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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/18/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “102” has been used to designate both the mounting mechanism in Figure 1 and the body in Figure 1 (there are many references “102, 103, 104…” that do not match in Figure 2). 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. 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 Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 “one or more indentation” should be amended to -- one or more indentations--. 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 7 and 19 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 7 “snugly fit therein” is unclear what structure is snugly fit therein? Claim 19 has the same issue.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Abrams (US 12290949).
Regarding claim 1, Abrams shows a cutting device (Figures 1-5) comprising:
a body (22/23, Figures 5-7) having a mounting mechanism (24, 44, Figure 5), wherein a razor blade (UB) is removably attached to the mounting mechanism (Figure 5);
a lid (40), the lid pivotably coupled to the body (Figure 7), wherein the lid partially covers the razor blade and at least one cutting edge of the razor blade is exposed (Figure 7); and a spring (48, Figure 7), the spring coupled between the body and the lid (Figure 4).
Regarding claim 2, Abrams shows that one or more indentations (see Figures 1-2, the housing 22 is not perfectly smooth, because many indentations or tapers as seen in Figures 1-4), wherein the one or more indentations are positioned on an exterior surface of the body.
Regarding claims 3-5, Abrams shows that the mounting mechanism includes one or more studs (two studs 44) and the one or more studs has a shape of a cross (see the stud 44 with a portion of the top edge 47, Figure 5), and the one or more studs include a plurality of studs (see Figure 5), wherein the plurality of studs distributes across a longitudinal side of the body, and wherein each of the plurality of studs is configured to align with a corresponding one of a plurality of mounting holes of the razor blade (see Figure 5).
Regarding claims 6-7, Abrams shows that the lid includes one or more lid indentations (a groove or slot between two studs 44, Figure 5), and wherein the one or more lid indentations are positioned on an interior lid surface of the lid (Figure 5), wherein each of the one or more studs is configured to align with a corresponding one of the one or more lid indentations (Figure 5) and the blade is snugly fit therein.
Regarding claims 8-9, Abrams shows that the body further includes a front (where the reference “21” in Figure 5), a back (where the reference “23”), a top (where the reference “22”), and a bottom (opposite the top), wherein the top is positioned on the body opposite the bottom, the top having a front portion and a back portion, the front portion being positioned adjacent the front (this is an inherent limitation), and wherein the mounting mechanism is positioned on the front portion of the top (Figure 5),
wherein the back portion of the top is positioned adjacent the back of the body (this is an inherent limitation), wherein the lid covers the front portion of the top, and wherein an exterior top surface of the back portion is flush with an exterior lid surface (Figure 5).
Regarding claim 10, Abrams shows a first indentation positioned across the exterior top surface of the back portion (where the reference “22” is in Figure 2, the surface is sloped down) and the exterior lid surface (that portion is across the lid surface 40); and a second indentation positioned on an exterior bottom surface of the bottom (see the aperture 30, Figure 7).
Regarding claim 11, Abrams shows that the front portion has one or more curved sides (see Figure 1, there are many curved surfaces).
Regarding claim 12, Abrams shows that the lid has a lid front (where the blade is exposed in Figure 7), the lid front being aligned with the front of the body to form a concave portion (see the chamber or cavity of the housing 22), the at least one cutting edge of the razor blade extending across the concave portion (Figure 7).
Regarding claim 13, Abrams shows that the lid includes one or more tabs (44), the one or more tabs being externally positioned on the lid adjacent to the lid front (Figure 5, with regards to “externally position”, it is unclear what it is relative to, therefore, the studs 44 are externally position the edge 47 and meet the limitation).
Regarding claim 14, Abrams shows that the body further includes a first side and a second side (there are 2 halve housing), the second side positioned opposite the first side, wherein the back portion and the bottom define a cavity (for the blade exposed out, Figure 7), the cavity being positioned adjacent to the first side, and wherein the cavity has a first interior surface and a second interior surface (see an aperture 30, Figure 7).
Regarding claim 15, Abrams shows that the spring is distally coupled to the lid, and wherein the spring is attached to the first interior surface of the cavity (Figures 4 and 7 and the discussion in claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 16, Abrams shows that the lid has a first arm and a second arm (26D and 26C, Figure 3), the first arm being coupled to the second interior surface of the cavity, and the second arm being coupled to the second side of the body (Figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 17, Abrams shows “a cutting device comprising:
a razor blade having at least one cutting edge;
a body having a mounting mechanism, the razor blade removably attached to the mounting mechanism;
a lid pivotably coupled to the body, the lid partially covering the razor blade and the at least one cutting edge of the razor blade is exposed;
a spring coupled between the body and the lid; and
one or more indentations being positioned on an exterior surface of the body” as seen the discussions above.
Regarding claim 18, Abrams teaches a method of providing a cutting device (see claim 1), the method comprising:
“opening a lid of the cutting device, wherein the lid is pivotably coupled to a body of the cutting device, and wherein the cutting device has a mounting mechanism positioned on the body;
mounting a razor blade on the mounting mechanism; and
closing the lid, wherein at least one cutting edge of the razor blade is exposed, and wherein a spring is coupled between the lid and the body (see Figure 7 since the as it is written, it is unclear what and when the lid is considered as “closing”).
Regarding claims 19-20, Abrams teaches securing the lid on the body (Figures 5-7), the mounting mechanism having one or more studs (44), the lid having one or more lid indentations (a groove between the studs), and each of the one or more studs snugly fitting “the blade” in a corresponding one of the one or more lid indentations Figures 5-7) and
holding the cutting device via one or more indentations exteriorly positioned on the body or the lid (see the discussions above, there are many indentations on the housing 22).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM EST.
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.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 6/1/2026
Prosecution Insights