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 . 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 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/11/2024 and 01/03/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
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 7 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
-The term “close” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Regarding claim 7, the phrase “wherein a surface close to a grip side of the protrusion is a concave curved surface” is unclear, as it is unclear what surface may be considered “close”. As currently claimed, any surface within the device may be considered “close” for the purposes of examination.
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, 2 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakakura (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2005/0044718).
Regarding claim 1, Nakakura teaches a cutting device comprising:
a main body (1) including a grip (1a,1b,1c)(Figure 1B; Paragraph 0036);
a blade part including a fixed blade (2) fixed to the main body and a movable blade (3) configured to reciprocate in a slidable way with respect to the fixed blade (Figure 1A; Paragraph 0034);
a dial (7) that is rotatably attached to the main body and is operated when a cutting height is adjusted (Paragraph 0059; noting a trim length may be adjusted based on the rotation of the dial 7);
and a cover (8,17) that covers a part of the dial in a state where rotation of the dial is permitted (Figures 1A-1C noting portions 7a that protrudes from the cover 8 allowing rotation of the dial 7), wherein the dial is attached between the grip and the blade part to the main body, and the cover covers a grip side of the dial (Figures 1A-1C and Figure 3; Paragraph 0034-0035).
Regarding claim 2, Nakakura teaches the cutting device according to Claim 1, wherein the cover includes a plurality of types of surfaces (Figure 3; Examiner notes the cover has multiple surfaces, flat, round, angled, recessed etc. as provided in the Figures).
Regarding claim 4, Nakakura teaches the cutting device according to Claim 1, wherein the cover comprises: a top wall (Bottom wall surface of cover 8 as shown in Figure 3) covering a top surface (X1) of the dial, a peripheral wall (X2) covering a peripheral surface (7a) of the grip side of the dial, and a coupling wall (17) that couples the top wall and the peripheral wall, and the peripheral wall is formed to be wider than the top wall (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0040; See annotated Figure 3 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
824
592
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Nakakura teaches the cutting device according to Claim 4, wherein the coupling wall includes a coupling surface (rounded exterior surface of element 17 that engages the dial 7) that is a convex curved surface (Figure 3; Paragraph 0037, 0041).
Regarding claim 6, Nakakura teaches the cutting device according to Claim 1, further comprising: a top wall (Bottom wall surface of cover 8 as shown in Figure 3) covering a top surface (X1) of the dial, wherein a protrusion (X3) protruding in a direction away from the dial (Protrudes in a direction towards the right as shown in figure 3 and thus “in a direction away” from the dial) is formed at a distal end of the top wall, the distal end being close to the blade part (See annotated Figure 3 above).
Regarding claim 7, Nakakura teaches the cutting device according to Claim 6, wherein a surface (X4) close to a grip side of the protrusion is a concave curved surface (See annotated Figure 3 above; Examiner notes the surface to be “close” relative to the grip side of the protrusion and is concave in shape).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakakura (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2005/0044718) in view of Sonnenberg (U.S. Patent No. 2014/0360021).
Regarding claim 3, Nakakura teaches the cutting device according to Claim 1, but does not provide wherein the cover includes an anti-slip part formed on the cover.
Sonnenberg teaches it is known in the art of hair cutting implements to incorporate a handle with an exterior surface comprised of anti-slip materials (Paragraph 0004).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Nakakura to incorporate the teachings of Sonnenberg to provide an external surface with an anti-slip part. Doing so provides a surface with a material for better gripping.
Thus, Nakakura in view of Sonnenberg provides the cover includes an anti-slip part formed on the cover (Nakakura Figure 3 and Sonnenberg Paragraph 0004).
Related Prior Art
Below is an analysis of the relevance of references cited but not used
- "892 cited references B-J on page 1 establish the state of the art with a variety of shavers and with different cutting elements/blades using a variety of driving mechanisms for the cutting elements and blades.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD D CROSBY JR whose telephone number is (571)272-8034. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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.
/RICHARD D CROSBY JR/ 11/26/2025Examiner, Art Unit 3724