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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed April 16th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-12 remain pending in the application. Examiner withdraws the objections to the claims previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed December 16th, 2025.
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.
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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the rotation of the internal cutting member". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as “a” rotation of the internal cutting member is not introduced beforehand.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
Tetsuhiko Shimizu (EP 3115160 A1 – hereinafter Shimizu).
Regarding claim 1, Shimizu teaches a shaving unit for an electric shaver, comprising a
supporting member (Fig. 8, Head Case 28) and at least two hair-cutting units (Fig. 4A, Blade
Unit 16) supported by the supporting member, wherein each hair- cutting unit has: a housing (Fig. 8, Outer Blade Case 34) having a central axis (Fig. 8, central axis defined by central circular opening in Outer Blade Case 34); an external cutting member (Fig. 4A, Outer Blade 22) supported by the housing and defining an annular shaving area having a plurality of hair-entry openings (Fig. 1, Hair Inlets 23), the external cutting member being rotatable about the central axis relative to the housing ([0012]); and an internal cutting member (Fig. 4A, Inner Blade 42) which is covered by the external cutting member and rotatable about the central axis relative to the external cutting member ([0022] – 22 rotates at 10 rpm, [0029] – 42 rotates at 2,700 rpm) and has a coupling member (Fig. 4A, Inner Blade Holder 44); wherein the shaving unit has, for each hair-cutting unit, an individual drive shaft (Fig. 5A, Inner Blade Drive Shaft 46) which is releasably coupled to the coupling member of the internal cutting member for rotating the internal cutting member about the central axis relative to the external cutting member ([0041]); wherein each hair-cutting unit has a transmission unit by means of which the external cutting member is rotatable about the central axis relative to the housing (Fig. 4A- 6B), the transmission unit being accommodated in the housing of the hair-cutting unit and having: a first transmission member (Fig. 5A, Gear 80) mounted to the internal cutting member to be rotatable together with the internal cutting member about the central axis; a second transmission member (Fig. 4A, Gear 74) mounted to the external cutting member to be rotatable together with the external cutting member about the central axis; and at least one intermediate transmission member (Fig. 5A, Gear 58) via which the first transmission member is coupled to the second transmission member to enable, during operation of the shaving unit when the internal cutting member is driven by means of the drive shaft to rotate about the central axis, the rotation of the internal cutting member about the central axis to cause a rotation of the external cutting member about the central axis (Fig. 4A-6B, the internal and external cutting members are connected via gears such that rotating the internal gears would result in the external gears being rotated).
Regarding claim 2, Shimizu further teaches the shaving unit as claimed in claim 1,
wherein: each hair-cutting unit is pivotable relative to the supporting member about at least one
pivot axis (Fig. 9A and 9B; [0044]); and the coupling member of the internal cutting member of
each hair-cutting unit is configured to maintain rotational coupling with the individual drive shaft
associated with the hair-cutting unit during pivoting of the hair-cutting unit about the at least one
pivot axis (Fig. 3; [0046]).
Regarding claim 3, Shimizu further teaches a shaving unit as claimed in claim 2,
wherein each of the individual drive shafts comprises a coupling head (Fig. 5A, round top
portion of Inner Blade Drive Shaft 46), wherein the coupling member of the internal cutting
member of each hair-cutting unit comprises a cavity accommodating the coupling head of the
individual drive shaft associated with the hair-cutting unit (Fig. 3), and wherein surfaces of the
coupling head and the cavity are configured to slide over each other during pivoting of the hair-
cutting unit about the at least one pivot axis (Fig. 3, it is clear from the structure in Fig. 3 that the
surfaces of the cavity and coupling hide would slide over each other upon pivoting of the cutting
unit).
Regarding claim 4, Shimizu further teaches a shaving unit as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the transmission unit is configured to convert a rotation of the internal cutting member
about the central axis at a first rotational speed into a rotation of the external cutting member
about the central axis at a second rotational speed (Fig. 4A-6B, the internal and external cutting
members are connected via gears such that rotating the internal gears would result in the external
gears being rotated), wherein the second rotational speed ([0022] – 22 rotates at 10 rpm) is lower
than the first rotational speed ([0029] – 42 rotates at 2,700 rpm).
Regarding claim 10, Shimizu further teaches a shaving unit as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the housing (Fig. 8, Outer Blade Case 34) of each hair-cutting unit comprises a skin-
contacting surface which surrounds the external cutting member of the hair-cutting unit.
Regarding claim 11, Shimizu further teaches an electric shaver comprising: a main body
(Fig. 2, Main Body 2) accommodating a motor ([0013]); and a shaving unit (Fig. 4A, Blade Unit
16) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the supporting member (Fig. 8, Head Case 28) of the shaving
unit is coupled to the main body (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Shimizu further teaches an electric shaver as claimed in claim 11,
wherein: the supporting member of the shaving unit comprises a connecting member (Fig. 8,
Engagement Claw 18) by means of which the shaving unit is releasably connected to the main
body (Fig. 2; [0015]); the connecting member accommodates a main drive shaft (Fig. 2, Drive
Shaft 12) which is coupled to the motor in a connected condition of the shaving unit to the main
body ([0014]); and the shaving unit comprises a transmission system (Fig. 5A, system
comprising Gear 52) to convert rotation of the main drive shaft into rotation of the individual
drive shaft of each hair-cutting unit of the shaving unit ([0030]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tetsuhiko
Shimizu (EP 3115160 A1 – hereinafter Shimizu).
