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 .
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (8,295,962), hereinafter Jones, in view of Schallig (WO 00/60426), Clark (5,964,037), Hillebrandt (6,314,648), Applicant’s admitted prior art (the Remark filed on 04/25/2024: fade blades and taper blades are standard blades known in the art), hereinafter AAPA, Brownell (2010/0293071), and Oxford et al. (2013/0333219), hereinafter Oxford.
Regarding claim 1 Jones teach a method for customizing a (footwear) hair appliance substantially as claimed except for the limitations in the bolded texts, comprising the steps of:
generating a rendering of (a footwear) a hair appliance to be customized (step 202; system 400; Figs. 1-4) on a remote terminal;
displaying the rendering of the (footwear) hair appliance on a graphical display 400 of the remote terminal (Fig. 4 );
receiving user input through the remote terminal for modifying a characteristic (stars, name, decoration type, color) of at least one feature (top of the footwear) of the hair appliance (Figs. 6-12) ;
generating a modified rendering of the (footwear) hair appliance to be customized based upon the user input received (Figs. 6-12), the modified rendering of the hair appliance including a three-dimensional embodiment of the hair appliance capable of being rotated about one or more axes (col. 10, lines 34-40 and 47-56; Figs. 8, 9, and 12), the modified rendering of the hair appliance configured for translation in a vertical direction and a horizontal direction (col. 10, lines 34-40, moving the model around the interface system 400);
displaying the modified rendering of the (footwear) hair appliance on the graphical display of the remote terminal (Figs. 6-12); and
directing a user to a summary page based on the user input received, the summary page including a total cost and an option to edit the hair appliance;
wherein the hair appliance is a hair trimmer, and the at least one feature includes a blade of the hair trimmer;
wherein the at least one characteristic includes a type of the blade and a blade finish;
wherein the type is one of a fade style blade and a taper style blade.
wherein the blade finish is one of titanium, stainless steel, or graphite.
See Figs. 1-13.
Jones does not teach the customizing method applying to a hair trimmer, and types of blades of the hair trimmer.
Schallig teaches customizing household appliances or shavers so that byers want the products to say something about him/her and that distinguish him/herself from others . See page 1, lines 1-8.
For a broad interpretation of the term “hair trimmer”, a shaver is a hair trimmer since it can trim hair.
For a narrower interpretation of the term “hair trimmer”, the term “household appliances” would cover the hair trimmer since the hair trimmer is used in a household for trimming hair similar to a shaver.
Hillebrandt and Clark teach a hair trimmer. It is known that hair trimmers are used in a household. Therefore, the hair trimmers are considered household appliances.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use the method in Jones for customizing the hair appliances such as a shaver or a hair trimmer as taught by Schallig, Hillebrandt, and Clark so that buyers want the products to say something about him/her and that distinguish him/herself from others.
Regarding the limitation of selecting types of blades, Clark teaches a hair trimmer having a fade blade. Hillebrandt teaches a hair trimmer having a taper blade. Also fade blades and taper blades are standard blades known in the art according to AAPA.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Jones that it customizes many different parts of the hair trimmer which includes a taper blade or a fade blade according his/her needs.
Regarding the limitation “wherein the blade finish is one of titanium, stainless steel, or graphite”, Oxford teaches a hair trimmer having a cutting blade made from stainless steel or titanium. See para. [0033].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include the step of selecting common materials for the blade such as titanium and stainless steel as taught by Oxford so that the user could select his/her favorite material for the blade.
Furthermore, gold, titanium, stainless steel, and graphite are common materials for the blade, 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. Since one skilled in the art is known to select his/her own material, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include the steps of selecting material of the blades so that one skilled in the art to select a desire material according to his/her liking.
Jones does not teach a summary page with a total case and an option to edit the hair appliance.
Brownell teaches a method for customizing a product comprising the step of “directing a user to a summary page based on the user input received, the summary page including a total cost (107) and an option to edit (38 or “Edit”) the hair appliance” so that a customer knows the price of his/her product and a chance of modifying the order. See Figs. 7-8.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide the method of Jones a summary page as taught by Brownell so that so that a customer knows the price of his/her product and a chance of modifying the order.
