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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 at line 1 recites, “A hair cutting unit of reciprocating electric shaver, including an external blade”. This recitation should read – A hair cutting unit of a reciprocating electric shaver, the hair cutting unit including an external blade – in order to (i) provide an article for ‘reciprocating electric shaver’ and (ii) more clearly indicate that the hair cutting unit is the structure that includes the external blade and the structures recited thereafter.
Claim 1 at line 4 recites, “the support”. This recitation should read – the support member – for consistency with the introduction of “a support member” at line 2.
Claim 1 at line 5 recites, “the retainer”. This recitation should read – the retaining member – for consistency with the introduction of “a retaining member” at line 2.
Claim 1 at line 6 recites, “the long wall of external blade”. This recitation should read – the long wall of the external blade – since the external blade is previously introduced at line 1. (Note that this suggestion does not correct any issue identified below under 35 USC 112(b).)
Claim 1 at line 7 recites, “the long wall of external blade”. This recitation should read – the long wall of the external blade – since the external blade is previously introduced at line 1. (Note that this suggestion does not correct any issue identified below under 35 USC 112(b).)
Claim 1 at lines 6-7 recites, “at least one support”. This recitation should read – the support member – for consistency with line 2.
Claim 1 at line 7 recites, “the support”. This recitation should read – the support member – for consistency with line 2.
Each of claims 2-7 recites, “of reciprocating electric shaver” at the first line of the respective claim. Each such recitation should read – of the reciprocating electric shaver –.
Claim 2 begins with, “The hair cutting unit”, but each of claims 3-7 begins with, “A hair cutting unit”. Claims 2 and 3-7 should be amended to use consistent language.
Claim 3 at line 1 recites, “the retainer”. This recitation should read – the retaining member – for consistency with the introduction of “a retaining member” in claim 1.
Claim 3 recites, “two mutually opposite retaining walls”. These retaining walls are already introduced in claim 1 at line 5. Thus, claim 3 should refer to – the two mutually opposite retaining walls –. The present application discloses a total of two retaining walls, rather than four walls, such that claim 3 in view of the present application is referring to the same walls as already introduced in claim 1.
Claim 3 at the third line recites “the retaining walls”. The claims should avoid using two different phrasings to refer to these walls. That is, claim 3 refers to these walls as “two mutually opposite retaining walls” and “the retaining walls”. After the initial introduction of “two mutually opposite retaining walls”, these walls should consistently be referred to by only one of – the two mutually opposite retaining walls – and – the retaining walls –. All other claims should be amended as needed in the same manner.
Claim 6 at line 1 recites, “the support”. This recitation should read – the support member – for consistency with claim 1.
Claim 7 at line 1 recites, “the support”. This recitation should read – the support member – for consistency with claim 1.
Claim 7 at line 2 recites, “the end portion and middle portion”. This recitation should read – the end portion and the middle portion –.
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 1-7 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.
Claim 1 at line 6 recites, “wherein the long wall of external blade [sic] is provided with a following hole”. This recitation is indefinite because claim 1 previously introduces plural “long walls” (see line 3), yet line 6 refers to “the long wall” in the singular. Since the claim previously introduces plural “long walls”, the recitation of “the long wall” can be interpreted as referring to a particular one of the long walls, either of the long walls, or even each of the long walls. As such, it is unclear whether line 6 is requiring that one of the long walls is provided with a following hole, or that each of the long wall is provided with a following hole. Note that the external blade “1” as discussed in the present application includes two long walls “13”, and each of the long walls “13” has following holes “11”. As such, either option for interpreting claim 1 (i.e., that one of the long walls is provided with a following hole, or that each of the long walls is provided with a following hole) is consistent with the present application. (Regarding interpreted the claim to require that one of the long walls is provided with a following hole, the Applicant is not required to claim each disclosed feature.) Likewise, claim 1 is indefinite because it is unclear whether “the long wall” at line 6 is required to be the same one of the long walls as referred to at line 7. That is, even assuming that “the long wall” at line 6 is referring to one of the long walls, it is regardless unclear whether “the long wall” at line 7 must be the same wall as referred to at line 6.