Regarding claim 5, Shimizu further teaches a shaving unit as claimed in claim 4,
wherein the transmission unit is configured to realize a speed reduction rate of about 270
(Calculated from [0022] – 22 rotates at 10 rpm and [0029] – 42 rotates at 2,700 rpm). However,
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify
the rotational speeds of the internal and external blades of Shimizu such that the speed reduction
rate is in a range of about 20 to 25 as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that
“where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to
discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." The rotational speed of
the external blade is disclosed to be a result effective variable which must be optimized to
prevent user pain and raise hair for cutting ([0022]), and the rotational speed of the internal blade
is disclosed to be a result effective variable which must be optimized to prevent poor shaving
quality and minimize abrasion of the blade ([0029]).
Regarding claim 6, Shimizu further teaches a shaving unit as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the transmission unit is configured to make the external cutting member run at a
rotational speed of about 10 rpm ([0022] – 22 rotates at 10 rpm). However, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the rotational speed
of the external blade of Shimizu to be in a range of about 40 rpm to 120 rpm as a matter of
routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are
disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by
routine experimentation." The rotational speed of the external blade is disclosed to be a result
effective variable which must be optimized to prevent user pain and raise hair for cutting
([0022]).
Regarding claim 7, Shimizu further teaches a shaving unit as claimed in claim l, wherein
in the transmission unit: the first transmission member comprises a first gear wheel (Fig. 5A,
Gear 80) arranged co-axially relative to the central axis; the second transmission member
comprises a second gear wheel (Fig. 4A, Gear 74) arranged co-axially relative to the central axis;
and the at least one intermediate transmission member (Fig. 5A, Gear 58) comprises at least one
intermediate gear wheel via which the first gear wheel is coupled to the second gear wheel .
Shimizu does not teach that the first transmission member is arranged on the coupling member of
the internal cutting member, that the second transmission member is arranged on an inner side of
an annular flange portion of the external cutting member and, and each intermediate gear wheel
having its rotational bearing arranged on the housing. However, it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the device of Shimizu such that
these features are arranged at the aforementioned locations as it has been held that the position of
a feature may be in a different location as an obvious matter of design choice as long as it does
not modify the operation of the device In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)
and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). Examiner finds that the location of
the gears does not modify the operation of the device.
Regarding claim 8, Shimizu further teaches a shaving unit as claimed in claim 7,
wherein the transmission unit comprises at least two intermediate gear wheels (Fig. 5A, Gear 58a
and Fig. 4A, Gear 78), and wherein the rotational bearings of the respective intermediate gear
wheels are included in an integral housing part (Fig. 4A and 5A, integral housing part composed
of Blade Rest 76 and Gear Case 50).
Regarding claim 9, Shimizu further teaches a shaving unit as claimed in claim 7,
wherein in the transmission unit, the at least one intermediate transmission member comprises a
pair of intermediate gear wheels in stacked configuration (Fig. 5A, Gear 58a and Fig. 4A, Gear
78).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Shimizu does not teach the newly added limitation of claim 1 which specifies that during operation of the shaving unit, the rotation of the internal cutting member causes a rotation of the external cutting member since the rotation of the external and internal cutting members stem from centralized lower gear 5. Claim 1 states that there is an intermediate gear which enables the rotation of the internal cutting member to cause a rotation of the external cutting member. Rotation of the internal cutting member of Shimizu is realized by Gear 52 rotating to drive the rotation of Gear 80, which in turn results in the rotation of Item 42 (equivalent to the claimed internal cutting member). This Gear 52 is also connected to Gear 58 (equivalent to the claimed intermediate gear), which can be selectively brought into connection with the external cutting member of Shimizu (item 22, via gear 78) such that a rotation of the internal cutting member (which includes and requires the rotation of gears 52 and 80 of Shimizu) necessarily causes a rotation of the external cutting member. Therefore, Shimizu still teaches the amended claim 1 with regard to this limitation.
Applicant additionally argues that Shimizu does not teach the transmission unit being accommodated in the housing of the hair cutting unit as is required by claim 1. However, it can be seen in Fig. 4A of Shimizu that each of the hair-cutting units has a transmission unit (transmission unit including at least Gear 74, Inner Blade Case 70, and Cap 72) which works to rotate the external cutting member, the transmission unit being accommodated in the housing of the hair cutting unit (Fig. 3, it can be seen that the transmission unit of Shimizu is at least partially accommodated in Case 34).
Applicant further argues that Shimizu does not teach that the first transmission member is mounted to the internal cutting member or that the second transmission is mounted to the external cutting member because there are elements located between the respective transmission members and cutting members of Shimizu. The plain meaning of the word “mounted” does not require that an item being mounted to another item is in direct contact with the other item with no intermediate structure in between the two. Merriam-Webster defines “mount” as “to arrange or assemble for use or display”. Shimizu shows the first transmission member (Gear 80) mounted to the internal cutting member (Blade 42) in a way that the two are assembled for use, the use in this case being rotation. Similarly, Shimizu shows the second transmission member (Gear 74) mounted to the external cutting member (Blade 22) in a way that the two are assembled for use, the use in this case being rotation. Therefore, Shimizu does teach the aforementioned limitation and the rejection is maintained as appropriate.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Applicant argues that Shimizu does not teach the claimed local transmission in each hair cutting unit. Claims 5 and 6 do not require a local transmission in each hair cutting unit. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding claims 7-9, Applicant argues that locations of the first transmission member, the second transmission member, and the intermediate gear member are critical because the location of the transmission unit as a whole in the housing of each hair cutting unit provides a number of benefits, pointing to the paragraph bridging pages 3-4 in the specification of the claimed invention. This paragraph does not mention any criticality pertaining to the location of these individual pieces of the transmission unit, rather benefits drawn to the location of the entire transmission unit in the housing (which is already taught in claim 1). Therefore, the locations of these individual claimed items are found to be a matter of design choice, and the rejection remains.
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 ELLA LORRAINE KEENA whose telephone number is (571)272-1806. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am - 5:00 pm ET.
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.
/ELLA L KEENA/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights