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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/05/2025 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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the line connecting respective centers of the two sets in claim 2, the center lines of the two sets in claims 4-6, 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 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.
Claims1-8 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.
Claim 1 recites “the reciprocating-type blade unit is provided in the main body such that the second outer blade is movable upward and downward” is vague. Please note that this invention is a portable shaving device, therefore, the reciprocating-type blade unit (as a whole shaver) can be moved many directions including up and down directions, thus, it is unclear what Applicant is trying to claim. It is recommended that recitation be utilized that are true regardless of positions.
Claim 2 “the rotary-type blade units” are unclear since claim 1 appears to claim only one rotary-type blade unit. It is unclear because claim 2 “the rotary-type blade units” appears claiming more than one rotary-type blade units.
Also, it is unclear what the two sets are referencing to. Claims 4, 5, 6 have the same issue.
Claims 4-6 “the same line” lacks of antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. This line is indefinite because it is unclear what it is referencing to. Also, it is unclear what “a longitudinal direction” is referencing to.
Claim 7 recites “further …a first motor …a second motor” is unclear since claim 1 claims one motor. As claim 7 is written, it appears to have 3 motors in this shaver. Thus, it is unclear what the motor in claim 1 does and functions.
The scope of claim 8 “a rotation speed of the first motor and a rotation speed of the second motor are set to be changed depending on a position of the reciprocating-type blade unit in upward and downward directions” is unclear what structures of the shaver is that the rotation speeds of the first and second motors changed depending on a position of the reciprocating-type blade unit in upward and downward directions. If an art has a plurality of independent motors, a user can turn off one of the motor for whatever reasons, it meets the claimed invention, right? Or one of the motors cuts heavy hair load, the speed of the one of motors can be slower compared to other motors (not cut or cut less) that meets the claimed invention, right?
For examination purposes, as best understood, Examiner is interpreting the “issues above” as below and all claims dependent from claim 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent from the rejected parent claim.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Omoto (JP-2013070749-A and Translation) .
Regarding claim 1, Omoto shows an electric shaver (Figures 8-10) comprising:
a main body (10) including a rotary-type blade unit (two unit 16) having a first outer blade having an annular shape or a disk shape, and a first inner blade rotating (see the 2nd paragraph of page 3 “each rotary blade 16 has a disk-shaped outer blade 16A and an inner blade (not shown)) while coming into sliding contact with an inner surface of the first outer blade;
a reciprocating-type blade unit (28, Figures 8-10) having a second outer blade having a curved arc shape, and a second inner blade reciprocating while coming into sliding contact with an inner surface of the second outer blade (see the 3rd paragraph of page 3 “A foil blade 28 in which the outer blade and the inner blade…reciprocate by a vibrator 38”); and
a motor (20, Figure 7), wherein the reciprocating-type blade unit is provided in the main body such that the second outer blade is movable upward and downward (see the near end of the last paragraph of page 3 “the vertical position of the foil blade 28 can be changed by moving the slide member 32 up and down” and please note that this invention is a portable shaving device, therefore, the reciprocating-type blade unit can be moved many directions including up and down directions), and
even in a case where a top portion of the second outer blade is located at any position (for an example, see Figure 3B), the rotary-type blade unit is provided in the main body such that an upper surface of the first outer blade is inclinable to a position parallel to a tangent plane in contact with a farthest portion from the second outer blade on the upper surface of the first outer blade and an upper surface of the second outer blade (see Figure 3B and Figure 7B, please note that the positions of the blade 28 can be adjusted by the slide member 32 as discussed in the last Para. Of page 3, therefore, the an upper surface of the first outer blade can be tangent plane to the top surface of the 2nd outer blade).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Omoto shows that the rotary-type blade unit is provided in two sets (as this is written, it is unclear what the two sets are referencing to, therefore, looking at Figure 10, there are two sets 38A/38B) and are disposed such that a line connecting respective centers of the two sets in a plan view is parallel to a longitudinal direction of the reciprocating-type blade unit (see Figure 10).
Regarding claims 4-5, as best understood, Omoto shows that the reciprocating-type blade units are provided in two sets (see the discussion in claim 2 above), and are disposed in series (see Figure 10) such that respective center lines of the two sets (38A/38B) in a longitudinal direction (of the vibrator 38 from left to right) in a plan view are located on the same line (the longitudinal line of the vibrator 38 and the center lines of the two sets 38A/38B in the longitudinal direction of the vibrator 38 are the same line).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omoto in view of Jorna (US 6145200).
Regarding claim 3, Omoto shows all of the limitations as stated above except a flexible arm that transmits a driving force of the motor to the first inner blade.
Jorna shows a shaving device (Figures 1-2) having flexible shafts (27/28) for flexing a rotary cutting head.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the shaving device of Omoto to have a flexible shaft or arm, as taught by Jorna, in order to allow a comfortable shave along curved skin surfaces by flexing the cutting head.
Regarding claim 6, the modified Omoto shows all of the limitations as stated in claims 4-5 above.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omoto in view of Izumi (US 5483745 A).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Omoto shows all of the limitations as stated above including the motor, however, Omoto’s motor does not include a first motor that drives the first inner blade of the rotary-type blade unit; and a second motor that drives the second inner blade of the reciprocating- type blade unit.
Izumi shows a shaving device (Figure 1) having a plurality of motors (56), wherein each motor drives a cutting head set (60), respectively.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the shaving device of Omoto to have motors and each of the motors respectively drives a cutting head set, as taught by Izumi, in order to allow reducing driving noise and eliminates transmission loss of the driving force (see the first few lines of the summary of the invention of Izumi).
Regarding claim 8, the modified shaver of Omoto shows that a rotation speed of the first motor and a rotation speed of the second motor are set to be changed depending on a position of the reciprocating-type blade unit in upward and downward directions (see Figure 3 of Izumi, as this configuration, the motor is used to cut heavy load hair, the rotation speed of that motor is slower compared to other motors or one of the batteries is weak, the speed of the motor is less. See claim 1 for upward and downward directions).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2008/0184562, US 2008/0052910, 2008/0040927, each shows two different blade sets on the same a cutting head.
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 6/10/2026
Prosecution Insights