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.
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 8 does not appear to be used in the current specification.
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 blade-side semicircle positioned on a blade side and a grip-side semicircle positioned on a grip side, and the blade-side semicircle is entirely uncovered by the cover” of claim 8 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 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 8 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.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase “a blade-side semicircle positioned on a blade side and a grip-side semicircle positioned on a grip side, and the blade-side semicircle is entirely uncovered by the cover” is new matter. The specification does not appear to use the term circular, semicircle, or the specifics of the dial as currently claimed. Examiner notes the drawings do appear to show the dial as circular in shape, however, the specifics and details related to the bounds of the semicircular portions are not provided.
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 8 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 8, the phrase “a blade-side semicircle positioned on a blade side and a grip-side semicircle positioned on a grip side, and the blade-side semicircle is entirely uncovered by the cover” is unclear. Examiner notes the dial appears to be rotatable. As such, it is unclear as to the bounds of the semicircular portions, such that the “blade side semicircle” is capable of always being uncovered by the cover, even when the portions themselves rotate. If the dial rotates, it appears the “blade side semicircle” will move, and thus not always be uncovered by the cover. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be treated as capable of being covered during use.
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) formed at a distal end of the top wall, the distal end being close to the blade part (4), the protrusion protruding outwardly from an external surface of the top wall (See annotated Figure 8B below).
PNG
media_image1.png
414
712
media_image1.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_image2.png
654
414
media_image2.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, wherein the dial is circular (Figure 3) and comprises a blade-side semicircle positioned on a blade side and a grip-side semicircle positioned on a grip side (See Figures 1A noting two different semicircular portions extending out past the cover 8), and the blade-side semicircle is entirely uncovered by the cover (Figure 1A noting the semi-circle showing is capable of being rotated, thus the portion as shown is entirely uncovered in light of the 112 rejections above).
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).
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the current references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Examiner notes a new piece of art (US2005/0044719) has been utilized to better show multiple viewpoints of the cover (8) in relation to the dial (7).
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 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/ 06/08/2026Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights