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 “a cutting edge, which is curved, when viewed in plan, and arced, when viewed from the front” must be shown or the features canceled from the claim. Examiner is raising this objection especially because of Figure 2, which includes the razor blade in a plan view and in a front/rear view. However, the plan view has no distinctive differences from the front/rear view, other than a noted rake angle 38 on the plan view (a similar rake angle can be seen in the front/rear view). Therefore, the drawings make it unclear as to what the difference in “curved, when viewed in plan” and “arced, when viewed from the front” is. Furthermore, a plan view is generally understood to be a top-down view of the apparatus. Therefore, this cannot be the same view as the front/rear view. Furthermore, the specifications detail an arrow 24, which is supposed to indicate the direction of the view (Specifications, pg. 6, lines 31-34, “The razor blade 20 has a cutting edge 22 which is curved, when viewed in plan (as shown by arrow 24), and arced, when viewed from the front and rear (as shown by arrow 24)”). However, both the plan view and the front/rear view share the same arrow 24 in Figure 2, which would suggest the perspective of the plan view and the front/rear view is the same. Examiner suggests adding more notations or details for clarity. 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
Claims 1, 4, 6, and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities (Marking notations: Underline = Added Material, Strikethrough = Deleted Material):
Claim 1 is objected to because of “A razor comprising a razor cartridge” in line 1. This should be corrected to “A razor comprising: a razor cartridge.”
Claim 1 is also objected to because of “the orientation of the razor blade being movable between a first position” in lines 4-5. This should be corrected to “the orientation of the razor blade configured to be movable between a first position.”
Claim 1 is also objected to because of “the orientation of the razor blade being movable between a first position… and a third position… corresponding to the concave surface to be shaved” in lines 4-13. The wording of the passage should be edited for better clarity. Examiner suggests the following: “the orientation of the razor blade being movable between a first position, a second position, and a third position; wherein the first position is configured to correspond to ; wherein the second position is configured to correspond to
Claim 4 is objected to because of “the first, second and third positions are achieved” in lines 2-3. This should be corrected to “the first, second, and third positions are achieved.”
Claim 6 is objected to because of “pins extending from head securing arms provide at a razor cartridge end” in lines 2-3. This should be corrected to “pins extending from head-securing arms provided at a razor cartridge end.”
Claim 7 is objected to because of “and between the midpoint and two ends of the curved cutting edge” in lines 3-4. This should be corrected to “and between the midpoint and the two ends of the curved cutting edge.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4, and 5 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “a cutting edge, which is curved, when viewed in plan, and arced, when viewed from the front” in claim 1 is used by the claim to mean two different types of structures, as further explained in the specifications (Specifications, pg. 10, lines 31-32, “a curved blade formed from a portion of a cylinder, although curved as such, does not define an arc”) while the accepted meaning is the two terms have significant overlap. As defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, an arc can be “something arched or curved” or “a curved path.” Therefore, this limitation makes it unclear as to whether or not the two terms are describing the same structure or different structures. Claim 1 further details “the curved cutting edge defining an arc” which can be interpreted as the same curved structure; however this contradicts the explanation from the specification. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term “arc” vs “curve”. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “a cutting edge, which is curved, when viewed in plan, and arced, when viewed from the front” as a cutting edge with any type of curvature when viewed in plan and when viewed from the front.
Claim 1 also recites the limitation "the orientation of the razor blade" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “the orientation” as any orientation of the razor blade.
Claim 1 also recites the limitation “the same plane” in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “the same plane” as any plane that the two ends and the midpoint of the arc share.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "varying the angle of the handle" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “the angle” as any angle of the handle.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “automatically pivot the razor blade” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4, on which claim 5 depends, has dependency on claim 3 which recites “a plurality of razor blades” in line 1. Therefore, it is unclear as to whether “the razor blade” of claim 5 is one of the “plurality of razor blades” or a separate razor blade. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “the razor blade” to be one of the “plurality of razor blades” as recited in claim 3.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20040020053 A1 by Wain.
Regarding claim 1, Wain discloses a razor (Wain, para. 37, “The razor illustrated in FIGS. 1 to 11”) comprising a razor cartridge (Wain, Fig. 1, blade unit 2) fitted with at least one razor blade (Wain, Fig. 2, blades 16) having a cutting edge which is curved (see Examiner annotated Wain Figure 11, hereinafter “EAWF11”; curve), when viewed in plan (EAWF11, plan view), and arced (see Examiner annotated Wain Figure 10, hereinafter “EAWF10”; arc), when viewed from the front (EAWF10, front view), the razor blade in use being angled (EAWF11, angle) relative to a surface to be shaved, the curved (EAWF11, curve) cutting edge defining an arc with two ends (EAWF11, ends) and a midpoint (EAWF11, midpoint), the orientation of the razor blade being movable between a first position (Wain Figs. 5 and 6), in the case of a flat surface (see Examiner annotated Wain Figure 5, hereinafter “EAWF5”; flat surface) to be shaved, in which the two ends (EAWF5, first & second ends) and the midpoint (EAWF5, midpoint) of the arc are on the same plane to define a flat shaving profile, corresponding to the flat surface to be shaved; a second position (Wain Figs. 10 and 11), in the case of a convex surface (EAWF10, convex surface) to be shaved, in which the midpoint (EAWF10, midpoint) of the arc is lifted relative to the two ends (EAWF10, ends) of the arc, to define a convex shaving profile, corresponding to the convex surface to be shaved; and a third position (Wain Figs. 8 and 9), in the case of a concave surface (see Examiner annotated Wain Figure 8, hereinafter “EAWF8”; concave surface) to be shaved, in which the midpoint (EAWF8, midpoint) of the arc is lowered relative to the two ends (EAWF8, ends) of the arc, to define a concave shaving profile, corresponding to the concave surface to be shaved.