Claim 2 at lines 1-2 recites, “the retaining wall”. This recitation is indefinite because claim 1 introduces plural “retaining walls” at line 5, and thus it is unclear which wall(s) are referred to by “the retaining wall” in claim 2. Does “the retaining wall” in claim 2 refer to each of the retaining walls introduced in claim 1, or does “the retaining wall” in claim 2 refer to one of the retaining walls introduced in claim 1? Either interpretation is consistent with the present application, so the present application cannot be relied upon to clarify this issue.
Claim 2 recites, “at least one support”. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether the “at least one support” that passes through the support hole in the retaining wall is required to be the same structure as the “at least one support” that passes through the following hole in the long wall as required by claim 1. Alternatively, claim 2 can be interpreted as introducing an additional support, where the support of claim 2 is required to pass through the support hole in the retaining wall and the support introduced in claim 1 is required to pass through the following hole in the long wall. Either interpretation is consistent with the present application, so the present application cannot be relied upon to clarify this issue.
Claim 4 recites, “the distance” at line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this distance in the claim, rendering the claim indefinite. There are multiple different distances between two non-parallel walls, so it is unclear what particular distance is referred to by the recitation “the distance” at claim 4. Similarly, claim 4 at line 3 recites, “that” to implicitly refer to another distance. The distance referred to by “that” at line 3 likewise lacks antecedent basis. Since it is unclear what particular distance(s) are referring to in claim 4, the claim is indefinite.
Claim 5 at lines 1-2 recites, “the retaining wall” and at line 2 recites, “the long wall”. Claim 5 is indefinite because claim 1 introduces retaining walls in the plural and long walls in the plural, such that it is unclear which ones of the retaining walls and long walls are referred to in claim 5. For example, does “the retaining wall” in claim 5 refer to each of the retaining walls introduced in claim 1, or does “the retaining wall” in claim 5 refer to one of the retaining walls introduced in claim 1? Either interpretation is consistent with the present application, so the present application cannot be relied upon to clarify this issue.
Claim 5 at the final line recites, “the support hole”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, rendering claim 5 indefinite. Although claim 2 introduces “a support hole”, claim 5 depends from claim 1 rather than claim 2. Claim 5 is thus indefinite. Does claim 5 include a dependency error, where the Applicant actually intends claim 5 to depend from claim 2 to provide an antecedent basis for “the support hole”? Or, does claim 5 intend to introduce a new ‘support hole’ despite the use of “the” in claim 5? Or, does “the support hole” intend to refer to “the following hole” that is introduced in claim 1?
Claim 6 at line 2 recites, “the support hole”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, rendering claim 6 indefinite. Although claim 2 introduces “a support hole”, claim 6 depends from claim 1 rather than claim 2. Claim 6 is thus indefinite. Does claim 6 include a dependency error, where the Applicant actually intends claim 6 to depend from claim 2 to provide an antecedent basis for “the support hole”? Or, does claim 6 intend to introduce a new ‘support hole’ despite the use of “the” in claim 6?
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 52006262 A to Takahashi Yutaka (hereinafter ‘Yutaka’; alternatively numbered as JPS526262A).