Regarding claims 2-3, Jones teaches customizing many different components of a shoe such as a toe cover portion 1186 and a heel cover portion 1194. Jones also teaches that a buyer could add graphics and design to the product which includes colors.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the modify the method of Jones that it customizes many different parts of the hair trimmer which includes the colors for the housing, the handle, the logo plate, the bottom cap, and the taper arm.
Regarding claim 5, Jones teaches transmitting information from the buyer to a factory 102. See Fig. 1. When the method in Jones is applied for customizing a hair appliance, the factory 102 is a hair appliance factory for making hair appliances. Schallig also teaches transmitting modifying information and manufacturing the hair appliance according to the user input. See Figs. 1-3, page 3, lines 4-16, and page 6.
Regarding claim 6, Jones teaches a computer and smartphone for ordering a product. See Fig. 1. Schallig also teaches a computer system in Figs. 1-3, page 6, lines 14-35, and page 7, lines 1-3.
Regarding claim 11, Jones teaches a system for customizing a footwear comprising the step of rotating a footwear on a display in respond to a user input for viewing the footwear at different viewing angles during a designing process for creating a better design. See col. 10, lines 34-40.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (8,295,962), hereinafter Jones, in view of Schallig (WO 00/60426), Holmes (8,341,846), Clark (5,964,037), Hillebrandt (6,314,648), Applicant’s admitted prior art (the Remark filed on 04/25/2024: fade blades and taper blades are standard blades known in the art), hereinafter AAPA, Brownell (2010/0293071), and Oxford et al. (2013/0333219), hereinafter Oxford.
Regarding claim 7, Jones teaches a system for customizing a (footwear) hair trimmer substantially as claimed except for the limitations in the bolded texts, comprising:
a manufacturing facility 102; and
a remote terminal 100 in communication with the manufacturing facility via a network 104, the remote terminal being configured to:
generate a rendering of a (footwear) hair trimmer to be customized,
display the rendering of the hair trimmer on a graphical display 400 of the remote terminal,
receive user input regarding a user-selectable configuration of at least one feature of the hair trimmer, the at least one feature including a blade of the hair trimmer,
generate a modified rendering of the (footwear) hair trimmer to be customized based upon the user input received, the modified rendering of the hair trimmer including a three- dimensional embodiment of the hair trimmer capable of being rotated about one or more axes (col. 10, lines 34-40 and 47-56; Figs. 8, 9, and 12), the modified rendering of the hair appliance configured for translation in a vertical direction and a horizontal direction (col. 10, lines 34-40, moving the model around the interface system 400),
display the modified rendering of the (footwear) hair trimmer on the graphical display 400 of the remote terminal, and
directing a user to a summary page based on the user input received, the summary page including a total cost and an option to edit the hair appliance;
wherein the modified rendering of the (footwear) hair trimmer includes a rendering of the user-selected configuration of a housing, a handle, a logo plate, a bottom cap and the taper arm applied to the hair trimmer;
wherein the user-selectable configuration of the blade includes selecting a type of blade and a finish of the blade, the type of blade being a fade style blade or a taper style blade, and the finish of the blade being one of gold, titanium, stainless steel and graphite.
See Figs. 1-13.
Jones does not teach the customizing method applying to a hair trimmer, and types and materials of blades of the hair trimmer.
Schallig teaches customizing household appliances or shavers so that byers want the products to say something about him/her and that distinguish him/herself from others . See page 1, lines 1-8.
For a broad interpretation of the term “hair trimmer”, a shaver is a hair trimmer since it can trim hair.
For a narrower interpretation of the term “hair trimmer”, the term “household appliances” would cover the hair trimmer since the hair trimmer is used in a household for trimming hair similar to a shaver.
Hillebrandt and Clark teach a hair trimmer. It is known that hair trimmers are used in a household. Therefore, the hair trimmers are considered household appliances.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use the method in Jones for customizing the hair appliances such as a shaver or a hair trimmer as taught by Schallig, Hillebrandt, and Clark so that buyers want the products to say something about him/her and that distinguish him/herself from others.
Regarding the limitation of selecting types of blades, Clark teaches a hair trimmer having a fade blade. Hillebrandt teaches a hair trimmer having a taper blade. Also fade blades and taper blades are standard blades known in the art according to AAPA.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Jones that it customizes many different parts of the hair trimmer which includes a taper blade or a fade blade according his/her needs.
As to the term “a blade and a taper arm”, they are common features of a hair trimmer as shown in Fig. 2 in Holmes. Holms teaches a hair trimmer having a blade 2 and a taper arm 4. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to includes a taper arm on the remote terminal so that a user could select a taper arm if he wishes.
Regarding the limitation “the finish of the blade being one of gold, titanium, stainless steel and graphite”, Oxford teaches a hair trimmer having a cutting blade made from stainless steel or titanium. See para. [0033].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include the step of selecting common materials for the blade such as titanium and stainless steel as taught by Oxford so that the user could select his/her favorite material for the blade.
Furthermore, gold, titanium, stainless steel, and graphite are common materials for the blade, 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. Since one skilled in the art is known to select his/her own material, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include the steps of selecting material of the blades so that one skilled in the art to select a desire material according to his/her liking.
Jones does not teach a summary page with a total case and an option to edit the hair appliance.
Brownell teaches a method for customizing a product comprising the step of “directing a user to a summary page based on the user input received, the summary page including a total cost (107) and an option to edit (38 or “Edit”) the hair appliance” so that a customer knows the price of his/her product and a chance of modifying the order. See Figs. 7-8.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide the method of Jones a summary page as taught by Brownell so that so that a customer knows the price of his/her product and a chance of modifying the order.
Regarding claim 8, Jones teaches a computer system in Fig. 1. Schallig also teaches a computer system in page 6, lines 14-35.
Regarding claim 9, Jones teaches transmitting modifying information and manufacturing the hair appliance according to the user input in Fig. 1. Schallig also teaches transmitting modifying information and manufacturing the hair appliance according to the user input. See page 3, lines 4-16, and page 7, lines 1-3.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 10/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the combination of references is based on hindsight reasoning. This argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
The Applicant argues that the present invention provides a user interface and interactive display that allows a user to view a rendering of a hair trimmer on the display, and to select and view different user-selectable designs, colors, patterns, etc. for various functional and non-functional components of the hair trimmer. Different components of the hair trimmer can thus be modified by selection through the user interface, and the modified components will be displayed in real-time on the interface so that a user can visualize the customized hair trimmer prior to placing an order. This argument is not persuasive. Jones teaches a user to view a rendering of a shoe on the display, and to select and view different user-selectable designs, colors, patterns, etc. for various functional and non-functional components of the shoe. The shoe in Jones has many function areas. For example, the sole of the shoe protects a foot from contacting rocks which hurts the foot. The portion above the sole of the shoe helps the foot restrained on the sole for quick walking or running. The ankle area of the the shoe preventing the ankle rolling during jumping or running which injuries the ankle. Jones teaches providing colors, designs (star shapes (Fig. 6) or curved line (Fig. 9)), and patterns (the arrangement of the stars (Fig. 6) or a combination of letters, pictures, lightning bolt (Fig. 11)). Therefore, Jones teach providing a user interface and interactive display that allows a user to view a rendering of a shoe on the display, and to select and view different user-selectable designs, colors, patterns, etc. for various functional components of the shoe. Schallig teaches a need for personalizing a household appliance or a shaver. Hair trimmer is one of the household appliances. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the teaching of Jones for personalizing a hair trimmer according to a desire of a user.
The Applicant argues that the present invention does not allow merely for superficial, ornamental components to be modified and selected, but allows for the viewing and selection of different functional components, specifically the cutting blade of the hair trimmer, which are displayed in the modified rendering of the hair trimmer on the display screen. This argument is not persuasive. The language of claims 1 and 7 does not state a user viewing and selecting different components of the hair trimmer. Claims 1 and 7 calls for modifying at least one characteristic of at least one feature of the hair appliance. The term “characteristic” means a feature or quality belonging typically to a person, place, or thing and serving to identify it. By providing a name (Fig. 7 in Jones) or flowers (instead of stars in Fig. 6 in Jones) to tell the hair applicant belonging to a specific person or a person who likes flowers or gardening would meet the claim language. Furthermore, “designs”, “colors”, and “patterns” as argued by the Applicant are superficial and ornamental features.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PHONG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4510. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5.
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 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.
/PHONG H NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3724