PNG
media_image1.png
482
592
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
498
560
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
393
500
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
400
500
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Wain discloses the razor blade (Wain, Fig. 7, blades 16) includes a razor blade flange (see Examiner annotated Wain Figure 7, hereinafter “EAWF7”; flanges) extending transversely (EAWF7, flange extension direction) to the curved cutting edge (EAWF7, cutting edge), to facilitate fitment of the razor blade to the razor cartridge (Wain, para. 41, “The strips 18 have turned-down T-shaped ends which are engaged with notches 20,21 moulded in the front and rear edges of the upper frame 6 in order to secure the blade assembly 5 to the support structure 4”).
PNG
media_image5.png
557
596
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Wain discloses a plurality of razor blades (Wain, Fig. 2, blades 16) are fitted to the razor cartridge (Wain, para. 37, “The razor illustrated in FIGS. 1 to 11 has a handle 1 on which a blade unit 2 is mounted”), the razor cartridge in turn being removably securable to a handle (Wain, para. 37, “the blade unit could equally well be releasably connected to the handle 1 to allow replacement of the blade unit 2”).
Regarding claim 4, Wain discloses the razor blade is fixed relative to the handle (Wain, para. 37, “handle 1 has a fixed support platform 3 to which the blade unit 2 is securely fastened”), in which the shaving profiles corresponding to the first (Wain Figs. 5 & 6), second (Wain Figs. 10 & 11) and third (Wain Figs. 8 & 9) positions are achieved by varying the angle of the handle, and thus the razor blade (Wain, para. 37, “the upper frame 6 is normally set at an appropriate angle with respect to the stem of the handle 1 and to ensure the desired deformation characteristics of the support structure as explained below… Since the frame 6 along the length thereof may be readily displaced by different amounts towards the sub-frame 7”).
Regarding claim 5, Wain discloses a pivoting arrangement (Wain, Fig. 4, springs web 12 & 14, hinge 10) to automatically pivot the razor blade between the first, second and third positions, as the razor slides across the surface being shaved (Wain, para. 39, “The resiliently flexible nature of the support structure with the springs webs 12,14 is such that localized portions of the upper frame 6 and the blade assembly 5 carried thereon can be deflected towards the razor handle 1 in order to adapt to the skin contours without necessarily influencing the dispositions of other portions thereof, and the upper frame 6 and the blade assembly 5 can as a consequence contort to comply with the undulations of the skin area over which they are moving. Thus, the blade unit 2 is resiliently compliant to ensure close contact with the skin over the full area spanned by the blades”).
Regarding claim 6, Wain discloses the pivoting arrangement includes spaced apart, inwardly facing pins (Wain, Fig. 15, pins 138) extending from head securing arms (Wain, Fig. 16, coil springs 112) provide at a razor cartridge end of the handle (Wain, Fig. 15, handle 101), the pins being arranged to accommodate complementary recesses (see Examiner annotated Wain Figure 17, hereinafter “EAWF17”; recess) defined in end side walls (Wain, Fig. 17, arm 136) of the razor cartridge.
PNG
media_image6.png
583
377
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Wain discloses the pins define a pivot axis (Wain, Fig. 16, axis A) therebetween, the pivot axis (Wain, Fig. 16, axis A) being above (see Examiner annotated Wain Figure 16, hereinafter “EAWF16”; contact surface & cutting edges) the curved cutting edge of the razor blade, when viewed from the side, and between (EAWF11, pivot axis) the midpoint (EAWF11, midpoint) and two ends (EAWF11, ends) of the curved cutting edge, when viewed from above.
PNG
media_image7.png
623
752
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 7721446 B2 by Royle teaches flexible elongated blades that can bend into concave/convex configurations with a pivotable handle.
US 5199173 A by Hegemann et al. teaches a blade that is movable between concave and convex positions for more efficient cutting
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEBORAH LIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5936. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 7:30am-5:00pm, every other Friday 7:30am-5:00pm.
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, Adam Eiseman can be reached at (571) 270-3818. 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.
/DEBORAH LIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/ADAM J EISEMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724