Regarding claim 1, Yutaka discloses a hair cutting unit (shown in Fig. 1 and including features discussed below) of reciprocating electric shaver (no electric shaver is claimed, and instead ‘of reciprocating electric shaver’ is merely an intended use of the claimed hair cutting unit; the unit of Yutaka is usable with a reciprocating electric shaver when the shaver having body 6 is provided as an electric shaver), including an external blade 1, an internal blade 9, a support member 3 (the support member 3 including the structure shown in Fig. 4; see Figs. 1 and 5), and a retaining member 4 & 5;
the external blade 1 includes a curved wall (the curved wall at a top of the external blade 1 relative to Fig. 1) and two mutually opposite long walls (see Fig. 1, where the ‘long walls’ are at left and right sides of the external blade 1; each of the long walls includes one of the base ends 2);
the support 3 holds the internal blade 9 (see Fig. 1; the support 3 holds the internal blade 9 against the upward force exerted on the internal blade 9 by the spring 10 relative to Fig. 1 because the support 9 is directly engaged with the external blade 1 as can be seen in Fig. 5, and the external blade 1 directly engages the internal blade 9 also as can be seen in Fig. 1, such that the support 3 prevents the internal blade 9 from being moved upwardly relative to Fig. 1 – see the discussion of the support 3 holding the internal blade 9 at page 4 of the English language translation of Yutaka at the sentence beginning, “When the push-up spring 10 pushes up the outer cutter 1 via the inner cutter 9, …”; note also that the broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘hold’ includes to keep under restraint and to prevent from some action per merriam-webster.com, such the support 3 keeps the internal blade 9 from being moved upward beyond a certain degree – that is, the broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘hold’ does not require direct contact between the support and the internal blade);
the retainer 4 & 5 has two mutually opposite retaining walls 11 (see the annotated Fig. 2 below);
wherein the long wall of external blade 1 is provided with a following hole through which at least one support passes (see Fig. 5 – the following hole is a hole through which pin 15 of the support 3 passes), and the long wall of external blade 1 can move along the support that passes through the following hole (compare Figs. 3 and 4 – body 14 of the support 3 is elastic such that the long wall of the external blade 1 can move along the upper and lower portions of the support 3 relative to Fig. 5 as the body 14 moves between the configurations of Figs. 3 and 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
428
750
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Yutaka discloses that the retaining wall 11 is provided with a support hole (see the annotated Fig. 2 above; the support hole extends to outer lateral edges of elements 20) through which at least one support 3 passes (the support 3 passes through the hole in the direction into and out of the page relative to Fig. 1, since the shelves 20 engage the support 3 to hold the support 3 down per page 3 of the English language translation of Yutaka at the sentence beginning ‘The outer cutter vertically moving mechanism 5.3 …’).
Regarding claim 5, Yutaka discloses that the retaining wall 11 is provided with a boss 5 (see the annotated Fig. 2 above), the long wall of external blade 1 is in contact with the boss 5 (compare Figs. 1 and 5; Fig. 5 shows that the long wall of the external blade 1 extends below the support 3, and Fig. 1 shows the support 3 directly above the boss 5, such that in combination Figs. 1 and 5 illustrate the long wall of the external blade 1 being in contact with the boss 5; note further that the external blade 1 is vertically movable relative to the bottom surface of the boss 5, such that the long wall of the external blade 1 is in contact with the boss 5 at least when a downward force sufficient to overcome the biasing force of spring 10 is applied to the external blade 1) and is far away from the support hole (see Fig. 1; the long wall is spaced apart from, and thus ‘far away from’ the support hole identified in the annotated Fig. above; e.g., the long wall is far away from the support hole at least in comparison with the support 3).
Regarding claim 6, Yutaka discloses that the support 3 has an end portion (see the annotated Fig. 5 below, where the indicated portion is an ‘end portion’ due to being an end of element 16 of the support; i.e., the broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘an end portion’ is any portion that is at the end of any section of the support 3) and a middle portion (see the annotated Fig. 5 below, where the indicated portion is a ‘middle portion’ because the portion is at a middle of the support 3 as can be seen in Fig. 4, consider the middle of the support is located between the two elements 18 in Fig. 4 – that is, any portion of the support between the elements 18 can be properly be considered as a ‘middle portion’ due to being within a middle section of the entire support 3), the end portion can pass through the support hole (the end portion can pass through a support hole formed in the shell 13; see the annotated Fig. below; note that the support hole of claim 6 need not be the same support hole as that required by claim 2), and the middle portion cannot pass through the support hole (the middle portion extends in a direction away from the support hole, such that the middle portion cannot pass through the support hole that the end portion passes through).
PNG
media_image2.png
463
561
media_image2.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(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yutaka in view of US Pat. No. 2,246,586 to Hanley.
Regarding claim 3, Yutaka discloses that the retainer 4 & 5 is provided with a connecting portion 12 to connect two mutually opposite retaining walls (see the annotated Fig. 2 provided above), both the connecting portion 12 and the retaining walls are sheets (see Fig. 2, where each of the connecting portion and the retaining walls can be considered as ‘sheets’ due to their thinness relative to the lengths and widths).
