matter (see 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection below). 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.
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 1 is 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.
The drawings filed 7/22/2026 introduce new matter. As previously discussed, the original drawings do not show an angle of head 110 being changed in response to the flexing movement of first pivot element 50. That the new drawings now show head 110 in various positions in response to the interaction of first pivot element 50 and second pivot element 60 constitutes new matter. Likewise, second pivot element 60 was not previously shown to flex in response to contact with first pivot element 50 – in the original drawings, first pivot element 50 and second pivot element 60 were not shown to contact one another in general. Other structural relationships were also not disclosed in a sufficient manner to apprise one of ordinary skill in the art what the invention entails, for example: the approximate maximum that head 110 can pivot in both directions; how first pivot element 50 interacts with second pivot element 60, i.e., how second pivot member 70 applies a force to first pivot element 50 such that first pivot element 50 flexes to contact second pivot element 60; how second pivot element 60 flexes in response to contact by first pivot element 50; and how tip 46 interacts with pivot base 95 to transmit force from the flexure of first and second pivot elements 50, 60 to head 110.
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.
Claim 1 is 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.
Regarding claim 1, the drawings and specification lack sufficient detail to explain how first pivot element 50 is able to flex into the gap such that it contacts second pivot element 60. Specifically, it is unclear how second pivot member 70 transmits force to first pivot element 50. Though the new drawings show the flexing movement of first and second pivot elements 50, 60, it is still not clear what causes first pivot element 50 to flex towards second pivot element 60. Examiner notes that the specification states that second pivot member 70 causes flexure of first pivot element 50 (see at least paragraph [0048]), but based on the structure of second pivot member 70, it is unclear how this movement occurs. In the newly submitted figs. 3A-3B, it appears that first pivot element 50 is not acted upon by second pivot member 70. Therefore, it remains unclear how the pivoting movement of head 110 is achieved.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, Examiner notes that the interaction between first and second pivot elements 50, 60 was not shown in the originally filed drawings. Likewise, the specification does not make clear how second pivot member 70 applies a force to first pivot element 50, which causes the flexure of second pivot element 60. Thus, since neither the originally filed drawings or specification describe this function in sufficient detail, the drawings filed 7/22/2026 introduce new matter.
Second, regarding Applicant’s assertion that the disclosed geometry enables pivoting in both directions (see pgs. 13-14 of remarks), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant states that first pivot element 50 flexes into gap 44 towards second pivot element 60 to enable a pivoting of head 110 in a first direction. Applicant also states that when head 110 pivots in the opposite direction, first pivot element 50 engages second pivot element 60 from the opposite side. It is unclear how this can occur. Even though first pivot element 50 includes arcuate portion 48 which extends into the plane of second pivot element 60, there does not appear to be any way for the opposite side of second pivot element 60 to be engaged by any portion of first pivot element 50. Therefore, it is understood that second pivot element 60 limits the angle that head 110 can pivot in a “downward” direction, but it remains unclear how second pivot element 60 can control the pivot angle when head 110 is pivoted in the “upward” direction. In other words, while it is understood that second pivot element 60 acts like a spring to return force through first pivot element 50 back to second pivot member 70, it is unclear how a pivot angle is controlled by second pivot element 60 once it is no longer in contact with first pivot element 50.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-3, 5-10, 12-15, 19-21, and 24-27 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not explicitly disclose or otherwise render obvious in combination with all claim limitations a pivot mechanism comprising a first pivot element configured to receive force applied by a second pivot member and flex into a gap such that a portion of the first pivot element contacts a second pivot element, wherein the second pivot element is configured to flex and control a pivot angle of a head of a shaving device.
The closest prior art of record is Ntavos (US 20210122072). Ntavos discloses a pivot mechanism configured for use on a shaving device (razor connector 1 is configured to be used on razor cartridge 2; see paragraph [0057] and fig. 1), the pivot mechanism comprising: a first pivot member (razor connector 1; see figs. 2A-2C) including a support extending along an axis between a first end and a second end (central portion 23 extends from proximal end 4 towards distal end 5; see figs. 1 and 2C), a first pivot element (central tine 12; see figs. 2A-2C), at least a portion of which extends axially from the first end of the support toward the second end of the support (central tine 12 extends from proximal end 4 towards distal end 5; see figs. 1 and 2C), a second pivot element (peripheral tines 11 and 13; see figs. 2A-2C), at least a portion of which extends axially from the first end of the support toward the second end of the support (peripheral tines 11 and 13 extend from proximal end 4 towards distal end 5; see figs. 1 and 2C), and a gap defined between the first pivot element and the second pivot element (a gap is defined between central tine 12 and peripheral tines 11 and 13; see fig. 2B); and a second pivot member (see annotated portion of fig. 3A) configured to interact with the first pivot member (razor cartridge 2 comprises a pivot member which can affix to upper portion 10 of razor connector 1; see paragraph [0060] and figs. 3A-3B) and to surround at least the first pivot element (the second pivot member at least partially surrounds central tine 12; see figs. 3A-3B), at least a portion of the second pivot member being configured to apply a force on the first pivot element and the second pivot element (the second pivot member interacts with razor connector 1 such that razor cartridge 2 is resiliently suspended and maintained in a use position; see paragraphs [0058, 0062, and 0066]); wherein the first pivot element is configured to receive a force applied by the second pivot member and flex into the gap (central tine 12 is bent by the second pivot member during operation so that it flexes towards the gap; see paragraphs [0062, 0066] and figs. 3A-3B). However, Ntavos does not explicitly disclose that a portion of the first pivot element contacts the second pivot element, and wherein the second pivot element is configured to flex in response to being contacted by the first pivot element. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably seek to modify Ntavos to teach this limitation since the first and second pivot elements (central tine 12, peripheral tines 11, 13) are located beside each other, rather than one above the other. In order for central tine 12 to flex such that it contacts either of peripheral tines 11, 13, central tine 12 would need to be positioned above or below one of peripheral tines 11, 13. In making this modification, significant restructuring of Ntavos would be required since peripheral tines 11, 13 are not configured to control a pivot angle in response to contact from central tine 12. Rather, all three tines work in concert to support razor cartridge 2. Therefore, such a modification would not be obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 20190224868 to Robinson, drawn to a networked shaving appliance system; US 20190224869 to Robinson, drawn to a shaving appliance including a notification circuit for communicating cumulative shave event information; and US 20190224870 to Robinson, drawn to a shaving appliance including a notification circuit for communicating shave stroke direction information.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HALEIGH N WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3818. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 530AM-330PM 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.
/HALEIGH N WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights