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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first pivot element flexing into the gap such that a portion of the first pivot element contacts the second pivot element and wherein the second pivot element is configured to flex and control a pivot angle of a head of a shaving device (see claim 1) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12: at the last line, “corresponding to second pivot element” should be amended to read “corresponding to the second pivot element”
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 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. As noted above in the objection to the drawings, the first pivot element flexing into the gap such that a portion of the first pivot element contacts the second pivot element does not appear to be shown. Likewise, the drawings do not show the pivot angle of a head of a shaving device being controlled by the flexure of the second pivot element. Further, the specification does not provide sufficient description to apprise one of ordinary skill in the art how this function is performed, simply indicating that the second pivot element is configured to directly engage with the first pivot element to share a load distribution when a force is exerted on the first pivot element by the second pivot member (see paragraph [0048] of instant specification). Based on the drawings, it appears to be impossible for first pivot element 50 to directly engage with second pivot element 60, and there is no recitation that explains specifically how this interaction occurs. For example, at what point does first pivot element 50 contact second pivot element 60? Does this occur when head 110 is pivoted halfway to its maximum point or sooner? How far can head 110 pivot once these two elements are in contact? Additionally, how does second pivot element 60 control a pivoting motion if it does not directly contact head 110? If head 110 can pivot further than what is shown in fig. 3, how much further can it pivot, and how is first pivot element 50 able to maintain engagement with 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, as discussed above, the drawings and specification lack sufficient detail to explain how the first pivot element is able to flex into the gap such that it contacts the second pivot element. Specifically, fig. 3 shows head 110 pivoted at what appears to be the maximum possible angle. In other words, based on the drawings, it does not appear that head 110 can be pivoted any further, and first pivot element 50 is not contacting second pivot element 60 at the perceived maximum pivot angle. In fact, assuming it is possible to pivot head 110 further, it appears that first pivot element 50 would slip out from opening 90 either before or upon contact with second pivot element 60. If alternatively, head 110 was pivoted in the other direction, such that the blades face “upwardly” (as related to fig. 3), first pivot element 50 would flex away from second pivot element 60, and contact between the two structures would still be prevented. Since it does not appear to be possible for the first pivot element to contact the second pivot element, it is unclear how the second pivot element can control a pivot angle of the head during a shaving operation. Because it is unclear how the pivot angle is controlled, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the full scope of the claim, particularly as it relates to the intended use of the first and second pivot elements.
Claims 2-3, 5-10, 12-15, 19-21, and 24-27 are likewise rejected by nature of their dependency on claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-15, 19-21, and 24-27 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 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