Regarding claim 4, Yutaka discloses that the connecting portion 12 is bent so that the two mutually opposite retaining walls are not parallel (this feature is satisfied at least during removal of the retainer 4 & 5; see page 4 of the English translation of Yutaka at the sentence beginning, “When removing the outer cutter …,” which describes bending the retainer 4 & 5 to a configuration where the elements 5 are disengaged from grooves 8, in which configuration the connecting portion 12 is bent and the retaining walls are non-parallel), and the distance between the retaining walls near the connecting portion 12 is greater than that between the retaining walls far from the connecting portion (i.e., the distance between the retaining wall at a top of the retainer 4 & 5 is greater than a distance between the retaining walls at a bottom of the retainer 4 & 5 when the retainer 4 & 5 is bent so that the elements 5 disengage the grooves 8 because such a bending of the retainer 4 & 5 urges the bottom ends of the retaining walls toward one another).
Yutaka fails to disclose the material from which the retainer is constructed, and thus fails to disclose that the sheets that form the connecting portion and the retaining walls are metal as required by claim 3.
Hanley teaches that the parts making up a shearing head are made of stainless steel (see page 1 at the right column at lines 24-26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the parts of the cutting unit of Yutaka, inclusive of the retainer, from stainless steel in view of the teachings of Hanley. This modification is advantageous because stainless steel is known for its rust-resisting properties, and the cutting unit of Yutaka may be used in an environment where it is exposed to water (e.g., during rinsing of the cutting unit or while shaving in a humid environment such as a bathroom), such that this modification reduces the likelihood of rust occurring. Moreover, this modification is obvious because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416), and stainless steel is known to be a suitable material for forming the parts of a cutting unit.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yutaka in view of US Pat. No. 2,246,586 to Hanley and US Pat. No. 4,707,916 to Kness et al.
Regarding claim 7, Yutaka discloses that the end portion and middle portion are circular (see the annotated Fig. above and Fig. 4, the latter of which illustrates the portions as having circular shapes; also, the outer portion is cylindrical on an inner side of the blade 1 relative to Fig. 5) and have different diameters (i.e., the right-most section of the middle portion – i.e., the section of the middle portion to the right of the external blade 1 relative to Fig. 5 – has a greater diameter than a right-most section of the end portion as shown in Fig. 5; the broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘have different diameters’ merely requires that some diameter of the middle portion is different than some diameter of the end portion).
Yutaka fails to explicitly disclose that the support is made of metal and that the end portion and middle portion are cylindrical, both as required by claim 7.
First regarding the material of the support, Hanley teaches that the parts making up a shearing head are made of stainless steel (see page 1 at the right column at lines 24-26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the parts of the cutting unit of Yutaka, inclusive of the support, from stainless steel in view of the teachings of Hanley. This modification is advantageous because stainless steel is known for its rust-resisting properties, and the cutting unit of Yutaka may be used in an environment where it is exposed to water (e.g., during rinsing of the cutting unit or while shaving in a humid environment such as a bathroom), such that this modification reduces the likelihood of rust occurring. Moreover, this modification is obvious because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416), and stainless steel is known to be a suitable material for forming the parts of a cutting unit.
Second, regarding the shapes of the end and middle portions of Yutaka, the end and middle portions of Yutaka are parts of pins. Moreover, cylindrical pins are known in the art (see, e.g., pins 13 of Kness, which are cylindrical as shown in Figs. 1 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide each of the end and middle portions of Yutaka, which portions are defined by respective pins, with cylindrical shapes in view of the teachings of Kness. 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. In this case, a cylindrical shape for the pins of Yutaka is consistent with the illustration of the pins in Figs. 3 and 4 of Yutaka. Moreover, Kness teaches that a cylinder is a suitable shape for a pin of a cutting unit. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art could have select a cylindrical shape for the pins of Yutaka since this shape is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. This modification does not change the functionality of the pins.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Each of the following references discloses a pertinent cutting unit:
US Pat. No. 2,289,518 to Raia
US Pub. No. 2005/0223560 A1 to Walls
US Pat. No. 5,553,383 to Wetzel
US Pat. No. 4,510,687 to Groothuis et al.
US Pat. No. 4,991,295 to Messinger
US Pat. No. 4,271,590 to Ernst et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVAN H MACFARLANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30AM to 4:00PM MT.
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.
/EVAN H MACFARLANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3724