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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Reciprocating Shaving Tool.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
In this case, the abstract utilizes the legal phraseology “comprises” and is run-on sentence in the form of a claim.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “shaving tool bit adopting a penetrating-type fixing structure” is unclear (see 112 rejections below). This phrase is utilized throughout the specification and abstract and it is recommended that all occurrences of the phrase be replaced with “reciprocating shaving tool”.
The term “bayonets” is unclear. While it is understood Applicant can be their own lexicographer, there is certain structure associated with the term “bayonets” that does not correspond with item 12 in the Figures. This term is utilized throughout the specification and abstract and it is recommended that all occurrences of the phrase be replaced with “open-ended slots”.
The term “elastic sheet” is unclear. While it is understood Applicant can be their own lexicographer, there is certain structure associated with the term “sheet” that does not correspond with item 15 in the Figures. This term is utilized throughout the specification and abstract and it is recommended that all occurrences of the phrase be replaced with “elastic member”.
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 1-10 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.
The claims appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with idiomatic errors.
With regards to the claims, the terms “bottom”, “top”, “above”, and “below” are unclear in light of these terms being dependent upon an unclaimed orientation. The tool is handheld and is capable of being utilized in an infinite number of orientations many of which do not correspond with the terms. Terms that are true regardless of the orientation need to be used (i.e. bottom can be replaced with inner and top can be replaced with outer).
With regards to claim 1 line 1, the phrase “shaving tool bit adopting a penetrating-type fixing structure” is unclear. It is unclear what structure allows for an “adopting” function to take place and it is unclear what is meant by “adopting”. It is unclear what structure defines “penetrating-type fixing structure”. As written, there is a “penetrating-type fixing structure” in combination with all of the limitations disclosed in the claims which does not appear to be supported. As recommended above, the phrase should be replaced with “reciprocating shaving tool”.
With regards to claim 1 line 2, the fixed blade and movable blade disclosures are unclear. As written, there is no engagement between the blades which is not supported as there is never a time where the blades do not engage. See the claim 1 lines 5-11 rejection below for recommendations.
With regards to claim 1 lines 3-4, the phrase movable blade support (4) for mounting the movable blade (3) is arranged in the bottom shell (1) in a reciprocating mode” is unclear. It is unclear what is meant by reciprocating mode. It is unclear if the mode is referencing the relationship between the support and the blade or the support and the shell. See the claim 1 lines 5-11 rejection below for recommendations.
With regards to claim 1 lines 4-5, the phrase “a fixing pressing plate (9) is arranged above the fixed blade (2)” is unclear. As written, the plate is not engaged with the fixed blade which is not supported. The term “above” does not require engagement and there is never a time where plate 9 and blade 2 are not engaged. See the claim 1 lines 5-11 rejection below for recommendations.
With regards to claim 1 lines 5-11, the phrase “limiting columns (10) penetrating through the fixed blade and the movable blade (3) and extending towards the bottom shell (10) are arranged at two ends of a bottom face of the fixing pressing plate (9), the fixed blade (2) is provided with a through hole (11) for the limiting column (1) to penetrate through, limiting bayonets (12) used for clamping the limiting columns (10 to provide a reciprocating motor space for the movable blade (3) are arranged at two ends of the movable blade (3)” is unclear. It is recommended that each structure include all of its sub-structures when they are introduced. On line 2, the phrase “a fixed blade (2)” should be replaced with “a fixed blade (2) having inner and outer sides with through holes (11)”. On line 2, the phrase “a movable blade (3)” should be replaced with “a movable blade (3) having inner and out sides with respective open-ended slots on each end”. On line 3, the phrase “movable blade support (4)” should be replaced with “movable blade support having inner and outer sides”. On line 4, the phrase “fixing pressing plate (9)” should replace with “fixing pressing plate (9) having inner and outer sides with respective limiting columns adjacent each end extending from the inner side”. Once all of the structures and sub-structures are disclosed, how they interact can be disclosed. The movable blade support being movably arranged in the inner shell allowing the movable blade support to reciprocate therein, the outer side of the movable blade support mounts to the inner side of the movable blade allowing the movable blade to reciprocate with the movable blade support, the outer side of the movable blade engages the inner side of the fixed blade, the inner side of the fixing plate mounts to the outer side of the fixed blade so that the limiting columns respectively extend through the through holes, the open-ended slots, and the fixing plate.
With regards to claim 1 line 9, it is unclear how the bayonets (slots) of the movable blade perform a clamping function on the limiting columns while still allowing the movable blade to reciprocate. If the bayonets (slots) clamp the columns, that relationship would prevent the reciprocation of the movable blade.
With regards to claim1 and 6, it is unclear what structure defines the bayonets and the elastic sheet.
With regards to claim 1 lines 11-13, the phrase “tail ends exceeding an outer edge of the movable blade are arranged on two sides of the bottom shell” is unclear. It is unclear what is meant by “exceeding”. The teeth are on both sides of the shell but exceed only one outer edge of the movable blade. If the shell and movable blade have matching first and second sides, it is unclear how the teeth of the second side can be considered to exceed the first side of the movable blade?
With regards to claim 2, it is unclear what structure allows for the fixed teeth and the movable teeth to be “attached” to each other. If they are attached, the movable blade would not be able to reciprocate. An outer side of the movable teeth can engage an inner side of the fixed teeth.
With regards to claim 2, the phrase “a gap is left” is unclear. It is unclear how a gap “is left”.
With regards to claim 3 lines 2-3, claim 1 already discloses the protection teeth exceed an outer edge of the movable blade. It is unclear if the claim 3 limitation represents the same or a different structural relationship than the protection teeth outwardly exceed the movable blade teeth. Lines 2-3 needs to be amended so it is clear that this claim 3 limitation is further defining the claim 1 limitation.
With regards to claim 3, the phrase “teeth (7) correspond to those of the fixed blade teeth” is unclear. It is unclear what structure can and cannot be considered “correspond”. Further definition is needed.
With regards to claim 3, the protection heads disclosure is unclear. As written each tail end can have more than one protection head which does not appear to be supported.
With regards to claim 4, it is unclear which of the columns is being referenced. The claim should be amended to disclose a screw hole in each column and a respective screw for each screw hole.
Claim 5 should be amended to disclose the outer side of the movable blade support has mounting columns, the movable blade has mounting holes, the fixed blade has limiting sliding grooves, and the mounting columns are respectively received in the mounting holes and the limiting sliding grooves.
With regards to claim 6, it is unclear how the elastic sheet 15 is able to attach the teeth to each other. As discussed above, the teeth cannot be attached to each other and still allow for the movable blade to reciprocate. The elastic sheet may urge the movable blade against the fixed blade so that the teeth engage as well.
Claims 7-10 need to be amended to match any changes made to claim 1.
Claims
It is to be noted that claims 1-10 have not been rejected over prior art. It may or may not be readable over the prior art but allowability cannot be determined at this time in view of the issues under 35 USC § 112. Where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In reSteele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON DANIEL PRONE whose telephone number is (571)272-4513. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:00 am-3:00 pm.
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 D Ashley can be reached on (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.
15 July 2026
/Jason Daniel Prone/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights