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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/11/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5, 7-8 are pending.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
-The terminology utilized within claim 1 does not appear to be used in the current specification. Specifically “the protrusion protrudes in a direction parallel to a rotation axis of the dial from the distal end”.
- The terminology utilized within claim 8 does not appear to be used in the current specification. Specifically “in a view along the rotation axis of the dial, a projected area of the dial exposed from the cover on a grip side of a center of the dial is smaller than a projected area of the dial exposed from the cover on a side opposite to the grip side of the center of the dial”. Paragraphs 0121-0122 appear to note the differences in the “exposed” areas, but does not specify a viewpoint.
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 “the protrusion protrudes in a direction parallel to a rotation axis of the dial from the distal end” of claim 1; and “in a view along the rotation axis of the dial, a projected area of the dial exposed from the cover on a grip side of a center of the dial is smaller than a projected area of the dial exposed from the cover on a side opposite to the grip side of the center of the dial” of claim 8 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
-Examiner notes the drawings appear to show the distal end to be reference character 31b with the protrusion being 312 (See Figure 3 noting the distal end surface and protrusion and Figure 10 noting the rotational axis C1; Paragraph 0096-0097). As currently shown in the Figures, the protrusion appears to intersect the rotational axis C1, and is not parallel as it is currently claimed (See annotation of Figure 10 below noting one example of the current claim language of the protrusion extension position).
-Examiner also notes the viewpoint of claim 8 may be shown, but it is unclear as to what view Applicant is referring to that specifically relates to the drawings, to show the projected areas as claimed such that one projected area is smaller than the other.
PNG
media_image1.png
523
354
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 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 1-5 and 7-8 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “the protrusion protrudes in a direction parallel to a rotation axis of the dial from the distal end” is unclear. Examiner notes the protrusion of capable of “protruding” in a plurality of directions, all different depending upon the viewpoint as the protrusion is three-dimensional and shown in the drawings from multiple positions. As such, it is unclear as to the bounds of the protrusion protruding in a direction parallel to a rotation axis of the dial from the distal end”, such that the “protrusion is capable of only being in the claimed state. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be treated as a portion of the protrusion is protruding in a direction parallel to a rotational axis of the dial.
-Regarding claim 8, the phrase “in a view along the rotation axis of the dial, a projected area of the dial exposed from the cover on a grip side of a center of the dial is smaller than a projected area of the dial exposed from the cover on a side opposite to the grip side of the center of the dial” is unclear. The language concerning “a view” does not appear to state what view is to be used (top view, isometric or side view as shown in the Figures). The viewpoint appears to change the overall perspective of the bounds of what can be considered the “projected area of the dial” that can be exposed. As such, it is also unclear as to the bounds of what is to be considered the projected area. Is the projected area the entirety of the exposed dial or merely an undefined portion? What defines the grip side/ area such that the projected area includes two different portions? Examiner notes the drawings appear to provide the grip area as capable of being handled and utilized by the user (Figures 23-29) however, the users thumb appears to possibly extend past the dial cover as shown in Figure 29. What are the bounds to the “grip side” to define the first and second projected areas?
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, 4-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakakura (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2005/0044719).
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 (4) 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 (Figure 1A, 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);
and the cover comprises a top wall (X1) covering a top surface of the dial (Figures 3 and 8B), and a protrusion (X2) wherein the protrusion is formed at a distal end of the top wall, the distal end is close to the blade part (4), the protrusion protrudes in a direction parallel to a rotation axis of the dial from the distal end of the top wall (See Figure 3 noting a view of the components including the top surface and annotated Figure 8B below).
PNG
media_image2.png
710
578
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 peripheral wall (X3) 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 (Figures 1A and 3; Paragraph 0040; See annotated Figure 3 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
654
414
media_image3.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 8, Nakakura teaches the cutting device according to Claim 1, in a view along the rotation axis of the dial, a projected area of the dial exposed from the cover on a grip side of a center of the dial is smaller than a projected area of the dial exposed from the cover on a side opposite to the grip side of the center of the dial. (See annotated Figure 4 below showing a projected area P1 on a grip side, that is smaller than the opposite side P2 when taken through the “center” along the rotational axis of the dial as viewed from “Above” or a top view. Examiner notes the interpretation to be as best understood in light of the 112 rejections above).
PNG
media_image4.png
694
540
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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. 2005/0044719) 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).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakakura (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2005/0044719).
Regarding claim 7, Nakakura teaches the cutting device according to Claim 6, and wherein a grip side surface of the protrusion is an angled surface (See annotated Figure 8B above noting that the surface is angled to some degree, as the specific angle is not claimed).
Nakakura does not provide the grip side surface of the protrusion as a concave curved surface.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the protrusion of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Related Prior Art
Below is an analysis of the relevance of references cited but not used
- "892 cited references A-B on page 1 establish the state of the art with a different dial orientation (Kammer) and a different dial cover (Morisugi).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner has updated the rejection above to better show the projection extension (top to bottom) in relation to the rotational axis of the dial (7). As best understood, the projection extends/projects in a direction parallel to the rotational axis of the dial as shown in the annotation of Figure 8A above.
-Claim 8 has also been updated to include the new claim limitations and has been interpreted as best understood in light of the 112 rejections noting it is unclear as to what viewpoint is to be utilized, as well as the bounds of the projected areas and other terminology.
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/ 09/23/2026Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights